Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!uwvax!midway!ellis.uchicago.edu!lrm3
From: lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Mac Clones.. just wondering.
Message-ID: <1991Jan7.202106.5113@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 7 Jan 91 20:21:06 GMT
References: <53576@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <1991Jan7.025124.11924@gsm001.uucp>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 23

gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes, in part,
>Apple on the other hand has been the exact oposite.  They have kept their
>"secrets" close to themselves and have sued everyone they could for anything
>they could.
>
>They have used the power of the lawsuit to force companies into bankruptcy.
>Franklin Computer for example.  Franklin made Apple II clones that were
>better than Apple's.  They were forced into chapter 11 by an Apple suit.
>They ended up selling some of their technology to Apple, pulled themselves
>out of chapter 11 and are happliy making IBM clones.  Apple Prodos contains
>many features Apple bought from Franklin's FDOS.

If I remember correctly, one of the prime pieces of evidence used in the Apple
vs Franklin lawsuit was the fact that the ROMs in the Franklin were direct
duplicates of the Apple II ROMs--Franklin didn't even bother to remove the
names of the apple programmers which were recorded as part of the data on the
ROM.  Now I'm not claiming that Apple's "Sue 'Em" mentality is justified, but
the Franklin lawsuit was an issue of software piracy, not a "Look & Feel" case.

Disclaimer: This is off of memory, so I could be wrong.  Feel free to correct
me if I'm incorrect.

Lawrence Miller