Slashdot Mirror
Digital Convergence Likes Hackers (?)
sconeu writes "Wired News has this article wherein they claim that they like hackers, and that the whole thing is overblown. It says that 'Doug Davis, Digital Convergence's CTO, said he applauds the hackers' ingenuity and 'chuckles' at some of the ideas they have dreamed up.'
" Meanwhile, driver sites remain offline and software writers
continue to be threatened. That's how much they like it. C'mon, guys.
Those cute chimes by CmdrTaco et all are usually bad enough, but they're nothing compared to this gem from Wired:
"The CueCat is a cheapo bar-code scanner that looks like a marital aid and plugs into a computer's keyboard socket."
You know, I was going to hook one of these readers up to some Lego Mindstorms right up until I saw this...
I just can't do it now... I have this sick image of Lego robots trying to mate with each other...
NecroPuppy
---
Godot called. He said he'd be late.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
"Just because I give you the Cat scanner, it does not immediately give you the right to go into business against me with my own technology," (Digital Convergence CTO Doug) Davis said.
Yes it does. What the hell is the meaning of the word "give". The cuecat you sent me is mine, and I'll do whatever the hell I please with it, including going into business against you. If you didn't want me to be able to do that, you shouldn't have given me the damn thing.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
While I don't even own a 'Cat, I've finally gotten curious enough about this mishegoss to fire off a note about it.
0 0.html
From: Robert L Krawitz <rlk@alum.mit.edu>
To: ddavis@digitalconvergence.com
Subject: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,39139-2,
--text follows this line--
Mr. Davis, you are quoted as stating
"Just because I give you the Cat scanner, it does not immediately give
you the right to go into business against me with my own technology,"
Davis said. "We have an intended use for it."
I, along with many others, am curious as to precisely what legal
theory gives you the right to forbid people from making any use they
please of this device. Your intentions notwithstanding, when you mail
someone an item unsolicited it's theirs to keep and use as they
please, and when Radio Shack "sells" people these devices it is
represented as a sale, not a lease or any other kind of transaction.
You haven't (to the best of my knowledge) claimed any patent on the
device (much less one that would forbid someone from actually *using*
it in any way), and copyright on the software is also irrelevant
because the people using it in ways you have not intended are not
making any use of your provided software. Indeed, the most recent
work involves bypassing the firmware altogether, if somehow that could
be considered an issue. Trademark violations are not an issue if
people do not use your trademark, either. To the best of my (lay)
knowledge, those are the only kinds of IP extant. The device itself
is physical property.
I believe that a lot of people would like clarification on this
matter. I would myself, as it might actually be worth my time to stop
off at Radio Shack to pick one up to use to scan barcodes for assorted
purposes.
Sincerely,
Robert Krawitz
> "The CueCat is a cheapo bar-code scanner that looks like a marital aid and plugs into a computer's keyboard socket."
What happens when the keyboard comes home unexpectedly?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
While I concur with the majority opinion that Mr. Davis doesn't seem to understand what "give" means (someone email him http://dictionary.com), I thought there were some other amusing bits, as well:
... 'There's a whole slew of things we're working on now,' he said. "
"The Uscan project...has already made it possible to scan a book and automatically shop for the best price among 40 online booksellers."
If you have the book to scan, why would you need to price it?
"Thanks to its built-in encryption, the CueCat could become a secure computer passcard reader. Instead of logging on with a username and password, a bar code is scanned before access is granted to a machine."
This is worth repeating. Everyone take a moment to chuckle.
"Indeed, Davis said the company has always planned to add extra functions, such as shopping or package tracking, once a significant number of CueCats have been distributed.
We were planning on doing that stuff too, so you better not do it first. That's not fair! (stomps feet, goes to corner, and pouts)
"[DC plans to hand out] 50 million by the end of 2001."
"The CueCats cost about $10 apiece, Davis said, and the company will spend a significant portion of its $190 million in private financing giving the devices away. "
$10 * 50e6 = $500 million dollars. Yes, I guess that would use a significant portion of their $190 million financing. Is this what they mean by "New Economy"?
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a stick.
Doug Davis went on to say that, "the initial difficulties between DC and the hacker community was due to DC's lawyers being set on the default setting of 'evil'. The problem was not discovered until they had sent several C&D letters out."
Davis noted that, "due to slight oversight many companies forget about default settings in products and only notice the problem once it is exploited."
- sounds reasonable. Even /. is not immune to it.
Gee, Doug, if you're so sure that there's no such "right", why not get your fancy New York lawyers to actually sue somebody? Why not let a court decide whether handing 10 million people a piece of hardware and telling them that it's a free gift doesn't give them the right to do whatever they damn well please with the things? Why not see if you can get a court to overturn the myriad rulings supporting the right to reverse engineer products for purposes of interoperation? Hell, with all the partners listed on that letterhead, those Kenyon boys ought be able to deal with any defense those filthy hackers could dream up!
