Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Apple and postscript Message-ID: <8905201347.aa12309@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> Date: 20 May 89 18:41:30 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 26 > But really, why would Apple let a piece of the proprietry setup be >controlled by a third party. Not one piece of the Apple // and Macintosh setup >(system software, hardware etc.) is owned or copyrighted by another company. On the other hand, while they own less than 50%, I believe Apple is Adobe's largest single stockholder. Apple probably owns enough to effectively exercise control if a proxy fight developed (John D. Rockefeller won a famous proxy fight involving Standard Oil while owning but 11% of the shares himself, or through his family). The situation is far from the same as the dispute with Bill Gates (who DOES own a controlling interest in Microsoft) over Mac Basic. IF Microsoft had attempted to void the license for Applesoft, they probably would have been vulnerable to an anti-trust complaint (Robinson-Patman is a REAL minefield :-) but the issue would have taken YEARS and LOTS of money to settle (easier just to let Microsoft have the market for language software). Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)