1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

3S Ownership question

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by GeoCook, Apr 28, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GeoCook

    GeoCook TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    89
    I heard through the grapevine that the ownership of the 3S Software is in question. I would like to clear this up in this thread. The gentelman that does the Spring Grand has been telling people that he gets a fee for each copy of my software that I sell because it is acutally his software. This is NOT the case. I do pay him a royalty for each copy I sell due to the fact that he patented the computer squadding concept. We both do computer squadding but there is a difference on HOW we do it. Rather than fight in court over this issue, in which the only winners are the lawyers, I elected to pay a royalty to him. His system is DOS, mine is Windows. Every line of code in my system was written by me and I had never heard of this man until after I had written my software. I began to write software for shooting in 1983 in DOS but when Windows came out I decided to re-write all of the code in C++ on a Windows platform. I hope this clears up any question on the ownership of the 3S Software.

    George R Cook

    Shooting Sports Software
     
  2. b12

    b12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,045
    Oh hell yes I understood every word of it. Wild Bill
     
  3. GeoCook

    GeoCook TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    89
    Has nothign to do with the $700k thread. The 3S System is used by individual's and clubs to cashier their tournaments.

    In regards to the $700k thread, if I am reading this correctly, the ATA did not spend $700k for this software as that price was too high. The ATA went with a low bid of $130k to a company in Kansas City which is having problems delivering the system and is behind schedule. If the ATA had purchased the $700 k system I think things would be better than they are now.

    George
     
  4. Ahab

    Ahab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,650
    George ... are you saying that nameisjoe is wrong??????????

    Is it possible that he is spouting pure BS??????????

    Oh sxxt! My world is crashing!!!!!!!!!
     
  5. GeoCook

    GeoCook TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    89
    This thread and the $700k thread are not related in any way. I am speaking about my Tournament Cashiering system and not the ATA's issues.

    From what I understand is that the ATA decided to bring all of the software systems under a single vendor and the end result is some problems getting the software to work. Systems like this do not just get "INSTALLED" like a washing machine. I don't care how long a new system has been functioning, there is ALWAYS one more bug. And bringing a new system online is a long slow process. They will get it going down the line. We just need to make sure that when the system is done and turned over to the ATA we don't hear, "It's exactly what we asked for but it's not what we want" . That is when you can start getting excited.

    George Cook

    3S
     
  6. frostyman

    frostyman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,035
    Location:
    missouri
    I agree with George Cook on software development. I have been a programmer for 35 years, before there were PC's. There are always glitches to work on, and there are definitely issues with what the person/company asks for, what they get, and what they really wanted. Many times what they ask for and what they wanted are not even close or they find out later that they needed to ask for a lot more which also will cost a lot more. People familiar with trapshooting may think things are obvious but the people writing the software may not.

    The ATA wanted to replace a lot of software and hardware so it was all integrated better including but not limited to what Mr. Stewart had originally developed that they were using. The ATA wanted to own it and be able to maintain it and not have to pay someone each time something needed upgrading.

    That is one thing a lot of people don't think about is you may own the data but you may not own the software so you are at someone else's mercy.

    And yes Lawyer's will suck you dry and no body wins.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.