CON.REILLY@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA (Brian Reilly) (04/06/86)
I agree with the idea that writing to Apple to offer support for the MacCartridge might be helpful to those developing this product, but how can they be convinced that the $100 or whatever they might make on each cartridge isn't just a loss of $2500 for the Mac and peripherals that they didn't sell (and Atari did)? It would be great if Apple gave the okay and allowed them to market their cartridge, but I don't know if there are too many good reasons why Apple would want to do that. David Small also said that selling the cartridge without the ROMs was not something he would consider. - Brian Reilly -------
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (04/09/86)
A question about MacCartridge:
Did I miss something? Why should *anyone* care about Apple's approval?
If the thing was made *wothout* any Apple software or hardware, what
legal claim do they have to prevent this fellow from selling them?
There's a thousand-and-one IBM PC/XT clones on the market, as well as
a hundred-and-one UNIX look-alike systems, as well as...
Apple tried to stop distribution of GEMDOS, and they lost...and they
should have, look-alikes and compatable components are *not* copyright
infrigements...at least not the last time I looked....
--
--- Rob DeMillo
Madison Academic Computer Center
...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo
"If you can't trust wimp lawyers anymore,
who can you trust...?"
-- Mildred Crebs halloran@unirot.UUCP (Bob Halloran) (04/09/86)
In article <2093@uwmacc.UUCP> demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) writes: >A question about MacCartridge: > > Did I miss something? Why should *anyone* care about Apple's approval? >If the thing was made *wothout* any Apple software or hardware, what >legal claim do they have to prevent this fellow from selling them? The problem is that it DOES use Apple software: the cartridge takes the PROMs from a Mac, adds some code to reroute things for the ST hardware, and plugs into the ST cartridge port. Since they're using the Mac ROMs, they DO need to clear it with Sculley et al. While I concur on the GEM issue, this is a clear case of re-use. I hope Apple clears him, but I suspect they won't. Robert Halloran, Consultant ============================================================================= UUCP: ..topaz!caip!unirot!halloran USPS: 19 Culver Ct, Old Bridge NJ 08857 Ph: (201) 251-7514 Disclaimer: Any opinions are due solely to line noise. Quote: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..." -- Hunter Thompson
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (04/09/86)
I was not aware that MacCartridge uses Apple ROM. I stand corrected.
(Too bad...it would've been a hot seller...)
--
--- Rob DeMillo
Madison Academic Computer Center
...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo
"If you can't trust wimp lawyers anymore,
who can you trust...?"
-- Mildred Crebs jons@islenet.UUCP (Jonathan Spangler) (04/13/86)
In article <8604060607.AA07358@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> CON.REILLY@SU-GSB-HOW.ARPA (Brian Reilly) writes: >the MacCartridge might be helpful to those developing this product, but >how can they be convinced that the $100 or whatever they might make >on each cartridge isn't just a loss of $2500 for the Mac and peripherals >that they didn't sell (and Atari did)? It would be great if Apple >gave the okay and allowed them to market their cartridge, but I don't >know if there are too many good reasons why Apple would want to do that. >David Small also said that selling the cartridge without the ROMs was >not something he would consider. > >- Brian Reilly >------- May I make a suggestion? There was mention of something to the effect of getting Apple's approval before the product is marketed. Mr. Reilly is right? Why would Apple ever want to approve something that would hinder one of their products? I believe that David Small should take his product to Digital Research or Atari directly to market his product. When I saw this, the first thing that comes to mind is how useful this would make the ST in terms of taking advantage of available software. And to me, having a machine of the caliber of an ST being Mac compatible is a helluva lot more meaningful than an ST being IBM compatible, simply because the Mac and the ST are much more similar to each other than either is to an IBM. I hope he can pull it through! Good luck with this David! My vote has been cast. Aloha, -- Jonathan Spangler {ihnp4,vortex,dual}!islenet!jons "On Thursday, the world came to an end."
