postmaster@apple.com (Erik E. Fair) (06/14/89)
I have been asked to post the following announcement widely. Erik E. Fair apple!fair fair@apple.com NOTICE TO INTERNET AND USENET USERS It has been reported to Apple Computer, Inc. that a copy of portions of its copyrighted source code, which were stolen, has been posted on USENET. This is to notify all users of USENET that Apple's source code is copyrighted, contains valuable trade secrets and is protected from unauthorized use or disclosure by law. The copy of Apple's source code placed on USENET was obtained illegally, without Apple's consent or authorization. Any copying or use of Apple's source code constitutes willful copyright infringement and knowing possession of stolen property, and may result in both civil and criminal penalties. Apple has notified the appropriate authorities who are investigating the theft of its source code. In addition, Apple directed its Legal Department to pursue remedies against anyone who makes unauthorized use of its source code. If you have any information regarding unauthorized use of Apple's source code, please contact Ken Moore at Apple Computer, Inc. Ken Moore can be reached via (408) 974-5584 moore2@applelink.apple.com moore2%applelink.apple.com@apple.com apple!applelink.apple.com!moore2
mikej@lilink.UUCP (Michael R. Johnston) (06/14/89)
In article <32402@apple.Apple.COM> moore2@applelink.apple.com writes: > It has been reported to Apple Computer, Inc. that a copy of >portions of its copyrighted source code, which were stolen, has been >posted on USENET. This is to notify all users of USENET that Apple's Can someone clue me in on exactly WHAT brought this on? -- Michael R. Johnston System Administrator rutgers!lilink!mikej LILINK Public Access Xenix (516) 872-2137/2138/2349 1200/2400 Login: new
clarke@acheron.UUCP (Ed Clarke/10240000) (06/14/89)
From article <32402@apple.Apple.COM>, by postmaster@apple.com (Erik E. Fair): - I have been asked to post the following announcement widely. - Erik E. Fair apple!fair fair@apple.com - Apple's consent or authorization. Any copying or use of Apple's source - code constitutes willful copyright infringement and knowing possession - of stolen property, and may result in both civil and criminal - penalties. While I'm perfectly willing to remove Apple's property, it would be nice if you specified exactly what it is that I'm supposed to remove?? What group did it get posted in, and what are the article numbers and subjects? I mean really guy ... this is like saying "You did something naughty to me and I'm gonna take you to court." Be specific! -- Ed Clarke uunet!bywater!acheron!clarke
davidsen@sungod.crd.ge.com (William Davidsen) (06/15/89)
In article <32402@apple.Apple.COM> moore2@applelink.apple.com writes: [ ... ] | NOTICE TO INTERNET AND USENET USERS | | It has been reported to Apple Computer, Inc. that a copy of | portions of its copyrighted source code, which were stolen, has been | posted on USENET. This is to notify all users of USENET that Apple's | source code is copyrighted, contains valuable trade secrets and is | protected from unauthorized use or disclosure by law. The copy of | Apple's source code placed on USENET was obtained illegally, without | Apple's consent or authorization. Any copying or use of Apple's source | code constitutes willful copyright infringement and knowing possession | of stolen property, and may result in both civil and criminal | penalties. Whoever wrote this seems unconcerned with the bad feelings it might engender. Not a polite note saying "Some of our code was posted without permission, if you find copyrighted Apple code please delete it." Not a list of article numbers and the groups to which they were posted. Instead a naked threat of legal action, without any indication of what it is we are asked, or rather ordered, to find and delete. To post a notice which is threatening and arrogant is a good way to insure that no one goes beyond their legal obligation to assist the threatening company. This lack of tact is unprofessional and counterproductive. bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
brown@astroatc.UUCP (Vidiot) (06/15/89)
In article <32402@apple.Apple.COM> moore2@applelink.apple.com writes:
<I have been asked to post the following announcement widely.
<
< Erik E. Fair apple!fair fair@apple.com
<
<
< NOTICE TO INTERNET AND USENET USERS
<
< It has been reported to Apple Computer, Inc. that a copy of
<portions of its copyrighted source code, which were stolen, has been
<posted on USENET. [...]
I hate to sound a little dumb, but what the Hell was stolen, ie, what
was the name or what did the program do?
What good is it to say that something has been stolen without describing
the stolen item.
This posting lost me.
--
harvard\ att!nicmad\
Vidiot ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!brown
rutgers/ decvax!nicmad/
ARPA/INTERNET: brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edujgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (John G Dobnick,EMS E380,4142295727,) (06/15/89)
From article <2073@astroatc.UUCP>, by brown@astroatc.UUCP (Vidiot): > In article <32402@apple.Apple.COM> moore2@applelink.apple.com writes: > <I have been asked to post the following announcement widely. > < Erik E. Fair apple!fair fair@apple.com > < NOTICE TO INTERNET AND USENET USERS > < It has been reported to Apple Computer, Inc. that a copy of > <portions of its copyrighted source code, which were stolen, has been > <posted on USENET. [...] > > I hate to sound a little dumb, but what the Hell was stolen, ie, what > was the name or what did the program do? > > What good is it to say that something has been stolen without describing > the stolen item. (Assuming the validity of other postings... a sometimes dangerous activity) Someone received a disk which claimed to contain source code to Apple Mac ROMS. (Color QuickDraw, I think, and other ROM software.) The (self-styled?) nuPromethius League claimed "credit" saying "we at Apple" are doing this to make it easier for clone-makers. They promised version 7.) of the OS when they could get it, along with other Apple software. Naturally, Apple frowns on this. Hence the stongly worded note. Personally, I see no evidence on my system that any such source was posted to netnews. No source, no cancel messages, no gaps in article sequence numbers... I don't think anything was posted to the net. One person proposed the "Reichstag Fire" theory... namely that Apple themselves "leaked" some innocuous source to lay the legal groundwork for challenging any Mac clones. (See comp.sys.mac.programmer, among other groups, for the original articles.) I gather that Mac clones are immenent. This brouhaha seems to put a severe legal damper on release of such clones -- the clonemakers will now have to prove they *didn't* have access to Apple source. I see the potential for nasty copyright battles, possibly putting "look and feel" to shame. [An interesting theory -- an "attack" leak.] -- John G Dobnick Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu UUCP: <backbone>!uwvax!uwmcsd1!jgd "Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (06/15/89)
