caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) (03/28/89)
In article <530@umiami.miami.edu> gtww2z9z@umiami.miami.edu (Jason Gross) writes: >Gates reveals to Levy a startling product: A '030 Mac clone that's twice as fast >as the IIx, comes with color, a 60MB hard drive, a 2400bps modem, fax, >Works and Word 4.0 in ROM, 4 MB RAM, monitor, keyboard, and mouse all for, >now get this, one thousand dollars. >Guess who makes this wonder machine? None other than Big Blue itself. >In addition, this Mac clone is supposed to be shipping April 1. Well, enough of this gag. But onto a more interesting question: On the cover of the 21 March 1989 MacWEEK we have a picture of Akkord Technologies' Jonathan, a Macintosh clone which currently requires the 128K ROMS from a real Mac but which apart from that is ready to roll. There's talk of them introducing it here in the US in the next few months, and it wass at CeBIT in Hanover last(?) week. The manufacturer, a Taiwanese company, is looking at cloned Mac ROMS-- supposedly created 'cleanly,' without reference to Apple's own-- as well. Given the success of Phoenix, Award and DTK among others at cloning the PC BIOS withough legal problems, I don't see how Apple can deal with the cloned Mac ROMS through the usual lawsuits, unless they can demonstrate the 'uncleanness' of the ROMS. Now _this_ I'm watching with great interest... it could be a real challenge to Apple's lock on the Mac market, if these folks have done their homework. Has this been hashed out already over here? I don't generally follow this group, as I'm only an occasional Mac user... -Antonio Romero romero@confidence.princeton.edu
swerling@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ace Swerling) (03/28/89)
In article <7423@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) writes: > >On the cover of the 21 March 1989 MacWEEK we have a picture of Akkord >Technologies' Jonathan, a Macintosh clone which currently requires the >128K ROMS from a real Mac but which apart from that is ready to roll. >There's talk of them introducing it here in the US in the next few >months, and it wass at CeBIT in Hanover last(?) week. The manufacturer, >a Taiwanese company, is looking at cloned Mac ROMS-- supposedly created >'cleanly,' without reference to Apple's own-- as well. > >Given the success of Phoenix, Award and DTK among others at cloning the >PC BIOS withough legal problems, I don't see how Apple can deal with >the cloned Mac ROMS through the usual lawsuits, unless they can >demonstrate the 'uncleanness' of the ROMS. > >-Antonio Romero romero@confidence.princeton.edu Later on in the article it said something about how the company was getting the ROMs off old boards that had been turned in to Apple after upgrades or board replacements. They are actually Apple ROMs. One thing I found interesting was that they covered over the Apple in the DA menu with a sticker on the screen that looked like a tomato! Copyrights make people do strange things. -Ace
stuart@ihlpe.ATT.COM (S. D. Ericson) (03/28/89)
In article <7423@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) writes: [that 4/1 gag again...] > > On the cover of the 21 March 1989 MacWEEK we have a picture of Akkord > Technologies' Jonathan, a Macintosh clone which currently requires the > 128K ROMS from a real Mac but which apart from that is ready to roll. > There's talk of them introducing it here in the US in the next few > months, and it wass at CeBIT in Hanover last(?) week. The manufacturer, > a Taiwanese company, is looking at cloned Mac ROMS-- supposedly created > 'cleanly,' without reference to Apple's own-- as well. > > Given the success of Phoenix, Award and DTK among others at cloning the > PC BIOS withough legal problems, I don't see how Apple can deal with > the cloned Mac ROMS through the usual lawsuits, unless they can > demonstrate the 'uncleanness' of the ROMS. Strictly speaking, the legality isn't the problem. Duplicating the capabilities of 128K of fine-tuned assembly language is a *BIG* task. People often refer to the clone BIOS's created for the mess-dos world. Phoenix went to a LOT of trouble to