If you're really protecting the valuable intellectual property of your company, then what's all this pussyfooting around? Clearly your "gentle" lawyer letters aren't working, as plenty of mirror sites are available with all the software anybody could want. If I were one of your board members, I'd be pissed. The "any publicity is good publicity" line is gonna start wearing thin pretty soon here. I want action, dammit!
Chicken.
http://www.flyingbuttmonkeys.com/useofthingsyouown isnowillegal/cue-decrypt/
:CueCat can function as a regular barcode reader-- no serial number, no "type identifier", no descrambling needed. Just a plain keyboard wedge barcode scanner. Pretty cool.
The
You'll need a soldering iron and a little patience. But it should work (I accidentally stepped on mine, so I'm off to Radio Shack to get a new one before I can give it a go, sadly-- do this at your own risk).
Of course, it also includes instructions on how to disable the serial number (if you'd rather go through the whole decoding process anyway, I guess). But that was even covered on Slashdot-- an anonymous poster placed a series of four or five steps to cut the trace to the PROM containing the serial number. I wonder why Slashdot hasn't been sued...
Yes it does, unless you've patented your technology. Otherwise, there's things called "free market" and "competition" which assume that there exists interchangable products so they can be incrementally optimized by companies trying to gain market share.
And anyway, no one is going into business, nor are the efforts competing with DC's products very much. Most linux hackers want to scan stuff they already have, DC's use is for things that people want to buy.
--
This weekend I went to my local Radio Shack and asked for their "free barcode scanner". Took it home, hooked it up. Downloaded a cuecat "driver" (not really a driver, just reads data from keyboard port where cuecat is plugged in). Didn't work. Also my mouse stopped responding until I went to a non-X virtual terminal and back. After a while, I realized it wouldn't work under X. I also noticed that the cat's "mouth light" stays on continuously.
Does the "real" driver fix any of this? Will it let me use the cat under X and will it let me shut off the light? If not, this thing is probably going in the trash. I'm not switching terminals (and re-logging in) just to scan an item--especially since I can't then launch any X apps from the data I scan.
--
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
What makes you think we need to be given the right to do something? Rights can't be given - they can only be infringed upon. And when you give me (your words) something, I damned well CAN do anything I want to do with it. I really don't care what your intentions were. I doubt that Hershey's syrup had the uses to which I put their product in mind when they manufactured it either.
"It was astonishing to us," he said. "We've created a hobbyist cult which we didn't anticipate."
Failure to anticipate is something that sinks a lot of start-up businesses. Yours will just be one in a long line if similar failures.
Indeed, Davis said the company has always planned to add extra functions, such as shopping or package tracking, once a significant number of CueCats have been distributed. "There's a whole slew of things we're working on now," he said.
Keep working away. And by the time you get them written and distributed, someone else will be busy writing version three or four of their software which does the same thing with no connection to your databases.
The CueCats cost about $10 apiece, Davis said, and the company will spend a significant portion of its $190 million in private financing giving the devices away.
Ever think of cutting your loses while you can?
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
But that's not how the law works. Nor should the law be made to work the way Mr. Davis wants it.
How do we inform Mr. Davis of this fact? What possible means could we use to drive this point home with him? People have tried hacking, but they get cease-and-infringe letters. Obviously (to me anyway), sending hate mail is not a useful answer. And people have sent him many, many letters threatening his company under postal statutes; made loud noises about outing their idiocy to their shareholders; and other such thumb-their-nose letters.
Does reasoned mail work? Has anyone actually sent him a letter that reads, "Sorry, Mr. Davis, but the law doesn't work your way?" I'd be curious to find out if he's replied to anything but postings of drivers on the web.
John
The Church of the SubGenius -- because somebody had to put all that slack in there...
John
He claims they offer a "mostly open source license" but then goes on to point out:
1. Costs $20 (open?)
2. Needs to retain basic functionality, but could be extended (eh, this guy doesn't get it, does he?)
3. Reverse engineering is 'infringement'
4. Can't compete with DC.
Okay, he's obviously top management as a CTO, so I will cut him some slack based ont eh inevitable brain damage that always seems to follow when one accepts an Executive position, but come on! To even use a reference of open source is ludicrous.
Ah well, ony those who wish to be enlightened can be...
Marc
Does DC have a right to dictate the use of a product that was given away for free? Did the product come with a disclaimer that stated how it was to be used? I don't believe that by giving someone a product without prior consent that you can legally dictate how they use it. Does DC have the right to sue if I decide to trash, break, or burn the product?
They're sore because there lame marketing idea has found a better purpose and all that money has gone to waste.
Doug Davis, the president of the Technology Group at DC, is interviewed and he refers to the developer's license as "mostly open source" because of the restrictions about any scans going through DC servers.
In other words, you can pay $20 for a developer's license to be creative with the Cue:Cat, but DC wants to be able to profit from your efforts by making your software use their servers.
And I thought the allure of open source was the ability to create software for the good of the community...
