Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines
 

Hi Roy,

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
I suggest keeping more like $20,000. The last time I checked with my lawyer,
that was the maximum penalty for willful copyright infringement, in addition
to any monetary damages which could be proved. All that's necessary to get
the $20k, I was told, is to prove that the infringement was willful, not
that any financial damage occurred.

This might be better posted at college libraries in the copy rooms where
students routinely Xerox entire books ostensibly because they can't afford the
real thing (which I suspect is rarely true, and it's usually more a case of
wanting to spend the money on an Xbox rather than a book)... rather than at
some ham who's scanning old magazines as a form of public service when the
originals are difficult to obtain for an audience that generally would pay for
them if they were.

People seem to have less and less compunction against stealing intellectual
property, I suppose because it keeps getting easier to do.

I agree with you in general, although I think that scanning old magazines and
books falls into a gray area where one is -- in all likelihood -- breaking the
letter of the law but generally not its spirit. I accept rationalizations
along those lines, just as I can't really fault someone who decided so travel
100Mph through some utterly uninhabited random road in Eastern Oregon. :-)
Still, anyone who is hauled into court can't really complain, but personally
I'd hope that some lawyer hoping to make an example would choose someone
posting to alt.binaries.e-book.technical (where 99% of the posts are clear
violations of the letter and spirit of copyright law) rather than the OP.

Rationalizations are as diverse and original as fertile minds can create.
The ultimate result will be that eventually, nobody will bother creating
anything original.

Only in some sort of idealist world. In the real world, original creations
will be generated so long as doing so puts bread on the table. Would you
rather sell 1,000 copies of a 99% copy-proof program at $10,000 each or
1,000,000 copies of a pretty-readily-copyable program at $100 each? Bill
Gates clearly prefers the later.

As you're probably aware, Don Lancaster makes a good point that the
oft-heralded intellectual property protection device of the patent really
doesn't do you much good in the real world, at least until you're a very large
company. Tektronix seemed to be using this approach decades back when the
comprehensive use of T-coils to obtain wider frequency respones was a
well-protected inside secret, no?

Incidentally, I was told by the ARRL that authors of articles in all their
publications are given blanket permission to put a copy of articles they've
written on their own web site, with appropriate acknowledgment that the ARRL
owns the copyright and reproduction is by permission. That's generous of
them.

I suppose it is, but these days you can't make any decent money writing for
the ARRL or the magazines, and as such publications have to be pretty generous
in what they offer because they're effectively asking for significant
donations of intellectual property by their authors.

---Joel Kolstad

Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines
 

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:32:52 -0800, "Joel Kolstad"
wrote:

This might be better posted at college libraries in the copy rooms where
students routinely Xerox entire books ostensibly because they can't afford the
real thing (which I suspect is rarely true, and it's usually more a case of
wanting to spend the money on an Xbox rather than a book)... rather than at
some ham who's scanning old magazines as a form of public service when the
originals are difficult to obtain for an audience that generally would pay for
them if they were.

Just to add some fuel to the fire.

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive
rights: Fair Use
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright."

73,
Danny, KMHE





email: k6mheatarrldotnet
http://www.k6mhe.com/

Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines
 

From: Joel Kolstad on Fri, Feb 17 2006 9:32 am

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message

I suggest keeping more like $20,000. The last time I checked with my lawyer,
that was the maximum penalty for willful copyright infringement, in addition
to any monetary damages which could be proved. All that's necessary to get
the $20k, I was told, is to prove that the infringement was willful, not
that any financial damage occurred.

People seem to have less and less compunction against stealing intellectual
property, I suppose because it keeps getting easier to do.

I agree with you in general, although I think that scanning old magazines and
books falls into a gray area where one is -- in all likelihood -- breaking the
letter of the law but generally not its spirit. I accept rationalizations
along those lines, just as I can't really fault someone who decided so travel
100Mph through some utterly uninhabited random road in Eastern Oregon. :-)

Unrelated "rationalizations." Breaking a law or rules or other
directives is still BREAKING something, purloining someone's
original work. Stealing.

