Xref: utzoo news.misc:3225 news.sysadmin:2501 comp.sys.mac:33636 comp.sys.mac.programmer:7055 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!phri!roy From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) Newsgroups: news.misc,news.sysadmin,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: Official Legal Announcement regarding Apple's Source Code Keywords: legal stuff Message-ID: <3809@phri.UUCP> Date: 19 Jun 89 14:33:16 GMT References: <2073@astroatc.UUCP> <2928@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> <841@hydra.gatech.EDU> <394@v7fs1.UUCP> <736@rwing.UUCP> <6198@pdn.paradyne.com> Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY) Lines: 55 In <6198@pdn.paradyne.com> dixon@gumby.paradyne.com (0000-Tom Dixon) writes: > But the real question is why would a company think that they can > get away with these silly strong arm tactics? What "silly strong arm tactics"? As far as I can tell, Apple only goes after companies that they feel are infringing on their rights. They went after the Franklin Ace folks when they copied the Apple-II roms to make their clone. I don't see anything wrong with that; Apple put a lot of effort and money into developing the Apple-II, why should they just sit back and let somebody churn out cheap copies without challenging them? More recently, they are going after Microsoft for "look and feel" ripoffs. While I'm not sure I agree that "look and feel" should have the same kind of legal protection rom contents should, I don't think Apple is doing anything inherently evil by pursuing the issue. Someone earlier accused Apple of being unfair to their competition by filing frivolous suits against people who can't afford to adequately defend themselves in court; the "shallow pockets" theory. Surely Microsoft doesn't qualify as a shallow pocket. Now, they are saying, in public, and in no uncertain terms, that the code that has been distributed is stolen, was not distributed with their permission, and that they are prepared to defend their rights to that code with full vigor, and to go after the people to stole it as hard as they legally can. What is wrong with that? They have good reason to believe that some extremely valuable information belonging to them (i.e. the Mac rom source code) has been distributed, against their will, to people that they don't want to have it. In response to this, they want to make it very clear to everybody who might have gotten the code just what their position is. They have reason to believe that usenet was one of the channels of distribution. Doesn't it make sense to use that same channel to distribute their warning? Imagine the following scenario: I get some code off the net and use it. A few weeks later, I get a polite but firm registered letter from Apple's lawyers telling me to stop what I'm doing or get my ass sued off. When we get into court I tell the judge, "But I just got this stuff off the net. I didn't know it was stolen. Hell, I never saw anything from Apple on the net about it. Articles in InfoWorld and MacWeek about it? Could have been, but I don't read those. How was I supposed to know?" Or think about the following scenario. You work for DEC and somebody has managed to get the VMS sources and post them to the net. Or you work for AT&T and somebody just posted the SysV sources. Or the Scribe sources. Or the chip layout diagrams for the 68040. Or the 80486? Or any other very valuable and secret information that your company owns. Would you think it inappropriate to use the net to tell people that the posting was done without your permission and if they try to use the stuff they got to make a competing product you will come after them hammer and tongs, with a whole army of lawyers just itching to get you into court? -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network"