jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) (09/25/90)
From Robert X. Cringely's "Notes from the Field" column in InfoWorld: NO MORE ROM-MATES. Not to be outdone by IBM, Apple Computer first bought Outbound's laptop technology and licensed it back to the Colorado lap-Mac maker, and now they've deliberately shut down the legal suppy of Mac ROMs for these and other machines. As of September 15, Apple stopped selling Mac ROMs to anyone, unless they are in exchange for a "broken" set. Previously, Apple dealers and service centers could buy as many ROMs as they liked at $120 per set, but too many were ending up in Outbounds and in Mac emulators for other computers." Buy 'em now, buckos. -- J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics (713) 749-2120 Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Skate UNIX(r)
liberato@dri.com (Jimmy Liberato) (09/25/90)
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes: >From Robert X. Cringely's "Notes from the Field" column in InfoWorld: >... > As of September 15, Apple stopped selling Mac ROMs to anyone, unless they >are in exchange for a "broken" set. Previously, Apple dealers and service >centers could buy as many ROMs as they liked at $120 per set, but too many >were ending up in Outbounds and in Mac emulators for other computers." >Buy 'em now, buckos. The rationale for this really escapes me. It sounds like they are making them unavailable at _any_ price. This is particularly foolish since Mac ROM images have been available on disk for some time. This is blatant corporate encouragement of piracy and a foolhardy marketing move in the long term. Though I have not been very enthused by the ROM image files (mainly because they also contained pirated AMAX software and ReadySoft really should be supported) let's face it, the ROMs are not neccessary to the proper functioning of AMAX. This will really backfire on Apple. Hmmm, I just thought of something. Perhaps this is a first step in Apple's litigation against ReadySoft. If ROMs are made unavailable then ReadySoft is selling a product than can only be used with illegal Apple firm/software. It is a far stretch but who would want to face Apple's corp of lawyers? My ROMs were surplus used ones and as long as such a supply exists then that principle fails. -- Jimmy Liberato liberato@dri.com ...uunet!drivax!liberato
d6b@psuecl.bitnet (09/26/90)
In article <1990Sep24.214407.772@lavaca.uh.edu>, jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes: > From Robert X. Cringely's "Notes from the Field" column in InfoWorld: > > As of September 15, Apple stopped selling Mac ROMs to anyone, unless they > are in exchange for a "broken" set. Previously, Apple dealers and service > centers could buy as many ROMs as they liked at $120 per set, but too many > were ending up in Outbounds and in Mac emulators for other computers." > > Buy 'em now, buckos. Oh, that's good. Now no one need feel guilty for pirating the Mac OS. :-) -- Dan Babcock
UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) (09/26/90)
OKay, how 'bout this? You buy one of the low cost Mac's to be announced
next month. You network it to your Amiga running AMAX, and then AMAX
reads the ROM right out of the Mac?
This thought occurred to me because of a comparison on comp.sys.next, that
showed that a NeXTStation with a NeXT Laser Printer attached is a better
deal than the top of the line Apple LaserPrinter.
