🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr30.091117.2270@watdragon.waterloo.edu> ccplumb@rose.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) writes:
>>>When Microsoft fails to document MS-DOG properly, that may be
>>>unfriendly, but it isn't a terrible threat.  
>>The FTC doesn't seem to see it that way.
>Personally, I don't quite agree with the FTC.  DR-DOS and others are
>evidence that MS-DOG is comprehensible, although I confess it's not
>easy.  

This is not really relevent, but a bit of a note here:  the FTC is
investigation uSoft for unfair trade practices.  Namely, some people are
complaining that uSoft has done their best to drive the competitors out of
the market, and that some of their "best" has been illegal.  (Such as using
the profits from the OS group to supplment the WP group, or hyping up OS/2
to keep people in the uSoft camp instead of going to, say, DR.  None of what
uSoft has done I would consider cut-and-dried illegal, but, then, I'm not a
lawyer.)

More on the topic at hand:  as other people have commented (and will
continue to do) Apple wants to prevent anyone from making something similar
to their product, on *any* platform.  Same with Lotus.  And that is
despicable.

In Apple's future, they will face competition from NuTek (I think), the
company that has reverse-engineered the Mac ROMS and Finder.  They have done
so only from published sources and extensive testing, and use Motif instead
of the normal Apple Look'n'Feel.  Yet Apple will undoubtedly sue for
copyright infringement.

And if they win, and there seems to be a distressingly large chance that
they will, forget just about *anything* GNU has done, as most of the
programs are clones of already-existing programs.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef@kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.