Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/13/84; site intelca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!intelca!kds
From: kds@intelca.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Steve Jobs versus his child
Message-ID: <101@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Sep-85 18:36:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: intelca.101
Posted: Sat Sep 28 18:36:27 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 08:34:50 EDT
References: <159@l5.uucp>
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 27

This is an interesting question.  Talking with a friend, though, he thought
that Apple is compelled to sue Jobs, since it seems that while acting
from a position of responsibility to Apple, he recruited a group of people
whose leaving Apple could cause the company hardship.  Whether they would
have left on their own is irrelevant, since at the time Jobs had a financial
responsibility to Apple.  If Apple had failed to sue Jobs, Apple itself could
be sued by a group of its stockholders, since Jobs has put their assets
in jeopardy.  In this litigous society, Apple's actions seem prudent to
Apple, albeit nasty to Jobs.

On the more interesting side, it will be interesting to see what Apple comes
up with in the way of future products.  One wonders if the Lisa or especially
the Mac would have happened if it weren't for the driving force of Jobs.
Does Alan Kay still "work" there?  (I remember hearing that he did, sorta).
There was also a rumor on the net today that the next product was an
"open" Mac, but this still could be Jobs' doing...Does all this mean that
Apple will start taking the corporate stance and begin making IBM clones?
-- 
...and I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody outside of a small circle
of friends...

Ken Shoemaker, Microprocessor Design for a large, Silicon Valley firm

{pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,qantel}!intelca!kds
	
---the above views are personal.  They may not represent those of the
	employer of its submitter.