wozniak@utkux1.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) (06/08/90)
I have been wondering about the legality of the following: Suppose you take a programmable RISC based CPU and make it immulate a 68030. Next you write ROM functions with the same name as those in the Mac (so programmes can find them), but maybe optimise them better. Then write an OS that has the same functions as the Mac OS. Use the TIGA chip to control graphics with a Mac emmulator in ROM so that windows open to a "mac-like" screen. Now market it as a Mac compatible. -bryon lape-
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (06/08/90)
In article <1990Jun7.190751.10452@cs.utk.edu> wozniak@utkux1.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) writes: > > I have been wondering about the legality of the following: > > Suppose you take a programmable RISC based CPU and make it >immulate a 68030. Next you write ROM functions with the same name as >those in the Mac (so programmes can find them), but maybe optimise them >better. Then write an OS that has the same functions as the Mac OS. >Use the TIGA chip to control graphics with a Mac emmulator in ROM so >that windows open to a "mac-like" screen. Now market it as a Mac >compatible. You might not violate any copyrights doing this, but there are a few aspects of the Mac OS that are patented, and I suspect that doing this would violate them. DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer. I don't know any lawyers. I don't even want to know any lawyers. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?
chuq@Apple.COM (That's MR. Idiot to you) (06/08/90)
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >> I have been wondering about the legality of the following: >> >> Suppose you take a programmable RISC based CPU and make it >>immulate a 68030. >>Use the TIGA chip to control graphics with a Mac emmulator in ROM so >>that windows open to a "mac-like" screen. Now market it as a Mac >>compatible. >You might not violate any copyrights doing this, but there are a few aspects >of the Mac OS that are patented, and I suspect that doing this would violate >them. It might make sense to research the Microsoft/Apple and DRI [GEM]/Apple disagreements for some idea of how Apple might think of this and what the arguments for and against would be. Personally, I'm more interested in the technical aspects: I wonder how many dozens of people and hundreds of man-years would be needed to (1) build a RISC-based computer, (2) wedge a 60xxx emulator into it, (3) re-implement the Mac ROM in a non-infringing but compatible way, (4) re-implement all the system software as well and (5) get this out on the market -- it seems to me that when you were done paying for all that, it'd be hard to do it and be cheaper than a Mac. This is not a weekend hack we're talking about. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] Wherefore could I not pronounce 'Amen'? I had most need of blessing, and 'Amen' stuck in my throat. --MacBeth
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (06/10/90)
Since large parts of the Mac OS are not in the ROM, your machine would be useless as a Mac clone unless your users had an Apple System file. Apple's licensing agreements say that you can't use their software on non-Apple hardware, so all your users are in violation of their agreements with Apple if they try to make your clone machine run Apple's System. That right there would be enough to really dampen your corporate sales. Furthermore, aren't there cases where perfectly reasonable things that are only usefull for illegal purposes have been prevented from being sold? For example, isn't it illegal to own lock picking tools in some places unless you are a licensed locksmith? Maybe Apple could make a case in court that your machine is only bought by people who are going to illegally use Apple software, and so should not be available. One thing you could would be to clone the System file in addition to cloning the ROM. Now your main problem is that you will probably be at least a year or more behind Apple in System file compatibility. That might really hurt your market. On the other hand, if you machine cost a lot less, there might be a lot of people who don't mind being a year or two behind. Tim Smith
lester@ingr.com (Lester Bartel) (06/12/90)
in article <30664@cup.portal.com>, ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) says: > One thing you could would be to clone the System file in addition to cloning > the ROM. > > Tim Smith It seems you could make a (possibly poor) clone of the system, and therefore have a completely legitimate Mac clone (assuming you did everything else legit). Then the user could get fed up with the clone of the system and use the one supplied by Apple and distributed in almost every package sold for the Mac. -- --- Lester Bartel b23b!naomi!lester@ingr.com Intergraph Corp. uunet!ingr!b23b!naomi!lester
alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle) (06/13/90)