leetron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) (09/28/90)
>Resp: 2 of 2 About: Re: Is AMAX doomed? ><> [Lee Sailer] (*Masked*@psuvm.psu.edu) >OKay, how 'bout this? You buy one of the low cost Mac's to be announced >next month. You network it to your Amiga running AMAX, and then AMAX >reads the ROM right out of the Mac? > Actually , it's been done before. (grin). BTW -- Apple cannot sue ReadySoft in this regard. All ReadySoft would have to do is say that you need to own a Mac to use it legally. The C64 Emulators from a while back (readysoft or that other one , forget wich) had a BASIC program IN THE MANUAL that would produce a ROM image and save it in a format the emulator could use. All they said was "go to the C64 you already own" or something like that. ========[ Xanadu Enterprises Inc. Amiga & Unix Software Development]======= =Also the mantra and spells, the obeah and the wanga; the work of the wand= =and the work of the sword: these shall he learn and teach. = = He must teach; but he may make severe the ordeals. = =========== Ken Jamieson: uunet!tronsbox.xei.com!tron1 =================== = NONE of the opinions represented here are endorsed by either = = Xanadu Enterpises or its clients, AT&T Bell Labs or others. = === The Romantic Encounters BBS 201-759-8450(PEP) / 201-759-8568(2400) ====
Lee_Robert_Willis@cup.portal.com (10/04/90)
>>From Robert X. Cringely's "Notes from the Field" column in InfoWorld: > >>... >> As of September 15, Apple stopped selling Mac ROMs to anyone, unless they >>are in exchange for a "broken" set. Previously, Apple dealers and service >>centers could buy as many ROMs as they liked at $120 per set, but too many >>were ending up in Outbounds and in Mac emulators for other computers." > >>Buy 'em now, buckos. > >The rationale for this really escapes me. It sounds like they are making >them unavailable at _any_ price. This is particularly foolish since Mac >ROM images have been available on disk for some time. ...(other stuff deleted.) HEY! If Mac ROM images are available, then why do we have to buy Mac ROMs for AMAX? Why not use RAM and load the images from disk (a la KickStart)? Lee UseNet: Lee_Robert_Willis@cup.portal.com
greg@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (10/05/90)
In article <34522@cup.portal.com> Lee_Robert_Willis@cup.portal.com writes: >HEY! If Mac ROM images are available, then why do we have to buy Mac ROMs >for AMAX? Why not use RAM and load the images from disk (a la KickStart)? Because the Mac ROM images that are available are ILLEGAL COPIES! Assuming that Apple has actually stopped selling the ROMs except as replacement parts, then Readysoft will probably provide a Mac ROM-compatible kernal with their software that will be, well, less compatible. They could then provide a program for the owner to copy the Mac ROM image from a Mac onto disk and use it instead. "Go the the Mac that _you_ _own_ and run our program." :-) :-) :-) [Hey, it works for the guy who wrote Go64 and TheA64Project...] > Lee > UseNet: Lee_Robert_Willis@cup.portal.com Greg "Nail the jerks at Apple to the wall!" Harp -- Disclaimer: "Who me? Surely you must be mistaken!" _ _ "The lunatic is in the hall. The lunatics are in my hall. AMIGA! //// The paper holds their folded faces to the floor, //// And every day the paperboy brings more." -- Pink Floyd _ _ //// \\\\//// Greg Harp greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu \\XX//
lar@pc.usl.edu (Robert, Lane A.) (10/05/90)
In article <37923@ut-emx.uucp> greg@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
They could then provide a program for the owner to copy the Mac ROM
image from a Mac onto disk and use it instead.
Sorry, still illegal. Even if you own the Mac. Any mechanism that
makes a copy of the ROM image violates Apple's copyright, unless it is
for archival purposes. You could, though, remove the ROMs from the
Mac and plug them into the AMAX. Kinda defeats the purpose of the
AMAX, though.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV.
Lane
lar@usl.edumike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers) (10/11/90)
In article <LAR.90Oct5110105@pc.usl.edu>, lar@usl.edu (Robert, Lane A.) wrote: >Sorry, still illegal. Even if you own the Mac. Any mechanism that >makes a copy of the ROM image violates Apple's copyright, unless it is No, if you're going to use the routines on only one CPU then you're okay there. I guess you just have to promise never to operate both your Amiga and Mac at the same time :-) -- Mike Rogers, Box 6, Regent Hse, Eire. | Freedom is not a right, mike@hamilton.maths.tcd.ie (UNIX=>AOK)| Democracy is the icing on the cake, mike@tcdmath.uucp (UUCP=>oldie/goodie)| All desserts must be earned, msrogers@vax1.tcd.ie(VMS => blergh) | And there's always calories to be lost.