In the exact words of THE LAW (copyright law in this case), it is
okay to make a copy FOR A VERY LIMITED USE such as a personal
reference or to help a friend. Where it becomes a BREAKING is if
it is done TO MAKE MONEY IN COPYING or gain something that
"belonged" to the original author (such as gain a reputation
without working for that "rep").

In Roy's case on EZNEC, he put in a lot of work in translation
of (totally copyable by law) U.S. government work into a useful
program of antenna analysis. Roy gets return on his investment of
time and uniqueness of result presentation on a computer by
selling copies of his work for money. There SHOULD be some
protection for such work by anyone in order to foster and preserve
original work...else there wouldn't be any point in doing original
work other than uncompensated personal pleasure in doing so.

Still, anyone who is hauled into court can't really complain, but personally
I'd hope that some lawyer hoping to make an example would choose someone
posting to alt.binaries.e-book.technical (where 99% of the posts are clear
violations of the letter and spirit of copyright law) rather than the OP.

No, such copyright-specialist attorneys wouldn't bother with such
small potatoes. They would go after the BIG violators...DVD
and CD copiers and those manufacturing firms making knock-off
copies of goods, the stealing of imagery (in graphics or words)
and trying to imply they are "as good" as a well-known brand.

Rationalizations are as diverse and original as fertile minds can create.
The ultimate result will be that eventually, nobody will bother creating
anything original.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

Only in some sort of idealist world. In the real world, original creations
will be generated so long as doing so puts bread on the table.

THIS is the real world. There's no "special case" that justifies
that idealistic rationalization you made...it is circular logic in
itself...in the real world.

"Originality" may occur in humans for a variety of reasons, usually
done to improve a personal situation, a way of doing things easier,
doing it better, so forth. However, the "originality" does NOT, by
itself, "put bread on the table." To do that requires much more
personal investment and effort to make the money that buys the
bread that is put on the table.

EZNEC is an example that applies here. The work that Roy did on
translation of (free) code, cleaning it up, making it presentable
in a meaningful manner to users, was considerable, much more so
than just getting the original program code to work. Why should
Roy give away such effort? To perform such a service "for the
good of hobbyists?" Hardly worth it to Roy. So, who else would
do so? Other than someone wanting a return on their investment
of time and effort?

Anyone can get a copy of the Methods of Moments computer program
written for the U.S. government. For free (discounting cost of
on-line charges for accessing the few sites having it). I have
an older copy. BIG it is! HUGE. My old copy is written in
FORTRAN (which I happen to speak). What it does NOT have for free
is a way of showing the results in anything but tabular form, no
graphics to instantly show the antenna patterns, VSWR of feed
point, RF currents, etc. If you don't speak tabular, the original
becomes WORK in trying to "see" the results. WORK, mind-sweat,
slogging through numbers that are seldom intuitive to everyone
without the graphic presentation. Roy MADE the graphical
presentation possible through his efforts. So did others in their
different adaptations of Method of Moments analysis programs.

Would you
rather sell 1,000 copies of a 99% copy-proof program at $10,000 each or
1,000,000 copies of a pretty-readily-copyable program at $100 each? Bill
Gates clearly prefers the later.

Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Microsoft are IRRELEVANT here. There's
NO SUCH THING as a "copy-proof program." If it is a useable
program, then it CAN - eventually - be copied; the only true
"copy-proof program" is something that no one can use.

Microsoft became a software giant through lots and lots of OTHER
kinds of time/effort investment plus savvy in salesmanship...not
to overlook their Big Break in selling their operating system
(with THEM still owning the copyrights) to IBM for the IBM PC.

Without the protection of the copyright law, Microsoft could
never have made that Big Break that started their humongous
incoming cash flow.

As you're probably aware, Don Lancaster makes a good point that the
oft-heralded intellectual property protection device of the patent really
doesn't do you much good in the real world, at least until you're a very large
company.

