granroth@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth) (05/10/91)
In article <52469@apple.Apple.COM>, bsteven@Apple.COM (Bill Stevens) writes: > . . . > If created, Data-PCS will enable all computer > manufacturers to produce high performance wireless communications products > for the United States. > . . . The article goes on to point out the wonderful benefits of this great new idea that Apple has come up with, and includes a form letter for computer users to send to the chairman of the FCC supporting Apple's petition for radio bandwidth. Now, it seems to me that posting such a thing to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc was just asking for some less-than-gracious replies. I couldn't help myself. I replied with a somewhat modified version of their form letter suggesting that, judging from recent history, Apple's motives should be assumed to be more monopolistic than altruistic. I wondered how long it would be before Apple was sueing HAM packet radio operators for patent infringement. I didn't give the whole thing more thought than the time it took to type it in, and the result was (I thought) obviously frivolous. Apple's well-known legal department didn't agree. Both the chairman of my department and the departmental computer system manager have been subjected to lengthy discussions concerning the wisdom of my representing the University of Iowa. (Silly me. Not only did I forget to include the smiley, but forgot the standard disclaimer line.) None of this is going to cause me any difficulty, but I was wondering if anyone else has been receiving such personalized attention to their comments. Have any of you who have submitted positive comments had your credentials verified by phone calls from Apple representatives? "Enquiring minds want to know." -Larry Granroth@IowaSP.physics.UIowa.edu IOWASP::GRANROTH (I don't speak for the University of Iowa, but for all other sentient life in the galaxy. :-) :-) :-)
johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May9.214446.818@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu>, granroth@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth) writes... >In article <52469@apple.Apple.COM>, bsteven@Apple.COM (Bill Stevens) writes: >> If created, Data-PCS will enable all computer >> manufacturers to produce high performance wireless communications products >> for the United States. >Now, it seems to me that posting such a thing to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc >was just asking for some less-than-gracious replies. Why? I have posted several times to comp.sys.ibm.pc.* and have gotten many gracious replies, despite asking and/or answering mainly DOS<->Mac- related questions. I fail to see that anything in Apple's Data-PCS proposal cuts the rug out from under anybody. If anything, it will bring more DOS portables into Mac networks as people look for cheap and portable ways of tapping into networks. Clones probably have there best technical advantage over Apple's product line in this area, one that will likely persist. This is not "MacRadio", or "DataTalk", or any other warm, fuzzy Cupertino name. It is a petition to reserve some radio bandwidth for computer users, period. From my reading of the DATA-PCS proposal it would appear to have broad backing in the industry. IBM, NCR, Tandy, and Grid have also endorsed the proposal. David Nagel's "Open Letter" requesting support for DATA-PCS concludes: "The true value of Data-PCS will only be realized when it is available to all of us." >>Message-ID: <52468@apple.Apple.COM> >>Date: 5 May 91 02:17:14 GMT >>Reply-To: data.pcs@applelink.apple.com (<-- e-mail for more info) Mr. Granroth of the University of Iowa writes: >...... replied with a somewhat modified version of their form >letter suggesting that, judging from recent history, Apple's motives >should be assumed to be more monopolistic than altruistic. I wondered >how long it would be before Apple was sueing HAM packet radio operators >for patent infringement. I really wonder if Mr. Granroth READ the proposal. >I didn't give the whole thing more thought >than the time it took to type it in, and the result was (I thought) >obviously frivolous. The lack of thought WAS obvious. >Apple's well-known legal department didn't agree. Both the chairman >of my department and the departmental computer system manager have been >subjected to lengthy discussions concerning the wisdom of my representing >the University of Iowa. (Silly me. Not only did I forget to include >the smiley, but forgot the standard disclaimer line.) None of this >is going to cause me any difficulty, but I was wondering if anyone else >has been receiving such personalized attention to their comments. >Have any of you who have submitted positive comments had your credentials >verified by phone calls from Apple representatives? I am surprised that you didn't hear from IBM, GRiD, Tandy, and NCR (now AT&T) also. Thoughtless stuff like this ruins the soup for all of us. Apple posted the request for comments and input to groups like comp.sys.ibm.pc.* and comp.misc in order to make sure everyone got their $0.02 in. The fight over transmission protocols can come later, but I would imagine that an industry conference like the one that led to standardization of "MIDI" would follow the allocation of radio bandwidth. And frankly, it doesn't hurt that the industry group petitioning the FCC is made up of US companies. Wait another few years and you can have a SONY network; will they post to comp.sys.ibm.pc.* to find out what you think? Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)
bsteven@Apple.COM (Bill Stevens) (05/10/91)
