wam says:

Why I like Dongles

When I purchase my software I like to know I’ll be able to use it in the future, regardless of when, whether I stopped using it years ago, whatever. I don’t mind copy protections schemes as long as once I go through the gyrations of getting thru the unlocking process, I know I can restore the installation regardless of which machine I use.

So therefor, I prefer a simple “I trust you” unlock code that isn’t referenced to my current hardware - typically a license file.
But for those paranoid software developers, I’d prefer they make a dongle available.

Here’s what I send to those that don’t see it that way and would rather lock it to my current PC, and why that SUCKS:

Dear megla- maniacal Software Company:

Thing is, I really want a dongle version - here’s why:

I hate soft locks ’cause if you go out of business, your registration website is down, or I upgrade hardware on a weekend, I’m screwed.

Say four years from now I’m called to rework a previous design I did using your tool.

Now, I haven’t used that tool since we now (four years later) have di-lithium, whiz-bang powered DSP/FPGA/ costs 0.10 USD MCU’s. So I’ve since upgraded hardware, and moved on….

Well, Donald Trump wants millions of these old designs built but needs a hard-coded pre-nuptial that prints on the LCD. So I try to reload the old program.

It’s Sunday on Christmas holiday. And there’s a major riot of trophy wives-to-be that knocked out all the Internet connectivity ’cause they’re pissed that Donald is selling these things.

I find the old installer, run it and —-

— lo-and-behold it’s useless.

Then lets say you guys go bye bye ’cause you hit the jackpot, they don’t make the stuff anymore ’cause the aforementioned di-lithium W-B chips are now in vogue, and you now backpack across Europe eating just whole wheat toast and coffee. You married a Sports Illustrated model and don’t want bothered.

So now I got files written for your specific tool and all my work is now lost forever… Donald’s mad….my house gets over run with angry trophy wives… Tom Cruise is jumping up and down on my couch like a crazed orangutan…. not a pretty scene. And it’s Christmas…

So I like USB dongles …

In fact, having no way to re-enable the software without intervention from a manufacturer that goes belly up is a violation of the Fair Use/Quiet Enjoyment:

“Quiet Enjoyment”
Licensees, having paid for the right to use licensed technology, generally seek to ensure that nothing interferes with the benefits they have received. For example, licensees are concerned with their ability to obtain assistance from the licensor in fixing defects that are discovered in the technology, to have the right to fix the defects themselves if the licensor is unable to do so, to obtain periodic upgrades and other maintenance services from the licensor, to transfer their rights if they sell their business and to continue enjoying the technology even if the licensor becomes bankrupt.”

Most people inaccurately associate ownership to the technology as “… that’s the reason they license software…” but that ain’t so…

You see, one of the first “licenced” forms of technology was by none other than Ray Dolby. The reason they license it is to forgo “selling” ( and the inherent issues of capitalization/export/tax issues) so that all sales are considered licensed works which are considered as royalty income - therefore taxed as income.

See this:

http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/IP/Patent_Licensing.pdf

So a dongle version would be nice….

OH - and if you want to see how well that tested out in courts of law - Google the recent ruling on First Sale Doctrine against Autodesk, makers of AutoCAD.

From Wikipedia:

“In 2008, in Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk Inc.[3], a U.S. Federal District Judge in Washington rejected a software vendor’s argument that it only licensed copies of its software, rather than selling them, and that therefore any resale of the software constituted copyright infringement. Judge Richard A. Jones cited first-sale doctrine when ruling that a reseller was entitled to sell used copies of the vendor’s software regardless of any licensing agreement that might have bound the software’s previous owners [4].”