Don Lancaster is a clever writer and marketer of himself, not a
guru of electronics. Patent Law is a separate issue from
copyright law. The protection of original work is the same in
principle.

Tektronix seemed to be using this approach decades back when the
comprehensive use of T-coils to obtain wider frequency respones was a
well-protected inside secret, no?

"T-coils?" Wide bandwidth video amplifiers were no big secret
in the later 1940s when Vollum got Tektronix started with the
first accurate, reproducible oscilloscopes...accurate in their
sweep timing as well as vertical volts per division scaling.
Note: I began electronics using a Tektronix 511AD after trying
to get a Dumont 'scope kluge to yield meaningful results. Not
the same animal. Lots and lots of OTHER innovations inside the
Tektronix 'scopes that made their reputation in later years.

Incidentally, I was told by the ARRL that authors of articles in all their
publications are given blanket permission to put a copy of articles they've
written on their own web site, with appropriate acknowledgment that the ARRL
owns the copyright and reproduction is by permission. That's generous of
them.

[no, NOT "generous"...see following]

I suppose it is, but these days you can't make any decent money writing for
the ARRL or the magazines, and as such publications have to be pretty generous
in what they offer because they're effectively asking for significant
donations of intellectual property by their authors.

ARRL is primarily a publishing house in order to make the rest of
their organization viable. As such, ALL work for them is on a
"first rights" basis. That is, they get first crack at publishing
a contracted work...AND the continued publishing of such work for
years without ANY extra compensation to authors. It's essentially
the same as the "ego press" (private publishers who are just
preparer-printers where the author pays for that printing service).

The only ones who make any money in hobby publications are the
publishers themselves. Look at the author's compensation statements
on the ARRL website to see how little money authors receive.
Authors
get mainly the ego-trip of Being Published. For some that is
compensation enough, but ego money doesn't put bread on the table.

Been there, done that, got the table and the bread.

Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines
 

Skipp wrote:

Hello there, I'm looking for you old tired stack of 73 and
Ham Radio Magazines just to read at my pleasure.

Ham Radio is available by the boxload at every ham radio
flea market I've ever been to. It's also available on CDROM
from the ARRL. Handy, because it's better-indexed than
the paper magazine ever was.

"Because I'm a cheap screw" has never been an excuse for
copyright infringement.

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre
Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..."
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte

Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines
 

Interesting stuff. What are some series resonant oscillators besides the
Butler?

JJ

Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines
 

laura halliday wrote:
Ham Radio is available by the boxload at every ham radio
flea market I've ever been to. It's also available on CDROM
from the ARRL. Handy, because it's better-indexed than
the paper magazine ever was.

"Because I'm a cheap screw" has never been an excuse for
copyright infringement.

I would agree with that. Making copies of available magazines
for posting on download sites is a clear violation of copyright.
HOWEVER, making copies of out of print, rare, un-obtainable
magazines that have a value to collectors might be viewed
by some in another light. One could even say we are saving
a valuable resource from becoming lost forever.

Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines
 

Hi Len,

wrote in message
ups.com...
Unrelated "rationalizations." Breaking a law or rules or other
directives is still BREAKING something, purloining someone's
original work. Stealing.

I agree, I'm just saying that -- being human -- I'm willing to turn a
blind-eye towards some violations of various laws, just as real law
enforcement officers do every single day. Now if my job is to enforce, e.g.,
copyright law and somebody makes me _aware_ of a particular violation, clearly
I have to go ahead and prosecute, regardless of what my "blind eye" might do
otherwise. (Similarly, I don't in any way buy the excuse of the current crop
of phramecists who'll refuse to dispense, e.g., "day after" pills because
doing so goes against their moral convictions!)

In Roy's case on EZNEC, he put in a lot of work in translation
of (totally copyable by law) U.S. government work into a useful
program of antenna analysis.