Having read Mr. Granroth's most recent posting to this newsgroup, I feel it may be of value to offer the perspective from the "other side of the telephone call", so to speak. About a week ago, I posted an "open letter from David Nagel", and a request for comments on the Data-PCS Petition, filed by Apple Computer. The intent of this posting was twofold. a) To inform what I considered an audience of above-average technical competence of the existence of the Petition, and b) offer a vehicle whereby they could either comment directly to the FCC (the normal channel), or if more convenient, provide comments directly to Apple Computer, to be forwarded to the FCC. Mr. Granroth responded as requested, by transmitting a filled-out version of the sample letter provided in my posting, to the address listed in the posting (data.pcs@applelink.apple.com). The letter was essentially as Mr. Granroth described in his most recent posting. (the letter is currently queued for submission to the FCC. Upon acceptance by the FCC, I will be happy to post the letter in its entirety, as at that time, it will be part of the public record.) Upon reviewing the letter, I was concerned that, although it was signed by Mr. Granroth, the address at the top of the letter was the address of the department by which he was employed. Also, his signature included his job title within that department. Not being a lawyer myself, I did not feel comfortable with submitting this letter, in this form, without further consideration. I contacted an Apple Computer lawyer, who has been familiar with the Data-PCS Petition since its inception, and asked his guidance on what steps I should take to ensure that the needs of all interests were considered. He advised me to contact the department named in Mr. Granroth's letter, to ensure that they were aware of his letter, and did not object to its submission with reference to their institution. I asked my secretary to locate a phone number for the department. She returned with a number for the (larger) department, of which Mr. Granroth's department is a component. >Both the chairman of my department and the departmental computer system >manager have been subjected to lengthy discussions concerning the >wisdom of my representing the University of Iowa. I called the number which my secretary had obtained. I reached an administrative person (secretary?) of the office of the (larger) Department. I spoke BRIEFLY with the department chairman, who provided me with two other names, which he instructed me to contact. I explained that perhaps it would be better if I could discuss the matter with him, but he refused to speak further with me, stating that if I would speak to one of the other gentlemen, then they would review the matter to him later. I thanked him and said goodbye. Total time for this dialogue was on the order of one minute - two minutes at the very top. The matter was not discussed with the chairman AT ALL. I called both other numbers and was unable to reach either party. As this was the day before the filing deadline, I was eager to reach someone with which to discuss this matter. I phoned back the administrative person at the chairman's office, and explained that I could not reach either of the other persons. She put me on hold to look for them (said she saw one of them in the hall a moment earlier). While on hold, I was looking over the letter, when I noticed that Mr. Granroth had included his phone number in the mail header. When the administrative person returned to the phone, she said that she was unable to locate either of the (other two) persons. She asked if I wished to speak to the chairman again, I said "not at this time. I have another number here which I would like to try first." I called Mr. Granroth, who much to my relief, answered. I announced myself and explained that I was seeking to speak to management at his institution regarding his submission, and asked if this was OK with him. He said that it was (OK). I then placed a call back to the "administrative person" and asked to speak to "other person number 1". He was still not available, so I left a number where I could be reached. "Other person number 1" returned my call in about a half an hour. I explained the purpose of my call - to inform the department that their name had been used as a return address on correspondence written by Mr. Granroth, and that the correspondence was scheduled to be submitted to the FCC the following day. I read the text of the letter to this person (he chuckled). We discussed the matter for perhaps twenty minutes. Most of this discussion was necessary to clarify the exact purpose of the call. I repeated several times that I was not calling to request that the text of the letter be changed (this person offered several times that he was not knowledgable on the subject, and could not comment - I did not ask him to do so), but that I simply wanted some confirmation that the department did not object to the use of their name on the letter. The person asserted that it could not necessarily be construed to represent the department, simply because the department's name was on the letter. He stated that it was common practice to send out letters (from an individual) with such a return address, without it necessarily representing the institution. I explained that I was taking a conservative position, and simply was calling as a courtesy to the institution, to ensure that their interests were considered. This person never made a statement of approval or disapproval. I summarized by stating that I had voluntarily contacted the institution as a courtesy to offer an opportunity for them to review this statement of public record before I, as an agent of Apple Computer, duly forwarded the letter into the public record. I stated that I had made a good faith effort to do so, however I did not represent our conversation as an agreement of explicit approval from the institution. On this basis, I was satisfied to proceed with filing the letter with the FCC. He responded with, "That's what I would do." I thanked him and said goodbye. Total conversation was 20-30 minutes tops. >(Silly me. Not only did I forget to include the smiley, but forgot >the standard disclaimer line.) The letter was not submitted as a netnews posting. Had it been, I probably would have taken it in in the "smiley" spirit. However, Mr. Granroth forwarded the letter, as requested in my posting, with all appearances and form of a formal submission of comments to the FCC. I am responding accordingly. >None of this is going to cause me any difficulty None intended. Mr. Granroth's name was never used with the chairman of the department, and was provided