remy@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Remy Sanouillet) (06/13/89)
From elroy!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnewsk!ech Mon Jun 12 12:05:40 PDT 1989 > The file called "Rom Src (Stuffit)" contains the complete > assembly language source to both Color QuickDraw and all > the hardware Equate files for the various Macintoshes ROMs. From elroy!ames!apple!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!iris!heberlei Mon Jun 12 11:58:32 PDT 1989 now Associated Press has picked up the story. From elroy!ames!lll-winken!arisia!fischer Mon Jun 12 12:04:07 PDT 1989 IMHO this will probably result in much more restricted access to source code between groups inside the company, a kind of balkanization if you will. From elroy!ames!xanth!nic.MR.NET!shamash!nis!sialis!orbit!pnet51!granteri Mon Jun 12 12:04:43 PDT 1989 This kind of activity is quite annoying. It is rather apparent the Mac and its interface is popular, X Windows on UNIX, Windows/386 for IBMs, Amiga Emulators, Atari Magic Sac, etc. And now this glut of Macintosh Clone makers. From elroy!ames!mailrus!ncar!tank!ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu Mon Jun 12 12:05:27 PDT 1989 One thing I think is a bit odd: the pirates say they're doing this to help people make "legal" copies of the Mac. Although (as The Analysts are saying) viewing Mac code might make it easier to clone, I would think that it would make it immeasureably harder legally: anytime a clone comes along, the CloneMakers will bear the additional burden of proving that they didn't use any of the source. From elroy!usc!bloom-beacon!apple!sun-barr!newstop!pitstop!neff Mon Jun 12 12:06:17 PDT 1989 It is unlikely that other companies will use this ROM code if it is stolen in their products for fear of copyright infringement suits, etc. From elroy!usc!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!dn5 Mon Jun 12 12:06:54 PDT 1989 I think that this may actually make cloning the Mac Roms and system harder. Since part of making a legal clone is being able to claim not to have seen the original source code (to protect in areas where the clone accidentally duplicated the original), this may make it harder to prove that a given programmer hasn't seen these sources. I can't make cloning harder, but it may make LEGAL cloning more difficult. From elroy!usc!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!polyslo!dorourke Mon Jun 12 12:07:10 PDT 1989 2) Why would a "legitimate" clone maker touch this stuff with a 10 foot pole. It seems to me that rather than making it easier for clones, this rather public action has probably made it more difficult for clones because Apple can claim that their code was *illegally* distributed so any clone is now suspect. From elroy!ames!apple!sun-barr!sun!vygr!mae Mon Jun 12 12:07:24 PDT 1989 I do not condone use of (allegedly) stolen material. In article <89160.093417DN5@PSUVM> DN5@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >Following up an article about an organization distributing sources to the >Mac ROMs and System. > >I think that this may actually make cloning the Mac Roms and system harder. I think a well accepted technique of legally reverse engineering technology is to have two groups, working in isolation from each other. First group uses whatever(legally, of course {:-), it takes to figure out what the X does, laser slice the die, disassmble the ROM, etc. This first group then generates a *complete* spec, warts and all. The second group then takes the spec. and generates the code, using only the spec. This technique was related to me by someone who had reverse engineered chips for a living. Claims they found several bugs in some chips, but left them in the spec. anyways to be compatable. Note under this technique, a complete, legally obtained specification is more dangerous to the owner of the technology. From elroy!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!cmhgate!f563.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Ed.Edell Mon Jun 12 12:10:22 PDT 1989 Following is the complete article that appeared in the 6/9/89 edition of The Wall Street Journal, page B 3 . _______________________________________________________________________ Mysterious Group Is Pirating Apple's Super-Secret Code By Roger Lowenstein and G.Pascal Zachary [...] John C.Maxwell, a Dillon Read analyst, says he has obtained a copy of the disk, adding "at this juncture it doesn't seem to be anything that is threatening to Apple's proprietary secrets. It's more of a psychological issue. How did someone get to copy this and why are they doing it?" _______________________________________________________________________ (End of Excerpts)(End of Excerpts)(End of Excerpts)(End of Excerpts) Now, let