Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!mimsy!mojo!russotto
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Mac Clones.. just wondering.
Message-ID: <1991Jan8.010357.4297@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 8 Jan 91 01:03:57 GMT
References: <53576@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <1991Jan7.025124.11924@gsm001.uucp>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (C-News)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Lines: 63

In article <1991Jan7.025124.11924@gsm001.uucp> gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes:
>
>Danielle T Mazzotta
>Wrote:
>>
>>Considering the success all the IBM-PC Clone makers have had over the past 
>>years, some friends and I were wondering why the same hasn't been done for the 
>>Macintosh series.  Is the hardware significantly more expensive for 
>>clone-makers to get a hold of, is the hardware more difficult to "emulate/copy" 
>>or is it political?
> 
>The reason is that IBM made the PC an "open" system.  There was freely 
>available documentation on every phase of the system.  It was available for
>less than $100. and IBM asked for no licencse fees.

Inside Mac I-V documents the software pretty completely-- at least what you
would need to make a ROM code.
>
>IBM encouraged third party hardware and software developers.  The did not
>discourage cpu cloners.  When PHOENIX cloned their bios (rom) chips by 
>taking the book describing all the bios calls and what they did,  IBM did
>not sue PHOENIX. 

IBM sued everybody before Phoenix, which is why Phoenix went through great
pains to make Phoenix lawsuit-proof.  Has anyone taken Inside Mac and written
a ROM which implements it, and been sued for it?

>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.

Sure-- they went and stole Apple's Monitor ROMS (and probably Applesoft or
Integer BASIC too)

>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.

Like what?  Prodos is based pretty strongly on SOS from the Apple ///

>Apple is not above copying other peoples work too.  The Apple symbol was
>"copied" (and paid for after APPLE lost a copyright suit) from Apple Records.

This is a trademark suit, and trademarks don't conflict unless there is danger
of confusion (hence the settlement by Apple that said that they wouldn't
make music products-- Apple Records complained about the GS and the CD-ROM,
don't know the outcome of that).

>The name MacIntosh was "copied" (and latter paid for) from a manufacture of
>stereo equipment.
Yep-- it was licensed, and then bought outright-- not stolen.  (and there was
never any intent to steal it.)

> The Mac interface (GUI) was "copied" from the Xerox PARC
>systems. Apple is currently being sued by H.P. and Xerox because they
>pattented the Mac GUI as an original work, while it is clearly and by their
>own admission a derivative work. 

I thought the Xerox suit was dismissed.  In any case, patents can be based
on prior art, as long as that prior art is documented.
--
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
     .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.