implement and legally secure the "clean-room" duplication of the (yeck) PC's BIOS. But what is the size of that chip? 8K? And what does it do? Basic machine operations? To do the same with the Mac, they would have to clone 128K - yeah, that is 16 times as much. You can't just say it would take 16 times as many man-hours either. It would be more reasonable to assume 100 times. After all, there is a LOT of technology in those ROMs. Tight Graphics (at least in 2-bit mode, right Andy? :-), all sorts of text, menu, file and memory managers. And they would all have to copy all the peculiar little bugs that have crept into the roms over the years. Besides, any company who wanted to clone the Mac would have to keep up with the 256K ROMs, and soon (I'm sure) the 512K ROMs, and so on. Phoenix has it made. Mac cloner's have a huge mountain to climb. It is hard enough to get good Mac programmers now, how hard is it to find programmers that don't know the ROMs (as many good Mac Hackers do) and yet are good enough to clone them? Quite a task. I get tired of hearing that someone should clone the roms. It is not so easy, folks! Hats off to any who can *really* do this. I would rather they advance the technology rather than clone the Mac, however. Of course, if you want to do it illegally, it is all too simple, and not possible to do on a large scale without talking to Apple's buddies in the legal department.... Stuart "Sure I'd love clone prices" Ericson -- Stuart Ericson AT&T Bell Laboratories USEnet: att!ihlpe!stuart IH 2H210 ARPA: stuart@ihlpe.att.com 2000 N. Naperville Road Voice: (312) 979-4491 Naperville, Il 60566-7033
amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) (03/29/89)
In article <7423@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) writes: Well, enough of this gag. But onto a more interesting question: ... [Jonathan's] manufacturer, a Taiwanese company, is looking at cloned Mac ROMS-- supposedly created 'cleanly,' without reference to Apple's own-- as well. Given the success of Phoenix, Award and DTK among others at cloning the PC BIOS withough legal problems, I don't see how Apple can deal with the cloned Mac ROMS through the usual lawsuits, unless they can demonstrate the 'uncleanness' of the ROMS. While a company might theoretically be able to do for the Apple ROMs what Phoenix did for the PC ROMs, in practice it looks a lot less feasible to me, for several reasons. The first is simply that the 128K ROMs (not to mention any of the the 256K ROMs) have a lot more code than the 8K PC BIOS ROM. If it took huge amounts of money, time, and people to clone an 8K ROM in a "clean room," it will take a lot more to clone the Mac ROMs. Aside from that, the structure of the Mac ROMs is a lot more complex than the structure of the PC ROMs (the PC ROMs implement a small set of mutually independent services, whereas the Mac ROMs implement a large set of mutually interdependent ones). The second major reason is that, not only is it a violation of Apple's System Software License Agreement to use it on a non-Apple computer (which might or might not stand up in court), it contains a fair amount of code which depends on undocumented features/bugs in the ROM (such as the "come-from" patches that everybody complains about in comp.sys.mac.programmer :-)). Thus, to be truly legal, the software company would also have to do a clean-room clone of the System Software, including such strange beasties as the Script Manager. They would also have to track Apple System releases, which would not be a fun time. I imagine such a company wouldn't be on Apple's seed lists... :-). A good way to look at it would be to consider a PC clone manufacturer who not only needed to clone the BIOS, but also MS-DOS, OS/2 and the Presentation Manager. It's possible, but it doesn't seem all that economical unless you do at least a partial copy, which opens you up to Apple's lawyers again. If anyone does do it, it will be an impressive feat indeed, but I'm pretty skeptical, myself. -- Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation amanda@lts.UUCP / ...!uunet!lts!amanda / 703.435.8170 -- MS-DOS Delendo Est!
