Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:33517 comp.sys.mac.hypercard:2075 comp.sys.mac.programmer:6995 news.misc:3192 news.sysadmin:2480
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!udel!gatech!prism!capone!ken
From: ken@capone.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.hypercard,comp.sys.mac.programmer,news.misc,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Official Legal Announcement regarding Apple's Source Code
Summary: I don't buy the legal rubbish here...
Keywords: legal stuff
Message-ID: <841@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 16 Jun 89 05:30:24 GMT
References: <2073@astroatc.UUCP> <2928@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>
Sender: news@prism.gatech.EDU
Reply-To: ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii)
Followup-To: news.misc, news.sysadmin, comp.sys.mac, comp.sys.mac.programmer
Organization: The House Of Fun
Lines: 28

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