Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmenge | Hacker News Reader

I find the behavior of the software manufacturer rude and unacceptable. CERN is certainly not the type of company that screws you over or produces counterfeit copies for their own profit; 30kCHF is an outrageous claim.

Sure, people using your software without a valid license is not cool. On the other hand, AllSIM didn't suffer any damages.

Also, there are probably not that many potential customers in the world for AllSIM(TM). Maybe CERN should have used their power to make clear that this was the act of a naive student, and that a ridiculous fine could seriously impede the future business relation with CERN...

View on HN

> I find the behavior of the software manufacturer rude and unacceptable.

I've seen many photographers who ended up with the exact same behaviour because any other is a good way to get steamrolled. Infringement = infringement invoice, period, end of the story.

> 30kCHF is an outrageous claim.

Depending how the original license cost (for a roaming license too) is, not necessarily. An infringement invoice must be significantly higher than a regular license or there's no point to getting a license, you can just wait to be caught. Considering the kind of products we're talking about, licenses are probably in the 5k~10k range. A 3~5x infringement surcharge isn't outrageous.

> On the other hand, AllSIM didn't suffer any damages.

Somebody used their product unlicensed in a way not allowed by the licenses they had access to, that sounds like damages.

> Also, there are probably not that many potential customers in the world for AllSIM(TM).

On the other hand, there probably aren't that many potential replacements in the world for AllSIM.

> Maybe CERN should have used their power to make clear that this was the act of a naive student, and that a ridiculous fine could seriously impede the future business relation with CERN…

Why? CERN suffered no damages, they forwarded the invoice to the student.

> I've seen many photographers who ended up with the exact same behaviour

Total different scale. One photographer vs thousands of infringers is different from team of lawyers vs one casual infringer which is also a good customer.

> A 3~5x infringement surcharge isn't outrageous.

We'll have to disagree there. The copyright industry is the only industry on earth using multiplicators as liberally as this, for "damages" that are very hard to prove in the first place.

> CERN suffered no damages, they forwarded the invoice to the student.

Yeah, and that's a dick move as well. The student clearly did wrong, but CERN might have had a responsibility by not monitoring what this student was doing (why did he have to install the software himself? Where was the sysadmin? Why is he allowed to use his own laptop? etc etc). They acted like Pilate, and that's not good in my book.

> CERN suffered no damages

Well their own blog post will damage their reputation quite a lot.

With whom? Certainly not software vendors, probably not students or researchers either. Frontend web developers? Now I'm sure that will be a great great bother for them.

Students and researchers. They don't care about copyright or software free or otherwise. They care that their institution is seen to be on their side and prepared to look out for them. CERN clearly is not in this case.

> Students and researchers. They don't care about copyright or software free or otherwise

[citation needed]

Personal experience. In the physical sciences this really doesn't need a citation.

> With whom?

With internet commentors. CERN runs on karma and will shut down if people on Twitter say mean things about it.

Well they actually do run on karma. CERN runs largely on tax money. If citizens of the countries that contribute to CERN don't support giving money to CERN then it's grants will eventually stop... NB I'm not saying that this one incident will stop any grant money but this sort of event tends to sour people's minds.

> Depending how the original license cost

Since the student had access to the software with a more restrictive license, they should have charged only the price difference between the two licenses (or some reasonable surcharge of that, as you suggested). Also I assume these licenses are multiuser licenses, charging the full license price is kind of unfair.

In the end what is the intention of the software company? They probably only want to enforce the license so nobody uses their software illegally. It's irrational to get a revenue from these cases. 1000 CHF from a student I think is a big enough hit to discourage the illegal usage of their software among students, really, and they wouldn't send a student to deep dept.

Agree absolutely with your sentiment. However, CERN's kind reaction is not atypical and is usually extremely self-serving.

This kind of minor stuff is often seized upon to demonstrate self-righteousness and establish a defense for future claims. For example, in a large company in which I worked (tens of thousands of people), someone at my site installed some unlicensed utility, which I think was worth like $200, on his laptop, just to check it out - it was something he didn't even need. The utility phoned home, the author company wrote a letter - not even a rude or threatening letter, just an FYI - to the large company. The next day, the large company made a huge show of having security meet this guy at the entrance with a box of his belongings, and sending a mail to everyone about how they just fired someone for unlicensed use of software, filled with some of the same sanctimony used by CERN. Everyone thought this was ridiculous, and that there were better applications for the high-mindedness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com