Re: Computing Editorial (please read)

[Roger Johnstone <rojaws@es.co.nz>]

Exegete wrote:

> Eric, I don't know the details, but the reason Apple lost it's suit 
> against M$ for infringing on the Mac was that Apple licensed some of the 
> technology to M$ so that Windows could be made to run at all. Sculley is 
> the one who signed off on this, and my understanding is that it's open 
> ended. If memory serves (and boy is that becoming less and less 
> reliable) one source for this is the book "Apple" by Jim Carlton.
>
> Roy

From the histories I remember reading, Apple brought Microsoft in early 
on in the Macintosh project so that MS could write applications for the 
Mac, which they did.

MS wanted to release the apps for MS-DOS as well and somehow got Apple 
to license parts of the Mac OS to MS so that MS could easily port these 
apps to MS-DOS.

Instead of shipping stand-alone apps, MS created Windows 1.0. Apple sued 
them and lost, supposedly because the license they gave MS was too broad.

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand

Apple II - FutureCop:LAPD - iMac Game Wizard
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rojaws/
________________________________________________________________________
"So we went to Atari and said, 'We've got this amazing thing, even built
with some of your parts and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll
give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work
for you.' They said 'No'. Then we went to Hewlett-Packard; they said,
'We don't need you. You haven't got through college yet'."

      Apple Computer founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and
      H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer