Stung!

[alexpgp]

Some time ago, I shelled out some shekels for an application called Babylon, which does an adequate job of looking up individual French words (and the occasional phrase). It was installed on webster and I assumed, when I bought hammer, that the common convention of allowing purchasers to install software on a desktop and laptop applied.

Well, not only is the answer no, but no-and-we've-disabled-your-installation-please-refer-to-our-email-for-a-new-license-code. Apparently, if I want to use the software on two machines that I and only I use, I need two licenses, and while the cost of a second license is discounted, it turns out I'd also have to license a second copy of any dictionary that I'd want to be able to use on both machines.

If deciding which machine I want the application installed on isn't difficult enough, the whole situation is particularly irksome, as I had just purchased an upgrade to the program about a week ago. Presumably, I'd want to have it on hammer, which is my designated "travel" machine, for those cases where I need to use a dictionary where there is poor or no Internet access (although in my experience, the program's performance is markedly weaker without such access).

We are, I think, at the cusp of a very unglamorous future, where it will be common for software vendors to retain control over their products - and this can only mean "over how you use their products" - long after they have been bought and installed (the elephant in the room in this regard is Apple, which seems singularly bent on controlling what applications people run on their iPhones, to the extent that the company reserves the right to remotely disable applications for reasons that Apple deems appropriate).

As it is, I have not enjoyed my experience with Babylon, and as the application is only so-so in terms of performance (I bought the upgrade for the dictionaries that came with it), I doubt I'll have much to do with the company in the future.

Cheers...

Comments

[bandicoot.livejournal.com]

That's like Micro$oft retaining the power to decide years after you bought XP that your copy of XP was not legal and disabling it, forcing you to buy a new copy, which you can't get. This hasn't happened to me, but they've stated they're going to do it via Windows Update - one more reason for the paranoid to disable that piece of crap.

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

I get the feeling this may be an opportunity to break ground in new case law, because after all, it's hard enough to argue about the legality of a license with a software supplier (especially a supplier of an operating system) even if said argument takes place within a few weeks of purchase. But how do you defend yourself after, conceivably, years of use? (Technically, it occurs to me that that might be the linchpin, here, by analogy with trademark defense, i.e., "if you don't do it soon, we assume you thought it was okay.")

The only fly in the ointment is that Microsoft buys lawyers by the long ton, so a legal challenge to something of this sort will be... um... challenging.

Cheers...