carpente@corinth.uucp (Michael A. Carpenter OSBU North) (10/12/90)
Re: Buying a Mac and copying/using the ROMs for another computer (AMAX) One of the current third-party Mac-ish portables works this way. You buy the portable (not Apples, another company's) and take the ROMs out of your MAC and put them in the portable. Then you take your portable and do whatever. Now - when you want to use the regular MAC (which is dead without ROMs), you connect the two via some special docking device which allows the desktop Mac to use the ROMs from the portable (which originally came from the desktop Mac). This is considered legal - at least Apple hasn't sued them yet. Michael
lar@pc.usl.edu (Robert, Lane A.) (10/13/90)
In article <1990Oct11.101821.13021@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers) writes: In article <LAR.90Oct5110105@pc.usl.edu>, lar@usl.edu (Robert, Lane A.) wrote: >Sorry, still illegal. Even if you own the Mac. Any mechanism that >makes a copy of the ROM image violates Apple's copyright, unless it is No, if you're going to use the routines on only one CPU then you're okay there. I guess you just have to promise never to operate both your Amiga and Mac at the same time :-) Not true. I quote from the book _The_Law_of_Computer_Technology_ by Raymond T. Nimmer: "Assuming copyrightability and compliance with the statutory requirements, an author may enforce certain exclusive rights in a work. These include the exclusive right to reproduce the work, to distribute copies, and to prepare derivative works. Under the terms of the Act, a person who acts in violation of these exclusive rights infringes the copyright and may be subject to civil or criminal liability." Thus it is the act of *copying* that is protected, not the use. Lane lar@usl.edu
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (10/14/90)
>>>Sorry, still illegal. Even if you own the Mac. Any mechanism that >>>makes a copy of the ROM image violates Apple's copyright, unless it is > >>No, if you're going to use the routines on only one CPU then >>you're okay there. I guess you just have to promise never to >>operate both your Amiga and Mac at the same time :-) > >Not true. I quote from the book _The_Law_of_Computer_Technology_ by >Raymond T. Nimmer: > > "Assuming copyrightability and compliance with the statutory > requirements, an author may enforce certain exclusive rights > in a work. These include the exclusive right to reproduce the > work, to distribute copies, and to prepare derivative works. > Under the terms of the Act, a person who acts in violation of > these exclusive rights infringes the copyright and may be > subject to civil or criminal liability." > >Thus it is the act of *copying* that is protected, not the use. Something is wrong here somewhere, and it may be your book, or that you took a quote out of context. But I think we all know for a FACT that we are legally entitled to make a single backup copy of any software we buy, as long as 1) we only run one copy on one machine at any one time and 2) we do not distribute the software. Your quote above contradicts this as far as I can tell, so as I said, either your book is wrong, or this quote is out of context and needs to have its scope clarified. Perhaps that line "assuming compliance with statutory requirements" is the clincher? Kurt -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- || Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || Amigas, Macs, IBM's, C-64's, NeXTs, || || 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. || Apple ]['s.... I use 'em all. || || Malvern, PA 19355-2214 || (and in that order too! ;-) || || jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu --------------------------------------|| || jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe || -----------------------------------------------------------------------
lar@pc.usl.edu (Robert, Lane A.) (10/14/90)
In article <90286.212538JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: Something is wrong here somewhere, and it may be your book, or that you took a quote out of context. But I think we all know for a FACT that we are legally entitled to make a single backup copy of any software we buy, as long as 1) we only run one copy on one machine at any one time and 2) we do not distribute the software. Your quote above contradicts this as far as I can tell, so as I said, either your book is wrong, or this quote is out of context and needs to have its scope clarified. Perhaps the book dates to before that part of the law was written. But this provision only allows one to make a copy for backup purposes - not for use in another machine. Perhaps that line "assuming compliance with statutory requirements" is the clincher? Maybe, but I interpret this to mean you did all the necessary paperwork, inserted all the required copyright messages, dotted all the i's, crossed all the t's, etc. This thread has gotten a bit far afield for this group. Any lawyer types out there feel like settling this once and for all? Lane lar@usl.edu