Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wotan!moxie!texsun!newstop!sun-barr!apple!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!maui.cs.ucla.edu!gast
From: gast@maui.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Apple's right to stop traffic in Mac ROMS
Message-ID: <1991Mar2.030509.1779@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 91 03:05:09 GMT
References: <12431@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1991Feb23.020232.24678@eff.org> <1991Feb23.062711.5874@looking.on.ca>
Sender: usenet@cs.ucla.edu (Mr. News Himself)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 66
Nntp-Posting-Host: maui.cs.ucla.edu

In article <1991Feb23.062711.5874@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Those of you complaining about Apple having a "monopoly" on these Roms do
>not understand the meaning of copyright.  The purpose of copyright is to
>give the author a monopoly on control of copying of the work.

No, the purpose of U.S. copyright is (per the U.S. Constitution):

   To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
   for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
   their respective writings and discoveries;

Thus, the purpose is to promote the progress of science and the useful
arts.  Monopoly control is not the purpose, it is a side effect.

(Anyway, would you actually claim that Apple did not ``borrow'' ideas
developed by others.)

>I have no idea what Apple's really doing, but they have the right to
>sell the ROMS to the dealers under almost any conditions they like,
>including a prohibition on selling for any other purpose than installing
>in a Mac.

At least in the U.S., there are many laws that prohibit restrictions on
the sale of items by a manufacturer.  I do not claim to be a lawyer, much
less one knowledgable about every state and I do not know the particular
facts, so I cannot comment categorically on whether it is legal or not.
I am not sure that they have the ``right'' in any case, where I am using
right as in the Bill of Rights as opposed being legally able to do so.
I have a *right* to free speech; I have the legal ability to operate
a car.

>They also have the right to tell dealers that old releases are not to
>be sold.

I doubt it.  Consider book publishers.  They would love to prohibit
bookstores from selling used textbooks; at the present time, however,
book stores continue to sell used books.  I can see no substantive
difference between used books and used ROMs or even an old edition
of a book and an old edition of ROM.

> Every software developer wants this sort of right.

Just because they want it, does not mean it should be granted.  Every
local telephone company would like to raise rates by 50%, but they
should not be allowed to do so.

Further, not every software developer wants that right.

>Who wants to
>run around supporting old releases, not just with old customers, but also
>with new ones.

Who wants to support the latest releases?  :-)  Life's a bitch.  If they
don't like it, they can either refuse support or send a new one.

>They wrote the code.

All of it?  We all make use of prior discovery.

The purpose is to promote progress; the purpose has nothing to do, per
se, with making money.  The latter may have something to do with the
means of promoting progress, however.

David Gast
gast@cs.ucla.edu
{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast