Software Consumer Bill of Rights

Overview

As more and more of our day-to-day life migrate to the Internet, we are reminded that our sole mode of interacting with work, academia and social resources is through software which unfortunately does not always work as expected because of bugs. A software bug is the common term used to describe an inherent manufacturer error, flaw, mistake, failure or fault in software that prevents it from behaving as intended, causing it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result. [1]

History

The buggy computer began on the 9th of September 1947 when engineers found a moth between the points of Relay #70, in Panel F of the Harvard University Mark II Aiken Relay Calculator (a primitive computer). The computer was running a test of its multiplier and adder when the engineers noticed something was wrong. The moth was trapped, removed and taped into the computer’s logbook with the words: “first actual case of a bug being found.”[2]

Over sixty years later, inherent manufacturer software defects (“software bug” or “bug”) are still with us, and show no sign of becoming extinct because of one simple fact – mankind is fallible. Only now is the seriousness of software bugs more extreme. Some of the subtle impact of bugs in daily life include sudden cell phones resets, car recalls, router crashes, electricity grid degradation, air traffic control system malfunctions and Internet outages.

Impact

Bugs can have a wide variety of effects, with varying levels of inconvenience to the user of the software. Some bugs have a subtle effect on the software’s functionality, and may thus lie undetected for a long time, while more serious bugs may cause the software to crash or freeze leading to a denial of service. Others qualify as security bugs and might for example, enable a malicious user to bypass access controls in order to obtain unauthorized privilege. [1]

The results of bugs may be extremely serious. Software bugs impacting the Therac-25 radiation therapy machine were directly responsible for some patient deaths in the 1980s.[2] In 1996, the European Space Agency’s US$1 Billion prototype Ariane 5 rocket was destroyed less than a minute after launch because of a bug in the on-board guidance computer software. A bug in a new release of the software that controlled AT&T’s #4ESS long distance phone switches caused these mammoth computers to crash when they receive a specific message from one of their neighboring machines — a message that the neighbors send out after recovering from a crash. One day a switch in New York crashes and reboots, causing its neighboring switches to crash, then their neighbors’ neighbors, and so on. Soon, 114 switches are crashing and rebooting every six seconds, leaving an estimated sixty-thousand people without long distance service for nine hours. The fix: engineers loaded the previous software image. In June 1994, a Royal Air Force Chinook crashed into the Mull of Kintyre, killing 29 people. This was initially dismissed as pilot error, but an investigation by Computer Weekly uncovered sufficient evidence to convince a House of Lords inquiry that it may have been caused by a software bug in the aircraft’s engine control computer. In 2002, a study commissioned by the US Department of Commerce’ National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that software bugs, or errors, are so prevalent and so detrimental that they cost the US economy an estimated $59 billion annually, or about 0.6 percent of the gross domestic product. [1][2]

Legacy Approach

The approach taken to handle software bugs to date by many companies have been sufficient. For example, owners of Apple Computers and Microsoft operating system and application software receive real-time software bug fixes sent directly to their computers over the Internet. So do owners of Hewlett-Packard Procurve networking equipment. However, most other software manufacturers, especially in the Internet infrastructure industry (i.e. makers of routers, switches, firewalls, storage equipment etc.) do not provide free ongoing bug fixes to customers that have purchased their software. Instead, they have blatantly required consumers to pay additional fees either directly or by having consumers of their software purchase their service contracts in order to receive bug fixes. This, of course, causes consumers to pay much more than they should for the upkeep of the software they own, and allows companies to publish software before they have performed adequate quality assurance testing. After all, why spend time and money testing it yourself when consumers will test it for you anyway? This is especially true in most of the Internet networking equipment industry, where most equipment manufacturers make proprietary software that runs only on their own equipment, so owners of such equipment do not have other, competitive software options for such hardware.

21st Century Approach

The world is currently transitioning into accessing Software as-a-Service (SaaS) over the Internet on a pay-as-you-go monthly subscription basis, rather than the legacy model of purchasing a software disc or downloading it from the manufacturer’s website, installing and operating it, running into software bugs and then contacting the manufacturer to request the appropriate bug fixes. Naturally, then, if SaaS software fails to function as expected and the manufacturer either fails to rectify the problem immediately or requires the consumer to pay additional fees for bug fixes, the consumer will simply transition to another provider and request for a refund, much the same way someone wouldn’t purchase a brand new product that is inherently defective and hold onto it after finding out it can’t fulfill the functions it was purchased for. Interestingly enough, though, the software industry is the only industry that is allowed to sell inherently defective products – probably because it is expected by consumers that acquiring fixes to such defects will not be at additional costs.