In article <786@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <32402@apple.Apple.COM> moore2@applelink.apple.com writes: >[rather hostile sounding note about illegal posting of Apple code] > Whoever wrote this seems unconcerned with the bad feelings it might >engender. > > To post a notice which is threatening and arrogant is a good way to >insure that no one goes beyond their legal obligation to assist the >threatening company. This lack of tact is unprofessional and >counterproductive. In other words, it is the work of a lawyer. 'nuff said. ------------------------------ valuable coupon ------------------------------- Bill Thacker wbt@cbnews.att.com att!cbnews!wbt "Bill told Stephanie to urge Ridge to marry Brooke if Stephanie wants to save Thorne and Caroline's marriage." (Summary of the plot of "The Bold and the Beautiful", by Nancy Reichardt, in "The Knoxville News-Sentinel, 12-18-88) Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke ! ------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------
jack@csccat.UUCP (Jack Hudler) (06/15/89)
In article <786@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <32402@apple.Apple.COM> moore2@applelink.apple.com writes: > [ ... ] > >| NOTICE TO INTERNET AND USENET USERS >| >| It has been reported to Apple Computer, Inc. that a copy of >| portions of its copyrighted source code, which were stolen, has been >| posted on USENET. This is to notify all users of USENET that Apple's >| source code is copyrighted, contains valuable trade secrets and is >| protected from unauthorized use or disclosure by law. The copy of >| Apple's source code placed on USENET was obtained illegally, without >| Apple's consent or authorization. Any copying or use of Apple's source >| code constitutes willful copyright infringement and knowing possession >| of stolen property, and may result in both civil and criminal >| penalties. > > Whoever wrote this seems unconcerned with the bad feelings it might >engender. Not a polite note saying "Some of our code was posted without >permission, if you find copyrighted Apple code please delete it." Not a >list of article numbers and the groups to which they were posted. >Instead a naked threat of legal action, without any indication of what >it is we are asked, or rather ordered, to find and delete. > > To post a notice which is threatening and arrogant is a good way to >insure that no one goes beyond their legal obligation to assist the >threatening company. This lack of tact is unprofessional and >counterproductive. I suspect this may be the desired effect, or they maybe delaying just long enough so that it will expire on most machine. I figure 80% of the net is expiry at 7 days or less. This way if you haven't found it yet.. your not going to. Then maybe this is just a threat just incase someone does post them. I haven't found anything that looks like apple sauce.. opps source, but then they didn't say where to look, and if it's really been posted and it's good stuff, do they honestly think most people are not going to look at it.. if not save it? -- Classic Quotes from STNG: "Pen Pals" Picard: Her society is aware .. that there is intersteller life? Data: No Sir. Picard: Oooops..
ingoldsb@ctycal.COM (Terry Ingoldsby) (06/16/89)
In article <627@acheron.UUCP>, clarke@acheron.UUCP (Ed Clarke/10240000) writes: > From article <32402@apple.Apple.COM>, by postmaster@apple.com (Erik E. Fair): > - I have been asked to post the following announcement widely. > - Erik E. Fair apple!fair fair@apple.com > - Apple's consent or authorization. Any copying or use of Apple's source > - code constitutes willful copyright infringement and knowing possession > - of stolen property, and may result in both civil and criminal > - penalties. > What if somebody stole a recording from a recording studio and played it over a radio station. Would all the people receiving the transmission be at fault? They just happened to have their radios turned on at the wrong time, and received the stolen material. Perhaps one of the people with their radio on was talking long distance to a relative, and the song got transmitted via the telephone. Would the telecommunications company then be held responsible for carrying the stolen transmission? I agree with a poster that suggested that we be given specifics of what we are supposed to remove. I also agree that Apple has every right to advise people that, should stolen goods arrive on their system they should be deleted. I think it is important to clarify that transmission of stolen goods is the fault of the poster, not of all the sites that might unwittingly carry the traffic. Catch the thief that stole the code from Apple; don't engage on witchhunts that serve no purpose. -- Terry Ingoldsby ctycal!ingoldsb@calgary.UUCP Land Information Systems or The City of Calgary ...{alberta,ubc-cs,utai}!calgary!ctycal!ingoldsb
ken@capone.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (06/16/89)
In article <2928@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (John G Dobnick,EMS E380,4142295727,) writes: > >I gather that Mac clones are immenent. This brouhaha seems to put a >severe legal damper on release of such clones -- the clonemakers will >now have to prove they *didn't* have access to Apple source. I see the >potential for nasty copyright battles, possibly putting "look and feel" >to shame. > If you're not a lawyer, don't reply to this...too many people think they know the law and don't... Last time I read legal theory, you were innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable shadow...and all that. Is it not incumbent upon Apple, in a suit, to prove that a clone-maker DID have access to the source, and not the responsability of the clone- maker to prove he didn't?? What am I missing here? In any case, is it not true that companies like Chips and Technologies have established precident that it IS possible to clone something exactly (bug-for-bug) without access to proprietary material? ...ken seefried iii ken@gatech.edu ken seefried iii ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs, ken@gatech.edu masscomp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax, ut-ngp, ut-sally}!gatech!ken
pj@pnet51.cts.com (Paul Jacoby) (06/16/89)
>[An interesting theory -- an "attack" leak.] That is an interesting theory. Take this into account: The creator type of the new '32-bit Quickdraw' startup document is LEAK. No kidding. .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {rosevax, crash, orator}!orbit!pnet51!pj | Working with idiots keeps | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!pj@nosc.mil | my life interesting... | | INET: pj@pnet51.cts.com | | `-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (06/16/89)
In article <841@hydra.gatech.EDU> ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >In any case, is it not true that companies like Chips and Technologies >have established precident that it IS possible to clone something exactly >(bug-for-bug) without access to proprietary material? It is possible to find out about bugs in a chip without access to proprietary materials. In some cases it is essential, if you are trying to duplicate function (as C&T needs to do in it's chipsets) to also replicate the bugs (!) because some programs depend on them. Note however that cloning the Mac Roms and developing a chipset that provides much of the functionality of a PC are two different things. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP ``The worst thing about being a vampire is that you can't go to matinees and save money anymore.''