"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it." Doesn't anyone in this industry remember the PAST? Remember 1981, and the IBM PC? This is a done deal, folks! I am constantly saddened at how "the Macintosh Way" clouds the minds of otherwise highly competent individuals. Guys, even Mr. Pepsi has admitted in print that Apple is hurtin' big time, and things are going to get worse before they get better. It's been three years that the mountain has strained to produce the Messiah--the CheapMac--and ONLY NOW they realize they can sell the Plus for $800 to students!? Only now Sculley admits that IBM is performing some heavy heinie-abuse in the former Apple ][ market!? ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes: >Since large parts of the Mac OS are not in the ROM, your machine would >be useless as a Mac clone unless your users had an Apple System file. >Apple's licensing agreements say that you can't use their software on >non-Apple hardware, so all your users are in violation of their agreements >with Apple if they try to make your clone machine run Apple's System. >Maybe Apple could make a case in >court that your machine is only bought by people who are going to illegally >use Apple software, and so should not be available. Horse feathers. Pfui. And even if true, it too can be cloned. It's not that big a deal. Funny, I haven't seen any large ugly Black Mariahs out front whenever I use my Spectre GCR. And Apple has known about this line of products for years, without complaint. Hmm, they haven't gone after Wallaby or the like either. I think your argument is specious. Yes, I know that both products require Apple ROMs, but I reject the idea that this is "just enough" hardware to defend against lawsuits. Further, one can purchase legal copies of the o.s., so Clarus gets his money. People I trust, and who know the code intimately, are not scared of cloning the ROMs. And that's the only part that's protected. The o.s. is just a tad bit of work. >One thing you could would be to clone the System file in addition to cloning >the ROM. Now your main problem is that you will probably be at least a year >or more behind Apple in System file compatibility. That might really hurt >your market. On the other hand, if you[r] machine cost a lot less, there might >be a lot of people who don't mind being a year or two behind. Like the (yes, really, Virginia) tens of thousands of GCR+aMAX+Wallaby users? Like the hundreds of thousands of Plus and earlier users who have NEVER updated? Or the many with 128s and Fat Macs with System 4.2? Yes, System 7.011111111111 is a problem, but the spex are out now. And many many users are price-sensitive, not immediately system-sensitive. Wake up and smell the caffeine. How many suits does IBM have extant against clone computer makers? When was the last one settled? I could lead a Mac `clean' cloning project to market, with a first demonstration at ComDex Fall, with less than ten million dollars--complete. In fact, I'd be a good choice :-) because I know utterly nothing about the Mac system internals. I'd have three teams: one to write the functional spec for ROM and system requirements, one to write them, and one to interface the two. There would be two key support teams: the compatibility testers (who would only talk to the interface group) and the lawyers. This is nothing new; Phoenix took this approach on the first IBM clone BIOS. No one else has (I'm sure most very cheap clone BIOSes are just reassembled, jumbled versions of the PHX and AMI ones) bothered. The hardware itself would be nearly off-the-shelf: 1.44 Mbyte drive (hi, Sony), 8-16 Mhz 680x0, ADB LogiMouse (I think they know how to make 'em after this long supplying Apple), somebody's 20-40 Mbyte HD. The mainboard can be made by the lowest bidder and assembled in whoever's FMF is idle. One plus in this theoretical box over the Plus/SE/30 would be a larger screen. Everyone from Amdek to Zenith can supply same. For my midrange system, I would add a second 68000 for graphics, rather than fiddling with an incompatible speedup chip (29K? C'mon!). Simply offload the SAME code to the graphic CPU... Expansion slot? Dunno. SE, probably, unless I built an ultra-low cost version without. Now, it would probably take three million to defend against the Apple suits, but they would be in vain. PHX and AMI are still in business. Such an effort would not be for the faint of heart, but would result in BETTER Macintoshes, just as the thousands of PC cloners have pushed IBM along. I doubt I'd have to spend a cent on advertising, due to the HUGE editorial coverage such a project would garner! Alex -- Alex Pournelle, freelance thinker Also: Workman & Associates, Data recovery for PCs, Macs, others ...elroy!grian!alex; BIX: alex; voice: (818) 791-7979 fax: (818) 794-2297 bbs: 791-1013; 8N1 24/12/3
thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) (06/16/90)
Can the Mac be cloned? It won't be nearly as easy as the IBM was. First, it is necessary to clone the ROMs. These are rather large (up to 256K) and contain *lots* of stuff. Then it is necessary to clone the OS. (Yes, I know, people buy ROMs and get the OS for clones right now. However, any large- scale operation is going to have to be legal. Apple will *not* allow machines to be sold that require either Apple ROMS or Apple OSs to run.) Finally, it is necessary to weather the user-interface legal storm. I would really like to see some good legal results on the look-and-feel issues. In the meantime, all that is sure is that Apple will sue any Mac clone manufacturer. Assuming this is all done, how much of an improvement will we have? Forcing compatibility will cost money and probably performance. I think any really cheap Mac will have to come from Apple. Too bad Apple never realized that market share is so important in the long run. They have consistently priced their computers high and tried to justify the prices on the grounds of quality. Unfortunately, one aspect of quality is third-party support, which is much more available with more popular machines, and machines with lower cost tend to be more popular. DHT