Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/13/84; site intelca.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!intelca!kds From: kds@intelca.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: Steve Jobs versus his child Message-ID: <101@intelca.UUCP> Date: Sat, 28-Sep-85 18:36:27 EDT Article-I.D.: intelca.101 Posted: Sat Sep 28 18:36:27 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 08:34:50 EDT References: <159@l5.uucp> Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. Lines: 27 This is an interesting question. Talking with a friend, though, he thought that Apple is compelled to sue Jobs, since it seems that while acting from a position of responsibility to Apple, he recruited a group of people whose leaving Apple could cause the company hardship. Whether they would have left on their own is irrelevant, since at the time Jobs had a financial responsibility to Apple. If Apple had failed to sue Jobs, Apple itself could be sued by a group of its stockholders, since Jobs has put their assets in jeopardy. In this litigous society, Apple's actions seem prudent to Apple, albeit nasty to Jobs. On the more interesting side, it will be interesting to see what Apple comes up with in the way of future products. One wonders if the Lisa or especially the Mac would have happened if it weren't for the driving force of Jobs. Does Alan Kay still "work" there? (I remember hearing that he did, sorta). There was also a rumor on the net today that the next product was an "open" Mac, but this still could be Jobs' doing...Does all this mean that Apple will start taking the corporate stance and begin making IBM clones? -- ...and I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody outside of a small circle of friends... Ken Shoemaker, Microprocessor Design for a large, Silicon Valley firm {pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,qantel}!intelca!kds ---the above views are personal. They may not represent those of the employer of its submitter. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com