rich@ultra.com (Rich Fall) (12/20/89)
BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: >Hey!!! >Don't forget that Apple are still in the courts over the stupid mistake of >suing the Beatles company Apple for the use of their trade name. (The name >Apple was licenced by the computer company FROM the Beatles company, and as it >turns out, the licence had lapsed and was being used without authorisation.) >As I understand it, the suit is for $10,000,000 +. >They really need to BOMB someone in their legal dept!! FYI: Apple Core (the "Beatles" company) sued Apple Computer, not the other way around, as alleged above. Also, the figure ($10,000,000) is a little off. I believe they sued for more than what Xerox is using for ($150,000,000). A little silly, don't you think? Also, in obvious contradiction to the pervailing beliefs of many posters on the net, Apple Computer DOES license some of Xerox's technology used in the Mac line.
rich@ultra.com (Rich Fall) (12/20/89)
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: >In article <5136@skinner.nprdc.arpa> malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes: >| If Apple brought out the Mac and Lisa >| _before_ the patent was filed, Xerox can't sue for patent >| infringement. > True, but not complete. Xerox may be able to (a) get some of Apples >copyrights and/or patents disallowed, and (b) sue for any royalties >which Apple has been collecting from other vendors. >-- >bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) >"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called >'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see >that the world is flat!" - anon Unless, of course, the statute of limitations has expired for this type of suit, which it may have already done....
kempf@tci.bell-atl.com (Cory Kempf) (12/23/89)
ron@woan.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan) writes: >In article <1989Dec21.010731.5240@hellgate.utah.edu>, >t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) writes: >> Oh, can the PC expand to two monitors and have contiguous workspace that >> is user configurable?? >Run AIX/PS2 or the Interactive Unix with X-Windows and stuff 4 >monitors and run them all under X. Bringing in Unix is begging the issue. > Try that with a stock Mac or price >that with a Mac II. Remember a VGA, 25 MHz '386 with a 150MB Harddrive >will run you under $3500. Add another K for a Weitek floating point >and you have got yourself a mighty nice little workstation. OK, add >another K for a base UNIX OS, too. Still compare that to the 7 or 8K >for a MAC II with A/UX, and you'd still have a few thousand left over >for that 330MB SCSI hard drive. Hate to burst your bubble, but I have just finished purchasing a Mac IIci with a 600Mb Hard disk for under $7k. I don't have A/UX running on it (it's currently running on a IIcx that we have), but I know that I could get A/UX for under a $1k. And if I wanted to, I could also run MS-DOS, without extra hardware. Can your PC run Mac programs? +C -- Cory Kempf Technology Concepts phone: (508) 443-7311 x341 uucp: {anywhere}!uunet!tci!kempf, kempf@tci.bell-atl.com DISCLAIMER: TCI is not responsible for my opinions, nor I for theirs
schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Richard Schaut) (12/23/89)
In article <505@tci.bell-atl.com> kempf@tci.bell-atl.com (Cory Kempf) writes: | | Hate to burst your bubble, but I have just finished purchasing a Mac | IIci with a 600Mb Hard disk for under $7k. I don't have A/UX running | on it (it's currently running on a IIcx that we have), but I know that | I could get A/UX for under a $1k. And if I wanted to, I could also | run MS-DOS, without extra hardware. Can your PC run Mac programs? To be perfectly honest, no. My PC can't run Mac programs (though a good number of Mac programs have been ported to the PC environment), but that's the whole problem. IBM aren't afraid of direct competition within their own hardware platform. Where, pray tell, can one purchase a Mac compatible? This whole discussion began because Apple have been particularly stingy about licensing their own technology including the suit against MicroSoft. Some of us are glad to see Apple get a taste of their own juice. -- Rick "Any questions? Any answers? Anyone care for a mint?" -- Rita Rudner
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (01/16/90)
BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: >Hey!!! >Don't forget that Apple are still in the courts over the stupid mistake of >suing the Beatles company Apple for the use of their trade name. (The name >Apple was licenced by the computer company FROM the Beatles company, and as it >turns out, the licence had lapsed and was being used without authorisation.) >As I understand it, the suit is for $10,000,000 +. >They really need to BOMB someone in their legal dept!! Actually, I don't think they let it lapse. I believe that Beatle-Apple is claiming that the license only covered the use of the name 'Apple' for products not related to the music industry. Their claim is that the Mac has sound capabilities that essentially put the Mac into the music industry in violation of the license. -- --------| With Altzheimer's Disease, every day is a new day! Alien | - Earl McKennon --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson) (01/18/90)
In article <3508@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: > BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: > [] > [] Their claim is that the Mac > has sound capabilities that essentially put the Mac into the music industry > in violation of the license. While I'd hardly rate that as much more musical than those awful greetings cards, some of the quality midi-type control panel software really DOES put the Mac into the 'music industry' category. Now if they'll just make it big enough to read, why I might even take it seriously.. Dave E.