Re: Apple II Reference Manual ("Red Book")

[regnirps@aol.com (Regnirps)]

pausch@saafNOSPAM.se  (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
 
>OK -- let's for the sake of the discussion imagine that someone
>posted cans of that "Red Book" without having obtained the proper
>permission.  Next, assume Apple hears about this, and doesn't like
>it.  Do you think Apple would sue?  I think that would be very
>unlikely.  What would Apple gain from such an action?  Very little,
>since the copyrighted work no longer has any commercial value.  What
>would they lose?  They'd gather a lot of bad-will, and could easily
>lose a lot of customers.
> 
>There's an interesting story about something similar.  You know what
>ZIP files are, right?  The original programs which used these files
>were PKZIP and PKUNZIP, by PKware, back in 1988 or so.  Versions of
>PKZIP and PKUNZIP are still around.  Anyway, before 1988, PKware had
>other programs -- PKARC and PKXARC -- which used another archive
>format, ARC, created by another company named SEA.  SEA also had an
>archiving program, simply named ARC, which was big and slow.
>PKARC/PKXARC were smaller and faster, and even introduced a new
>compression format which made ARC archives smaller.  SEA didn't like
>the competition, so they sued PKware, because PKware had used their
>proprietary archive format without permission.  SEA won the case
>against PKware, and PKware was forced to cease distributing PKARC/PKXARC.
> 
>A few months later, PKware reappeared with the ZIP archive format,
>plus the programs PKZIP/PKUNZIP.  The customers strongly disliked
>ARC's action, and abandoned ARC files as soon as ZIP files became
>available.  Nowadays everyone use ZIP files (PKware released that
>archive file format into the public domain btw), and few people have
>heard about ARC files.  Even though SEA won the case, they lost the
>market.
> 
> 
>I think Apple Computer would have some similar considerations to make
>if they evern thought about suing people posting obsolete software
>for and info about the Apple II: even if done illegally, Apple would
>have more to lose than to gain from trying to sue these people.

I understand the marketing and psychology, but do you think this justifies an
immoral act?

Charlie Springer