• 0 Posts
  • 25 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle







  • This takes me back. I worked for a software company a long time ago that used these types of physical dongles and they would serve two purposes. One to prevent the software from running, and also to store data in one or more registers with more detailed license entitlements beyond just will it run. Like how many client connections are allowed, license expiry, etc. There was a switch to USB based dongles at some point and then software licenses often tied to physical attributes of the server that the software was running on.

    Physical dongles remained popular with customers for longer than you would expect mostly in my often air gapped previous industry where the ability to rapidly deploy new hardware in the case of a failed server, transferring a dongle based license was a simple matter of plugging the existing dongle into the new server and you were up and running again. Many soft licenses required internet connectivity or required you to revoke the license from the old server and reassign on the new computer taking into account the new hardware identifiers for locking the license down to the specific server.

    I can still hear them rattling about in my top work drawer as I opened and closed them.






  • I presume the rationale is that when these claims became public the stock price was adversely impacted meaning public investors during that period lost money. Not all shareholders are wealthy people playing the dips and highs for maximum gains or have any connection to the bank itself. For example some everyday people may have had their modest retirement funds or life savings impacted as some of these investments commonly include bank stocks as they are seen as “safe” and are usually not direct investment decisions that these people make if part of a managed portfolio.

    This is the risk that comes with holding stock directly or indirectly, but for some this not really a “benefit” but an attempt to get back their hard earned money that they tucked away and then lost through no fault of their own. Governments have historically bailed out banks when they are in trouble regardless if caused by the banks actions or not, so I see no reason why a bank should not have to cover people’s losses caused by their corrupt actions through a class action lawsuit.