Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||||
A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software
The advantages of free software are not always immediately apparent to all
computer users. Many people think that, since they have no interest in or
ability for working with the source, its free availability is of no benefit
to them. LWN readers, instead, tend to understand this issue well, so we try to
resist harping on the point too much. Every now and then, however, the
problems associated with non-free software hit such a level that one can
only sit back and laugh - before writing a snide article on the subject.
Wired News has been carrying the story of a robotic parking garage in Hoboken, New Jersey. This garage is apparently an impressive gadget, for those who enjoy this sort of mechanical technology. It also depends heavily on its operating software; without that software, the system cannot operate, and any cars which happen to be inside remain there. And that is exactly what happened. Robotic Parking Systems, the company which owns said software, decided that the time had come to raise its rates. The city disagreed, and talks between the two came to an ugly point. Once the old contract ran out and Robotic's staff were escorted from the scene, the garage was no longer operable and hundreds of cars were left imprisoned inside. Robotic claimed that any attempt to operate the garage constituted copyright infringement, since the city no longer had a license to run the required software. As is described in a local newspaper article, the situation was eventually resolved, with the city licensing the software for $5500 per month. There have been mumblings about how the city would have been better off running open source software. A quick check shows a relative paucity of viable free robotic garage projects at the moment, however. A slightly older story can be found in this South Florida Business Journal article. It describes the experience of a Georgia medical practice, which used the "Dr. Notes" package for its patient records. The friendly Dr. Notes people decided to raise their support fees by a factor of four, and, when the practice declined to pay, stopped providing the monthly password required to make the system work. At that point, all of the clinic's medical records became inaccessible. Impounded cars may be a major annoyance, but locking doctors out of their medical records can lead to life-threatening situations. Holding the keys to those records can give an unethical company a powerful weapon, useful for extorting price increases from its customers. It is not the sort of situation any business would want to get into, much less one which is concerned with health care. Access to a company's critical data should not depend on another company's continued good will. Proprietary software will always carry this kind of risk. It is subject to the whims of the company behind the license agreement - and corporate whims can be subject to sudden and catastrophic change. One still hears stories of business leaders worrying about whether they can handle the risks of moving over to free software. They would be well advised to consider thoroughly the risks of not moving as well. (Log in to post comments)
A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software Posted Aug 10, 2006 3:17 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] these cases also emphisise the need to be able to extract your content (even, and especially, if that content is your daily transportation :-) from the propriatary system, even if you no longer have a license to use that system.
in the case of the automated garage they need manual controls that can be operated to extract the cars, in the case of the medical records they need documented file formats that can be converted to other systems (a much easier task)
A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software Posted Aug 10, 2006 4:48 UTC (Thu) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link] Indeed, the problem here is *not* proprietary software, but proprietary formats and "software as a service" business models. I have used many proprietary software packages in which all the user data was stored in accessible formats.
Licensing which requires continual payments should always be looked at with fear. The Dr. Notes example could be an even worse story; the company could have gone out of business, and the new monthly passwords could have been gone forever even if the clinic had been willing to pay increased rates.
People need to be careful with any system, open source or not, which does not allow the ability to backup and process the user's data with other software. I could create some sort of online service using nothing but Free Software (and release all of my custom code, scripts, and even configuration data), but if there's no way to get your data out of that service, then the second my server goes down you've lost.
A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software Posted Aug 10, 2006 9:55 UTC (Thu) by Soruk (guest, #2722) [Link] Quite agree. Sale of support on an ongoing basis is one thing, but I refuse to go anywhere near software that requires continual support payments to just keep running (rentware). If it were to continue to run, just no vendor support available, that would be a different matter altogether. Or the other way that some virus scanner vendors use is you pay once for the software, and you pay a subscription for the updates. When you choose to cancel your subscription your AV software will no longer get the updates but will still stop viruses it already knows about.