Given that Roy is alive and well (I saw him walking around in Rickreal on
Saturday!) and supporting/selling his product, I can think of no
rationalization whatsoever whereby pirating EZNEC could be considered
"acceptable." Now, 40 years from now when the situation has changed, I may
feel quite differently.

Rationalizations are as diverse and original as fertile minds can create.
The ultimate result will be that eventually, nobody will bother creating
anything original.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

Only in some sort of idealist world. In the real world, original creations
will be generated so long as doing so puts bread on the table.

THIS is the real world. There's no "special case" that justifies
that idealistic rationalization you made...it is circular logic in
itself...in the real world.

Huh? My point was only that -- regardless of what I or others may rationalize
and therefore use to relieve our consciouses while we break some law --
original works will continue to be generated so long as there's some sort of
income to be derived in doing so. I do agree that there's less and less
income to be derived if more and more people go around rationalizing
piracy/stealing/etc. in general, and I personally find it a very distrubing
trend that so many people today don't think twice about copying
software/music/movies/etc.

EZNEC is an example that applies here. The work that Roy did on
translation of (free) code, cleaning it up, making it presentable
in a meaningful manner to users, was considerable, much more so
than just getting the original program code to work. Why should
Roy give away such effort?

I don't see any reason he should, unless he chooses too. Although it's
interesting to contemplate that EZNEC probably wouldn't exist if it weren't
for the NEC core that was developed with taxpayer dollars... perhaps the
ultimate outcome of piracy running rampant will be that software development
will then only be performed by government-employed programmers? Or hobbyists
with no expectation whatsoever of monetary gain from their efforts? I think
that'd be a horrible situation, although there are plenty of people out there
who firmly believe that most all software should be produced under such a
model. :-(

What it does NOT have for free
is a way of showing the results in anything but tabular form, no
graphics to instantly show the antenna patterns, VSWR of feed
point, RF currents, etc.

Not to discount Roy's work -- since, again, he's a talented programmer and his
software is clearly worth paying for -- but I do find it disappointing that
(in stark constrast to the anecdote in the preceeding paragraph) very little
new software comes out of the government today. Why is it that software like
OpenOffice has to be developed by 100% volunteers rather than by our
government? If you look at universities today, most of the EDA software they
use is commercial in nature (donated or provided at a substantially reduced
price by the manufacturer) rather than anything written in-house. Heck, back
when Roy worked at Tektronix, my understanding was that TekSPICE was the
simulation program of the day, whereas now Tek has also switched to commercial
SPICE simulators and is very close to completely phasing out the usage of
TekSPICE... kinda sad, in a way.

Without the protection of the copyright law, Microsoft could
never have made that Big Break that started their humongous
incoming cash flow.

I think that's somewhat speculative. :-) ...but I don't really know enough of
Microsoft's history to say for certain.

Thanks for your input, Len!

---Joel

Paid for-against Free Software ; was :Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines
 

An interesting thread.
While following it , my thoughts are with Richard Stallman and his Free
Software Foundation and subsequent development of the Linux Operating
System under the GPL = General Public Licence........and the many
software developers (world wide), who continue with providing Society
with a ever improving free Operating System with umpteen excellent free
applications.
I am currently using one ,typing/sending this message : SeaMonkey
(Mozilla Foundation)

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

===================================

Joel Kolstad wrote:
Hi Len,

wrote in message

Unrelated "rationalizations." Breaking a law or rules or other
directives is still BREAKING something, purloining someone's
original work. Stealing.

I agree, I'm just saying that -- being human -- I'm willing to turn a
blind-eye towards some violations of various laws, just as real law
enforcement officers do every single day. Now if my job is to enforce, e.g.,
copyright law and somebody makes me _aware_ of a particular violation, clearly
I have to go ahead and prosecute, regardless of what my "blind eye" might do
otherwise. (Similarly, I don't in any way buy the excuse of the current crop
of phramecists who'll refuse to dispense, e.g., "day after" pills because
doing so goes against their moral convictions!)