jwhitnell@cup.portal.com (Jerry D Whitnell) (03/29/89)
Antonio Romero romero@confidence.princeton.edu writes... >Given the success of Phoenix, Award and DTK among others at cloning the >PC BIOS withough legal problems, I don't see how Apple can deal with >the cloned Mac ROMS through the usual lawsuits, unless they can >demonstrate the 'uncleanness' of the ROMS. The difference between the original PC ROMs and the Macintosh is that Apple holds patents on several pieces of technology included in the ROM. So any clone not only has to duplicate the function of the ROM, but also has the implement those functions without infringing on the patents Apple holds. Not a task for the faint of heart or small of pocketbook. Jerry Whitnell jwhitnell@cup.portal.com
caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) (03/30/89)
In article <16381@cup.portal.com> jwhitnell@cup.portal.com (Jerry D Whitnell) writes: >Antonio Romero romero@confidence.princeton.edu writes... >>Given the success of Phoenix, Award and DTK among others at cloning the >>PC BIOS withough legal problems, I don't see how Apple can deal with >>the cloned Mac ROMS through the usual lawsuits, unless they can >>demonstrate the 'uncleanness' of the ROMS. > >The difference between the original PC ROMs and the Macintosh is that >Apple holds patents on several pieces of technology included in the ROM. >So any clone not only has to duplicate the function of the ROM, but also >has the implement those functions without infringing on the patents Apple >holds. Not a task for the faint of heart or small of pocketbook. This is perhaps the first comment I've heard that raises a convincing-sounding problem. To others who say "It would be a nice trick if you could do it," I wholeheartedly agree-- but several companies _claim_ to have already successfully cloned the 128K's. This was mentioned in the story about the Jonathan in MacWeek. Now I'll be very impressed if they caught all the little undocumented hooks into the ROMS... but given that the cloners have had several years to work on it, I'd believe at this point that they're close enough to handle 'well-behaved' software that goes through officially documented calls, etc. How much of the software base that covers, I don't know. I'd also be impressed if they got around the legal hassles that Jerry brings up in his posting. -Antonio Romero romero@confidence.princeton.edu
aaronrp@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Aaron Priven) (03/30/89)
In article <7483@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) writes: >In article <16381@cup.portal.com> jwhitnell@cup.portal.com (Jerry D Whitnell) writes: >>The difference between the original PC ROMs and the Macintosh is that >>Apple holds patents on several pieces of technology included in the ROM. I'm sorry, but I've NEVER heard of any of these patents before. Patents rarely cover software because if they did, the software would have to be made completely public -- Apple would have to write it up and send it to the Library of Congress. I don't believe that's happened. I suppose the *archictecture* could be patented but if so, the Magic Sac wouldn't be possible. =Aaron= ==================================================================== Aaron Priven. Internet: aaronrp@ucscb.ucsc.edu UUCP: {world}!ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!aaronrp USNail: 78 Merrill/UCSC, 1156 High St., Santa Cruz CA 95064-1015
billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) (03/31/89)
In article <7483@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) writes: >In article <16381@cup.portal.com> jwhitnell@cup.portal.com (Jerry D Whitnell) writes: >>Antonio Romero romero@confidence.princeton.edu writes... >>>Given the success of Phoenix, Award and DTK among others at cloning the >>>PC BIOS withough legal problems, I don't see how Apple can deal with >>>the cloned Mac ROMS through the usual lawsuits, unless they can >>>demonstrate the 'uncleanness' of the ROMS. >> >>The difference between the original PC ROMs and the Macintosh is that >>Apple holds patents on several pieces of technology included in the ROM. >>So any clone not only has to duplicate the function of the ROM, but also >>has the implement those functions without infringing on the patents Apple >>holds. Not a task for the faint of heart or small of pocketbook. > I don't think that is it possible (legally to clone the ROMs). The ROMs contain the routines which draw such things as pull-down menus. Apple doesn't like it when Microsoft does pull down menus, so they won't be happy if anyone else does it, no matter what machine it is on. It would seem to me that they can reproduce the system calls that produce pull down menus and Apple's own windows, but that the clone routines couldn't produce pull-down menus or windows that look like Apple's. Who would want to use a clone if the menu bar didn't work correctly? +----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Bollinger | Internet: billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu | | 4297 Sulgrave Dr. +------+---------------------------------------------+ | Swartz Creek, Mi. 48473 | "My employer doesn't take my opinion any | +-----------------------------+ more seriously than you do." | | "You remember the IIe, it +---------------------------------------------+ | was the machine Apple made before they decided people didn't need | | machines with big screens, color, or slots." | | - Harry Anderson (from NBC's Night Court) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) (03/31/89)