A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software Posted Aug 10, 2006 20:53 UTC (Thu) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] Proprietary software *is* the problem here. With freely licensed open source software the problem does not exist. If you are allowing someone else to store your data, that is a different situation with similar problems. However, it does not reduce the multitude of problems with proprietary software. If *all* people were honest, trustworthy, and put the well being of others at least on equal standing with their own well being, then proprietary software would be less problematic. The security and other risks of proprietary sofware are high and hidden. Free access to your data is only half the problem, your data really isn't usable unless you intend to reproduce the program that accesses that data. Don't be a fool use FLOSS.
A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software Posted Aug 11, 2006 6:50 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] if you can understand the data format you don't need any particular software to access it.
and FOSS software doesn't nessasarily equal flexibility in accessing the content (see the articles about the gimp not having a documented file format until the last week or so as a prime example)
yes, with FOSS software you can reverse engineer a data format more easily, but unless the software authors agree with (and maintain compatability with going forward) the specs that you reverse engineer it's a purely temporary documentation, which could be as bad as any propriatary software (albeit without as strong a lock-in, but for many large FOSS projects, the users are mostly along for the ride, and have to adapt to whatever file format changes the project introduces, until such time as the annoyance factor growes large enough for the project to be forked, so don't completely dismiss the lock-in aspect)
A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software Posted Aug 14, 2006 21:04 UTC (Mon) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link] Obscurity through complexity is NOT the same thing as obscurity through secrecy. So long as you have access to the source code to the version of the GIMP you are using, then you have a 100% accurate set of "documentation" on how to load and manipulate the data. Yes, you could lose the source to the version you are using, but then all your hard drives and backups could gte destroyed in a fire, too. Storing information in digital form is fundamentally risky, and losing the source code to a critical peice of infrastructure is something you can screw up, but noone can walk into your place of business and TAKE the source code from you. With closed source software, they can. That's the point.
The real question we need to raise is Posted Aug 10, 2006 6:18 UTC (Thu) by rakoenig (subscriber, #29855) [Link] "why the hell is inellectual property more valueable than physical property?"
I guess that the owner of the cars which were locked in the robotic garage didn't care a damn about licensing issues of software but they cared a lot how to get home without their cars.
So practically someone (either the city of hoboken or the robotic garage company) held the trapped cars like hostages to enforce what they want. Isn't that a crime in the United States?
The real question we need to raise is Posted Aug 10, 2006 7:31 UTC (Thu) by BlueLightning (subscriber, #38978) [Link] Intellectual property is highly valuable to these sorts of companies,because they can continue raking in huge amounts of money from existing clients without having to do very much work, once the initial development has been done. You can't tell me that the software to run a robotic parking garage, which I imagine is technically fairly simple, is worth $5500 per month. If we were talking about something where major improvements to the software were being developed on an ongoing basis as well as the administration of the software, then a figure like that might be justified, but I can't see how that could be the case here.
The real question we need to raise is Posted Aug 10, 2006 14:03 UTC (Thu) by emj (guest, #14307) [Link] apperantly th ecity paid $23 000 a month before getting that reduction. Total to this date the city has paid more than one million dollars in support fees. One may wonder how much they paid to get that parking garage constructed.
$23,000 vs $5,500 Posted Aug 12, 2006 0:29 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] But it wasn't simply a "reduction." The city formerly paid $23,000 to have the garage fully operated, and now pays $5500 for the right to use the software and operate the garage itself.
Worth $5500? Posted Aug 12, 2006 0:51 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Robotic Parking claimed it spent $10M to develop the software. If so, I could see it being worth $5500 a month.
Worth $5500? Posted Aug 12, 2006 11:23 UTC (Sat) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link] > Robotic Parking claimed it spent $10M to develop the> software. If so, I could see it being worth $5500 a month. Hang about! This is a classic monopoly argument. What they mean is that it cost them $10M and the customer has no choice but to pay off their monthly interest fees. I could very easily spend $10M developing some software which would be worth absolutely nothing at all ... in fact I worked for a company during the dot-com boom which did about that :-) In a free market, whoever had been stupid enough to give me that money would have lost their shirt, and customers would have gone with a cheaper/better competitor. Rich.
