If you are found guilty of unethical or illegal conduct then toy will lose you license to practice engineering as well as your job.
Then how will you pay the bills with no job and lower job opportunities?
Just because you are participating in stealing from a big nameless corporation does not make it right in any way shape or form.
Would the company react to say a Chinese arms manufacturer stealing their designs and selling identical products at a lower cost because they do not have any design overhead costs? How is that different than what is happening?
Can anyone differentiate between stealing the designs of a fellow professional and using them without the right to do so and stealing the software product of other professionals?
How high in the company does the conspiracy extend? In Canada a director of a company would have some liability to ensure that the company is not acting in a criminal manner. If the same applies in the US then the Board of Directors could be liable for the actions of the staff, if it is happening with their knowledge then they too could face criminal charges.
Under copyright laws in Canada if you have a pirate copy of software and this is further copied they you could be compelled to buy licenses for all copies made downstream from your copy. Since a manufacturing concern would presumably have more assets than students and teenage hackers, guess who the software company will recover from.
Did anyone take a hacked copy home and let their kids play with it and perhaps pass a copy on?
Ethics are sufficient reason to comply with copyright laws, the potential legal liability and criminal penalties should convince the unethical.
Personally I would not work for a company that practiced and condoned software piracy. If they will screw another company then sooner or later they will screw you. If they are charged then why would they not simply blame the new gut and put it all on you?
I want to protect my integrity, my license and my assets more than I want to save a couple hundred or couple thousand dollars on unsupported illegal software.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
I started using MathCad at a major oil company. After a while I started wondering about licence issues and found out that the IT guy who put it on my machine had brought it from home without buying an extra license (if his copy at home was even legal). I uninstalled it that day and asked my boss if I could buy a copy. He said "no, software purchases have to be approved by corporate and MathCad isn't on their list" (which is why the IT guy did what he did, trying to satisfy my need while circumventing a silly policy).
I gave up and bought a copy with my own money. I know it is stupid to subsidise a company from your own pocket, but I didn't want to go back to Excel and paid for it. There is a grey area between stealing and policy (or budgetary) constraints. The good news is that a few months later I showed my boss an analysis done in MathCad and he questioned me on the software. When I told him it was legal and I had paid for it he told me to put the cost on my expense acount and we just wouldn't tell IT.
That worked for a few-hundred-dollar package. Solid Works for $10,000 or a pipeline model for $20,000 would be a different analysis, but I'm not sure I wouldn't reach the same conclusion. If the alternatives are stealing, quitting, or investing then who knows.
I agree that a lot of companies have software purchase policies that get in the way of doing your job.
However if they had a policy that said that you could not buy pens would that justify shoplifting them from an office supply store?
The only real difference between shoplifting pens and software piracy is that you are more likely to get caught stealing from Office Depot or Staples than from a major software company.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
How likely are you to lose your license for your company using cracked software? There are plenty of engineers out there who get in trouble for violations related to human safety and get a small fine and probabtion out of it and have their licenses for years to come.
I'm by no means advocating using cracked software. I just think that it isn't as simple as black and white for some people. Personally I think the solution to try to work it out with the company first is a good one and if not, then move on and blow the whistle. Just don't rock the boat while you still need your income. That is of course my opinion.
Realistically I doubt if you would lose a license for a first offence of software piracy.
On the other hand every three years when I renew my errors and omissions insurance I’m asked by the insurance company if I have ever had any complaints against me with the association.
This have to be answered truthfully both for ethical reasons and because lying would invalidate the insurance coverage.
I’d guess that I might not be able to afford insurance, which I am legally required to have to operate, if I had a sustained complaint against me.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
kuddoes to Toolpath! as long as people don't stand their ground, no one's work product is safe. If they steal (don't value the work of others), ultimately their actions will extend to their treatment of you personally.
Years ago, when I started at a firm there was pirated software on the work computer. i didn't know. when my computer crashed, in the rebuild of it, I found out that the software was not on the up and up. They did not have the backup discs.
I asked them to purchase the software to access work for revisions. I ended up with a geriatric version of the software I regularly used. Having to redo almost every job from scratch when a revision or expansion of scope came along - Finally, I went out and bought a newer license on my own for work.