dwb@sticks.apple.com (David W. Berry) (06/16/89)
In article <881@orbit.UUCP> pj@pnet51.cts.com (Paul Jacoby) writes: >>[An interesting theory -- an "attack" leak.] > >That is an interesting theory. Take this into account: The creator type of >the new '32-bit Quickdraw' startup document is LEAK. No kidding. Couldn't possibly because the programmer's name is Bruce Leak could it? Opinions: MINE, ALL MINE! (greedy evil chuckle) David W. Berry (A/UX Toolbox Engineer) dwb@apple.com 973-5168@408.MaBell AppleLink: berry1
captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) (06/16/89)
In article <350@ctycal.UUCP> ingoldsb@ctycal.COM (Terry Ingoldsby) writes: >In article <627@acheron.UUCP>, clarke@acheron.UUCP (Ed Clarke/10240000) writes: >> From article <32402@apple.Apple.COM>, by postmaster@apple.com (Erik E. Fair): >> - I have been asked to post the following announcement widely. >> - Erik E. Fair apple!fair fair@apple.com >> - Apple's consent or authorization. Any copying or use of Apple's source >> - code constitutes willful copyright infringement and knowing possession >> - of stolen property, and may result in both civil and criminal >> - penalties. >What if somebody stole a recording from a recording studio and played it over >a radio station. Would all the people receiving the transmission be at fault? >They just happened to have their radios turned on at the wrong time, and received >the stolen material. Perhaps one of the people with their radio on was talking >long distance to a relative, and the song got transmitted via the telephone. >Would the telecommunications company then be held responsible for carrying the >stolen transmission? I'd think not. However, if one of the listeners decided to pop a tape in a deck and recorded the stolen music, and kept it even after being informed it was stolen, it would be illegal. I think part of the purpose of this posting is to make people who read c.s.m and have received the source code to delete it. I agree with Apple's (implied) statement than keeping copies of the source code around *is* willful copyright violation (the key word here being willful - if you receive the disk, you did not decide to receive it. If you *keep* the disk or make copies of it, you decide to do so). However... The people at Apple should have had the tact to *ask* people to delete, and possibly asking for their cooperation (ie reporting receiving the stolen stuff to Apple) in detecting the thieves. I gotta believe knowing all the people who received the source code could give you some pretty good clues to who stole the code. Threatening legal action and throwing your weight around will not get you cooperation from most people. > Terry Ingoldsby ctycal!ingoldsb@calgary.UUCP -Ivan Cavero Belaunde Internet: captkidd@athena.mit.edu
mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (06/17/89)
In article <841@hydra.gatech.EDU> ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >If you're not a lawyer, don't reply to this...too many people think >they know the law and don't... I'm not a lawyer, but I know enough about the law to know that you can't stop me from replying. :-) >Last time I read legal theory, you were innocent until proven guilty >beyond a reasonable shadow...and all that. > >Is it not incumbent upon Apple, in a suit, to prove that a clone-maker >DID have access to the source, and not the responsability of the clone- >maker to prove he didn't?? What am I missing here? This is true in theory. The problem is, you don't have to prove that you have a case before you can sue. It is quite possible for someone with 'deep pockets' to sue, sue, sue, and sue, until the less well-heeled victim is bankrupted by legal fees, and it doesn't make a shred of difference how innocent the victim is. Apple is one of the major offenders in this particular kind of harrasment. Nothing would give me a bigger belly-laugh than to see them get bit back in a big way. -- Mike Van Pelt Help stamp out Mickey-Mouse Headland Technology/Video 7 computer interfaces -- ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp Menus are for Restaurants!
timk@egvideo.UUCP (Tim Kuehn) (06/19/89)
*Apple, in the throes of a violent renaissance, is trying to through some *If apple keeps all of this nonsense up, they will continue to spiral *lost and out of control. They will keep trying to hold anyone up *who get anywhere close to them so that they won't have to play to in *the R&D race. And in a little while, they will be left behind. Some *other company will do what the original apple did. They will be the *cute underdog and will fight apple tooth and nail until apple is weak *and weary from fighting. * *Apple needs to wise up very soon. They aren't gods. They are just *a bunch of punks. And we all know how popular old punks are. * *Tom Dixon *uunet!pdn!dixon *AT&T Paradyne, A company I do not speak for...... Just watch the battle between Ashton-Tate and Fox Software. They're already starting to fight this same kind of battle - the older, technologically less advanced A-T going after the better, stronger, faster (albeit younger and not quite as big) Fox software - except that Fox SW isn't laying over and dying - they're going head-to-head with A-T on this. Of course the user community has a vote in this too. The SEA vs. PKWARE lawsuit (look-and-feel was an "issue" there too - SEA threatened to sue PKWARE over that, and also the matter that they had supposedly the trade-mark on the word "ARC") may have gotten Phil Katz to stop making ARC format compatable software, nobody'll use SEA's stuff for backup any more! +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Timothy D. Kuehn timk@egvideo | |TDK Consulting Services !watmath!egvideo!timk | |871 Victoria St. North, Suite 217A | |Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2B 3S4 (519)-741-3623 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
john@zygot.UUCP (John Higdon) (06/19/89)
In article <736@rwing.UUCP>, pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes: > Reason I'm adding my 2 cents worth - is that at least with myself, > Apple is doing their overall reputation no good at all with this sort > of conduct - using the courts to surpress competition from makers that > may be less well-heeled, but turn out a product that is equal to or > better than the original in terms of performance, and at a lower > price. It appears to me that Apple would rather not have others > engage in a free market, instead they want to keep a lock on the > market for themselves. This would mean they have to spend less on > R&D, be less concerned about product improvements, customer support, > the whole ball of wax. And they are then free to charge whatever they > want, since there would be no similar products available for less > money. Are you advocating a free market, or a free-for-all market in which anyone of free to steal the work of another avoid all those nasty R&D costs, add a few enhancements and sell the whole package for less than the originator does? Since when is Apple keeping a lock on the market? Anyone, anywhere, at anytime is perfectly free to invent, develop, produce and market at a lower price a product superior to the Macintosh. Are you annoyed that no one has yet been able to do that without *stealing* critical secrets that go into the Mac? If all you had to do to come out with a Mac competitor was to take the technology (including imbedded code) that comprises the Apple product and add a couple of ideas of your own, then you are right: you certainly could sell it for less. But is that fair? > I really wonder if the founders of Apple would have done so well, if > the market climate when they started up was like the climate Apple is > now creating? By doing what? Protecting what is rightfully theirs? Or do you feel that all trade secrets should just be public domain and no one has a right, regardless of development cost, to make money with them? > As for myself, I plan to (and have) avoided Apple products like the > plague, and will continue to do so. I also express my feelings to any > clients - indicating that while the Apple products are no doubt well > built, and of good quality, I think supporting a company with their > attitude and way of doing business goes counter to everyone's best So you buy attitude, not product. Well, that's your right. And if you want to deprive yourself of that rare commodity in American business today (an excellent product) because its maker wants to protect its ability to continue to produce that product, by all means, do so. > interests in the long run. In short, I think Apple is doing a great > job of earning themselves a LOUSY reputation. And postings like the > recent legal threat only supports that reputation. Well, if you contributed as much to the net as Apple does and then had your livelihood splattered over that same net, I wonder if you would be so blase that you would just ignore the whole thing. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (06/19/89)