In Roy's case on EZNEC, he put in a lot of work in translation
of (totally copyable by law) U.S. government work into a useful
program of antenna analysis.

Given that Roy is alive and well (I saw him walking around in Rickreal on
Saturday!) and supporting/selling his product, I can think of no
rationalization whatsoever whereby pirating EZNEC could be considered
"acceptable." Now, 40 years from now when the situation has changed, I may
feel quite differently.

Rationalizations are as diverse and original as fertile minds can create.
The ultimate result will be that eventually, nobody will bother creating
anything original.
ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

Only in some sort of idealist world. In the real world, original creations
will be generated so long as doing so puts bread on the table.
THIS is the real world. There's no "special case" that justifies
that idealistic rationalization you made...it is circular logic in
itself...in the real world.

Huh? My point was only that -- regardless of what I or others may rationalize
and therefore use to relieve our consciouses while we break some law --
original works will continue to be generated so long as there's some sort of
income to be derived in doing so. I do agree that there's less and less
income to be derived if more and more people go around rationalizing
piracy/stealing/etc. in general, and I personally find it a very distrubing
trend that so many people today don't think twice about copying
software/music/movies/etc.

EZNEC is an example that applies here. The work that Roy did on
translation of (free) code, cleaning it up, making it presentable
in a meaningful manner to users, was considerable, much more so
than just getting the original program code to work. Why should
Roy give away such effort?

I don't see any reason he should, unless he chooses too. Although it's
interesting to contemplate that EZNEC probably wouldn't exist if it weren't
for the NEC core that was developed with taxpayer dollars... perhaps the
ultimate outcome of piracy running rampant will be that software development
will then only be performed by government-employed programmers? Or hobbyists
with no expectation whatsoever of monetary gain from their efforts? I think
that'd be a horrible situation, although there are plenty of people out there
who firmly believe that most all software should be produced under such a
model. :-(

What it does NOT have for free
is a way of showing the results in anything but tabular form, no
graphics to instantly show the antenna patterns, VSWR of feed
point, RF currents, etc.

Not to discount Roy's work -- since, again, he's a talented programmer and his
software is clearly worth paying for -- but I do find it disappointing that
(in stark constrast to the anecdote in the preceeding paragraph) very little
new software comes out of the government today. Why is it that software like
OpenOffice has to be developed by 100% volunteers rather than by our
government? If you look at universities today, most of the EDA software they
use is commercial in nature (donated or provided at a substantially reduced
price by the manufacturer) rather than anything written in-house. Heck, back
when Roy worked at Tektronix, my understanding was that TekSPICE was the
simulation program of the day, whereas now Tek has also switched to commercial
SPICE simulators and is very close to completely phasing out the usage of
TekSPICE... kinda sad, in a way.

Without the protection of the copyright law, Microsoft could
never have made that Big Break that started their humongous
incoming cash flow.

I think that's somewhat speculative. :-) ...but I don't really know enough of
Microsoft's history to say for certain.

Thanks for your input, Len!

---Joel

Paid for-against Free Software ; was :Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines
 

"Highland Ham" wrote in message
...
An interesting thread.
While following it , my thoughts are with Richard Stallman and his Free
Software Foundation and subsequent development of the Linux Operating System
under the GPL = General Public Licence........and the many software
developers (world wide), who continue with providing Society with a ever
improving free Operating System with umpteen excellent free applications.

Linux and all the other GPL projects are a great service to the community at
large and have clearly provided products that otherwise either would have cost
much more or simply been out of reach of many people. That being said,
Stallman and his associates clearly have an agenda as well -- there's a _huge_
difference between true "public domain" software (such as what the government
produces and what the original versions of SPICE and NEC are) vs. GPL'd
software. This agenda had led to numerous "me too" licenses (e.g., the lesser
GPL license) where people tend to pick and choose which pieces of the GPL they
like and even occasionally tack on bits of their own agendas (e.g., they
restrict their software from usage by those in the military, the government,
even just anyone using it for fiduciary gain, etc.).