This is another view of the world.
Except they didn't notify as to what IP was being infringed upon, funny that.
"People can't expect to take one of our devices and run it through their own engine," he said. "There are boundaries.... It must still do what it was built for, but they can extend its functionality."
Ahh, we're supposed to only use the device in the way they want us to? Okay, then they should only use our private usage information in the way we want them to. (okay, I'm just being inflamatory, but this is fun)
In an attempt to encourage developers, Digital Convergence put together what Davis called a "mostly open-source" license just a few days after the first Linux driver appeared. According to Davis, the $20 license is fairly liberal...
Yeah, and I bet that if they were pressed, they'd give developers $20 just to get them to sign one of these so they could sue them when developers don't do what DC wants. Without such an agreement, it doesn't look like they have a leg to stand on.
--
Hey, wait a minute . . .
Seriously, this idea is about as good as giving a note card with "Hi, my name is _________" scribbled on it, and then requiring that everybody needing access to a high-security facility flash one of those.
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
"Are Earthlings white or dark meat?" "Cincinnati, racial epithets are a violation of FCC regulations."
Yep, that encryption certainly has proven to be very secure. I feel safer already.
When I submitted this story, I did put a little tongue-in-cheek comment about, "we haven't had a CueCat story in three days", or something to that effect. CmdrTaco edited that one out.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Those cute chimes by CmdrTaco et all are usually bad enough, but they're nothing compared to this gem from Wired:
"The CueCat is a cheapo bar-code scanner that looks like a marital aid and plugs into a computer's keyboard socket."
--
RumorsDaily
"Just because I give you the Cat scanner, it does not immediately give you the right to go into business against me with my own technology," Davis said.
Um...Mr. Davis... everyone already had the right to go into business against you. The fact that you gave them the means to do it doesn't mean you gain any rights or your compeitors lose any.
All I see is stick. Where is the carrot? Why would anyone want such a license, if it doesn't grant them any additional rights they don't already have?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Why? Their business model is brain dead. Any business model built on the concept of giving away a "loss leader" is at best a risky gamble. Investing money in developing a product designed to be used with some other service, which is then utilized to acquire a profit is, in short, usually a pretty dumb idea.
For example, let's consider the I-opener (sp?) that's been discussed here before. Say the company producing these spends $250,000 planning the device, $750,000 gearing up for manufacturing, and then spends $500 per unit to produce them, and then sells them for $200 a piece, expecting the end user to use their service at $25 a month. (All numbers are made up by me here . . .)
Now, if they go through with the production, initially produce 1,000 boxen, and nobody buys one, they've lost $1.5 million and have nothing to show for it but a bunch of crippled boxen. In this case, they could sell 'em off to somebody else who might use them, in an effort to recover their expenses. If they sell all 1,000 boxen, and nobody uses the service for more than a month (they decide they want a PC or a Mac and AOL, they decide that net access is useless to them, etc), then they've spent $1.5 million and taken in $225,000. They're still $1,275,000 in the hole, and they have no boxen to sell off to regain expenses. At best, all 1,000 users will need to utilize their service for one year before the company ever breaks even. From that point on, they pull $25 a month from every user that is profit for them, but in the real world, they still have to worry about manufacturing new machines for new customers, warranty service, paying their staff, maintaining capital, etc. Sure, it's possible to make a profit with a model like this, but it's also possible to make a fortune in Las Vegas from the slot machines -- but it's not likely. It's risky business.
Digital Covergence's model is even worse than the above, because they invest money to develop and manufacture their barcode readers, develop their software, press their CDs, pay their staff, pay for marketing (all those infomercials), maintain captital, etc. Then, once folk get these barcode readers, even if they all use them, they still don't turn a profit. They still have to market and sell their demographic data.
Iin order for them to really acquire any sort of really useful demographic data, the folks with the barcode scanners have to really think that they are the the "biggest computer innovation since the mouse" and find them conveinent to use. Problem is, they ain't. They don't work well (sometimes it takes me 3-4 times to get a barcode to scan), they're annoying, it's a pain in the butt to answer all the questions you have to answer to get to install their software (Yes, I installed it, just to see how it works. No, I really don't care that they have all sorts of demographic data on me. It's not like I really have much privacy on the net, anyway. If I really wanted privacy, I'd lock myself in a closet with a box of Cheerios and keep the light off). If 90% of the folk who get these scanners hook them up, use them 3 or 4 times and then stick them in a drawer to collect dust (and I believe that's what will happen), then they're not going to get the sort of demographic data they're trying to market, and they're going to go belly up.
So, if they are outta business in two years, the Slashdot community won't be the one that puts them there, nor will it be the Linux community, or any other group of folk on the face of the earth or elsewhere. They might speed DC on their merry way to e-biz oblivion, where they will join the ranks of hundreds of other companies with equally flawed business models, but make no mistake about it, Digital Convergence's course was more or less set before the first barcode scanners made their way off of the assembly line.
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."