[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Mac on PC



>>>>> "Jason" == Jason Compton <jcompton@flood.xnet.com> writes:
In article <4ge30o$k3v@flood.xnet.com> jcompton@flood.xnet.com (Jason Compton) writes:


    Stuart> Stuart Friedman (stufried@ix.netcom.com) wrote: dirty
    Stuart> team).  With Apple's litigation history, everything has to
    Stuart> then be triple checked legally before it gets out the
    Stuart> door.  Remember that if Apple nails him on one point he
    Stuart> could be in big trouble.

    Jason> Four generations of Macintosh emulation on the Amiga have
    Jason> gone by unchallenged.  The biggest ligitation threats came
    Jason> from one emulation firm who claimed that two others stole
    Jason> from him.

Executor is different, in that we do not require the end-user to have
purchased or otherwise obtained any system software (ROM, ROM image,
System file) from Apple.  The Mac emulators for the Amiga were useless
without system software from Apple, so if you assume that the users of
these emulators were obeying copyright law, then in some way Apple was
paid a royalty for each Mac emulator for the Amiga.  This may not seem
important, since often the ROMs came from defunct Macs, but it did
mean that each Amiga emulator legally running corresponded to the sale
of a Mac or the Mac System File at some point in the past.

Executor has a rewrite (from scratch, using strictly clean-room
techniques) of the Macintosh Operating System and Toolbox routines, so
Apple isn't getting a royalty even in the marginal sense as described
above when Executor is sold.  Were Executor to get ragingly popular
and ARDI were to sell 100,000 units or even 1,000,000 units, there
would not suddenly be a shortage of Mac ROMs holding us back.

Because of these significant differences we can't be sloppy or rest
easy just because the makers of Mac emulators for the Amiga haven't
been sued.

--Cliff
ctm@ardi.com


References: