Russell,

I see no problem with this at all.  You have correctly identified that 
what is being sold is the "right to use intellectual property".  As 
David points out, the customer isn't buying a bucket of parts.  If 
that's what they want, they can probably do better elsewhere.

Dave

David Duffy wrote:

> Russell McMahon wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>> Years later when the market tailed off due to advancing technology I 
>> converted a number of K6's to K6L spec at no charge. At that stage 
>> this didn't affect the market.
>>
>> A point to note is that in my case, and in many other cases, what is 
>> being sold is a right to use intellectual property. The extra 
>> capability represents extra preogram development work. The fact that 
>> the code resides in the machine is relatively irrelevant. If people 
>> don't want to pay their share of the development costs for the extra 
>> facilities this allows them to not do so. The jumper is an IP enabler 
>> :-)
>>
>> Honest question: Does anyone have any moral or ethical problem with 
>> the above scenario?
>
>
>
> It's not an uncommon tactic and completely reasonable IMO.
> There's no reason you shouldn't benefit from working smarter.
> The customer is paying for the functionality, not the parts count!
> David...
>


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist