🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec18.111753.38592@news.th-darmstadt.de>
	schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Joachim Schrod) writes:

>In article <1992Dec17.012658.11627@u.washington.edu>,
	tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>> 
>> So why did Apple pay off the guy who claimed Hypercard infringed his
>> patent rather than just litigate his tiny company out of existence?

>Pay off ??? You're either kidding or you don't follow the discussion
>on software patents.

>Read the article of this guy in the CACM (`Debunking the Myth of
>Software Patents'), where he tells you in his introduction about the
>behaviour of Apple.
>    Btw, the most funny thing in this article is that this guy was
>_not_ able to enforce his patent, that he is now to shy to suit
>(obviously because he fears the `quality' of Apple's lawyers), and
>that he still defends software patents.

	Another interesting data point on this guy, Paul Heckel, I beleive.
The patent stems from a program for Msdos, and atari ST called
Zoomracks. The author, shortly befgore launching his suit against Apple,
advertised a major upgrade for the Atari ST version, promising lots of
nice features, and solicited prepayment for the upgrade. Surprisingly
enough, no upgrade and no refund ever arrived. Anyone want to take a
wild guess at what he used for legal fees?

-- 

 "If Rush fans were braindead, why are there so   Bruce Bufalini
 many people posting to alt.music.rush?"              PSU