Unlike hardware, which can break down from use or abuse, there is no wear-and-tear in software. As such, all bugs in proprietary software are inherent manufacturer defects that should be corrected for all consumers with valid software licenses, free of charge. If you’ve paid for software, you should never have to pay for bug fixes.

With these thoughts in mind, Multiven hereby proposes the following Bill of Rights for all consumers that have paid for software (“Consumers”).

Software Consumer Bill of Rights;

• 1. Consumers that have paid for software have the right to receive free bug fixes for their software’s useful life.

  Software manufacturers should back up what they say their software product can do. If software is supposed to be able to do X, Y and Z but a bug in the software does not allow Y to function as documented in certain instances, then the manufacturer should provide the bug fixes for Y to all the customers that purchased its software. There are several ways to implement this. Having customers register their software product and serial number at the time of purchase is one quick and simple solution.

  2. Consumers that have paid for software have the right to receive proactive notifications of all software defects in their feature sets, as well as the bug fixes, as they are available.

  Notification is another important right of consumers. We all see this almost daily with our operating systems and application software on our personal computers, with preemptive bug fixes pushed to customers over the Internet as “Software Updates”. This should be required of all software manufacturers.

  Software manufacturers without the ability for over-the-Internet preemptive “push” notifications should proactively notify customers of defects, either through email, RSS feed, podcast, blog, microblog or website postings. This is especially important in the Internet networking field, as it will help companies avoid many Internet and networking software problems that other customers have encountered and the manufacturer has rectified.

  3. Consumers that have paid for software have the right to report all software defects to the manufacturer and the manufacturer must provide the customer with a bug ID and make all reasonable efforts to resolve all such bugs at no extra cost to the consumer.

  Without access to the software source code, there is no legal way to introduce bugs into proprietary software. Moreover, software does not suffer any wear and tear like physical products do. Therefore, all bugs present in software were there at the time of purchase and software manufacturers should repair all such defects.

  The more users are impacted by a bug, the higher its severity and the faster the manufacturer should provide fixes for it.

  4. Consumers that have paid for software have the right to the software operating manual, release notes, caveats and bug databases for the useful life of the software.

  Such important information should be shared with customers so that they can properly operate their software and proactively plan, diagnose and solve problems as they occur.

Change is On the Way

In May 2009 European Union Commissioners Viviane Reding and Meglena Kuneva initiated a proposal that will hold software manufacturers liable for their software much the same way producers of physical products are held liable for their product’s inability to function as expected. [3] We would hope that other Government watchdog agencies around the world will follow suit to adequately protect the rights of software consumers.

About the author

The Multiven Dossier is compiled periodically by the Multiven Consumer Advocacy Group, a unit of Multiven – the networking industry’s first vendor – neutral provider of premium multivendor Internet Protocol network services – to educate, enlighten and empower consumers, corporations and government agencies about ethical issues within the networking industry.

As always, Multiven’s main goal is to ensure the proper and continuously efficient functioning of the Internet, and the fair treatment of consumers.

Multiven, the Multiven Dossier and the Multiven logo are registered trademarks of Multiven, Inc. All other company and product names may be trademarks of the respective companies with which they are associated.

The content of this dossier is licensed under creative commons  

Multiven Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Cisco Systems, Inc.

Redwood City, Calif. – December 1, 2008, Multiven, Inc. (“Multiven”) today filed an antitrust lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) in an effort to open up the network maintenance services marketplace for Cisco equipment, promote competition and ensure consumer choice and value. Multiven’s complaint alleges that Cisco harmed Multiven and consumers by bundling and tying bug fixes/patches and updates for its operating system software to its maintenance services (“SMARTnet”) and through a series of other illegal exclusionary and anticompetitive acts designed to maintain Cisco’s monopoly in the network maintenance services market for Cisco networking equipment.

The complaint recites that instead of making these necessary software “updates” and bug fixes available to all customers that have purchased its operating software license, as does Microsoft, Apple and Hewlett-Packard, and many others, Cisco makes these software “updates” and bug fixes available only to those customers that have purchased Cisco’s SMARTnet.

The lawsuit further alleges that Cisco has engaged in the aforementioned anticompetitive schemes and practices to prevent Independent Service Organizations (“ISOs”) and competitors like Multiven from servicing Cisco networking equipment. These acts and practices of defendant Cisco have had the following monopolistic, anticompetitive and injurious effects in the marketplace for network services:

• Competition in the market for service and maintenance of Cisco networking equipment has been suppressed and virtually eliminated. Additionally, ISOs have been effectively precluded from competing for and earning profits on the servicing of Cisco networking equipment.
• Customers have been deprived choice and forced to purchase Cisco SMARTnet maintenance services over that of substantially better quality and/or lower priced maintenance services from plaintiff Multiven, and other ISOs; and
• Consumers have been harmed because supracompetitive prices have been maintained and increased, and the quantity, quality and variety of service offerings in the marketplace has been reduced and constrained.

Multiven’s requested remedies are intended to give consumers greater freedom and flexibility while at the same time ensuring that the network maintenance services marketplace develops into an open and competitive industry. Multiven believes that these remedies will help promote consumer rights worldwide and effect corrective action that will ensure that Cisco competes solely based on the quality and value of its services.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court in San Jose, California, USA.

Multiven is represented by Maxwell M. Blecher, Donald R. Pepperman and James Robert Noblin of Blecher & Collins, P.C. in Los Angeles, California, USA. For questions regarding this antitrust lawsuit, please contact Blecher & Collins – www.blechercollins.com

About Multiven
Headquartered in Redwood City, California, Multiven provides premium multivendor IP network services that maximize network infrastructure investments for businesses of all sizes. Multiven’s customers, which include small and medium businesses, network service providers and fortune 500 enterprises, enjoy vendor-neutral consultations, increased network availability and a reduced network maintenance and capital expenditure. For more information about Multiven, please visit www.multiven.com.

Multiven is a registered trademark of Multiven, Inc. All other company and product names may be trademarks of the respective companies with which they are associated.

The Multiven Dossier – Anti-Competition Concerns in US Government and Fortune 500 Request For Proposals (RFPs): Cisco SMARTnet

Overview

Antitrust law is the bedrock of ensuring a properly functioning capitalist competitive open marketplace that fosters innovation and ensures end-customer and consumer value. Oversight and regulatory bodies in the United States, Europe and other nations take these matters very seriously as evident by the 1984 breakup of the original AT&T (Ma Bell) monopoly, the 1990’s Microsoft case, and the very recent inquiry into the Google-Yahoo advertising agreement.

Problem

Several US government agencies and Fortune 500 corporations publish Request For Proposals -RFPs (also referred to as Request For Quotes – RFQs) for maintenance of Cisco Systems networking equipment and specifically request for “Cisco SMARTnet only” (“SMARTnet” is Cisco Systems’ brand name for its network maintenance service) and request that companies that participate in their RFPs must ensure they purchase the service from “Authorized Cisco Resellers” or from “Cisco Directly” Additionally, they require the vendor to provide a letter from Cisco that the vendor is authorized to sell the products required in every bid.

An example of such a request is below:

“Authorized Partner:  With its bid response, the Vendor must provide a letter from Cisco Systems, Inc. that references this bid number and confirms that the vendor is authorized to sell the products required in this bid. … Failure to provide the Cisco letter with bid proposal will render bid non-responsive and will not be evaluated further.”

Here is another example:

“Products offered in response to this RFP for maintenance services must qualify for Cisco Systems SMARTnet services.  If inspection of products is required by Cisco for qualification of products for SMARTnet services, the Vendor shall be responsible for all costs associated herewith.  Furthermore, if after inspection Cisco determines that products do not qualify for SMARTnet services, the Vendor shall be responsible for all costs associated with qualification of the product.”

These requests for exclusive dealing are helping to perpetrate illegal anti-competitive behavior that continues to plague the networking equipment services industry.  While it is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of these actions, we speculate that the request for only Cisco authorized resellers and Cisco branded services is grounded in either:

(i) A misconception perpetuated by the dominance in the market by one major company (Note: the wording in RFPs requesting a “letter from Cisco” is consistent across several local, state and federal RFPs in the US, which would suggest that this might be a concerted premeditated action possibly driven by the manufacturer in its bid to monopolize the market?), or perhaps;

(ii) Simply from ignorance by enterprises and government agencies of the fact that non-Cisco affiliated independent network service provider organizations are highly capable of providing services for Cisco products and such services are comparable or superior to Cisco’s own services much the same way that certain independent auto mechanics service automobiles as well or better (and most at less cost) than many of the auto manufacturers’ own dealerships.

Proposed Solutions

Below are some proposed solutions to discontinue this anti-competitive behavior:

1. Enterprises and government agencies should re-educate their procurement and operations teams and allow independent non-Cisco affiliated network service organizations an equal opportunity to participate, win and benefit from all RFPs; and

2. Enterprises and government agencies should amend all active and future RFP requests for services on Cisco equipment (and all other networking equipment manufacturers) to accommodate independent network service organizations by requesting for “Cisco SMARTnet or similar maintenance services on Cisco equipment.”

It is the duty of all good corporate and Government citizens to discourage and discontinue any practice that is anti-competitive so as not to be party to an illegal act that is counter-productive to the values of free open market societies. Listed below are additional benefits of an open competitive marketplace:

• Choice
• Competitive pricing
• Cost savings
• Innovation
• Better quality products and services
• Better overall value
• Judicious expenditure of tax payer and stakeholder dollars

About the Author

The Multiven Dossier is compiled periodically by the Multiven Consumer Advocacy Group, a unit of Multiven – the networking industry’s first vendor-neutral provider of premium multivendor IP network services – to educate, enlighten and empower consumers, corporations and government agencies about ethical issues within the networking industry.

• Download a complimentary PDF copy of this Dossier (640 KB)

Multiven, the Multiven Dossier and the Multiven logo are registered trademarks of Multiven, Inc. All other company and product names may be trademarks of the respective companies with which they are associated.

The content of this dossier is licensed under creative commons

The Multiven Dossier – Exposing Decades of Malpractices in the Networking Equipment Industry

Introduction

Below is the Multiven Dossier Software Files titled “Exposing Decades of Malpractices in Networking Equipment Industry”

Feel free to download a complimentary PDF copy after reading the dossier and post your thoughts and comments below. I also encourage you to share this blog and spread the word so we can collectively help rectify these wrongs and effect corrective action industry-wide.

Enjoy,

Peter

Overview

Over the past two decades, the networking equipment industry has experienced rapid growth and expansion as businesses worldwide continue to make substantial network infrastructure investments. Despite this industry attaining maturity, it remains riddled with numerous malpractices reminiscent of old-world cartel-like behavior where corporations collude to increase their collective profits through rehearsed messaging, price fixing and other restrictive practices.

There are hundreds of companies that manufacture networking hardware and software with larger players like Cisco, Nortel Networks, Juniper Networks, Alcatel-Lucent, Avaya and HP dominating this market and setting the tone for the overarching trends that prevail.

There are two basic business models for software manufacturers:

• Open-Source Software – is offered free-of-charge with best effort support for bug fixes. Customers that require dedicated on-going software support can purchase support contracts from several third-party providers. Linux and XORP are examples of such operating system software.

• Proprietary Software – is offered on a for-fee basis whereby the customer pays the manufacturer
  for use of the software and in return enjoys free on-going support for all the embedded features in the software. An example of this is Microsoft Windows operating system software which offers customers free ongoing software support and bug fixes. Today, most networking equipment run on proprietary software.

Unfortunately, networking equipment manufacturers (NEMs) continue to fraudulently extort billions of dollars annually from their customers by propagating the perception that customers that have paid for software licenses have to also pay additional fees to obtain fixes to defects found in such software.

This file of the Multiven dossier will examine these and other unethical malpractices in the networking equipment industry with the hope of educating customers and industry observers alike of their rights and hopefully effecting due corrective action.

The Industry Today

Today, very few businesses can compete effectively without an Internet Protocol network. As such the need for network maintenance service and support remain a priority for organizations of all sizes.