Worth $5500? Posted Aug 12, 2006 16:52 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] But we have to assume that Robotic Parking tried to spend as little as possible developing the software. It was not working on a military-style "cost plus" contract and in fact apparently had no intention of selling the software, so every dollar Robotic spent was a dollar out of its pocket. Your dot-com employer probably also made an effort to spend less building whatever you built, and didn't know a way to do it cheaper.So there's a good chance that it really costs $10M to develop software to run that garage (we don't have any better information), which means that the city couldn't develop new software for less, which means it could be worth $5500 a month to the city to avoid developing new software. This is the free market worth argument, the one that would be used in Robotics' lawsuit for royalties. There are other ways of approaching worth. By one method, it's worth nothing because the entire $10M is a sunk cost.
The cost of robotic software Posted Aug 14, 2006 18:17 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] You can't tell me that the software to run a robotic parking garage, which I imagine is technically fairly simple, is worth $5500 per month. I suspect you haven't developed much embedded software, much less life-critical software. The garage control isn't life-critical the same way, say, a medical ventilator is, but you really don't want to crush any customers while you're closing the gate. You really don't want to crush any cars, either. Stuff that controls moving equipment having enough force to hurt someone takes a lot more work (including redundancy and fail safe design) than something dealing with, say, your bank account. Add in coordination with the hardware designers (and I mean hardware :-), and costs add up a lot faster than for a general-purpose computer program whose only output is pixels.
The real question we need to raise is Posted Aug 11, 2006 10:28 UTC (Fri) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033) [Link] Don't know about the USA and I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt it's a crime. More likely it's a breach of contract and a civil court dispute.
The motorist has a contract with the parking facility, which explicitly or implicitly says he'll get his car back on demand. There's probably some degree of discaimer possible for mechanical or system failures, but again almost certainly a legal implication that such failure should be attended to with a degree of urgency.
So the motorist can sue in the civil courts for the loss of use of his car, if the court feels that some initial period of delay was reasonable then he may not get all of the costs he incurred.
As for the contract between the parking operator and the software company, I won't venture an opinion. It's possible that the operator might be able to sue the software house for the costs awarded to the motorists. It would again all depend on the contract, its implied terms, and on what is and is not reasonable in a contract.
BTW if the parking operator had gone bust, the motorists could be in for a long wait. First a liquidator would have to be appointed. Then he'd have to work out how to get the cars out. They'd remain the motorist's property, but reasonable delay about extracting them in these circumstances could be weeks. Motorists beware.
The real question we need to raise is Posted Aug 12, 2006 0:50 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I don't see a crime here either. I do see some civil liability, but not in contracts.There's no contract between the vehicle owner and Robotic Parking. There's a contract between the vehicle owner and the city (technically, a utility operated by the city, but we'll just call it the city). The city owns the garage and hired Robotic Parking to take money, park cars, etc. While it might seem obvious that the parties intended for the car to be delivered back at a certain time, the contract probably didn't actually include that. That kind of detail doesn't get implied; it has to be said. But the city still owes the vehicle owner money for the tort of conversion (the city effectively stole the vehicle). This is the cost to the city of the city's poor job of negotiating its contract with Robotic Parking. Robotic Parking had a contract with the city to operate the garage, and Robotic Parking used its own software to do it; the city never had any right to use the software. This is a well known contracting hazard known as "single sourcing." You depend on something only one vendor can provide.
A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software Posted Aug 10, 2006 7:48 UTC (Thu) by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366) [Link] The garage thing is lol, the medical thing is not funny. I would have called a lawyer and discussed the risks and liabilities we can put the company at for not facilitating the continued access and smooth transition from their system to a new one.
If someone would have died or suffered significant discomfort due to not having access to medical records, what then? Tammy is allergic to Valium; oops, sorry, our vendor is being an asshole and won't let us read your records, your brain has inflated three times and you are now a retard? No, screw that, I don't play that way and they would have less than five minutes to give me an acceptable response from the moment the whole debacle began before I would have several lawyers contacting their legal department.