In article <6806@saturn.ucsc.edu> aaronrp@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Aaron Priven) writes: >In article <7483@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) writes: >>In article <16381@cup.portal.com> jwhitnell@cup.portal.com (Jerry D Whitnell) writes: >>>The difference between the original PC ROMs and the Macintosh is that >>>Apple holds patents on several pieces of technology included in the ROM. > >I'm sorry, but I've NEVER heard of any of these patents before. Patents >rarely cover software because if they did, the software would have to >be made completely public -- Apple would have to write it up and send it >to the Library of Congress. I don't believe that's happened. I suppose >the *archictecture* could be patented but if so, the Magic Sac wouldn't >be possible. It has happened. It is rare, but Apple pulled it off. I'm am only sure of one software patent they hold -- regions. And as you may know, regions are VERY important to the Mac OS. I have heard that they also hold patents on the look of the finder, but I'm not sure. +----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Bollinger | Internet: billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu | | 4297 Sulgrave Dr. +------+---------------------------------------------+ | Swartz Creek, Mi. 48473 | "My employer doesn't take my opinion any | +-----------------------------+ more seriously than you do." | | "You remember the IIe, it +---------------------------------------------+ | was the machine Apple made before they decided people didn't need | | machines with big screens, color, or slots." | | - Harry Anderson (from NBC's Night Court) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
t-jacobs@wasatch.UUCP (Tony Jacobs) (03/31/89)
In article <6806@saturn.ucsc.edu> aaronrp@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Aaron Priven) writes: >>>The difference between the original PC ROMs and the Macintosh is that >>>Apple holds patents on several pieces of technology included in the ROM. > >I'm sorry, but I've NEVER heard of any of these patents before. Patents >rarely cover software because if they did, the software would have to >be made completely public -- Apple would have to write it up and send it >to the Library of Congress. I don't believe that's happened. I suppose >the *archictecture* could be patented but if so, the Magic Sac wouldn't >be possible. > >Aaron Priven. Internet: aaronrp@ucscb.ucsc.edu I have heard of these patents, a long time ago in fact. They are suppose to have a patent on pulldown menus I believe. And no, the patent would not have to disclose software (and perhaps wouldn't matter if they did). The patent likely covers the "way the pulldown menus work" and not how they were implimented in software. -- Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@ced.utah.edu
@DOUGHNUT.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU:miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (03/31/89)
From: Brad Miller <miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU>
Date: 30 Mar 89 16:12:00 GMT
From: billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (billkatt)
It has happened. It is rare, but Apple pulled it off. I'm am only sure of
one software patent they hold -- regions. And as you may know, regions are
VERY important to the Mac OS. I have heard that they also hold patents on
the look of the finder, but I'm not sure.
Apple may have "pulled off" less than you think. It is relatively easy to
get a patent. You just have to convince the patent office what you are
patenting is "patentable" and a search of existing patents doesn't obviously
cover it. Pure bureaucracy. What is difficult is making it stand up in
court, where you have an intelligent adversary proving it isn't patentable
(as seems likely in the case of software), or covered by another patent, or
has some other defect in the wording of the patent. Defending a patent is
very expensive, and takes a long time. It is rarely economically worthwhile
except for cases of true breakthroughs where many followon inventions rely
on the patented material.
----
Brad Miller U. Rochester Comp Sci Dept.
miller@cs.rochester.edu {...allegra!rochester!miller}alan@rnms1.paradyne.com (0000-Alan Lovejoy(0000)) (03/31/89)
In article <6806@saturn.ucsc.edu> aaronrp@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Aaron Priven) writes: >I'm sorry, but I've NEVER heard of any of these patents before. Patents >rarely cover software because if they did, the software would have to >be made completely public -- Apple would have to write it up and send it >to the Library of Congress. I don't believe that's happened. I suppose >the *archictecture* could be patented but if so, the Magic Sac wouldn't >be possible. Sorry to disappoint you. I don't know anything about Apple software patents, but here at AT&T Paradyne, WE have lots of software patents on our data communications products. They're expressed as "circuits," but they're implemented as software (we have unique technology that permits us to do this). Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL. Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne. They do not speak for me. __American Investment Deficiency Syndrome => No resistance to foreign invasion. Motto: If nanomachines will be able to reconstruct you, YOU AREN'T DEAD YET.
sklein@cdp.UUCP (04/01/89)
Aaron Priven says:
>...Patents rarely cover software...
Actually software patents are being issued like they are going out of
style. The Wall Street Journal ran an article on software patents the
week before last. One thing I *know* Apple has patented are 'regions.'
There are some companies that do nothing but live off royalties for
simple common software functions. For example, one company patented
the process of ORing the pixels of a character display, and EVERYONE
who uses inverse text has to pay them royalties!
