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
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 | | `-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
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
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.NET