When I eventually resigned over other noon-resolvable issues, I offered my employers the opportunity to buy the software license at the cost I paid for it. Doing them a favor was at that point a generous and unnecessary kindness. The GM wanted the original receipt. It was not a high dollar item, and I told them that this was the price, and I would write a receipt. The owner did not care to buy the license. Ironically, they experienced firsthand the ongoing impossibility to access their own work product just as I had - which caused me to buy the software in the first place.
I was removing / packing my possessions from the office on the way out the door about fifteen minutes later. The general manager eventually was literally throwing money at me from his wallet to keep the software. I had just finished the uninstall process. "Sorry, too late."
As he walked away from my workstation I executed the Control>Alt>Delete. I still get that nice warm fuzzy feeling, 9 years after the fact.
Having written software and working in design / build / manufacturing, there is no shortcut for honesty in the workplace or client relationships. Eventually (it might take years) but people do get their just desserts - the bitter and the sweet.
Sadly, it is my feeling that the only way to prevent software piracy is two ways, contractural declarations between clients & firms that they will not use pirated or stolen intellectual property, and that software companies have ongoing validation at a master server of the license for each and every use. That is alot of work, but CATIA and Atmosphere did it. Dongles can be engineered & purchased, so they are not an adequate protection against piracy.
I have an interview with another company that manufactures underwater connectors. I figure that I'll be asked why I'm leaving when I give my notice and I'll give them my explanation then.
My manager told me last Friday that he wrote me up for the employee of the month for October.
One thing that I do find comforting is that I've come to realize that I've got "The Right Stuff" to go anywhere and write programs to manufacture just about anything.
I still learn something new just about every day but I think I'm getting the hang of it. (Smiles)
It's nice that you've found another job, because it may be that you're not really happy where you are. That's a shame, because they apparently appreciate you.
Having worked for one of the largest (THE largest?) defense contractors in existence, it's quite possible that you're not aware of all of the details. If, as you say, they've earned literally "millions and millions of dollars worth of military contracts", it makes no sense that they would not have purchased the software you mention. Do you really think they're just trying to save a few thousand dollars?
Any company earning defense contracts worth "millions and millions of dollars" has defense auditors, program and project officers, and any number of other Government regulators in their pants about every aspect of their business. I doubt seriously that they would knowingly risk charges of software piracy from anyone.
Yet, many in this thread (and, you, too) automatically assume that the "fairly large company" must be evil and a software pirate.
The simplest explanation may be that they've purchased the software, but it's held up with red tape. In large corporations - including defense contractors - the intent to purchase is all that's required - as long as it's documented (a purchase order somewhere in the system). Sometimes that process may take a year or more. That may seem ridiculous, but I have seen it.
There are many other possibilities. They may have one legitimate copy and "cracked" the others as you say, to prove prototypes. R&D does squirrely stuff as the norm. It may or may not pan out. I've seen cases where they may even have a gentlemen's agreement with the software salesman. Or, the machines may not be compatible without a sea change of manufacturing policy within the company. They could be developing that case with some internal agreements. It could also be a political decision, where the customer has certain agreements with regard to which resources are used. Again, something that may be resolved in the future - or held up in long-term negotiations unbeknownst to you.
In fact, the R&D Engineers themselves may have copied the software without their Mgmt's approval, and have the company at risk. Very few managers have any idea what R&D is using, much less understand it. You might be able to save the company from legal danger - if you honestly discussed it with someone.
Instead, it seems to me much too easy to assume that the company must be trying to "get away with something."
I suppose this should come up too, what is the legality of using a copy of a program that can not longer be purchased, is not supported by the manufacturer and has finished the lifecycle?
I have encountered this before trying to open obsolete files and the only route to opening the files was finding a copy without a licence.
If you created the data you should have the original program and be able to access that data.
If you lost the original disks then you should use your backup set of the disks and reinstall the program.
Only if you did not have a backup of the program (and yes I have full off site backups of everything) then using a copy would be acceptable, after all you still have the license to use the program which is all you bought in the first place.
No matter which way you slice it there is no rationalization fro theft of intellectual property.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
Your definition of "rationalization", "theft", and "intellectual property" are subject to the same legal scrutiny as someone accused of those things.
The fact is, these are not situational ethics. Instead, we are living through the evolution of applying existing standards of property, purchase, and contract with the new paradigm of digital capability.
I have managed and participated in contracts where the buyer purchases the intellectual property and owns it, period. If they desire to share that property with anyone else in that organization - even to the extent of copying ad infinitum - it is still within the contract. A-E designs sold to the Government (or Defense Contractors) are handled in exactly this way. Yet, if such material were placed in the same regard as a software purchase, they could never be referenced outside of the original drawing set, or the single copy such a license may grant.
If a firm buys an entire set of codes - they can go into a library and be accessed by numerous individuals and copied, ad nausea, internally within the organization. This is their right as licensed holders of the information. Yet, if they purchased a digital copy, the license states that it cannot be placed on a network. This would only make it available to other company personnel in the same way as the hard copies. In many cases, there is no opportunity to do otherwise - per the "desired" license of the code organization.
Some software authors refuse to sell to a company except as site licenses. In that case, the rules for copying and installing are clear. However, in many cases, the licenses are written in the interests of the software entity - to maximize profit: large companies have large numbers of users. In those cases, alternatives are not offered and the license is written for the advantage of the software company, not the customer.
Who sets the license: the buyer with whom the contractor wishes to sell, or the seller? Does the seller formulate a license with whatever restriction they want and it then becomes legal? Or does the buyer set the restrictions? Which is right?
The software license, such as it is, is in force the moment you use the software. You've legally obligated yourself to adhere to the requirements of the license.
If you disagree with the license, your options are to re-negotiate with the company, write your own, or buy someone else's product. There is no gray area here.
Respectfully, I disagree. A software author cannot arbitrarily insert restrictions of any kind into a license agreement and have it judged legal in every case.
That's not the real point I was trying to make, though. Having a software package without a purchased license is generally accepted by the court as a crime. Additional copies, and the restrictions governing them, are not so clear.
The case portrayed by Toolpath is not a slam-dunk when it comes to law-breaking. If it really is R&D, the entire system maybe prototyping - including the software. He acknowledged that they didn't like him using anything but the licensed machine.
Any number of scenarios may be described to justify the environment that he (and the rest of you) automatically assumed was illegal.
Try contract law. If they accept your money with no terms and conditions agreed to prior to the exchange of consideration for product, you own it, subject to copyright laws. The attempt to add conditions after the fact doesn't matter since you now own the product and the originator no longer has any hold or control. Want to check if you really own it, try this: Did you pay sales tax on it; do you pay sales tax on a lease? Do you get to depreciate the asset on your taxes; do you get to do that on something you don't own?
Just like you couldn't buy one copy of a book and make copies for everybody in the office, you can't buy one copy of the software and make copies for everyone in the office, but that's copyright and the "license" doesn't matter.
On the other hand, if there are usage restrictions agreed to as part of the sales process, prior to money changing hands, they have full force.
Except his perspective, which may be limited. Again, it goes back to the automatic conclusion - which is an assumption - that they are breaking the law.
All discussions of software licensing and copying aside (which are not completely settled), there are still huge questions that go unanswered in everyone's rush to judgment. Toolpath was not privy to the purchase, he was not necessarily aware of any ongoing negotiation/discussion/vendor agreements, nor was he even certain of the relationship of the "contracted" employee.
I again point out - what is the rationale behind a company who earns "millions and millions of dollars worth of military contracts" to skimp on a few thousand dollars (or a few hundred?) of software and perhaps jeopardize the whole operation?
It doesn't make sense, it's not logical, and it's un-American to assume the guilt. Even if what Toolpath claims is all true, it still doesn't mean that Mgmt knows it. The whole situation may exist because a couple of R&D Engineers are too lazy to fill out paperwork or wait for legitimate copies - and the company doesn't actually know. Yet, everyone in this thread is ready to believe what may be his very-limited exposure (nothing personal toward Toolpath) and that the company is deceitful, dishonest, and unlawful.
One might say that "Engineers" are supposed to use more reasoning than that. However, continuing to state the same things several times is unproductive, so no more from me on this subject.
