[comp.org.eff.talk] Apple's FCC request

awillis@pro-angmar.UUCP (Albert Willis) (04/09/91)

April 5, 1991

To all Users of Personal Computers:


Apple Computer recently asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
allocate frequencies so computer users will be able to transmit and receive
information among personal computers (particularly portable and notebook-style
computers), using radio (instead of cables) in a local radius of about 50
meters indoors.  We need your help to make this possible.

We call this new technology "Data-PCS," for Data Personal Communications
Service.  We want this capability to be usable the way computers communicate on
networks: at high speeds and sharing the network equitably.  Apple has
specifically proposed to the FCC that this capability should be available to
ALL computer manufacturers and users, without requiring radio licenses or
having to pay for using the airwaves.

Radio spectrum is a scarce resource in high demand.  Apple would like your help
in expressing to the FCC the potential value of Data-PCS for computer users
everywhere.  The FCC has formally asked for comments from interested parties.
Apple would appreciate your giving the FCC your ideas about Data-PCS.
Specifically, we hope you will write them in support of our petition.

Data-PCS is a local capability suitable for offices, classrooms, homes. It can
also provide wireless access to wired networks, such as those which can connect
libraries and research centers.

When Data-PCS was introduced in January, Dr. David Nagel, vice president of
Apple's Advanced Technology Group and the signator of Apple's petition to the
FCC, was quoted in the press saying that "This convergence of wireless
communications and computers will dramatically change the nature of computing.
For example, students and teachers would no longer be confined to a rigid
classroom set-up.  Instead, computing and communicationsQand therefore
learningQcould happen any place.  Users in the workplace would enjoy similar
advantages.  Employees would be liberated from the constraints of physical
networks, which would enhance creativity and personal productivity. "


Our petition concludes:

   "Apple's chief executive officer, John Sculley, in a keynote speech at
Educom '87, stated:

      'The key strength of twenty-first century organizations will be not their
size or structure, but their ability to simultaneously unleash and coordinate
the creative contributions of many individuals.'

       Data-PCS is one of the tools that will enable individuals to realize
this vision.  By taking the lead to create a Data-PCS, the FCC will be taking
an essential step to assure that organizations in the United States -- both
educational and commercial -- will be empowered to compete in the twenty first
century and that the United States computer industry will have the versatility
and strength to continue its contributions to our economy and to our society. "

Data-PCS is being received with enthusiastic attention.  The New York Times,
the Wall Street Journal and numerous newspapers, magazines and professional
journals have hailed it; you may have encountered discussions of it there or on
PBS and other network and local stations.

Other computer makers and trade organizations have joined with Apple in
refining and expanding the concepts of Data-PCS, and are providing commentary
to the FCC about its value and how it should be implemented.  Apple officials
are testifying to Congressional committees and addressing professional
organizations on Data-PCS.

But Data-PCS is now a vision, not yet a reality.  It requires enactment of new
federal regulations.  When those regulations are passed, Apple and other
companies can make the investments required to make it real.

To participate, you can write a letter using the reference number the FCC has
assigned our petition: "RM 7618."  You should address and send your letter to:

      Hon. Alfred C. Sikes, Chairman Federal Communications Commission 1919 M
Street, N.W., Room 814 Washington, D.C.  20554

      Reference: Rulemaking Docket No. 7618

We can suggest opening wording to make sure the letter reaches the right
people, but from there on we hope you will use your own terms to explain to the
FCC, and to us, your own visions for collaborative, wireless communications
between and among computers.  Your letter need not be lengthy, but I assure you
that it will be read and appreciated.

Here's a suggested opening to follow the heading above:


    Date Dear Mr. Chairman:

    We (I) understand that Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") has asked the FCC to
allocate spectrum to establish a new radio service ("Data-PCS") for local area
high speed communications among personal computing devices.  We are writing to
urge you to grant Apple's request (RM No. 7618).

    (Please describe in the ongoing letter your views on how this function
could be important to you, and perhaps commentary on special projects you are
doing or would like to do that could be improved by the ability to communicate
without wires.)

                           Respectfully submitted,

                           Name (and title or function , if appropriate)




This is an urgent request.  For maximum impact, your comment should be sent to
arrive by the FCC's initial deadline for comments on APRIL 10.  If received
later, they will be considered in a second round of comments, due MAY 10.


Thank you,

Bill Stevens Manager, Wireless Communications Advanced Technology Group Apple
Computer, Inc.






Albert Willis
INET:  pro-angmar!awillis@alphalpha.com          | America Online: BCS Al
UUCP:..!uunet!alphalpha!pro-angmar!awillis       | GEnie: A.Willis

tmurphy%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thomas Murphy) (04/10/91)

Drop your heinous lawsuits and I would be happy to sign;
else
  no dice honey.

murph

ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (04/10/91)

< Drop your heinous lawsuits and I would be happy to sign;
< else
<  no dice honey.
<
< murph

Let me see if I understand your "reasoning".  Apple thinks that there
should be radio spectrum allocated for computer networks.  Apple
is pursuing some lawsuits you don't like.  Therefore, radio networks
for computers are a bad idea?

Here are some other things you might want to avoid, then, because
Apple thinks they are a good idea:

	1. Compilers.  Apple uses and sells compilers.  Therefore
	you should not use a compiler.

	2. Disk drives.  Apple uses and sells disk drives.  Therefore,
	until they drop their lawsuits, you should stop using disk
	drives.

	3. Backups.  Apple probably backs up their data.  Therefore,
	until they drop those lawsuits, you shouldn't do backups.

	4. Usenet.  Apple is connected to the net, and several Apple
	employees post.  Therefore, until they drop their lawsuits,
	you shouldn't be using the net.

	5. Schools and Libraries.  Apple has donated computers to
	schools and libraries.  Until they drop their lawsuits,
	proposals for new schools and libraries should be opposed.

In other words, what the heck do these lawsuits have to do with
using radio for networks?

						Tim Smith

brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (04/11/91)

The problem to me seems to be that to get any decent network speed, you need
pretty broad spectrum transmissions.  There is no room in the band of that
size is there, except perhaps at extermely high frequencies.  I would
want to hear more technical details to find out how this would work before
giving support to such a concept.

For example, infra-red might make a lot more sense, though it is limited to
line of site.   To support IR networking, companies would have to put IR
gateways on the net in the rooms where the laptops will be present.
This, however, is often more flexible than RF, because you can easily have
several per building.   An RF system would make it difficult for a company
one one floor of a building to have one if the people on the other floor do.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

tmurphy%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thomas Murphy) (04/11/91)

>Let me see if I understand your "reasoning".  Apple thinks that there
>should be radio spectrum allocated for computer networks.  Apple
>is pursuing some lawsuits you don't like.  Therefore, radio networks
>for computers are a bad idea?
>

No, the networks may be a fine idea.....but apple and others who are 
pursuing lawsuits to push for copyrights and patents are cutting off
the programmers hands so to speak.  I would much rather have my hands
than some way to send my data or whatever to a colleague, especially
when I can already do it.
I have few ways, as does any single user, to influence a large comp. 
like apple; but banded together through pressure in any area we can
have effect.

murph

What do you think about software patents?

bangell%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Bob Angell) (04/11/91)

In article <41134@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>< Drop your heinous lawsuits and I would be happy to sign;
>< else
><  no dice honey.
><
>< murph
>
>Let me see if I understand your "reasoning".  Apple thinks that there
>should be radio spectrum allocated for computer networks.  Apple
>is pursuing some lawsuits you don't like.  Therefore, radio networks
>for computers are a bad idea?

murph has a good point, if this company continues with it current
practices,then one, in the not-so-distant future, may require 
4-5 patent attorneys to peruse every line of code you create.

I for one do agree that radio networks may be a good thing.  I do
NOT agree with their actions taken thus far in their court battles.  

>
>Here are some other things you might want to avoid, then, because
>Apple thinks they are a good idea:
>
>	1. Compilers.  Apple uses and sells compilers.  Therefore
>	you should not use a compiler.
>
>	2. Disk drives.  Apple uses and sells disk drives.  Therefore,
>	until they drop their lawsuits, you should stop using disk
>	drives.
>
>	3. Backups.  Apple probably backs up their data.  Therefore,
>	until they drop those lawsuits, you shouldn't do backups.
>
>	4. Usenet.  Apple is connected to the net, and several Apple
>	employees post.  Therefore, until they drop their lawsuits,
>	you shouldn't be using the net.
>
>	5. Schools and Libraries.  Apple has donated computers to
>	schools and libraries.  Until they drop their lawsuits,
>	proposals for new schools and libraries should be opposed.
>
>In other words, what the heck do these lawsuits have to do with
>using radio for networks?
>
>						Tim Smith

You have obviously missed the whole point!  Radio for networks have
NOTHING to with lawsuits.

-Bob-
"Live Free of Die"!

lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (04/11/91)

tmurphy%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thomas Murphy) writes:
>No, the networks may be a fine idea.....but apple and others who are 
>pursuing lawsuits to push for copyrights and patents are cutting off
>the programmers hands so to speak.

Actually I believe the GNU project could do a much better job at
cutting off programmers' hands.  Question:  is this really the
newsgroup for this discussion?
-- 
Eliot Lear
[lear@turbo.bio.net]

dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Barberi) (04/11/91)

In article <1991Apr9.231716.20506@hellgate.utah.edu> tmurphy%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thomas Murphy) writes:
>Drop your heinous lawsuits and I would be happy to sign;
>else
>  no dice honey.

What lawsuits??  Fill us in, please.

peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/12/91)

ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
> Let me see if I understand your "reasoning".  Apple thinks that there
> should be radio spectrum allocated for computer networks.  Apple
> is pursuing some lawsuits you don't like.  Therefore, radio networks
> for computers are a bad idea?

No, therefore any other legal or legislative action Apple takes is
suspect.
-- 
               (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com)
   `-_-'
    'U`

entropy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C Foard) (04/13/91)

[request for PC frequency allocation deleted]

It sounds like a good idea, but I would like to know more about what standards
are planned. Apple has the reputation for using its lawyers instead of its
engineers to compete. Is this going to work the same way? A proprietary
FCC sponsored "standard" patended by apple and protected by multi million
dollar lawyers to enforce yet another artificial monopoly?

If it is done in a way that doesn't restrict competition, I would strongly
support it. Otherwise I would urge every one to ask that the FCC deny
apples request and create a standard that can be used by everyone.

ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (04/13/91)

> What do you think about software patents?

There is a discussion going on in misc.legal on this very topic.
I have a rather long post over there about what I think of them.
The subject line is something like "RSA and patents" or something
like that ("RSA" is definitely in the title, and I think it's the
only discussion with that in the title, so it should be easy to
find if it has not expired).

My position on software patents is basically that the patent
office and CCPA are letting companies get by with patents that
are *way* to general.  In my misc.legal postings, I give examples
of what I consider to be reasonable software patents (based on
combinations of several that I've been involved with from companies
that actually applied for patents and only claimed very narrow
things in very specific areas of software - I know, it's hard to
believe, but reasonable companies actually do exist!).

						Tim Smith

louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) (04/13/91)

In article <41134@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>Let me see if I understand your "reasoning".  Apple thinks that there
>should be radio spectrum allocated for computer networks.  Apple
>is pursuing some lawsuits you don't like.  Therefore, radio networks
>for computers are a bad idea?

[list of common computer stuff deleted]

>In other words, what the heck do these lawsuits have to do with
>using radio for networks?
>
>						Tim Smith

Hmmmm.  Well, let's see.  Apple will get the FCC approval, then run with it.
About 1 year later, some other company will come out with a radio-net type
thing, and Apple, in their usual manner, will sue them like with other
things (*cough* windows *cough*).

When Apple can show *me* that they are interested in making such a thing for
the advancement of computing rather than making a buck, then I'll sign, too.
Until then, their current lawsuits speak otherwise.

Louis Giliberto
(louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us)

Long live Big Blue!!!

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
!       "As above, so below; as below, so above" -- The Kybalion          !
!       "I don't trust him; he has dark hair" -- My girlfriend's mother   !
!       "So I'm stupid; what's your point?" -- Me                         !

gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) (04/15/91)

In article <1991Apr13.031151.18659@vpnet.chi.il.us> louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) writes:
>When Apple can show *me* that they are interested in making such a thing for
>the advancement of computing rather than making a buck, then I'll sign, too.
>Until then, their current lawsuits speak otherwise.

	Indeed they do.

	Unfortunately for you, what they say and what you THINK they say are
two entirely different things.

	I wish people would read the damn things instead of spouting off....




-- 
-----
Roger Tang, gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Middle-class weenie, art nerd and all-around evil nasty spermchucker

nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (04/15/91)

In article <1991Apr13.031151.18659@vpnet.chi.il.us> louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) writes:
>thing, and Apple, in their usual manner, will sue them like with other
>things (*cough* windows *cough*).
...
>Long live Big Blue!!!

Are we on drugs or what?  Have you ever looked to see how many patent/
copyright lawsuits IBM has filed?  Admittedly not many of them go to
court - you don't win that kind of battle.  Take token rings for instance.
Apollo was fighting that one when HP took them over, unfortunately HP
had already given up and paid.

I don't agree with these lawsuits either, but I don't let it turn me
into a blind fool.  Evaluate the deed, not the doer.

-- 
Alfalfa Software, Inc.          |       Poste:  The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com              |       Send Anything... Anywhere
617/646-7703 (voice/fax)        |       info@alfalfa.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.

tmurphy%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thomas Murphy) (04/16/91)

In article <1991Apr10.213331.21441@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Barberi) writes:
>
>What lawsuits??  Fill us in, please.
>
I speak of the lawsuits against micro-soft and HP. Though not the
David versus Goliath type thing that went on with Lotus and PaperBack
software, this suit has far reaching implications for all programmers.
I suggest the articles in communications of the acm from a few months
back there is also a similar article in Dr.Dobbs from march 1990.  As
a soon to graduate student and an independent developer I think that
things could get out of hand soon and it worries me....kind of a big
fish swallows all the little fish scenario.  Yes, this may not be the
forum for this discussion and it is true that this is a whole new
venture for apple but I think pressure should be applied any way it
can.

murph

louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) (04/17/91)

In article <1991Apr15.023121.24595@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>Are we on drugs or what?  Have you ever looked to see how many patent/
>copyright lawsuits IBM has filed?  Admittedly not many of them go to
>court - you don't win that kind of battle.  Take token rings for instance.
>Apollo was fighting that one when HP took them over, unfortunately HP
>had already given up and paid.

Token ring is hardware, not software.  There's a big difference.  IBM did not
force Microsoft to write an OS strictly for them (MS-DOS), and IBM did
not start a major lawsuit program when "clone" BIOS's appeared, as they could
have like APple did.

The fact is that sometimes profits need to be protected in order to keep the
business running, but when it slows down innovation it is not only wrong,
but against the law.  Read your constitution.  Apple crossed that fine
line with the GUI lawsuit.  I like Apple computers, but not the company
policy.

>
>I don't agree with these lawsuits either, but I don't let it turn me
>into a blind fool.  Evaluate the deed, not the doer.

Exactly.  Apple is a great computer, but their policy sucks.  I don't
buy from companies that overwhelmingly exploit third-world countries either,
when I can avoid it.  APple can easily be avoided.

Louis Giliberto
(louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us)

>
>-- 
>Alfalfa Software, Inc.          |       Poste:  The EMail for Unix
>nazgul@alfalfa.com              |       Send Anything... Anywhere
>617/646-7703 (voice/fax)        |       info@alfalfa.com
>
>I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
>responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
>everyone else's.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
!       "As above, so below; as below, so above" -- The Kybalion          !
!       "I don't trust him; he has dark hair" -- My girlfriend's mother   !
!       "So I'm stupid; what's your point?" -- Me                         !

seurer+@rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) (04/18/91)

I don't mean to fan the anti-Apple flames, but I thought this might be
of interest:

> > APPLE TO INCLUDE WINDOWS IN SUIT-MICROSOFT
>  Redmond, Washington: Apple Computer Inc has informed Microsoft Corp that
>  it plans to amend its pending lawsuit to include Microsoft's popular
>  Windows 3.0 version of its graphical user interface in the lawsuit.
>  Reuters 16.4.91.

Does anyone know what became of Xerox's lawsuit against Apple?

- Bill Seurer      IBM: seurer+@rchland  Prodigy: CNSX71A
  Rochester, MN    Internet: seurer+@rchland.vnet.ibm.com

lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (04/19/91)

louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) writes:
>The fact is that sometimes profits need to be protected in order to keep the
>business running, but when it slows down innovation it is not only wrong,
>but against the law.  Read your constitution.

Calling someone ignorant because they disagree with you is uncalled
for.  The REAL question is this: is what Apple is doing REALLY
stifling innovation?  It is debatable, at best (I believe Apple is a
little far over, but not as much as you might think!).
-- 
Eliot Lear
[lear@turbo.bio.net]

gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) (04/19/91)

In article <0c3P=FA91EAf41CrM5@rchland.ibm.com> seurer+@rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) writes:
>Does anyone know what became of Xerox's lawsuit against Apple?

	Basically, laughed out of court.

	a) because of the length of time it took to bring it to court

	b) Xerox made little effort to protect its interest previous to the
filing of the suit

	This is, in fact, the exact opposit of Apple's behavior.

-- 
-----
Roger Tang, gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Middle-class weenie, art nerd and all-around evil nasty spermchucker

tmurphy%hellgate.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thomas Murphy) (04/19/91)

In article <0c3P=FA91EAf41CrM5@rchland.ibm.com>, seurer+@rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) writes:
> I don't mean to fan the anti-Apple flames, but I thought this might be
> of interest:
> 
> > > APPLE TO INCLUDE WINDOWS IN SUIT-MICROSOFT
> >  Redmond, Washington: Apple Computer Inc has informed Microsoft Corp that
> >  it plans to amend its pending lawsuit to include Microsoft's popular
> >  Windows 3.0 version of its graphical user interface in the lawsuit.
> >  Reuters 16.4.91.
> 
> Does anyone know what became of Xerox's lawsuit against Apple?
> 
> - Bill Seurer      IBM: seurer+@rchland  Prodigy: CNSX71A
>   Rochester, MN    Internet: seurer+@rchland.vnet.ibm.com

They dropped it after a few weeks....

murph

harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom) (04/23/91)

In article <Apr.18.10.19.39.1991.26102@turbo.bio.net>
   lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes:

 =}The REAL question is this: is what Apple is doing REALLY
 =}stifling innovation?  It is debatable, at best (I believe Apple is a
 =}little far over, but not as much as you might think!).

   I disagree. Apple is trying to lead the computer industry to where
most other US industry has gone: beyond the gates which upon is writ
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter"... They get rid of those interested
in making advances and bring in a bunch of suits to make sure nobody
else can get a piece of the pie (or even make one of their own)...

   Can you imagine the past (technological) if Apple were around...
"Your honor, we feel that company Z's use of a CRT to display information
violates our companies rights as protected under xxxxxxx. We know there
are priors which make our claim shaky your honor, but in the computer
field it is different. The method of displaying the information makes
or breaks a system and ours should be the only one which is allowed
to use the system which we used first. No, your honor, there are other
ways of displaying information. For example, one could use a hardcopy
device such as a line printer. Yes your honor we did stop other
companies from using it for the past n years, but now that it is not
important to our company, we feel we can share the use of such with
our competitors... Thank you your honor. May we present you with one of
our doohickeys which honor the 500th anniversary of these wonderful
United States of America? No, your honor, we are not trying to influence
your decision in tomorrows trial concerning the use of the phrase
"the Boston Tea Party" by that group of historians..."

We're just lucky that Apple didn't have all of those lawyers or that
greedy ****** when it started out... We might still be waiting to use
our mouses for such things as clicking on icons...

Al

otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) (05/03/91)

In article <13939.2813DCA7@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG>, Joe.Oliver@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Joe Oliver) writes...
>Big fish swallow all the little fish !!!!
> 
>Jyup! Look at our Farmers for an indication of what CORP AMERICA
>will do in the software realm.  <gee..> 
>--  
>Joe Oliver - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
>    UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!111!Joe.Oliver
>INTERNET: Joe.Oliver@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG

Some of my relatives just incorporated their family farms and joined in the
competition.  On the other hand, I don't especially appreciate ADM getting
all the favors from Congress, either... John G. Otto  jgo@fsu.bitnet