Paveza, Gary wrote:
>
> Unless I am mistaken, there is a lot of software
> vendors who license their products for a given
> number of users.  This is not unique to HP.
> They use that "number in memory" to make sure
> that the license agreement is valid.  You might
> not agree with it, but that's how it is.

I never argued that others didn't do it.  When
I first started working on a 3000 (III), I was
proud to be working on a system from a company
that was "above" gouging its customers.  After
all, stripping away all the euphemisms, is it
anything other than that?  Whether or not some
clever marketeer has come up with a less
offensive name doesn't change the practice.
If you have a the same piece of hardware and
software (3000 / MPE) and you sell it to one
person for $X, and allow them to run U users
on it, and you sell the exact same equipment
to someone else for $2X and allow them to run
2U users on it, I can see that as no other
practice than gouging (I will grant that it is
my opinion, not a LEGAL fact).

I felt less loyalty to HP when they picked up
this practice.

--

Buz          (8

+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Knowledge is proud that it has learn'd so much;             |
|  Wisdom is humble that it knows no more.                     |
|    -- William Cooper: _The Task VI_                          |
+---------------------------------------+----------------------+
| This is official written notice:      | My real address is:  |
|   Please remove me from your mailing  |   lnuslad dot dzvg41 |
|   list.                               |    at eds dot com    |
+---------------------------------------+----------------------+