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with this -- commercial software
licenses are even more convoluted and variegated! -- but people should be
aware of the difference.

Ubdoubtedly a poor analogy: Just as when one chooses a religion, there's
usually a savior associated with it who performs miracles, promises peace on
Earth, etc... but you only get to receive all of those goodies if you buy into
the entire package, which sometimes contains all sorts of ideas you oppose!
Richard Stallman is then perhaps our modern-day software Jesus/Joeseph
Smith/Buddha/etc...

---Joel Kolstad
(who, on occasion, has used plenty of GPL software and thinks OpenOffice is
very good and would probably serve the purposes of 90+% of all MS Office users
just as well... oh... and GNURadio is pretty cool too...)

Want: 73 & Ham Radio Magazines
 

From: "Joel Kolstad" on Mon, Feb 20 2006 2:36 pm

wrote in message

In Roy's case on EZNEC, he put in a lot of work in translation
of (totally copyable by law) U.S. government work into a useful
program of antenna analysis.

Given that Roy is alive and well (I saw him walking around in Rickreal on
Saturday!) and supporting/selling his product, I can think of no
rationalization whatsoever whereby pirating EZNEC could be considered
"acceptable." Now, 40 years from now when the situation has changed, I may
feel quite differently.

Ahem, "40 years from now" may see a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT pardigm
for ALL of "radio!" "Radio" - as a communications medium is only
110 years old...look back to how it was back in 1896 with NO
true active devices. :-)


Only in some sort of idealist world. In the real world, original creations
will be generated so long as doing so puts bread on the table.

THIS is the real world. There's no "special case" that justifies
that idealistic rationalization you made...it is circular logic in
itself...in the real world.

Huh? My point was only that -- regardless of what I or others may rationalize
and therefore use to relieve our consciouses while we break some law --
original works will continue to be generated so long as there's some sort of
income to be derived in doing so. I do agree that there's less and less
income to be derived if more and more people go around rationalizing
piracy/stealing/etc. in general, and I personally find it a very distrubing
trend that so many people today don't think twice about copying
software/music/movies/etc.

"Copying" is a way to keep one's "bread on the table" without
putting that "bread" on someone else's table. The general
rationalization is that it hurts no one (physically) and
intellectual property purloining doesn't involve tangible,
physical things (laws on stealing were based on material
objects taken). As Roy remarked, without the protection on
immaterial property (ideas, creations), there would be NO
impetus originate something new...no "ROI" or Return On
Investment of new development.


EZNEC is an example that applies here. The work that Roy did on
translation of (free) code, cleaning it up, making it presentable
in a meaningful manner to users, was considerable, much more so
than just getting the original program code to work. Why should
Roy give away such effort?

I don't see any reason he should, unless he chooses too. Although it's
interesting to contemplate that EZNEC probably wouldn't exist if it weren't
for the NEC core that was developed with taxpayer dollars...

We wouldn't have SPICE derivatives if it wasn't for the efforts
of the University of California at Berkeley development group
deciding it should be available "free." SPICE itself wouldn't
have existed without the original, much older predecessor ECAP
done by IBM (not exactly free since the FORTRAN code managed to
"migrate" out and be distributed by copiers back in the 50s.
Ohio State's version (OSUCAD) code was published in a book on
the subject by two OSU professors. [irrelevant trivia fact but
illustrates just one of many, many works that have all sprung
from the original ECAP pioneering work on circuit analysis]

The NEC core cranks out numbers, numbers, numbers. [just as
ECAP did on circuit analysis] NO intuitive "feel" for the
results to most folks. The GRAPHICS and organized tabulations
had to be done to make them USEFUL for others. That work is
important but usually overlooked.

... perhaps the
ultimate outcome of piracy running rampant will be that software development
will then only be performed by government-employed programmers? Or hobbyists
with no expectation whatsoever of monetary gain from their efforts? I think
that'd be a horrible situation, although there are plenty of people out there
who firmly believe that most all software should be produced under such a
model. :-(

I think it will come about as nearly ALL OTHER THINGS in radio
and electronics...via the competitive marketplace. The amount
of WORK involved to develop something almost demands some kind
of ROI to justify it to the developer/innovator.