to the "other" person, only upon request, and only after receiving Mr. Granroth's approval to discuss the letter with his department's management. Nothing whatsoever was stated or implied at any time regarding Mr. Granroth, other than to repeat the text of his letter. >I didn't give the whole thing more thought than the time it took to >type it in, and the result was (I thought) obviously frivolous. As mentioned above, frivolity was not apparent in Mr. Granroth's letter. If frivolity had been intended, I expected that he would have stated so in our phone conversation, or in response to a mail posting which I had previously sent to him, text following: >Dear Mr. Granroth, > >This is to confirm receipt of your comments on the Data-PCS Petition to >the FCC. Your comments will be forwarded to the FCC on or before Friday, >May 10, 1991. > >Best Regards, >William M. Stevens >Apple Computer I will answer the following question for Mr. Granroth: >Have any of you who have submitted positive comments had your >credentials verified by phone calls from Apple representatives? No. In fact, NOBODY's credentials have been questioned, including Mr. Granroth's. The call to his employer was not intended to accomplish any purpose other than to offer the institution an opportunity to consider the use of their name in this written instrument. Conclusion: I thank you for taking the time to read this very lengthy posting. My objective is to provide you with the most accurate accounting of the events I can, so that you can form your own opinions on the basis of what Mr. Granroth, and I, have both represented as the facts. It is my personal desire that this topic consume no further net resources. The deadline for the FCC comments is tomorrow, May 10, 1991. I will post no further (and in fact, have not) on the Data-PCS Petition. Your comments to the FCC are, as before, encouraged. Bill Stevens Apple Computer
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) (05/11/91)
>In article <52469@apple.Apple.COM>, bsteven@Apple.COM (Bill Stevens) writes: >> . . . >> If created, Data-PCS will enable all computer >> manufacturers to produce high performance wireless communications products >> for the United States. >> . . . > In article <1991May9.214446.818@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu> granroth@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth) writes: >The article goes on to point out the wonderful benefits of this great new >idea that Apple has come up with, and includes a form letter for computer >users to send to the chairman of the FCC supporting Apple's petition >for radio bandwidth. > >Now, it seems to me that posting such a thing to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc >was just asking for some less-than-gracious replies. I couldn't help >myself. I replied with a somewhat modified version of their form >letter suggesting that, judging from recent history, Apple's motives >should be assumed to be more monopolistic than altruistic. I wondered >how long it would be before Apple was sueing HAM packet radio operators >for patent infringement. I didn't give the whole thing more thought >than the time it took to type it in, and the result was (I thought) >obviously frivolous. > >Apple's well-known legal department didn't agree. Both the chairman >of my department and the departmental computer system manager have been >subjected to lengthy discussions concerning the wisdom of my representing >the University of Iowa. (Silly me. Not only did I forget to include >the smiley, but forgot the standard disclaimer line.) None of this >is going to cause me any difficulty, but I was wondering if anyone else >has been receiving such personalized attention to their comments. >Have any of you who have submitted positive comments had your credentials >verified by phone calls from Apple representatives? So it is perfectly moral and legal, in the minds of the Applelawyers, for THEM to misuse the 'net to create a mailing campaign to further THEIR selfish interests...yet these sleazebags use legal talent (oxymoron) to harass other net posters twitting their posting? This is really a pretty ugly precedent for a net subscriber to attempt to set. Perhaps a petition movement to have Apple's net access removed is in order? Seriously, if their legal beagles attempted to harass you for a public posting on the net, it would appear that complaints to internet appear in order....before Apple becomes the Big Brother on the net! (There are NO smiley's here....this is really a pretty ugly thing for a net subscriber to attempt, IMHO. ) I've always had a personal prejudice against Apple for their smug and litiginous attitude, but this tends to make it more militant. BTW, does Apple still HAVE an R+D staff, or have their offices all been taken over by the lawyers? >:-) (THAT was a smiley...it is a JOKE..in case you are too thick to get it...) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Obligatory Disclaimer. These are PERSONAL opinions only. They in no way represent any official or otherwise opinion of my employer...!!! _________________________________________________________________
jjwebb@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us (JJ Webb) (05/13/91)
Apple Lawyers - The hockey cops of the computer industry. Apple Lawyers - Vito, Lucca and 3-finger Dan just doing their job. Apple Lawyers - Men who can't tell the difference between a competitor's new product announcement and an ambulance siren. Apple Lawyers -
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/13/91)
This seems rather silly. Why did you not just contact the author directly and ask him to clarify his relationship with the department? A simple disclaimer (which he would undoubtedly have agreed to) would have prevented the whole sorry affair. Personally, I find it hard to take the petition seriously. It seems to me to be more business-politics BS rather than anything of technical interest. More time and resource wasted in legislation and litigation instead of engineering and innovation. Sigh. Once upon a time there was this great little computer company... -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"