Check out the article--very interestingsklein@cdp.UUCP (04/04/89)
Alan- You're right, I meant XORing. I also find it hard to believe. I double checked and found it applies just to XORing the square defined by the character grid, to create the very common blinking-block-cursor. Check the Wall Street Journal article for further details. -shabtai
landru@stan.UUCP (Mike Rosenlof) (04/04/89)
In article <1989Mar30.192433.20548@cs.rochester.edu> @DOUGHNUT.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU:miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU writes: > >Apple may have "pulled off" less than you think. It is relatively easy to >get a patent. You just have to convince the patent office what you are >patenting is "patentable" and a search of existing patents doesn't obviously >cover it. Pure bureaucracy. What is difficult is making it stand up in >court, where you have an intelligent adversary proving it isn't patentable What Mr. Miller says is true, a patent is relatively easy to get, and defending a patent is generally costly. One of the problems he doesn't mention is that the existence of the patent is considered very stong evidence that the <thing> is patentable. My company had a seminar given by a lawyer a while back about patents, and I was shocked at some of the things that are patentable. A brokerage company ( I believe ) patented a process of transaction processing that accepted inputs from many sources, acted on the inputs, and repeated the cycle. In effect they had patent polling!! According to the lawyer, software has just in this decade become patentable. Also, the patent examiners, who decide if this software is patentable, are supposed to be high quality software people, the patent office claims a B or B+ level. My personal opinion is that many dubious patents are getting approved. Followups to misc.legal, this isn't really Macintosh news any more. -- Mike Rosenlof Solbourne (303)447-2861 2190 Miller Drive Computer, Inc. stan!landru@boulder.colorado.edu Longmont Colorado landru@stan.uucp 80501 ...hao!boulder!stan!landru
han@Apple.COM (Byron Han, wyl E. coyote ) (04/05/89)
An interesting piece of reading is the Apple System Software License Agreement.
"This license allows you to: (a) Use the Apple Software only on a single
Apple computer."
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Disclaimer: Apple has no connection with my postings. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Byron Han, Communications Architect Cereal, anyone? :-) A1!
Apple Computer, Inc. -------------------------------------
20525 Mariani Ave, MS27Y Internet: han@apple.COM
Cupertino, CA 95014 UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!han
-------------------------------------- GENIE: BYRONHAN
ATTnet: 408-974-6450 Applelink: HAN1 CompuServe: 72167,1664
------------------------------------------------------------------------------rampil@cca.ucsf.edu (Ira Rampil) (04/14/89)
Yes Matilda, there are patents. I know, I saw one. It was a patent issued to Bill Atkinson representing Apple. The patent covered a new algorithm for handling arbitrary rasterized regions. Hypothesis: Anyone wanting to legally rip off the ROMs should find another way to handle the patented algorithms--Good Luck. Ira Rampil Department of Anesthesia UCSF ---- No Disclosure on My Disclaimer ----
bmartin@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Brian Martin) (04/15/89)
In article <1833@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> rampil@cca.ucsf.edu.UUCP (Ira Rampil) writes: >Yes Matilda, there are patents. I know, I saw one. >It was a patent issued to Bill Atkinson representing Apple. >The patent covered a new algorithm for handling arbitrary >rasterized regions. I was at a seminar on patents and copyrights last night, given by a patent attorney. According to him, algorithms can't be patented. Apparently, Merry-Lynch has a patent on a cash accounting "process" which includes software algorithms and flow diagrams as a part of the patent. He then went on to talk about using copyrights to protect the "expression" of an idea. And he said something about protecting microcode with something analogous to a copyright, designated by an "m" with a circle around it. -- Brian
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (04/16/89)
In article <3767@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, bmartin@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Brian Martin) writes... >In article <1833@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> rampil@cca.ucsf.edu.UUCP (Ira Rampil) writes: >>Yes Matilda, there are patents. I know, I saw one. >>It was a patent issued to Bill Atkinson representing Apple. >>The patent covered a new algorithm for handling arbitrary >>rasterized regions. > >I was at a seminar on patents and copyrights last night, given by a patent >attorney. According to him, algorithms can't be patented. Apparently, Well, some of Bill's stuff is patented, and if it's an algorithm, then that must mean algorithm's can be patented. Anyway, just 'cause one lawyer says something, doesn't make it true. There are usually numerous different opinions on the law. Sorting it out is part of what going to court is all about. This fellow may know what he's talking about; but maybe not. I'm sure if we got 10 lawyers in a room to give an opinion on this, we'd get at least 5 different opinions. Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine
rang@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) (04/16/89)