In <6198@pdn.paradyne.com> dixon@gumby.paradyne.com (0000-Tom Dixon) writes: > But the real question is why would a company think that they can > get away with these silly strong arm tactics? What "silly strong arm tactics"? As far as I can tell, Apple only goes after companies that they feel are infringing on their rights. They went after the Franklin Ace folks when they copied the Apple-II roms to make their clone. I don't see anything wrong with that; Apple put a lot of effort and money into developing the Apple-II, why should they just sit back and let somebody churn out cheap copies without challenging them? More recently, they are going after Microsoft for "look and feel" ripoffs. While I'm not sure I agree that "look and feel" should have the same kind of legal protection rom contents should, I don't think Apple is doing anything inherently evil by pursuing the issue. Someone earlier accused Apple of being unfair to their competition by filing frivolous suits against people who can't afford to adequately defend themselves in court; the "shallow pockets" theory. Surely Microsoft doesn't qualify as a shallow pocket. Now, they are saying, in public, and in no uncertain terms, that the code that has been distributed is stolen, was not distributed with their permission, and that they are prepared to defend their rights to that code with full vigor, and to go after the people to stole it as hard as they legally can. What is wrong with that? They have good reason to believe that some extremely valuable information belonging to them (i.e. the Mac rom source code) has been distributed, against their will, to people that they don't want to have it. In response to this, they want to make it very clear to everybody who might have gotten the code just what their position is. They have reason to believe that usenet was one of the channels of distribution. Doesn't it make sense to use that same channel to distribute their warning? Imagine the following scenario: I get some code off the net and use it. A few weeks later, I get a polite but firm registered letter from Apple's lawyers telling me to stop what I'm doing or get my ass sued off. When we get into court I tell the judge, "But I just got this stuff off the net. I didn't know it was stolen. Hell, I never saw anything from Apple on the net about it. Articles in InfoWorld and MacWeek about it? Could have been, but I don't read those. How was I supposed to know?" Or think about the following scenario. You work for DEC and somebody has managed to get the VMS sources and post them to the net. Or you work for AT&T and somebody just posted the SysV sources. Or the Scribe sources. Or the chip layout diagrams for the 68040. Or the 80486? Or any other very valuable and secret information that your company owns. Would you think it inappropriate to use the net to tell people that the posting was done without your permission and if they try to use the stuff they got to make a competing product you will come after them hammer and tongs, with a whole army of lawyers just itching to get you into court? -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network"
paul@moncam.co.uk (Paul Hudson) (06/19/89)
In article <841@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ken@capone.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: > In article <2928@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (John G Dobnick,EMS E380,4142295727,) writes: > > > >I gather that Mac clones are immenent. This brouhaha seems to put a > If you're not a lawyer, don't reply to this...too many people think > they know the law and don't... Ooops ... > > Is it not incumbent upon Apple, in a suit, to prove that a clone-maker > DID have access to the source, and not the responsability of the clone- > maker to prove he didn't?? What am I missing here? You are forgetting that Apple can tie you up in court cases and appeals until you thorow in the towel or go bust, regardless of the legal issues. I can only hope that HP&Microsoft will prove too big for Apple .... Paul Hudson MAIL: Monotype ADG, Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4FQ, UK. PHONE: +44 (223) 420018 EMAIL: paul@moncam.co.uk, ;" FAX: +44 (223) 420911 ...!ukc!acorn!moncam!paul `"";";" "/dev/null full: please empty the bit bucket" -- Paul Hudson MAIL: Monotype ADG, Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4FQ, UK. PHONE: +44 (223) 420018 EMAIL: paul@moncam.co.uk, ;" FAX: +44 (223) 420911 ...!ukc!acorn!moncam!paul `"";";" "/dev/null full: please empty the bit bucket"
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (06/20/89)
In article <736@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes: >... postings like the >recent legal threat only supports that reputation. One should remember that Apple may have felt constrained in what they could say. As I understand it, the courts have quite consistently held that if you want your copyright or trademark to be preserved, you have to make an effort to enforce it when infringements occur. That means snarling and threatening, not just saying "hey, that's not nice". (I share the widely-held low opinion of Apple, on the whole, but I don't think it is fair to blame them for the nasty tone of the threat -- they probably felt they had no choice.) -- You *can* understand sendmail, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
tmyers@orion.cf.uci.edu (Tracy Myers) (06/20/89)
In article <3809@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: >In <6198@pdn.paradyne.com> dixon@gumby.paradyne.com (0000-Tom Dixon) writes: [stuff deleted] >other very valuable and secret information that your company owns. Would >you think it inappropriate to use the net to tell people that the posting >was done without your permission and if they try to use the stuff they got >to make a competing product you will come after them hammer and tongs, with >a whole army of lawyers just itching to get you into court? >-- >Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute >455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 >{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu >"The connector is the network" What is inappropriate is the obnoxious threatening tone in the Apple announcement. It IS likely to get people to take the action to remove any stolen Apple property which was received through the net. However, it will get people to do only the minimum required to protect themselves from the hounds of hell (i.e., those wild and crazy Apple lawyers). It will not create a constructive atmosphere which would encourage people to take additional steps to protect Apple property which are not strictly required by law such as providing Apple with any information about who is the thief and how the stuff was stolen, etc. Not only was the tone of the letter insulting, it was also quite vague about precisely which net postings they were talking about. Apple could have accomplished much more with a notice which stated their gripe without pissing on everyone. I like every reasonable person am stongly opposed to the theft of proprietory information, but I won't under any circumstances go out of my way to help a bully. There is a difference between protecting yourself, and strong arming the community.
