Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!portal!cup.portal.com!mingo From: mingo@cup.portal.com (Charles Hawkins Mingo) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Mac emulator Message-ID: <35602@cup.portal.com> Date: 5 Nov 90 01:29:02 GMT References: <1990Nov1.214937.15196@midway.uchicago.edu> Organization: The Portal System (TM) Lines: 56 >In article , fausett@ra.radc.af.mil (Mark L. Fausett) wr i >tes... > >>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. Generally speaking, if you don't defend your patent/copyright/trademark you run the risk that your rights may no longer be recognized (or even if still recognized, they may become unenforcible against past infringers, who had reasonably assumed they couldn't have been infringing your patents, because you hadn't objected to what they were doing.) For example, under patent law you have about a year to object to a specific infringement, before a statute of limitations runs. >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 yo u >don't sue EVERY copyright infringer doesn't mean you lose your copyright. >Apple has been vigorously pursuing ROM cloners, Mac cloners, etc. If you permit your copyright to pass into the public domain, you may indeed lose your rights. > >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'v e >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. Oh? Perhaps you may have noticed those Sanka commercials where they always say "Sanka-brand coffee"? Perhaps you may recall certain now-defunct trademarks, such as Formica(tm) or Band-Aid(tm), which lost their protected status because they had become generic terms. Why do you think advertisers persistantly use the (tm) symbol after their trademarks? To use your example, McDonald's runs the risk of being unable to enforce their trademark in the Okyfoke region by permitting another usage. To paraphrase someone, intellectual property "is like two cannibals on a desert island: eat or be eaten."