There is "proprietary software may cause some headaches," and then there is "some people are too stupid to be allowed to tell you what you can do with their products." When it comes to peoples' lives, the person in charge of whether people live or die REQUIRES complete control of ALL tools at his disposal, regardless of whether he can pay for them or not. Dr. Notes has earned a stab in the face.
A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software Posted Aug 10, 2006 12:14 UTC (Thu) by fjf33 (subscriber, #5768) [Link] It would all depend on context. The Dr. Notes people may have agreed as long as you paid the 4x maintenance. After all they can't be asked to do stuff for free just because you don't want to use their software anymore. It would depend on the contract you signed. If you signed a contract that specifically allowed them to do what they did, well then you were derelict on your duties and put your patients at risk. It would be sensible for the doctors to also keep a paper copy of the records somewhere. What if the software just came down for some reason or another?
All of this just doesn't change the fact that they would've been much better off with OSS but I don't think a lawsuit would've been a walk in the park either.
A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software Posted Aug 10, 2006 12:38 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] In a country where someone won a lawsuit because her coffee was unreasonably hot, despite her doing a silly thing with it? It might not be a walk in the park, but I'd say the odds are at least high enough that it's worth a go. Even if the doctors can't sue, there might well be grounds for the patients being able to. (IANAL.)
A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software Posted Aug 10, 2006 18:31 UTC (Thu) by fjf33 (subscriber, #5768) [Link] IANAL either but I agree the patients would have a much better chance, particularly if it is a state where they can get the full money from whoever has it, independent of their contribution to the problem. So if the doctor has insurance, he will probably pay most of the penalty anyway. It would be an interesting test of the EULA though. The software company may just be in the hole for the cost of the license.
Hot Coffee, Cold Case Posted Aug 10, 2006 22:15 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_coffee_case
A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software Posted Aug 17, 2006 22:34 UTC (Thu) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] > No, screw that, I don't play that way and they would have less than five> minutes to give me an acceptable response from the moment the whole debacle > began before I would have several lawyers contacting their legal department. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer
I admire at americans whose most powerful weapon is a lawyer. Did you ever jump over six-foot fence or participate in a street fight? Or experiment with black powder?
A single blackout, and both you and your lawyer are useless. Think over it, you might still have time to reconsider what's worth training -- bragging over how you'd call someone else to respond instead of you, someone not really wielding any power in slightly changed circumstances.
Think over what's vital to your life, and what would you do without mobile, electricity, or supermarket. Without right hand, or with severely hurting stomach. Being prepared to losing ephemeral warm stuff around you helps sometimes.
Good luck, an american.
Information from the South Florida Business Journal article Posted Aug 10, 2006 16:59 UTC (Thu) by wspeir (guest, #39491) [Link] From the June 30th 2006 issue of The South Florida Business Journal:
If doctors didn't pay tech support after 10 days, the company would place them in read-only mode so they could view records but not update them, Causwell said. Doctors who didn't get new passwords in the subsequent 30 to 99 days would be locked out of viewing the program, he said.
1) It looks like any doctor using this software was just asking for trouble because this requires a new password at least every 99 days.
2) It looks like there may have been (and could still be) some financial problems with the Dr. Notes company that would make me awfully nervous to *continue* using Dr. Notes -- What happens if they suddenly shut their doors?
It seems to me that the doctors who use this are just as liable (at least from a common sense standpoint, perhaps not a legal standpoint) as the Dr. Notes company for using the software in the first place as far as a patient would be concerned.
A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software Posted Aug 10, 2006 17:08 UTC (Thu) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link] You can be acused of denying humanitary help if you witness an accident and just stare at the victim and do nothing (off course you can also be a victim of shock, and just freeze).
So if a private company knows it will put lives at risk and doesn't do nothing it can walk free? I doubt it can allege shock as an excuse.
Something seems wrong here...
extortion? Posted Aug 17, 2006 21:21 UTC (Thu) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] But then doesn't such "decisions" qualify as extortions? I guess taking an iron and a CEO of such company and applying the former to the latter is a valid business method of acquiring free unlimited liceses otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||