davidsen@sungod.crd.ge.com (William Davidsen) (06/20/89)
In article <6198@pdn.paradyne.com> dixon@gumby.paradyne.com (0000-Tom Dixon) writes: | But the real question is why would a company think that they can | get away with these silly strong arm tactics? The American legal system is not based on justice, it's based on money. Anyone can sue anyone else for anything, and if the person sued can't afford to hire lawyers to defend the case they lose it. If Apple sues Joe's Computer Company for a million dollars, Joe can either pay to fight the case or pay the million dollars. And if Joe spends every penny he has and wins the case he doesn't get his court costs back, and Apple can appeal. Eventually Joe goes out of business, which is what Apple wants, of course. Apple force Digital Research to give up it's beautiful GEM interface until threat of lawsuit. DR now sells something else with the same name, but it's not at all the same. Apple is very careful to protect all the ideas which Xerox developed. No matter how pure a Mac clone is, I'm sure Apple will sue, and keep suing. Unless some really big company decides to make a clone and counts the court costs as part of the startup, I don't think any clones will actually be sold. Apple can just run the cost so high that there will be no profit. I would really like to see IBM make a Mac clone, just to see the lawsuit! Disclamer: the above are my opinions and facts as I know them. Consult a lawyer for information which applies to any particular situation. bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (06/20/89)
In article <1989Jun19.175611.1956@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: ... >One should remember that Apple may have felt constrained in what they could >say. As I understand it, the courts have quite consistently held that if >you want your copyright or trademark to be preserved, you have to make an >effort to enforce it when infringements occur. That means snarling and >threatening, not just saying "hey, that's not nice". ... Apple's problems are more subtle than this. Their copyrights and trademarks are as safe as they have every been. I think what they are worried about are *trade secrets*. My understanding is that one reason Macs are (were) so hard to clone is that no one but Apple knows (knew) the full specification of the Mac ROM. Last month this specification was a trade secret. Today? Carl Kadie University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ARPA: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu
gaynor@armadillo.cis.ohio-state.edu (Vampire) (06/20/89)
In article <1309@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >My understanding >is that one reason Macs are (were) so hard to clone is that no one but >Apple knows (knew) the full specification of the Mac ROM. Last month >this specification was a trade secret. Today? They full set of the Mac ROMs, the complete and unexpurgated dirty little pieces of source code, are still secrets. For those of you who have forgotten, and many of you in this flame-ridden conversation seem to have, nuPrometheus only distributed the 32-bit QuickDraw code. Not the "good" stuff. Just fluff. The "real" thing is still locked away in it's legal vaults, guarded by many a rapid Apple lawyer. It seems that nuPrometheus forgot something when they named themselves. In their urgence to bring "fire" to the masses, they forgot the price that Prometheus paid - chained to rock for all of eternity, his liver devoured by carrion birds each day, only to have it heal and grow again by the next dawn... -=- | Jim Gaynor..."The Vampire Lestat" UseNet: gaynor@cis.ohio-state.edu | | The Ohio State University - Instructional and Research Computer Center | >> "It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism << >> while wolves remain of a different opinion." - William Ralph Inge <<
msb@ho5cad.att.com (Mike Balenger) (06/20/89)
I missed the original article -- "Official Legal Announcement
regarding Apple's Source Code". Could someone please send me a copy?
Thanks,
Mike Balenger
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<cute quote> Michael S. Balenger (201) 949-8789
<cute disclaimer> AT&T Bell Labs
Room 1L-405
msb@ho5cad.att.com Crawfords Corner Road
att!ho5cad!msb Holmdel, NJ 07733karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (06/20/89)
tmyers@orion.cf.uci.edu writes:
What is inappropriate is the obnoxious threatening tone in the Apple
announcement. It IS likely to get people to take the action to remove any
stolen Apple property which was received through the net.
Not likely. I have over 2000 comp.sys.mac* articles in-spool. I
haven't the slightest interest in hunting through them on my own to
find something anomalous. If Apple wants to inform us of the
Message-ID's used, I'll nuke them (and I replied on 13 June to
morris2@applelink.apple.com to that effect; the lack of response is
stunning), but until Apple actually says something informative,
they've done nothing but gain a few more enemies around here. *If*
such articles exist (I no longer believe so), they will remain
publicly viewable at Ohio State for another 2 weeks minimum.
--Karlaa0s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Adel Talaat Assaad) (06/20/89)
My apologies to everyone for adding yet another $0.02 to this subject. In article <736@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes: > Reason I'm adding my 2 cents worth - is that at least with myself, > Apple is doing their overall reputation no good at all with this sort > of conduct - using the courts to surpress competition from makers that > may be less well-heeled, but turn out a product that is equal to or > better than the original in terms of performance, and at a lower > price. It appears to me that Apple would rather not have others > engage in a free market, instead they want to keep a lock on the > market for themselves. This would mean they have to spend less on > R&D, be less concerned about product improvements, customer support, > the whole ball of wax. And they are then free to charge whatever they > want, since there would be no similar products available for less > money. I disagree with the definition of free market implied above: nothing says your implementation of an idea is a free-for-all. In the pharmaceuticals industry, a company retains the right to monopolize a drug they developed for a number of years. And this is potentially life-and-death stuff, not just a computer system among many others on the market. I don't see any reason why Apple has to relinquish its "trade tricks" or its hard earned position to "foster a free market" (as it is defined above) when IBM would have sold its employees by the pound to keep clone makers out of the market (anyone saying otherwise should consider becoming an IBM evangelist!). I don't see why Apple should continue R&D on the Macintosh OS to support other hardware makers either! It is inevitable in a function-oriented market like the microcomputer's that a clone maker will ALWAYS be able to beat the price of the "original" and gouge into its market share: in the macintoshe's case, it's even more true, I think, because the macintosh IS its software, its user interface guidelines, its graphics orientation and its desktop metaphore. The hardware itself is pretty doggone bland, and serves only as a vehicle for the OS Apple makes! I have a feeling that if Apple lets go of their look and feel bit, they will become a software company. Their hardware is just NOT going to compete with the clonemakers' cheapies, and they could end up selling just the OS! I don't condone their attitude, but everyone has his paranoia about viability, and is entitled to it. I do agree, obviously, that Apple's hardware is underpowered and overpriced. They should have had some custom I/O circuits and coprocessors, etc... But overall, their's is the best SYSTEM, and for my personal use the DOS world can keep even the weitek coprocessor. > I really wonder if the founders of Apple would have done so well, if > the market climate when they started up was like the climate Apple is > now creating? Aie Aieaieaieaieaie (Phew). I think I have news for the author of the above: THE CLIMATE WAS LIKE THAT WHEN APPLE STARTED the macintosh. IT WAS EVEN WORSE from their point of view, because even the public was skeptical, and MIS personnel wouldn't give the mac the time of day. I'd like it to be proven that IBM did not try to retain control of the DOS-PC market, if it were true! An undeniable fact remains: Apple opened the market wide for graphical user interfaces. But more about their "effect on the climate" later. > As for myself, I plan to (and have) avoided Apple products like the > plague, and will continue to do so. That is your right, it's laudable