Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!granroth
From: granroth@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Data-PCS (Apple) Petition - Please Comment!
Message-ID: <1991May10.111211.819@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu>
Date: 10 May 91 16:12:11 GMT
References: <53189@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Organization: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa
Lines: 69

In article <53189@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, Mr Johnston of the University
of Delaware criticizes my irreverent comments to Mr Stevens of Apple Computer
regarding Apple's pettition to the FCC requesting radio bandwidth allocation.

I would like to note a couple references in other news groups for people
considering the Data-PCS petition:

In comp.dcom.lans, Henry Spencer and Russ Nelson urge caution in considering
Apples objectives in this matter.  In article <15472@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,
Bill Woodcock summarizes many of the potential negative aspects to granting
the bandwidth.  He suggests that Apple has latched onto a proposal
originating with a group of Telcos and subverted it to their own ends,
dropping provisions for voice capability.  Apparently BellSouth, AT&T,
local public utilities, and railroads are among the groups that may
suffer from the granting of Apple's request.

In private mail to me, Mr Johnston called my comments asinine.  I agree,
they were silly.  If I had been serious, I would have spent time digging
up background information on Apple's previous legal maneuverings and
investigated the history of the current FCC proposal.

My comments were an irreverent knee-jerk response in opposition to Apple.
My point was to let Apple know that their tactics are resulting in such
conditioned responses.

Let me close by including an old note from Richard Stallman relating to
Apple Computer:

>Subject: Issues regarding Apple
>Message-ID: <9010141905.AA07541@pogo>
>From: rms@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman)
>Date: 14 Oct 90 19:05:43 GMT
>
>Apple (along with Lotus, Xerox and Ashton Tate) is trying to make it
>illegal to write software even partially compatible in its behavior
>with existing software.  If you write a program that does a simular
>job, they will sue you.  This is not a negligible threat; Lotus has
>already won such a lawsuit.  If Apple succeeds in monopolizing large
>classes of window system features, it will be a disaster of the first
>magnitude.
>
>The Free Software Foundation's response to this threat is to boycott
>these companies.  That is why our software releases don't contain
>support for A/UX or for the Macintosh operating system.
>
>From time to time, people ask on the net for help in using GNU
>software on those systems.  I hope all of you will join in the boycott
>and refuse to give such help--or any other kind of help with Apple
>systems.
>
>Supporting third-party software on a system directly contributes to
>the success of that system.  This is illustrated by the special
>developer incentives which all computer manufacturers offer to
>encourage such support.  Thus, if you facilitate the use of A/UX, you
>might as well be donating your time to the Apple sales force.  (Such
>donations will not be deductible from your legal fees if you are hit
>with a "look and feel" lawsuit inspired by the Apple lawsuit of
>today.)
>
>To get more information on this issue, contact the League for
>Programming Freedom, which is fighting to eliminate interface
>copyright and bring back the freedom to write compatible software.
>Send email to league@prep.ai.mit.edu and ask for copies of the
>position papers.

-Larry    Granroth@IowaSP.physics.UIowa.edu    IOWASP::GRANROTH

(I don't speak for the University of Iowa,
 but for all other sentient life in the galaxy.  :-) :-) :-)