In article <2734@tank.uchicago.edu> ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >In article <3767@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, bmartin@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Brian Martin) writes... > >>In article <1833@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> rampil@cca.ucsf.edu.UUCP (Ira Rampil) writes: >>>Yes Matilda, there are patents. I know, I saw one. >>>It was a patent issued to Bill Atkinson representing Apple. >>>The patent covered a new algorithm for handling arbitrary >>>rasterized regions. >> >>I was at a seminar on patents and copyrights last night, given by a patent >>attorney. According to him, algorithms can't be patented. Apparently, >Well, some of Bill's stuff is patented, and if it's an algorithm, then that >must mean algorithm's can be patented. There is a NY Times article posted outside a faculty member's door here on patenting algorithms. They can be patented, at least according to the U.S. Patent Office. The example given in the article is a linear programming algorithm patent, I think given to somebody at AT&T. (I believe the article said this hadn't been tested in the courts, though.) +---------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | "VMS Forever!" | "Do worry...be SAD!" | | Michigan State University | rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu | | +---------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) (04/16/89)
In article <3767@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> bmartin@uhccux.UUCP (Brian Martin) writes: > >I was at a seminar on patents and copyrights last night, given by a patent >attorney. According to him, algorithms can't be patented. Technically correct but pragmatically misleading. Algorithms cannot be patented, but implementations of algorithms can, under a "method patent". By making the claims of the patent as general as possible, the algorithm can effectively be protected. Jon
captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) (04/19/89)
In article <1833@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> rampil@cca.ucsf.edu.UUCP (Ira Rampil) writes: >Yes Matilda, there are patents. I know, I saw one. >It was a patent issued to Bill Atkinson representing Apple. >The patent covered a new algorithm for handling arbitrary >rasterized regions. >Hypothesis: Anyone wanting to legally rip off the ROMs should >find another way to handle the patented algorithms--Good Luck. >Ira Rampil >Department of Anesthesia >UCSF This raises an interesting point regarding the Apple/Microsoft lawsuit: would the overlapping windows used by MS in Windows 2.0 violate Apple's patents, since the region capability of the toolbox is vital to updating overlapping windows? Would Apple be able to use this (keep in mind the case is a copyright/look-and-feel case, and then the patent violation might not be relevant) in court? How do other companies' interaces (ie OpenLook and NeXTStep) handle window updating? I would think that the amount of horsepower these other machines can command would allow them to use older (and possibly less efficient algorithms) for updating overlapping windows, instead of rasterized discontinuous possibly-irre gular regions. Anyhow, this is all speculation and random ramblings. -Ivan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | "My father peddles opium, my mother's on the dole. | | My sister used to walk the streets but now she's on parole. | | My uncle pays with little girlss; my aunt, she raped a steer, | | But they won't even speak to me 'cause I'm an engineer." | | -The MIT Engineers' Drinking Song | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | ARPA: captkidd@athena.mit.edu | | DISCLAIMER: It's my spout, not MIT's (would they really say such garbage?) | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
engsoc@watale.waterloo.edu (Engineering Society, CPH 1327, x2323) (04/21/89)
In article <10690@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> >-Ivan > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >| "My father peddles opium, my mother's on the dole. | >| My sister used to walk the streets but now she's on parole. | >| My uncle pays with little girlss; my aunt, she raped a steer, | >| But they won't even speak to me 'cause I'm an engineer." | >| -The MIT Engineers' Drinking Song | >|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| Sorry Ivan, I must ask you to have a little more respect to the "Engineer's Hymn" - it is more than a drinking song - it's a way of life!!! Jay Gibson President U of Waterloo Engineering Society ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "'Cause we don't give a damn for any damn man who don't give a damn for us!" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tron@wpi.wpi.edu (Richard G Brewer) (04/21/89)
In article <28404@apple.Apple.COM> han@Apple.COM (Byron Han, wyl E. coyote ) writes: ->An interesting piece of reading is the Apple System Software License Agreement. -> ->"This license allows you to: (a) Use the Apple Software only on a single ->Apple computer." Now this is something that I don't understand (and I probably never will). Why doesn't Apple do what IBM did with the PC and liscense out the OS? That is why the IBM was (and still is) so popular in the research / business areas. It wasn't because the machine was easy to use (obviously), it quickly became the most widely used platform for the pc industry (whether that is good or bad is up to the observer). I love my Mac, and I get really irritated when someone says that I aught to drop that "cute thing" for a "real" (calm down, Rick) PC. I honestly think that if Apple wend public with the OS, the HFS/Windowing environment would rank right up there with the other popular OS's (UNIX, MS-DOS, VMS, CPM, etc.) "The Power to be your Best" deserves the power of high distribution. And to think, Apple could still make a more than reasonable profit selling the chips to manufacturers, and liscensing out software (I imagine that the cost vs profit ratio would be even better). Just look at what this process did to IBM & Microsoft - they are now, effectively, the biggest PC oriented companies in the world. Just a thought...
redman@zaphod.ncsa.uiuc.edu (04/21/89)
I can tell you by personal experience that apple does have a patent on pulldown menus. The method of selecting a menu item using the mouse is incorporated into the mouse patent. I have reviewed this document and can vouch for its existence. Hard to believe, isn't it? Tom Redman National Center for Supercomputing Applications
bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) (04/25/89)
In article <1996@wpi.wpi.edu> tron@wpi.wpi.edu (Richard G Brewer) writes: (stuff deleted) > >And to think, Apple could still make a more than reasonable profit selling the >chips to manufacturers, and liscensing out software (I imagine that the cost >vs profit ratio would be even better). Just look at what this process did to >IBM & Microsoft - they are now, effectively, the biggest PC oriented companies >in the world. > Apple can make "more than reasonable" (i.e., BIG) profits licensing their OS and hardware to clonemakers, and they can (and do) make BIG profits doing it all themselves. The advantage to Apple for the latter course is that they retain control of their entire system (why do you think they're working on a new QuickDraw? Because it'll allow them to move away from Adobe, the only substantial software not invented at Apple that they depend on), can freeze out anybody that tries to clone their stuff, and allows them to set standards for Mac software and hardware innovations. Of course, how good this situation is for the general user (or the specialized user, for that matter) is directly proportional to the brains, creativity, responsiveness, R&D dollars, commitment, and numerous other variables residing on the Apple campus... John Heckendorn /\ BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A 1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarnet |()| Berkeley, CA 94709 | | (415) 549-2684 | |
krein@dg.dg.com (Todd Krein) (04/26/89)
In article <1996@wpi.wpi.edu> tron@wpi.wpi.edu (Richard G Brewer) writes: >Now this is something that I don't understand (and I probably never will). Why >doesn't Apple do what IBM did with the PC and liscense out the OS? That is why [stuff deleted] >And to think, Apple could still make a more than reasonable profit selling the >chips to manufacturers, and liscensing out software (I imagine that the cost >vs profit ratio would be even better). Just look at what this process did to >IBM & Microsoft - they are now, effectively, the biggest PC oriented companies >in the world. > >Just a thought... I was just reading that IBM is no longer considered the market leader in the PC area. Compaq, and to a lesser degree Zenith, have taken the market from them. Sure, I'd love a $1k SE/30, but Apple does have the obligation to its stokeholders, and its personel, to keep its market share. With out their present income, how could Apple hope to continue financing its R&D? I guess all I'm trying to say is that clones aren't always good for the original company as they are for the consumer... Todd Krein krein@dg.UUCP -- Todd Krein krein@dg.UUCP
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (04/26/89)
In article <143@dg.dg.com>, krein@dg.dg.com (Todd Krein) writes... >I was just reading that IBM is no longer considered the market leader in the >PC area. Compaq, and to a lesser degree Zenith, have taken the market from >them. Sure, I'd love a $1k SE/30, but Apple does have the obligation to its >stokeholders, and its personel, to keep its market share. > > With out their present income, how could Apple hope to continue >financing its R&D? > > I guess all I'm trying to say is that clones aren't always good >for the original company as they are for the consumer... > And by the same logic, while clones might be good for the consumer in the short run, when the same company which makes the "original" is the company responsible for the R&D of the platform, clones can actually be bad for the consumer in the long run. That is, while I think Mac's are somewhat overpriced, I'd rather pay an extra 20% and see some nice VM, multi-tasking, IPC, DSP and stuff coming out in (near) future systems/machines, than get a cheap clone and slow down system/machine development. Of course the dichotomy is not so absolute, and it would be nice (and I believe reasonable) to see somewhat cheaper Macs, but Apple's having a monopoly on the Mac market does benefit the consumer in some ways too. Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine
geb@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Gordon E. Banks) (04/27/89)
I assume this clone will be somewhat better than a mac plus. Otherwise, who would buy it, since the mac plus is available (at least at our university) at $935?