If we look at what exists now, we get blase' about all the effort
involved to make a product (almost as if "it always existed...")
available for others to use. Too many of us take the THINGS we
have for granted.

... very little
new software comes out of the government today. Why is it that software like
OpenOffice has to be developed by 100% volunteers rather than by our
government? If you look at universities today, most of the EDA software they
use is commercial in nature (donated or provided at a substantially reduced
price by the manufacturer) rather than anything written in-house.

Very little actual "government software" was ever done, nearly
all was hired, contracted outside work. [see the FBI's debacle
over a national database featured in SPECTRUM a few months back]
What "the universities" do is NOT NECESSARILY what goes on in
the rest of the world! True, despite the self-promoting PR of
"the universities!"

Note: I used to be a member of SIGGRAPH when I was interested
in graphics and animation. The "universities" did some
pioneering work there, but the professional animators and
graphics folks have gone wayyyyyy beyond that. One can see
it everyday on television, principally in advertising spots.

SPICE didn't suddenly spring out of nowhere at Berkeley...it had
many, many predecessors. That it became the de facto circuit
analysis program in use anywhere in electronics is BECAUSE the
core was free to use. [I could make a big list out of those
predecessors, but that's irrelevant also here]

Heck, back
when Roy worked at Tektronix, my understanding was that TekSPICE was the
simulation program of the day, whereas now Tek has also switched to commercial
SPICE simulators and is very close to completely phasing out the usage of
TekSPICE... kinda sad, in a way.

Before about 1975 there was VERY LITTLE "everyday" use of computer
aided design outside of IC development in the electronics industry.
Computer time was very expensive and had to be justified to the
bean counters (been there, done that, made lots of bean soup).

Tektronix was an innovator in electronics from its start. That
by itself is no right for their forever claiming such things as
the market is the driving force that rules the future. When
the market is using SPICE (almost universally), then they too
must use it in order to compete.

Without the protection of the copyright law, Microsoft could
never have made that Big Break that started their humongous
incoming cash flow.

I think that's somewhat speculative. :-) ...but I don't really know enough of
Microsoft's history to say for certain.

Not speculation, fact, stated in several books on their history
and the TV movie comparing Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. MS got
their Big Break at an IBM conference room in Boca Raton back
in the very late 1970s. They had the IP lock on the OS and
could then parlay that into their enormous fortune. MS took
advantage of that and applied some good sales tactics to wind
up a virtual monopolist in operating systems of PCs.

As far as IP protection on radio hobby magazines, that's
still up in the air for many. If everyone wants to sit
around and rebuild the regenerative receiver or "design"
two-tube (or teeny two-transistor) transmitters, fine, but
that is just re-inventing the wheel for the nth time. Much
of the output of the radio hobbyist press (other than new
product info squibs and "reviews") is the publishers
essentially copying their own old works...for their own
profit. [the ARRL Handbook has been such for decades, most
of their content already published in ARRL works prior...it
makes money for the ARRL to keep the organization alive]

Yes, yes, I understand that some don't like ARRL criticized,
which is not good, but they have no real competitor in the
USA amateur radio community and are NOT "perfect." :-)

If we don't have IP protection, radio hobbyists will still be
at least a half-century behind in most efforts of "radio,"
the practitioners busy, busy with nostalgic recollection of
"the good old days" that were not that "good," just
fascinating to individuals (like me) of a long time ago.
See "Electric Radio" magazine (not on newsstands, available
only by subscription...they have a website for getting such
subscriptions), a good magazine but covering only the
technology of yesterday (when tubes were the thing). My
personal difference with that is that I'm looking forward
to tomorrow a LOT more, can't wait to see the new stuff
that's about to show up soon. Exciting stuff to me in
my racket...and home workshop.