Slashdot Mirror
Hype Vaporware, Go To Jail?
Tim Dierks writes "The New York Times (registration required) has an article describing a federal case against executives in Enron's broadband data division, based upon the charge that Enron claimed that a software platform was more complete and more functional than it actually was. It seems to be that if this case holds up, most of the software industry is guilty. Would the world be better off or not if it was illegal to overpromote the functionality or features of software?"
I think vaporware is critical on all levels in many different arenas. Not only for consumers but for developers as well. If companies aren't able to throw out plans and ideas then innovation is stifled. For consumers this give people a great place to see what is coming soon and to learn to expect more from technology companies thus pushing more and more creativity in the industry.
___ Shout Central - Crushes your nuts!
If release dates are touted and pushed and touted and pushed, would that constitute vaporware? I know of one company in particular that was guilty of that severely until August 24, 1995...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
How about we apply the same logic to overstated legal claims, too? Especially those designed to spread FUD about a particular product, hmm?
I'd be curious to see, specifically, what the "functionality" the case is talking about. I was the lead QA engineer for a time on the Broadband Streaming Media platform.
The organization had a LOT of sharp engineers. Unfortunately, the management was completely incompetent and didn't allow many of the better engineers to have a say in functional requirements/technical specifications.
There was also a disturbingly bad attitude that pervaded the works at EBS as well. Case in point: during one meeting, I made the point that the service level metrics they were using were horribly vague. I didn't believe we should do business like that (goodwill is, I think, an important concept in business), but their response was "oh, if they'res a problem, we'll just sick our lawyers on them." Assholes.
based upon the charge that Enron claimed that a software platform was more complete and more functional than it actually was.
Boy, this sort of behavior is rampant among companies small and large. I have known several small software companies whose sales divisions were always making promises that were not grounded in reality. Promised functionality that had simply been discussed, but was not actually in code at the time. I'd say to the sales managers, "what the hell are you doing?" to which they would reply, "making sales".
That was hugely dissapointing for me as I would much prefer a product based sales strategy where something is not announced until it is ready as opposed to a timeline driven or sales driven paradigm where products tend to be pre-announced and then released half-assed.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Law is notoriously slow to catch up to technology. It was years after the first car showed up that someone had the bright idea to install traffic lights, or impose a speed limit. More recently, file trading took the RIAA completely by surprise-- it was many months before they even acknoledged the problem, let alone started to take legal action.
.Mac service... not from vulnerabilities, but from sheer load on the infrastructure. All it takes is for some pissed off, Mac-using litigator to realize that negligence on the part of Microsoft is damaging a public utility, and we're off...
In the case of damaging actions which are currently part of accepted business practices, I think we'll start to see the law come around. I'm particularly interested in when the first major lawsuit against Microsoft will appear for lost business due to mass internet slowdowns from Outlook virus propogation.
I just clicked over from MacMinute, where they reported the BugBear virus had slowed the
Marc Siry || interactive media professional, motorcycle enthusiast ||
I agree that tossing out ideas must remain legal, but there are different types of vaporware. I for one see no reasons why it should be legal to imply that you have a reasonable capability to deliver something when you know that you probably don't. That is called initiating fraud in libertarian terms. If I tell you I can build a house for you and all I know how to build is a basic shed, but I'm in the process of learning how to build a nice house, don't you think that's not merely tossing out an idea but rather fraud?
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
No. Currently, the Federal Trade Commission allows "Puffery". A slight exaggeration of a things greatness. Or speed. Or value. An example would be video cards. How can everyone advertise they build the fastest cards? They all do. They are faster than everyone elses, at one particular mode or function. This is where driver fixing for benchmarks comes into play. It allows them to make claims that aren't fully truth, or fully lying.
Another example of puffery that goes too far: weight loss pills. The FTC recently persued over 30 diet pill manufacturers for making entirely false claims. Have you seen in a magazine, the advert where there are side-by-side pictures of before and after using a product. The FTC realized that these before and after shots were really airbrushed, processed, computerized, or somehow otherwise altered. In many cases, the before and after shots didn't even have the same people; the head of a fit person was grafted onto the body of an obese person. This is blatant false advertising.
There is a difference between false advertising and puffery. False advertising is when claims made are false in entirety. Microsoft does have functional security; it is just far more lax and insecure than they admit.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
After reading many on the comments here I have a number of things I would like to say. First, for the last 16 years I have tried to honestly create solutions that are innovative and useful. At the same time I have tried to set expectations and schedules that were achievable. This can be a difficult process and is made more difficult by both the engineers and management.
At one company a number of years ago (who shall remain nameless), I was told by my manager to cut my schedule in half. This should be based on hireing 3 new engineers (doubling my staff). And then she said it did not matter if they were actually hired (we had no reqs for them) because it was expected that software schedules will slip.
I the other side I have not been selected for several very interesting projects as an engineer because I was honest with the manager about the chances of success on time. I would not commit to having a product on a data I knew could not be achived. On at least two of these I was brought in in the end to try and work some of the problems out. One was so badly done I left for another company rather than be stuck with it.
Since then I have been just and engineer on a couple of projects and back in the low level manager / project architect position on a couple others. I now have an MBA and more training in project managment. I still do not know how to adaqutly bring the two levels together.
The MBA tought me some basic business information which has helped me alot. It also tought lots about managing employees that I beleive are more contributors to the problem than solutions. And I think this is the basic problem with Enron Broadband screw up.
Enron is just one example of the problem. The whole dot com crap more of the same. Most of it starts with somebody who has an idea, builds a business case for it and downplays all the problems. Expectations to investors are set that are unrealistic due to lack of business sense. Investors put money into it no understanding the technical road blocks and set expectations back to the company that are unrealistic. A great deal of this goes beyond tacking a calculated risk.
In this industry, everyone has a grand story with a kernel of truth. Open source software is no different. I like it because I can take the source and solve my own problems if I have the time. However, a very small percentage of people can do this so it is at best a minor argument. Much of the claims I have seen over the years are out right fraud. I left companies that were good because a buy out changed companies from engineering to hype / fraudulent.
Big business in the US is based mostly on hype. To keep "market share" this is necessary. Enron Broadband was a hype. It had a core of truth masked by hype in a search for that all important market share. In this case it was also fraudulent because its hype was so large that it was out right lieing and not just streaching the truth. It occured because business in the good old US of A is about making money and NOT about producing products. As long os the multi nationals can keep paying off politicians this will not change.
My tirade is ended. All of you who stated you could go to jail if this is true, check your resumes. In the economy today getting fired is just as bad as going to jail. Maybe you are guilty.