In an attempt to continuously grow revenue and profitability, the leading network equipment manufacturers (NEMs) perpetrate a number of unethical malpractices such as selling operating system software with tens of thousands of features with only a 90-day-warranty and refusing customers that do not purchase their maintenance contracts access to basic online documentation and tools required to install, operate and troubleshoot their equipment.

For NEMs, the revenue streams from equipment maintenance and support services used to be byproducts of new hardware sales. However, pursuant to the economic downtown of 2001, this value equation changed. Revenue from service and support maintenance contracts have become the primary driver of profitability for NEMs as growth in hardware sales remains highly competitive, especially with low-cost alternatives from emerging markets. Thus, NEMs closely guard and aggressively manage and negotiate service contract renewals directly and through their channel partners.

Added to this trend of higher margin pursuit, the leading NEMs have realized that their status of quasi monopoly
in providing maintenance services allows them to get away with malpractices that forced customers to either buy their software support service contracts or suffer the consequences.

The Myths and the Malpractices

Industry malpractices exist because of the lack of regulations and structured customer advocacy oversight. This in turn leads to end-customers having little or no choice in the vendors that provide them goods and services. A lack of true competition translates to a lack of choice, which skews the bargaining power in favor of the vendor.

In the case of the networking equipment industry, customers are continuously subjected to unfair and unethical treatments despite their growing budgetary expenditure and loyalty. NEMs often coerce customers into buying maintenance services and support by threatening to discontinue customer access to software bug fixes and basic product documentation.

For a long time, the networking equipment industry has lacked independent watchdogs that would denounce these unethical tactics and advocate fair practices especially regarding software bug fixes. It is imperative that the following key issues be addressed to restore balance and fairness in the way customers are treated as the current status-quo is not sustainable.

• The 90-day Software Warranty. Most new networking hardware usually comes bundled with a base level operating system software package (with an option to purchase and add-on more fully featured versions) and an “industry-standard” 90-day manufacturer warranty. The warranty implies that any hardware or software defect reported by customers within 90 days of product purchase will be replaced by the manufacturer typically within 10 business days of the manufacturer receiving the defective component. Customers without a manufacturer support contract will be declined support for defects reported beyond the 90-day warranty period. While this practice would be deemed legitimate for hardware as 90 days should be more than sufficient to test and discover manufacturer defects in hardware – it is simply inappropriate for software. Considering the fact that there are thousands of features (and millions of lines of code) in all operating system software, it is preposterous to limit customers to this unrealistic timeline, especially bearing in mind that the average user enables less than 10% of all available features in the operating system software within the first 24 months of operation.

• Mandatory-Maintenance-Contract-for-Software-Bug-Fixes. Customers cannot obtain software bug fixes unless their software – which is bundled with the hardware – is under maintenance contract with the manufacturer. If customers decide to turn down the NEM service contract offered at the hardware point of sale, they are informed that they will be denied software bug fixes after the 90-day warranty period unless they pay exorbitant fees of between US$300/hour – US$600/hour with a minimum of US$3000 – US$5000 for each TAC case.

• Inherent-Software-Bugs. Mankind is fallible; as such all software designed by humans will always
  contain defects. In addition to inherent bugs in the code and unlike hardware, there is no wear and tear in software. Put differently, it is impossible for users of any kind of software to introduce defects into the software from overuse of the software. Therefore, if a bug is discovered in software 20 years after its original purchase, it must have come with the original purchase or was introduced during an upgrade. Either way, the customer is not at fault and as such, should not be made to pay the software manufacturer to fix inherent defects in the software.

• Non-Transferable-Software-Licenses. Today, networking equipment operating system software licenses are not transferable. This means that if a customer buys an operating system software, installs it on a network hardware and decides to give it away or sell it in future, the recipient will have to re-pay the manufacturer for the same operating system software license. This is like asking the new owner of a pre-owned car to pay the manufacturer software license fees for use of the on-board navigation system.

• Denial-of-Product-Documentation-for-New-Equipment. Some network equipment manufacturers still deny customers access to new product documentation, software super-user levels (in-depth debug-level software terminal access useful for troubleshooting) or complete access to the product software interface for configuration purposes unless they purchase support contracts along with the software licenses. As with the aforementioned malpractices, this behavior is not only unethical, it is illegal.

