Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!midway!news From: gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Mac emulator Message-ID: <1990Nov1.214937.15196@midway.uchicago.edu> Date: 1 Nov 90 22:44:03 GMT Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Organization: University of Chicago Graduate School of Business Lines: 41 ----- In article , fausett@ra.radc.af.mil (Mark L. Fausett) writes... >In <389@goya.dit.upm.es> esink@turia.dit.upm.es (Eric Wayne Sink) writes: > >>>>>>>>>STUFF DELETED<<<<<<<< > >>Obviously Apple has not cared about AMAX, or the ST >>thing, but I'm quite sure that a NeXT Mac emulator would offend their >>lawyers. > >The fact that Apple hasn't cared about AMAX or the ST emulator may seriously >hinder any attempt by apple to care about a NeXT emulator. I see. So Apple should sue everyone who might possibly infringe on an Apple copyright or patent, no matter how small or unimportant that person may be? Well, that should at least keep the lawyers busy. Actually, given Apple's extensive legal department, if your argument were true, I think we would have seen the emulator makers sued long ago. Just because you don't sue EVERY copyright infringer doesn't mean you lose your copyright. Apple has been vigorously pursuing ROM cloners, Mac cloners, etc. Think about it: McDonald's goes after many people for using the name "McDonalds" for a restaurant (even for people whose own name is McDonalds, I've heard). But if they choose not to sue a couple of restaurants in Okyfoke, PA, because it just isn't worth it doesn't mean that they can't sue someone else from infringing on their trademark. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================