Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:9487 comp.misc:12513
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!unixhub!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!hplabs!pyramid!lstowell
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Data-PCS (Apple) Petition - Please Comment!
Message-ID: <154997@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 10 May 91 19:23:35 GMT
Sender: daemon@pyramid.pyramid.com
Reply-To: lstowell@pyramid.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Personal Opinion Only.
Lines: 71

>In article <52469@apple.Apple.COM>, bsteven@Apple.COM (Bill Stevens) writes:
>> . . . 
>> If created, Data-PCS will enable all computer
>> manufacturers to produce high performance wireless communications products
>> for the United States.
>> . . .
>
      

In article <1991May9.214446.818@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu> granroth@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth) writes:
>The article goes on to point out the wonderful benefits of this great new
>idea that Apple has come up with, and includes a form letter for computer
>users to send to the chairman of the FCC supporting Apple's petition
>for radio bandwidth.
>
>Now, it seems to me that posting such a thing to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
>was just asking for some less-than-gracious replies.  I couldn't help
>myself.  I replied with a somewhat modified version of their form
>letter suggesting that, judging from recent history, Apple's motives
>should be assumed to be more monopolistic than altruistic.  I wondered
>how long it would be before Apple was sueing HAM packet radio operators
>for patent infringement.  I didn't give the whole thing more thought
>than the time it took to type it in, and the result was (I thought)
>obviously frivolous.
>
>Apple's well-known legal department didn't agree.  Both the chairman
>of my department and the departmental computer system manager have been
>subjected to lengthy discussions concerning the wisdom of my representing
>the University of Iowa.  (Silly me.  Not only did I forget to include
>the smiley, but forgot the standard disclaimer line.)  None of this
>is going to cause me any difficulty, but I was wondering if anyone else
>has been receiving such personalized attention to their comments.
>Have any of you who have submitted positive comments had your credentials
>verified by phone calls from Apple representatives?

    So it is perfectly moral and legal, in the minds of the
    Applelawyers, for THEM to misuse the 'net to create a
    mailing campaign to further THEIR selfish interests...yet
    these sleazebags use legal talent (oxymoron) to harass other
    net posters twitting their posting?

    This is really a pretty ugly precedent for a net subscriber
    to attempt to set.   

    Perhaps a petition movement to have Apple's net access
    removed is in order?

    Seriously, if their legal beagles attempted to harass you
    for a public posting on the net, it would appear that
    complaints to internet appear in order....before Apple
    becomes the Big Brother on the net!

    (There are NO smiley's here....this is really a pretty ugly
    thing for a net subscriber to attempt, IMHO. )

    I've always had a personal prejudice against Apple for their
    smug and litiginous attitude, but this tends to make it more
    militant.  


    BTW, does Apple still HAVE an R+D staff, or have their
    offices all been taken over by the lawyers?  >:-)
    (THAT was a smiley...it is a JOKE..in case you are too thick
    to get it...)


------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligatory Disclaimer.   These are PERSONAL opinions only.  They
in no way represent any official or otherwise opinion of my
employer...!!!
_________________________________________________________________