Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!mit-eddie!apollo!rehrauer
From: rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Shareware MAC
Message-ID: <474461c0.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Date: 6 Dec 89 17:35:00 GMT
References: <89120107511652@masnet.uucp> <3395@brazos.Rice.edu>
Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM
Reply-To: rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer)
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 44

In article <3395@brazos.Rice.edu> bro@titan.rice.edu (Douglas Monk) writes:
>The suggestion was made that instead of using a cartridge, code that works
>like the MAC ROMs but doesn't violate Apple's copyright could be used. This
>is a great idea. No one has done it yet, which is one of the reasons why no
>Apple clones (other than STs :-) exist yet.
>
>It is a technical difficulty, or a legal one?

Primarily the former, secondarily the latter.  To "do it right"; i.e.: to
avoid committing legal hari-kari, companies use what I've heard called a
"clean room" approach.  Two design teams work on the problem.  Team #1
looks at the *specifications* for what they're trying to clone.  It's
probably fair for this team to look at ROM images, but I'm sure it'd be
better if they didn't.  Team #1 generates their own specs for how to
functionally reproduce what is to be cloned.  Team #2 only sees this
spec, and can never look at the original materials team #1 used.  No
fair going to team #1 and saying, "Hey, we're having a hard time seeing
how to do 'bletch'; how did They do it?"  If the original specs were
accurate, and team #1 did a good job, and team #2 did a good job, the
clone works well.

And even after all that, if the opposition is sufficiently larger than
yourself, they may be able bleed you dry in court.  You may be perfectly
legal in what you've done, but proving it takes time and $$$.

> How does Phoenix et al. get
>away with IBM clone ROMs? Licensing? Work-alike?

What's in IBM ROM BIOS is surely an order of magnitude (or more) easier
to reverse-engineer than what's in Mac ROMs.  Not to mention that it's
(at least originally, and perhaps still) far more lucrative if you succeed
with IBM BIOS.

Don't hold your breath for Mac OS clones.  Apple has shown itself to be
quite willing to vigorously defend what it considers its turf, whether
"common sense" says they have a case or not.  The cost of developing a
Mac clone "done right", plus the possibility of locking horns with Apple
in court afterwards, is enough to scare away most of the cloners.  I'd
expect to see Apple license their ROMs before we see clones, and they
haven't been too receptive to that idea either.

--
>>"Aaiiyeeee!  Death from above!"<< | Steve Rehrauer, rehrauer@apollo.hp.com
   "Flee, lest we be trod upon!"    | The Apollo System Division of H.P.