bass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass) (04/15/86)
In article <2093@uwmacc.UUCP>, demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) writes: > A question about MacCartridge: > > Did I miss something? Why should *anyone* care about Apple's approval? > If the thing was made *wothout* any Apple software or hardware, what > legal claim do they have to prevent this fellow from selling them? > > There's a thousand-and-one IBM PC/XT clones on the market, as well as > a hundred-and-one UNIX look-alike systems, as well as... > > Apple tried to stop distribution of GEMDOS, and they lost...and they > should have, look-alikes and compatable components are *not* copyright > infrigements...at least not the last time I looked.... The clones go one step over of the mark ... If I produced a "Star Wars" movie "clone" with a similar script, plot, names, and ending the courts would knock it down in a flash -- even though it was "original" work BASED OR NOT on the real movie. The clones go WAY OVER the copyright mark by using restraint of trade as the issue against the "big bully IBM" -- if the PC was produced by a middle weight company like Altos or Dual they would be struck down in a flash with copyright infringement based on "derivative works" or outright piracy. There are dozens of ways to re-write "Return of the Jedi" most would not fly in the face of a copyright suit .... I don't know why computer jocks are so dam fire sure they are immune to REAL copyright infringment proceedings. Rewriting/coding some ones program (bios, application, utility or OS) is the same is rewriting a movie --- if not legally corrupt, it is clearly morally corrupt. Apple doesn't have much say about the manufacture of the cartridge if it doesn't contain Apple code when shipped .... they have a lot to say about where their roms go. If there isn't any fine print about License of the code, they can make service spare roms an inventory item and place a $1,000 charge/credit on them to insure that the roms are used to replace defectives in the field. -- John Bass (DBA: Fastime, DBA:DMS Design) DMS Design (System Design, Performance and Arch Consultants) {dual,fortune,polyslo,hpda}!dmsd!bass (805) 546-9141
k_lim@hvrford.UUCP (04/21/86)
In article <2093@uwmacc.UUCP>, demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo @ Madison Academic Computer Center) writes: > A question about MacCartridge: > > Did I miss something? Why should *anyone* care about Apple's approval? > If the thing was made *wothout* any Apple software or hardware, what > legal claim do they have to prevent this fellow from selling them? As I understand it, MacCartridge is designed to use the Macintosh ROMs. This *is* use of Apple's software, and so needs to be approved by Apple, unless you can get their ROMs through another source. > Apple tried to stop distribution of GEMDOS, and they lost...and they > should have, look-alikes and compatable components are *not* copyright > infrigements...at least not the last time I looked.... Again, from what I've heard, some changes *did* have to be made to GEMDOS as a result of an out-of-court settlement between DRI and Apple. The current precedents in U.S. law indicate that copying of the "look and feel" of software *is* a copyright infringement. -- Kian-Tat Lim, Haverford College, Haverford, PA BITNET: K_LIM@HVRFORD UUCP: ...!{allegra, burdvax}!sjuvax!hvrford!k_lim
cdshaw@watdragon.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (04/22/86)
In article <230@dmsd.UUCP> bass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass) writes: > >The clones go one step over of the mark ... If I produced a "Star Wars" >movie "clone" with a similar script, plot, names, and ending the courts would >knock it down in a flash -- even though it was "original" work BASED OR NOT >on the real movie. > >There are dozens of ways to re-write "Return of the Jedi" most would not fly >in the face of a copyright suit .... I don't know why computer jocks are >so dam fire sure they are immune to REAL copyright infringment proceedings. >Rewriting/coding some ones program (bios, application, utility or OS) is >the same is rewriting a movie --- if not legally corrupt, it is clearly morally >corrupt. >-- >John Bass (DBA: Fastime, DBA:DMS Design) Yes the clones go over the mark (perhaps).. but total rewrites of software with the same functionality don't. Here's why: The example given about Star Wars superficially holds water, until you make the fundamental distinction between Star Wars and (say) Visicalc: Star Wars is a work of art, and any duplication is both a duplication of material and of "functionality", as it were. Visicalc "duplicates" such as Supercalc is only a duplication of functionality. Much like building a better mouse trap. Copyright (in my LAYMAN'S understanding) only applies if you steal paragraphs from books, and so on. If you express the same thought better, (or worse) nobody can touch you. Copyright suit are only successful if the plaintiff can prove that you stole his idea. Merely looking the same is not good enough grounds. Nor should it be. Chris Shaw watmath!watrose!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo Bogus as HELL !!!