Xref: utzoo news.misc:3490 news.sysadmin:2617 comp.sys.mac:36352 comp.sys.mac.programmer:8250 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!network!ucsd!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!zardoz!ccicpg!cci632!rit!tropix!moscom!ur-valhalla!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!nwnexus!happym!rwing!pat From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) Newsgroups: news.misc,news.sysadmin,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: Official Legal Announcement regarding Apple's Source Code Summary: Good Costumer Relations Keywords: legal stuff Message-ID: <736@rwing.UUCP> Date: 22 Jul 89 16:33:14 GMT References: <2073@astroatc.UUCP> <2928@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> <841@hydra.gatech.EDU> <394@v7fs1.UUCP> Organization: Very Little Organization, Seattle WA Lines: 54 In article <394@v7fs1.UUCP>, mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: > In article <841@hydra.gatech.EDU> ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: > > ... [commands deleted] ... > > ... [ good answer to commands deleted ] ... > > >Last time I read legal theory, you were innocent until proven guilty > >beyond a reasonable shadow...and all that. > > ... [ more details deleted ] ... > > This is true in theory. The problem is, you don't have to prove that > you have a case before you can sue. It is quite possible for someone > with 'deep pockets' to sue, sue, sue, and sue, until the less > well-heeled victim is bankrupted by legal fees, and it doesn't make a > shred of difference how innocent the victim is. Apple is one of the > major offenders in this particular kind of harrasment. Nothing would > give me a bigger belly-laugh than to see them get bit back in a big way. I agree with your posting - but it will take someone with DEEPER pockets than Apple to accomplish this. I am keeping my fingers crossed, however.... Reason I'm adding my 2 cents worth - is that at least with myself, Apple is doing their overall reputation no good at all with this sort of conduct - using the courts to surpress competition from makers that may be less well-heeled, but turn out a product that is equal to or better than the original in terms of performance, and at a lower price. It appears to me that Apple would rather not have others engage in a free market, instead they want to keep a lock on the market for themselves. This would mean they have to spend less on R&D, be less concerned about product improvements, customer support, the whole ball of wax. And they are then free to charge whatever they want, since there would be no similar products available for less money. I really wonder if the founders of Apple would have done so well, if the market climate when they started up was like the climate Apple is now creating? As for myself, I plan to (and have) avoided Apple products like the plague, and will continue to do so. I also express my feelings to any clients - indicating that while the Apple products are no doubt well built, and of good quality, I think supporting a company with their attitude and way of doing business goes counter to everyone's best interests in the long run. In short, I think Apple is doing a great job of earning themselves a LOUSY reputation. And postings like the recent legal threat only supports that reputation. -- pat@rwing ...!nwnexus!mltco!camco!happym!\ (Pat Myrto), Seattle, WA ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat ...!uw-beaver!sumax!polari!/ WISDOM: "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"