Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!geech.ai.mit.edu!rjc
From: rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mac and Amiga (Games--Macintosh vs A500)
Message-ID: <1991Mar14.233243.29563@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 14 Mar 91 23:32:43 GMT
References: <7816@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1991Mar14.052507.19830@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <7906@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: daemon@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu (Lucifer Maleficius)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 58

In article <7906@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes:
>My only point is that the A500 is a rip off.  Yes, you can add a drive, case,
>and powersupply.  But only at a price.  For $499 you get a machine without
>a monitor, SCSI, HD case, SIMM memory, Appletalk(even cheapo Tandys have this). For $749 you get a classic with SCSI, appletalk, _monitor_, and a killer OS. 
>There is no better buy today than the Classic.
>>

 Color is extra for the Classic. Performance is slow. No animation or sprites.
HD is extra.

Amiga 500 + A590 (SCSI,2mb memory,20mb HD,case) + monitor=$1100
All total, this package would would have 3mb of ram. The A590's 
SCSI would be much faster than the Classic's, and it would still
have all the basic amiga abilities, like color, multitasking, sound,animation.

>>Well we can just use amax and run a mac spreadsheet then :-D
>
>Again, at additional cost.
Heh, so pirate it. Just kidding ;-)

>[stuff deleted]
>>No, they have no ethics because they are suing everyone over look and feel
>>infringements. They are trying <and succeeding> in styfling innovations and 
>>they have done a pretty good job of preventing Mac clones which enables them
>>to charge the ridiculous prices that they have been charging for years.
>>Commodore may not have been smart but they were never corrupt.
>
>They are suing two companies: HP & Microsoft.  They are suing over a stolen
>look and feel.  Commodore and NeXT were not sued, because they _innovated_ when
>they wrote their OS.  Micosoft saw a good thing and xeroxed (pun intended) it.
> 
>Apple is within their right (and duty) to protect the validity of their
>copyright on look and feel.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Apple has no copyright on 'look and feel.' It's an impossible concept.
Like copyrighting the Look-And-Feel of Mac Donalds. Burger King, 
Hardees, Roy Rogers(bought by Hardees), etc would be out of business.

Apple has the right to protect their OS code, that's it. 

>Can you imagine a world where anyone could make a functional copy of Excel by
>analyzing the operation of it and release it as their own program without
>innovating.  Look at Windows.  Use it.  Use a mac. Tell me Microsoft innovated.

Look, all things start somewhere. Everyone borrows elements of someone
elses ideas (it's called research, and learning) and improves upon them.
It's perfectly OK to clone the functionality of someone elses software
as long as you didn't REVERSE ENGINEER the code.

 Look. If you invented the automobile, it's perfectly ok for me
to make a machine that performs the same functions exactly, as long
as I don't steal your blue prints, disassemble your engine to find
out how it works.

The only way I see Apple's claim as valid is if they:
1) Supplied source code to Microsoft on how to implement a GUI
2) Microsoft disassembled Apple roms, and copied the algorithms