rodent@netcom.COM (Ben Discoe) (02/21/91)
I was shocked to hear from a mail-order house today that they can not sell me the Macintosh ROMS they have in stock because Apple has told them they can't. Bizarrely, they CAN sell the ROMS as part of a package deal from another supplier, but they can't sell the ROMs by themselves. At first I thought this was totally ridiculous - if the mail order shop bought the ROMs, how could Apple's copyright stop the further traffic? This would be like Stephen King declaring that no bookstore can sell his books, effectively turning millions of books on shelved around the world into mulch. This is ridiculous. After discussing this with a legal type, it was pointed out that Apple COULD stop the trade in ROMs if the ROMs were stolen or illegal copies. However, not only would Apple have to PROVE this, but dozens of mail- order houses, many of high esteem, have carried the chips for months or years! These people wouldn't sell illegal stuff! Yet, I called several today and they all say that either the ROMs are "not available" or they can't sell them to me. What's going on here? More frontier violence? ....Ben, in San Jose, city of thoughtless destructive human sheep.
gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) (02/21/91)
In article <24928@netcom.COM> rodent@netcom.COM (Ben Discoe) writes:
!I was shocked to hear from a mail-order house today that they can not sell
!me the Macintosh ROMS they have in stock because Apple has told them they
!can't. Bizarrely, they CAN sell the ROMS as part of a package deal from
!another supplier, but they can't sell the ROMs by themselves.
!
!At first I thought this was totally ridiculous - if the mail order shop
!bought the ROMs, how could Apple's copyright stop the further traffic?
!This would be like Stephen King declaring that no bookstore can sell his
!books, effectively turning millions of books on shelved around the world
!into mulch. This is ridiculous.
Actually, the situation is more like Stephen King refusing book
dealers to sell earlier, abridged versions of, say, THE STAND.
That is NOT ridiculous.
--
-----
Roger Tang, gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Middle-class weenie and art nerdcmw1725@tamsun.tamu.edu (Christopher Walton) (02/21/91)
In article <24928@netcom.COM> rodent@netcom.COM (Ben Discoe) writes: >I was shocked to hear from a mail-order house today that they can not sell >me the Macintosh ROMS they have in stock because Apple has told them they >can't. Bizarrely, they CAN sell the ROMS as part of a package deal from >another supplier, but they can't sell the ROMs by themselves. > >At first I thought this was totally ridiculous - if the mail order shop >bought the ROMs, how could Apple's copyright stop the further traffic? >This would be like Stephen King declaring that no bookstore can sell his >books, effectively turning millions of books on shelved around the world >into mulch. This is ridiculous. > >After discussing this with a legal type, it was pointed out that Apple >COULD stop the trade in ROMs if the ROMs were stolen or illegal copies. >However, not only would Apple have to PROVE this, but dozens of mail- >order houses, many of high esteem, have carried the chips for months or >years! These people wouldn't sell illegal stuff! > >Yet, I called several today and they all say that either the ROMs are >"not available" or they can't sell them to me. > >What's going on here? More frontier violence? > >....Ben, in San Jose, city of thoughtless destructive human sheep. The reason that Apple doesn't want the ROMs to be old separatly is twofold, one reason is that the Amiga company ReadySoft cas come out with a Mac emulator, which needs the ROMs to work (Well actually you don't NEED the ROMs but, then you wouldn't be legal would you...). That is not what stirred up the trouble though, the thing that got on Apples back was that the Amiga`s Mac emulator, worked BETTER than several of Apples own machines... (Programs actually run faster on my Amiga running in Mac mode than on a decked out Mac, with the same processor, hey go figure!) Many Mac owners rightfully complained and in an attempt to put an end to the situation they prohibited the sale of the ROMs by non Apple dealers, and prohibited the sale of the ROMs alone. This although has not stopped the sale of the ROMs, because dealers are selling them in "packeges" along with Mac drives and other stuff... Maybe this is just backstock, or dealers ignoring Apples wishes, but I don't think so. Another reason that could be for the prohibition, is that some guy was manufacturing Mac roms from his home, silkscreening the Apple logo on it, and supplying the country, until he was caught, and promptly and justly prosecuted. This is just something I have heard from somewhere or other (the part about the fake ROMs), it might not be totally acurate. There is HOPE for the people who want the ROMs though, some company has made their own version of the ROMs so that they can make a Mac clone, and these (if the company is smart) should be freely available, if and when they come out... Christopher Walton cmw1725@tamsun.tamu.edu
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (02/21/91)
In article <24928@netcom.COM> rodent@netcom.COM (Ben Discoe) writes: >After discussing this with a legal type, it was pointed out that Apple >COULD stop the trade in ROMs if the ROMs were stolen or illegal copies. >However, not only would Apple have to PROVE this, but dozens of mail- >order houses, many of high esteem, have carried the chips for months or >years! These people wouldn't sell illegal stuff! > >Yet, I called several today and they all say that either the ROMs are >"not available" or they can't sell them to me. > >What's going on here? More frontier violence? I'd bet that your mail order source COULD sell you that ROM if they wanted to, but then they'd have to deal with the consquences. Apple would probably exert pressure on everyone it does business with not to deal with that mail order firm. The ROMs are the only thing about the Mac that Apple can really control. The hardware isn't anything special and you can get the System software very easily. Why would you buy a Mac if you could just buy the ROM and pop it into someone else's 680x0 machine? It may be that those mail order firms aren't doing anything illegal, but they are certainly in a fuzzy area. Apple doesn't allow its dealers to sell via mail order, but you can find Macs being sold that way. It's called the grey market. Selling a whole machine is more profitable than just selling the ROM, and those mail order firms may not wish to jeoparize their sources. I think Apple has made a mistake in not making the ROMs available (at least the low-end ROMs), but there are good arguments both for and against that strategy.
weigele@bosun1.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Martin Weigele) (02/22/91)
Is that a case for the monopoly commission? Once the state allows the creation of monopolies by copyright legislation, it has to take care that they behave reasonably well in the market. Martin
cmcurtin@bluemoon.uucp (Matthew Curtin) (02/22/91)
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: > I think Apple has made a mistake in not making the ROMs available (at least t > low-end ROMs), but there are good arguments both for and against that strateg By monopolizing the Mac market, Apple is doing a good job of keeping all of the profits inside their company, but by doing this, they are, IMO, just slowing down the progression of technology. When third party outfits are afraid of being sued for anything they come out with that is "Mac compatible," they are not likely to even mess with it. When no one but Apple works to improve the Mac, the technology slows down. Look at the Mac "Portable". Point proven (?). ______________________________________________________________________________ | C. Matthew Curtin ! "This is a strange game. The only way to | | P.O. Box 27081 ! win is not to play." -Joshua | | Columbus, OH 43227-0081 !---------------------------------------------| | cmcurtin@bluemoon.uucp _______!______________Apple_II_Forever!______________|
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (02/23/91)
In article <12431@helios.TAMU.EDU> cmw1725@tamsun.tamu.edu (Christopher Walton) writes: > >The reason that Apple doesn't want the ROMs to be old separatly is twofold, >one reason is that the Amiga company ReadySoft cas come out with a Mac >emulator, which needs the ROMs to work (Well actually you don't NEED the ROMs >but, then you wouldn't be legal would you...). That is not what stirred up >the trouble though, the thing that got on Apples back was that the Amiga`s >Mac emulator, worked BETTER than several of Apples own machines... (Programs >actually run faster on my Amiga running in Mac mode than on a decked out Mac, >with the same processor, hey go figure!) Many Mac owners rightfully complained >and in an attempt to put an end to the situation they prohibited the sale of >the ROMs by non Apple dealers, and prohibited the sale of the ROMs alone. Your last sentence is mistaken. Apple's action was not predicated on Mac owner complaints. Instead, it was based on Apple's desire to prevent the manufacture of clones using Mac ROMs. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 | "You gotta put down the ducky mnemonic@eff.org | if you wanna play the saxophone." Electronic Frontier | Foundation |
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/23/91)
Those of you complaining about Apple having a "monopoly" on these Roms do not understand the meaning of copyright. The purpose of copyright is to give the author a monopoly on control of copying of the work. I have no idea what Apple's really doing, but they have the right to sell the ROMS to the dealers under almost any conditions they like, including a prohibition on selling for any other purpose than installing in a Mac. They also have the right to tell dealers that old releases are not to be sold. Every software developer wants this sort of right. Who wants to run around supporting old releases, not just with old customers, but also with new ones. The stores also have the right not to accept these terms and sell other brands of computers -- which is just what many stores do. They wrote the code. It's theirs. They could be far more restrictive, not selling rom chips outside of the computers at all. If you insist on a right to use the roms in a purpose the owner of the code hates, are you ready to force them into far nastier positions? The software *is* the Macintosh. The hardware in the machine is not much special, and it is certainly overpriced for what it is, although less so today than a few months ago. Selling the roms only for their machine is how they make money. This is the purpose of the monopoly that copyright grants. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/25/91)
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: |I have no idea what Apple's really doing, but they have the right to |sell the ROMS to the dealers under almost any conditions they like, |including a prohibition on selling for any other purpose than installing |in a Mac. I suppose the question is did Apple require such a license, or are they applying political pressure? Copyright alone can't control what is happening, they must have made "dealership agreements" or some such beforehand. This stuff reeks of racketeering. It would be a shame :) if Apple inc. had it's assets confiscated under RICO. Sean -- ** Sean Casey <sean@s.ms.uky.edu>
sophist@brainiac.raidernet.com (Phillip McReynolds) (02/27/91)
rodent@netcom.COM (Ben Discoe) writes: > gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: > > >In article <1991Feb23.062711.5874@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Te > >>Those of you complaining about Apple having a "monopoly" on these Roms do > >>not understand the meaning of copyright. The purpose of copyright is to > >>give the author a monopoly on control of copying of the work. > > >Actually, it doesn't all the time. Both IBM and DG have been forced to > >sell copies of their OS to people to be run on other hardware. Laws > >and lawsuits are never simple. > >Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the net. > > I think the point of my original article has been ignored, or am I just > confused? Sure, a copyright gives a monopoly on the Production of Copies, > but how on earth does it control the commerce in existing, legal copies? > > If I buy a book from a bookstore, completely legally, I could understand > the author's right to keep me from making copies of it. But! Apple's [rest deleted] Well, in Alabama, you don't buy software. You license it. Consequently you pay no sales tax (hooray!). However, this license agreement can carry certain limitations such as the prohibition against reselling the software. I assume that this would be possible for books as well. Regards, = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Phillip A. McReynolds, sophist@brainiac.raidernet.com Licensed Philosopher org: Phillip's Philosophy Shop, Inc. (MPA Certified) "Quality Philosophy Products Since 1990" = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (03/01/91)
In article <sean.667492604@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: > >I suppose the question is did Apple require such a license, or are >they applying political pressure? Copyright alone can't control what >is happening, they must have made "dealership agreements" or some such >beforehand. > >This stuff reeks of racketeering. It would be a shame :) if Apple >inc. had it's assets confiscated under RICO. Yeah, and what's this bit about Stephen King insisting that his publishers abide by certain restrictions when they distribute and sell copies of his work? I guess he's a racketeer too, eh? So far as I know, Apple's requirements extend only to dealership agreements. Presumably I could sell the ROMs out of my Mac at any time. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 | "You gotta put down the ducky mnemonic@eff.org | if you wanna play the saxophone." Electronic Frontier | Foundation |
gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (03/02/91)
In article <1991Feb23.062711.5874@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Those of you complaining about Apple having a "monopoly" on these Roms do >not understand the meaning of copyright. The purpose of copyright is to >give the author a monopoly on control of copying of the work. No, the purpose of U.S. copyright is (per the U.S. Constitution): To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; Thus, the purpose is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Monopoly control is not the purpose, it is a side effect. (Anyway, would you actually claim that Apple did not ``borrow'' ideas developed by others.) >I have no idea what Apple's really doing, but they have the right to >sell the ROMS to the dealers under almost any conditions they like, >including a prohibition on selling for any other purpose than installing >in a Mac. At least in the U.S., there are many laws that prohibit restrictions on the sale of items by a manufacturer. I do not claim to be a lawyer, much less one knowledgable about every state and I do not know the particular facts, so I cannot comment categorically on whether it is legal or not. I am not sure that they have the ``right'' in any case, where I am using right as in the Bill of Rights as opposed being legally able to do so. I have a *right* to free speech; I have the legal ability to operate a car. >They also have the right to tell dealers that old releases are not to >be sold. I doubt it. Consider book publishers. They would love to prohibit bookstores from selling used textbooks; at the present time, however, book stores continue to sell used books. I can see no substantive difference between used books and used ROMs or even an old edition of a book and an old edition of ROM. > Every software developer wants this sort of right. Just because they want it, does not mean it should be granted. Every local telephone company would like to raise rates by 50%, but they should not be allowed to do so. Further, not every software developer wants that right. >Who wants to >run around supporting old releases, not just with old customers, but also >with new ones. Who wants to support the latest releases? :-) Life's a bitch. If they don't like it, they can either refuse support or send a new one. >They wrote the code. All of it? We all make use of prior discovery. The purpose is to promote progress; the purpose has nothing to do, per se, with making money. The latter may have something to do with the means of promoting progress, however. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast