Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!pescadero.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Subject: "Clean" ROM upgrades (was Re: Price cuts on motherboard upgrades ???)
Message-ID: <1991May19.183452.9286@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Organization: Stanford University
References: <3171@shodha.enet.dec.com> <1991May19.033448.23080@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <2803@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> <1991May19.164217.10045@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 1991 18:34:52 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <1991May19.164217.10045@odin.corp.sgi.com>, autry@sgi.com (Larry Autry) writes:
|> A previously posted article stated that Apple literature made the statement
|> that Macs could address up to x amount of memory.  More specifically, in my
|> SE/30 hardware manual, the promise is explicitly made.  The statement is
|> made to the effect, that  the SE/30 will address up to 128 megabytes of
|> memory when denser memory becomes available.  I call that an explicit promise.
|> I believe that Apple is therefore obligated to provide any upgrade or product
|> enhancement that is necessary to make it so.

I think a reasonable interpretation of this is that Apple is not necessarily
required to supply a _ROM_ upgrade - a software fix would probably be good enough,
even if it would leave some people unhappy.

Although I don't know whether the law is analogous, I found it interesting that
the FDA pulled a big brand of orange juice off the market for using the word
Fresh in much bigger letters than the words "from concentrate". And these
guys were just being a bit misleading to the near-sighted.

Could the FDA be persuaded an Apple computer falls within their jurisdiction?
-- 
Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