me switch into suspicious mode, put on my deduction cap and try to give a "What if?" theory that sprang to my mind after reading these excerpts from postings from the past few days. Let's say that Apple, after hearing many rumors of reverse enginneering attempts on their ROMs, got their anxiety level way into overdrive and came up with the following brilliant scheme. They "leak" an insignificant part of their ROM source code to chosen targets, with promise of more to come. They then alert the medias, (anybody else surprised about how fast the press got onto this story, and how extensively they've covered such a benign story with regard to the chinese crisis?). They have thus established a sturdy litigation basis for any clones to appear on the market for the next N years, and reinforced security awareness and inforcement without any possible recrimination. (Do I sound paranoid enough, yet?) Now, let me ask a question a la Sherlock Holmes. To whom does the crime profit? I predict that the "culprits" (i.e. scapegoats) will either be caught or never heard of again, and that that is going to be the last we hear from of any source code. Disclaimer: This is just a deductive fantasy. I have no substantive facts to prove this theory. I do not endorse stealing of other people's hard work. (What else can I add here?) -/{[(<.>)]}\--/{[(<.>)]}\--/{[(<.>)]}\-+-/{[(<.>)]}\--/{[(<.>)]}\--/{[(<.>)]}\- Remy Sanouillet | E-mail: remy@caltech.BITNET 256-80 Caltech | remy@csvax.caltech.edu Pasadena, CA 91125 | ...seismo!cit-vax!remy
steve@hp-ptp.HP.COM (Steve_Witten) (06/15/89)
I personally think you've hit the nail on the head here. The "nuPrometheus
League" reminds me of the Symbionese Liberation Army -- a group with no past,
ill-defined objectives, and now no future. If they are Apple employees,
they must have been well-indoctrinated on Gassee's "family jewel" view of the
Macintosh ROM code. I can't imagine anybody in their right mind doing
this for the reasons that the nuPrometheus League has stated that they're doing
it. Given Apple's well-known penchant for being litigation-happy over trying
to protect ANYTHING that remotely resembles some vague part of "Apple intel-
lectual property" or trademarks, I agree with you -- this is a giant publicity
stunt.
If this is ever proven, I hope Apple gets fried in court for restraint of
trade...
These are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Hewlett-Packard Company
or its management.
===============================================================================
Steve Witten steve%hp-ptp@hplabs.HP.COM
Industrial Applications Center {ucbvax, hplabs}!hpda!hp-ptp!steve
Hewlett-Packard Co. steve@hp-ptp
"...I'm no fool! Nosirree!..." -- J. Cricketdwells@Apple.COM (Dave Wells) (06/16/89)
In article <1570001@hp-ptp.HP.COM> steve@hp-ptp.HP.COM (Steve_Witten) writes: >I personally think you've hit the nail on the head here. The "nuPrometheus >League" reminds me of the Symbionese Liberation Army -- a group with no past, >ill-defined objectives, and now no future. If they are Apple employees, >they must have been well-indoctrinated on Gassee's "family jewel" view of the >Macintosh ROM code. I can't imagine anybody in their right mind doing >this for the reasons that the nuPrometheus League has stated that they're doing >it. Given Apple's well-known penchant for being litigation-happy over trying >to protect ANYTHING that remotely resembles some vague part of "Apple intel- >lectual property" or trademarks, I agree with you -- this is a giant publicity >stunt. > >If this is ever proven, I hope Apple gets fried in court for restraint of >trade... This is totally amazing! Some creative speculation has turned into a judge and jury wheeling out the electric chair. Do you realize how wild it appears for someone so far-removed from the situation to be concluding what actually happened, and then going so far as to suggest charges?!? Wow. >These are my opinions only and not the opinions of the Hewlett-Packard Company >or its management. >=============================================================================== >Steve Witten steve%hp-ptp@hplabs.HP.COM >Industrial Applications Center {ucbvax, hplabs}!hpda!hp-ptp!steve >Hewlett-Packard Co. steve@hp-ptp > >"...I'm no fool! Nosirree!..." -- J. Cricket My jaw's still sore from dropping so fast! -Dave -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Dave Wells, Apple Computer, Inc. MS: 37-O (408) 974-5515 Mail: dwells@apple.com or AppleLink d.wells or GEnie D.WELLS These opinions may be nothing more than the ramblings of a fatigued tinkerer -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- There's one big difference between genius and stupidity. Genius has limits. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-