Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.emulations
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!davewt
From: davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright)
Subject: Re: MAC System 7.0
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Date: Mon, 27 May 1991 22:01:09 GMT
Message-ID: <1991May27.220109.1165@NCoast.ORG>
References: <1991May27.074112.13293@news.iastate.edu> <17202@chopin.udel.edu> <#6PCXP#@irie.ais.org>
Lines: 39

In article <#6PCXP#@irie.ais.org> cython@ais.org (Tim Devlin) writes:
>While that may be true, Apple will be hard pressed to make that part of their
>license agreement hold up in court.  It's the same thing as if Sony came out
>with a license agreement for the music on their new CD's that said, these

>CD's can only be played on a Sony CD player.  The courts are NOT going to go
	Not quite. In this case it is an OPERATING SYSTEM which they
COMPLETELY OWN, and have EVERY right to restrict, that is in question. They
most certainly COULD restrict it from being used in "emulators" successfully,
since there is no "legal" way for people to buy it WITHOUT agreeing to
the liscensing restrictions. As it is, I don't really see how AMax or any
other Mac emulator is legal. Even if you have the ROMs (which is only part
of the system, much like KickStart on the Amiga), there is MUCH other
software required to use the system that is NOT on the ROMs (the system file,
finder, icons, etc.) that is needed to run Mac software. I seriously doubt that
people using AMax (even WITH the ROMs) actually PAID to buy the Mac OS.
This is exactly the same situation as someone who is using an IBM emulator
or clone (which has to have some kind of ROM BIOS) using a pirated copy of
MS-DOS. Even if Apple is too late to restrict the ROMs (there may be so many
out there, and of course there will always be a grey market), they can
certainly impose restrictions on the OS itself.
>for that!  Atari tried somethin like that back in the late 70's with their
>2600 game player, they tried to say that THEY were the only ones that could
>make software to run on THEIR game machine, so they sued Activision....they
>lost!
	If you keep up with current events you would know that you CAN get away
with this. Look at the Nintendo world. EVERY cartridge out there is directly
liscensed from Ninetendo itself. In fact, the NES actually contains a system
that REQUIRES that cartridges contain a certain chip, which can only be
obtained from Nintendo. You can't just whip up an EPROM like you could for
the 2600. Now, they have been taken to court over this, but as far as I
know, no verdict has been reached. So would YOU stake your companies
future on producing something that may or may not be ruled illagal, when the
outcome is unknown, and the penalties severe if you lose?


				Dave