to make a stand. I myself could fill a page with companies that I boycott, starting with Exxon: 't was my favorite fuel :-( ! > I also express my feelings to >any clients - indicating that while the Apple products are no doubt >well built, and of good quality, I think supporting a company with >their attitude and way of doing business goes counter to everyone's >best interests in the long run. First off, I disagree that Apple's attitude is detrimental to its clients' interests in the long run, but that's quick sand, so I'll drop it, only pointing out that although their OS is not as nifty as unix may be, they were the first microcomputer manufacturer to TRY to tackle software obsolesence (Look at the IBM world and tell me if you can switch safely from EGA to VGA... or to DOS 4.0 with applications that don't support EMS!!!). I think they were first to inject long term vision into this market (and they made mistakes that are obvious!). They also proved to EVERYONE that computers ARE software, that not-so-advanced hardware can still sell like hotcakes provided you build it into a balanced system, and that computer makers had better bend over backwards to make the user's life easier or perish. What's so bad about this effect? I'd like to see anyone "who-didn't-get-fired-because-he-recommended-IBM" look his clients stuck-with-a-PC-XT-that-was-orphaned-by-its-parent-company in the eye and then throw the first rock at Apple!!! (I am not denying anyone that pleasure, though.) I am really disappointed in Apple's new big-corporation attitude toward the attic hacker, as my only other post attests to it, but I think everyone in the PC business wants to take the easy way. There is nothing wrong or insurmountable ( just unbelievable risk :-)! ) about making a machine with a graphical user interface, a mouse device and a well rounded user-friendly look and feel, witness NeXT, but why does everyone have to copy the Macintosh or rely on its ROMs and OS? You want to sell PCs, make your own. That's what Apple did and they lowered everone else's risk by establishing a precedent. Or is it that Steve Jobs has three balls and the rest of humanity has two? > In short, I think Apple is doing a >great job of earning themselves a LOUSY reputation. And postings >like the recent legal threat only supports that reputation. I find it difficult for an individual to hypothesize about reputation, which is a matter of public concensus, when 1) he is biased (which is normal for all of us), 2) he seems to be working actively to create that bad reputation, which is to say prophesizing and working to fulfill the prophesy. If you were a lawyer called upon to defend Jack the Ripper, you'd do your best to obtain his freedom, if that were his constitutional right. A professional should step beyond personal qualms to serve his CLIENTS best. I know I've had to recommend DOS systems to people when I personally abhorre them, because if the client wants just one thing and an IBM does it better, then that's it! (All other requirements being taken into consideration of course). >WISDOM: "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" If that's wisdom, maybe Edwin Meese should be made Pope after all! ---------------End of Reply------------------------ As for the "legal threats", I chose not to take them personally, which is what every sane individual should do, but rather as an accurate expression of what Apple would to your "legal" body below the belt line if they caught you at it. I have this to add: a free market is not a picnic, and one should not personalize corporations too much then start emotionally hating them. I'd much rather see Apple go extinct than leave the world with another sclerotic EISA architecture without innovation that gets canonized for posterity, simply because enough HARDWARE manufacturers have too much invested in it. Hope everyone doesn't hate my guts by now. A. Assaad Grad. Student
mnkonar@manyjars.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) (06/21/89)
In article <gYba9Ly00WB8E1LY5L@andrew.cmu.edu> aa0s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Adel Talaat Assaad) writes: [lots of cool stuff deleted] > Or is it that Steve Jobs has three balls and the rest of > humanity has two? That has to be one of the greatest rhetorical questions I have ever seen on the net! [more cool stuff deleted] > Hope everyone doesn't hate my guts by now. I, for one, think you hit the mark dead on. ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)
tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) (06/21/89)
The rumored theft of the Mac ROM source has been reported elsewhere in
the media in the past few days. Even if it happened, there is no
evidence visible to me that any of it was posted to a USENET newsgroup.
Some of it may (I suppose) have been exchanged between individuals via
netmail, and the legal eagles at Apple may be ill informed as to the
distinction between these two distribution channels (this certainly
happens often enough under other circumstances, right?). I get the
strong impression that Erik Fair posted that legal boilerplate under
orders from his superiors and has no personal involvement in the issue
one way or another.
Since it's likely that the USENET (Netnews) rumor which was "reported
to" Apple (according to the original article) is just garden variety
misinformation, I suggest that newsreaders take the announcement at face
value and (if you don't have purloined code in your possession) forget
about it. Apple should have better sense than to fart so loudly amongst
its net neighbors, but I suspect this is their lawyers talking
(translation: cya), and if Apple were to pay its lawyers the big bucks
based on degree of USENET sensitivity they would be delinquent with the
shareholders' money.
--
You may not redistribute this article for profit without written permission.
--
Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
"Truisms aren't everything." Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NETfozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) (06/22/89)
In article <gYba9Ly00WB8E1LY5L@andrew.cmu.edu> aa0s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Adel Talaat Assaad) writes: >macintosh IS its software, its user interface guidelines, its graphics >orientation and its desktop metaphore. The hardware itself is pretty >doggone bland, and serves only as a vehicle for the OS Apple makes! > >I have a feeling that if Apple lets go of their look and feel bit, >they will become a software company. Their hardware is just NOT going >to compete with the clonemakers' cheapies, and they could end up >selling just the OS! > Now wouldnt this be wonderful? Microsoft does this successfully, you know. > I do agree, obviously, that Apple's hardware is underpowered and >overpriced. They should have had some custom I/O circuits and >coprocessors, etc... I personally think it would be wonderful to go to Compaq or AST or whomever to buy a cheap powerful and flexible piece of hardware (maybe even laptop :-)), then pay Apple $500 (*) or so for the OS+ROMs. This would be the real victory for the consumer. (Ralph Nader, where are you?) Apple _should_ become a software company and stop gouging the user for "doggone bland" hardware! rich (*) $500 seems a reasonable ballpark figure for tho OS, since a Mac Plus at a street price of $1100 could probably be cloned w/o ROMs and sold for $600-800 (this is the street price of XT clones that have comparable technology) ======================================================================== Richard Fozzard "Serendipity empowers" University of Colorado fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu (303)492-8136 or 444-3168
andys@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Andy Sherman) (06/23/89)
In article <1200@zygot.UUCP>, john@zygot (John Higdon) writes: >In article <736@rwing.UUCP>, pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes: >> I really wonder if the founders of Apple would have done so well, if >> the market climate when they started up was like the climate Apple is >> now creating? > >By doing what? Protecting what is rightfully theirs? Or do you feel >that all trade secrets should just be public domain and no one has a >right, regardless of development cost, to make money with them? Ah, but look at where Apple came from, and you will see that their history just screams out for a nice tidy theft. All the profiles on Jobs and Wozniak used to point out that they started out as blue-boxers. The fancy name for what such people do is toll fraud. The plain and simple truth is that they saved quite a bit of money by stealing services from my employer. What goes around comes around. -- Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ *NEW ADDRESS* AUDIBLE: (201) 582-5928 *NEW PHONE* READABLE: andys@ulysses.ATT.COM or att!ulysses!andys *NEW EMAIL* The views and opinions are my own. Who else would want them? *OLD DISCLAIMER*
kent@lloyd.camex.uucp (Kent Borg) (06/23/89)
In article <9606@boulder.Colorado.EDU> fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) writes: >Apple _should_ become a software company and stop gouging the user for >"doggone bland" hardware! > >rich Your are confused. Apple *is* a software company. There is nothing particularly interesting about their hardware, it is their system software that is valuable. The clever thing about how they package their software is that they use a hardware key for copy protection--the computer and its ROMs--and know one seems to notice it. They also sell different versions of the hardware key so the user can get more out of the software by buying an expensive key (a Macintosh IIx) or less out of the software by buying an inexpensive key (the Macintosh Plus). I personally wish Apple would get back *into* the hardware business. Kent Borg kent@lloyd.uucp or ...!husc6!lloyd!kent
blm@6sigma.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (06/24/89)
In article <11685@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> andys@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Andy Sherman) writes: |Ah, but look at where Apple came from, and you will see that their |history just screams out for a nice tidy theft. All the profiles on |Jobs and Wozniak used to point out that they started out as |blue-boxers. The fancy name for what such people do is toll fraud. |The plain and simple truth is that they saved quite a bit of money by |stealing services from my employer. What goes around comes around. Maybe I'm being particularly stupid today, but how does the alleged toll fraud by two people who haven't been associated with Apple for some time make it right for everyone else to steal Apple's trade secrets, source code, whatever? -- Brian L. Matthews +1 206 854 6578
jmpiazza@sunybcs.uucp (Joseph M. Piazza) (06/26/89)
In article <1309@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >In article <1989Jun19.175611.1956@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >... >>One should remember that Apple may have felt constrained in what they could >>say. As I understand it, the courts have quite consistently held that if >>you want your copyright or trademark to be preserved, you have to make an >>effort to enforce it when infringements occur. That means snarling and >>threatening, not just saying "hey, that's not nice". >... > >Apple's problems are more subtle than this. Their copyrights >and trademarks are as safe as they have every been. Sorry, Apple has a problem with one particular trademark: "Apple." You remember that company started by the Beatles? (Did you know that Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings?) They came to an agreement that if Apple Computer stayed out of the music business they could use the name "Apple." Well, with the inclusion of the sound chip in the IIGS (amoung other things like the use of MIDI etc. -- I don't know the exact details but you get the point), Apple (the record comany) has opened proceedings against Apple (the computer company). Even if this turns out to be urban folklore, I find the entire concept most amusing. X-) Flip side, joe piazza --- In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's the other way around. CS Dept. SUNY at Buffalo 14260 UUCP: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!jmpiazza GEnie:jmpiazza BITNET: jmpiazza@sunybcs.BITNET Internet: jmpiazza@cs.Buffalo.edu " problems. >what they are worried about are *trade secrets*. My understanding >is that one reason Macs are (were) so hard to clone is that no one but >Apple knows (knew) the full specification of the Mac ROM. Last month >this specification was a trade secret. Today? > > > > > > >Carl Kadie >University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign >ARPA: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (06/27/89)
In article <427@lloyd.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes: >I personally wish Apple would get back *into* the hardware business. > >Kent Borg Best they stick to software. The world really doesn't need any more AppleFax Modems, Apple Tape Backups or Apple ImageWriter LQ Printers... :-/ -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." cmcl2!esquire!sbb | esquire!sbb@cmcl2.nyu.edu | - David Letterman
stevedc@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Stephen D Carter) (06/27/89)
From article <7367@cs.Buffalo.EDU>, by jmpiazza@sunybcs.uucp (Joseph M. Piazza): > In article <1309@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >>In article <1989Jun19.175611.1956@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>... > > Sorry, Apple has a problem with one particular trademark: "Apple." > You remember that company started by the Beatles? (Did you know that Paul > McCartney was in a band before Wings?) They came to an agreement that if > Apple Computer stayed out of the music business they could use the name "Apple." > Well, with the inclusion of the sound chip in the IIGS (amoung other things > like the use of MIDI etc. -- I don't know the exact details but you get the > point), Apple (the record comany) has opened proceedings against Apple (the > computer company). > > Even if this turns out to be urban folklore, I find the entire concept > most amusing. X-) It is not folklore, Apple (as in Fab Four) are indeed taking action against Apple (as in 'we didn't copy it from Xerox), to do with the precise point mentioned. (Did Steve Jobs ever do a rooftop concert?) Stephen D Carter, Systems Manager, The Administration, The University of Sussex, Sussex House, Falmer, BRIGHTON, BN1 9RH. UK Tel: +44 273 678203 (Direct line). Tel: +44 273 606755 (Switchboard). JANET : stevedc@uk.ac.sussex.syma ARPA : stevedc%sussex.syma@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk USENET: stevedcsyma.sussex.ac.uk UUCP : ...!mcvax!ukc!sussex!syma!stevedc BITNET: ukacrl.earn!sussex.syma!stevedc or stevedc%sussex.syma@uk.ac
holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (06/29/89)
In article <1117@syma.sussex.ac.uk> stevedc@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Stephen D Carter) writes: >From article <7367@cs.Buffalo.EDU>, by jmpiazza@sunybcs.uucp (Joseph M. Piazza): >> Well, with the inclusion of the sound chip in the IIGS (amoung other things >> like the use of MIDI etc. -- I don't know the exact details but you get the >> point), Apple (the record comany) has opened proceedings against Apple (the >> computer company). >> >> Even if this turns out to be urban folklore, I find the entire concept >> most amusing. X-) > >It is not folklore, Apple (as in Fab Four) are indeed taking action >against >Apple (as in 'we didn't copy it from Xerox), to do with the >precise point mentioned. I think we've seen it enough in the press to believe it's real, but, I'd like to hear more details about the actual complaint. Is it the sound chip, the MIDI interface, both, ...? Do you have more information on this suit, Apple vs. Apple? When Apple sued Microsoft, we saw postings of the actual complaints and counter-complaints. I'd be curious to see the original agreement between Apple and Apple as well as the recent complaint of Apple vs. Apple. (I just said a bushelful :) -Fred ______________________________________________________________________________ | Fred Hollander | | | Computer Science Center | "Ha ha ha ha ha ha, Ah what a day!" | | Texas Instruments, Inc. | -- Joker | | Internet: hollander@ti.com | | | Telnet: 214/995-0696 | The above statements are my own and not | | AppleLink: D1392 | representative of Texas Instruments. | ______________________________________________________________________________
landman%hanami@Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman) (06/30/89)
In article <1200@zygot.UUCP> john@zygot.UUCP (John Higdon) writes: >Anyone, anywhere, at anytime is perfectly free to invent, develop, >produce and market at a lower price a product superior to the >Macintosh. Are you annoyed that no one has yet been able to do that >without *stealing* critical secrets that go into the Mac? ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ No, he and I are annoyed that Apple is suing anyone who tries to do that by *imitating* critical *publicly* *known* *features* of the Mac, without regard to whether they stole anything or not. Howard A. Landman landman@sun.com
campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (07/22/89)
In article <841@hydra.gatech.EDU> ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
-If you're not a lawyer, don't reply to this...too many people think
-they know the law and don't...
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the net...
-Last time I read legal theory, you were innocent until proven guilty
-beyond a reasonable shadow...and all that.
This is true for criminal cases. I believe that in civil cases the standard
is not nearly as stringent.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02146pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) (07/22/89)
In article <394@v7fs1.UUCP>, mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: > In article <841@hydra.gatech.EDU> ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: > > ... [commands deleted] ... > > ... [ good answer to commands deleted ] ... > > >Last time I read legal theory, you were innocent until proven guilty > >beyond a reasonable shadow...and all that. > > ... [ more details deleted ] ... > > This is true in theory. The problem is, you don't have to prove that > you have a case before you can sue. It is quite possible for someone > with 'deep pockets' to sue, sue, sue, and sue, until the less > well-heeled victim is bankrupted by legal fees, and it doesn't make a > shred of difference how innocent the victim is. Apple is one of the > major offenders in this particular kind of harrasment. Nothing would > give me a bigger belly-laugh than to see them get bit back in a big way. I agree with your posting - but it will take someone with DEEPER pockets than Apple to accomplish this. I am keeping my fingers crossed, however.... Reason I'm adding my 2 cents worth - is that at least with myself, Apple is doing their overall reputation no good at all with this sort of conduct - using the courts to surpress competition from makers that may be less well-heeled, but turn out a product that is equal to or better than the original in terms of performance, and at a lower price. It appears to me that Apple would rather not have others engage in a free market, instead they want to keep a lock on the market for themselves. This would mean they have to spend less on R&D, be less concerned about product improvements, customer support, the whole ball of wax. And they are then free to charge whatever they want, since there would be no similar products available for less money. I really wonder if the founders of Apple would have done so well, if the market climate when they started up was like the climate Apple is now creating? As for myself, I plan to (and have) avoided Apple products like the plague, and will continue to do so. I also express my feelings to any clients - indicating that while the Apple products are no doubt well built, and of good quality, I think supporting a company with their attitude and way of doing business goes counter to everyone's best interests in the long run. In short, I think Apple is doing a great job of earning themselves a LOUSY reputation. And postings like the recent legal threat only supports that reputation. -- pat@rwing ...!nwnexus!mltco!camco!happym!\ (Pat Myrto), Seattle, WA ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat ...!uw-beaver!sumax!polari!/ WISDOM: "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"
dixon@gumby.paradyne.com (0000-Tom Dixon(0000)) (07/23/89)
In article <736@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes: > [ much verbiage about a earlier line of discussion removed ] > >Reason I'm adding my 2 cents worth - is that at least with myself, >Apple is doing their overall reputation no good at all with this sort >of conduct - using the courts to suppress competition from makers that >may be less well-heeled, but turn out a product that is equal to or >better than the original in terms of performance, and at a lower >price.... > >I really wonder if the founders of Apple would have done so well, if >the market climate when they started up was like the climate Apple is >now creating? > ... >-- >pat@rwing ...!nwnexus!mltco!camco!happym!\ (Pat Myrto), Seattle, WA But the real question is why would a company think that they can get away with these silly strong arm tactics? Apple, in the throes of a violent renaissance, is trying to through some weight around to prove to the world that they are a big company now. But what they don't understand is that they are pouting in a whores market. There are a lot of companies who are willing to put horsepower with connectivity on your desk. And most of them have a pretty good attitude about the whole thing. If apple keeps all of this nonsense up, they will continue to spiral lost and out of control. They will keep trying to hold anyone up who get anywhere close to them so that they won't have to play to in the R&D race. And in a little while, they will be left behind. Some other company will do what the original apple did. They will be the cute underdog and will fight apple tooth and nail until apple is weak and weary from fighting. Apple needs to wise up very soon. They aren't gods. They are just a bunch of punks. And we all know how popular old punks are. Tom Dixon uunet!pdn!dixon AT&T Paradyne, A company I do not speak for......
steve@nuchat (07/23/89)
In article <841@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ken@capone (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >If you're not a lawyer, don't reply to this...too many people think >they know the law and don't... Lay people who pay attention can know as much about the law as they want to. I think I know the answer to this one, but the only time you can bank on legal advise is when it comes from an attorney when you are that attorney's client. Even then the only protection you have against error is the competence of that attorney, and the only recourse you have is the right to sue him (or her) for malpractice. >Last time I read legal theory, you were innocent until proven guilty >beyond a reasonable shadow...and all that. That's true in criminal law. Not in administrative or civil law. (It's "beyond a resonable doubt", not a shadow.) >Is it not incumbent upon Apple, in a suit, to prove that a clone-maker >DID have access to the source, and not the responsability of the clone- >maker to prove he didn't?? What am I missing here? In a civil case the plaintiff is not "responsible" to prove anything. The plaintiff makes his case, then the defendant makes his case, then the judge and/or the jury makes a decision, then one or both parties appeals, and eventually one of them gets tired and gives the other what they want. In a criminal case there is usually only one charge, and even when there are multiple charges each one is decided either guilty or not guilty. In a civil case a single suit can raise multiple legal theories for why the plaintiff should get relief, and may seek multiple forms of relief. Each issue is decided in turn, sometimes by the judge even when there is a jury (instructed decision, or somthing lile that). Each question raised can be decided entirely in favor of the defendant, entirely in favor of the plaintiff (or even for more damages than the plaintive asked for), or somewhere in between. >In any case, is it not true that companies like Chips and Technologies >have established precident that it IS possible to clone something exactly >(bug-for-bug) without access to proprietary material? My understanding of the status is that the precedents are not something you can take to the bank yet, since they have only been upheld by one federal district judge. That means you can use it in that district until it is overturned by the supremes but shame on you if you bet the farm on it elsewhere. The analysis I read also indicated that the decisions are too narrow to be sure how another case would be decided. Judges are real good at coming up with excuses for ignoring precedent when they feel like it. Anyway, the clean-room cloning applies to interfaces such as the system call interface to MS-DOS, not to user interface techniques. Until Look-and-Feel theory is hashed out we won't know if it applies there. One would think that look-and-feel would be covered by public lewdness or assault statutes, but that's another kettle of lawyers.