The proposed solutions

• Free Lifetime Software Support Warranty*. It is impossible to test tens of thousands of operating system software features for defects across limitless network scenarios within 90 days. And since defects are inherent in all software along with the fact that there is no wear and tear in software, customers should enjoy a no-strings-attached free lifetime support warranty for all operating and application software bug fixes. Minor caveat: The free lifetime warranty proposed here is for software bug fixes only and should not include generic troubleshooting support.

• Sell Software Features a-la-carte. All software should be completely unbundled from hardware and
  sold a-la-carte on a per-feature basis just like music is sold today on a per-track basis on iTunes. This way, customers:
  1. Only pay for the features they really need
  2. Enjoy minimized exposure to defects
  3. Enjoy increased network availability.

  Quick tips: The more software features you run, the less available your network is. Also, the older your software, the more stable your network is.

• Transferable Software Licenses. Networking equipment operating system software
  licenses should be transferable the same way Microsoft operating system software is transferable on the following conditions:
  1. The original owner deletes all prior copies of the software
  2. The new owner agrees to the manufacturer End-User-License-Agreement

• Proactive Software Updates. Networking equipment manufacturers should proactively notify their customers of software defects so that they can review and take necessary preventive actions before their business is negatively impacted from a preventable network outage. Example, customers John and Jane both purchase the same software release. John runs into a defect, reports it to the manufacturer and gets it fixed. At the time of releasing the fix to John, the manufacturer should proactively notify Jane of this defect and release the fix for her before it impacts her network negatively. An example of such practice today is Microsoft, which disseminates bug fixes through the Internet to its customers worldwide proactively through its automatic software update program. Network equipment manufacturers can do the same with email and Really Simple Syndication (RSS) notifications in the absence of an automatic seamless machine-to-machine patch.

Conclusion

The aforementioned malpractices have helped network equipment manufacturers skim billions of dollars away from their customers fraudulently over the past decades by forcing them to pay for bug fixes in proprietary software that customers purchase. These companies have built a financial and business model around maintaining the face-value legitimacy of paying for software maintenance.

Imagine paying $100 for an operating system software with 100 embedded features and you enable 10 of those features immediately. After 18 months of use, you enable the 11th feature only to find out that it does not work as documented or worse still, it causes your network to suffer an outage thereby impacting your company’s revenue, productivity and customer satisfaction amongst other concerns. Is it fair for the manufacturer to make you pay to fix this defect? The answer is NO. The $100 you initially paid was for 100 features that were expected to work as documented, not for 100 bugs

It is time to put an end to this industry-wide malpractice. Customers worldwide should wake up and demand their fundamental software right to a no-fee, no-strings-attached lifetime support warranty for all proprietary network equipment operating system software before renewing their support contracts or purchasing new hardware and software.

Footnote

*It is noteworthy to mention that HP recently announced an industry-first lifetime warranty for its enterprise-grade switch hardware and operating systems software. This is highly remarkable and should serve as the industry standard moving forward.

About the author

Peter Alfred-Adekeye is the founder and CEO of Multiven – the industry’s first hardware-neutral global provider of premium multivendor IP network services, and Pingsta – a collaborative platform for the world’s internetwork experts with a core goal of growing mysolvr™ into the world’s most comprehensive openly-available repository of internetwork intelligence

Peter’s insight into the networking industry is shaped by over fifteen years of service at leading technology companies across the globe and various entrepreneurial adventures. Before Multiven and Pingsta, Peter spent five years at Cisco in the advanced engineering and technical services organization where he excelled in various technical and non-technical leadership positions. He possesses an immense understanding of the internals of Cisco Internetwork Operating System – IOS and IOS-XR source code and a granular understanding of the architecture of all Cisco routers and switches especially the high-end routers – GSR 12000 and the CRS-1. Prior to Cisco, Peter held various network engineering positions at IBM and AT&T Global Network Services based out of the United Kingdom.

• Download a complimentary PDF copy of this Dossier (3.6 MB)

Multiven, the Multiven Dossier and the Multiven logo are registered trademarks of Multiven, Inc. All
other company and product names may be trademarks of the respective companies with which they
are associated.

The content of this dossier is licensed under creative commons