Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!decwrl!shelby!neon!pescadero.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Mac Clones.. just wondering.
Message-ID: <1991Jan7.214155.13209@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 7 Jan 91 21:41:55 GMT
References: <53576@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <1991Jan7.025124.11924@gsm001.uucp> <1991Jan7.202106.5113@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 15

In article <1991Jan7.202106.5113@midway.uchicago.edu>, lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) writes:
> 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.
If this is wrong, I'd be interested to hear too. The story I heard was they
even copied the copyright notice...
-- 
Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu