Today in Tedium: Often, retrospectives on computer history focus pretty intently on the IBM PC era and how that system’s many clones helped to democratize computing by centering most computing-industry efforts on a single platform—a major breakthrough at the time. But other platforms attracted clones as well—including the Apple II, though the computing giant’s protectionist habits kicked in quickly. And oddly enough, it may have the best thing for everyone involved—including consumers. Tonight’s Tedium explains why. — Ernie @ Tedium

10k The approximate number of Apple II Plus units produced by Apple under the Bell & Howell brand name, which was the only authorized clone Apple allowed of the Apple II in the United States—and it was nearly 20 years before Apple allowed for another company to resell clones of its machines in the U.S. The deal, announced in 1979, was basically Apple’s attempt to get a foothold in the education market; it worked. The Bell & Howell machines, produced by a company better known for making projectors, were interesting in that they were completely black, meaning Apple’s partner was making more stylish computers than Apple was for a time. This YouTube clip explains more.

The Franklin Ace 100, which made Steve Wozniak mad. (Computer History Museum) How a company named Franklin blatantly ripped off Apple … and set a legal precedent in the process Is a piece of software copyrighted if it’s not printed out and is buried inside of a machine? This sounds like an obvious question—yes, of course it is—but wasn’t a question that had been asked before in a court of law. Surprisingly, it wasn’t a PC clone-maker that forced the question, but one making Apple II machines. Franklin Computer Corporation, a New Jersey firm spent the early '80s making Apple II clones that were close feature-wise with the original machines. The company also talked a big game, too. “The Franklin ACE 100—a professional personal computer with the quality and reliability for the most demanding business applications,” the firm stated in a 1982 ad. “It is sweeter than an Apple.” The reason why it worked so well had much to do with the way that Franklin copied the hardware and software necessary for the ACE 100—it did so wholesale, directly copying the hardware and software of the Apple II in an obvious way, while adding only a handful of minor additional features, such as the ability to create lower-case letters. In the case of the software in particular, the copying was so blatant that it essentially admitted doing so, claiming it would be infeasible for Franklin to reverse-engineer its own version of the Apple ROM software, and that it didn't need to anyway, because software programs are not subject to copyright, because the operating system software was utilitarian in nature, not expressive. It was a weird legal argument, one that allowed Franklin to make tens of millions of dollars off of an Apple knockoff using Apple’s own software. But it was one that took advantage of the fact that there was a gap in case law around this specific issue at the time. Understandably, Apple sued, unhappy about the precedent that it set. Even Steve Wozniak, generally a fan of efforts at compatibility and someone known for sharing the technical details of his work, spoke out in the press about the blatant nature of Franklin’s theft. “It’s just a total copy,” Wozniak told InfoWorld in August of 1982. “If anyone at Apple did something like that, we’d try to put them in jail.” A year later, an appeals court decisively agreed with Wozniak, creating an oft-cited piece of case law called Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. that allowed software to be copyrighted in all cases. Apple actually lost the first round in a lower court, but the appeals court ruling was pretty hard to ignore. A January 1984 analysis of the case in the Golden Gate University Law Review points out that the legal decision helped to redefine our relationship with computer software, by ensuring that copyright laws made for the print era would still matter even when paper wasn’t the original medium. The Third Circuit's decision in Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corporation is significant because it held that all computer programs, whether expressed in object code embedded in ROM or expressed as an operating program, are copyrightable subject matter. Thus, by granting copyright protection to all programs, the Franklin opinion has helped stabilize copyright law in relation to computer software and has allowed copyright to become the most effective, most easily obtainable, and most preferred form of legal protection· for computer programs. "I know, let's get a Ben Franklin lookalike to hold six loaves of bread while standing behind a computer and call it a baker's dozen. Makes total sense." And while Franklin Computer eventually cut a deal with Apple, it was not forced to immediately stop selling its machines, a partial victory in its own right, and one that gave the company time to comply with the order. By 1986, however, around the time Franklin had legitimately started reverse-engineering products, Apple’s legal pressure forced Franklin out of the PC market for good. Unfortunately for Apple, another competitor had figured out how to clone its Apple II platform the right way.

99.8% The level of compatibility that the VTech Laser 128 shared with the Apple IIc Plus, according to Old-Computers.com. The Laser 128 was a hugely successful machine for what it was, and one that was legitimately reverse engineered in a clean-room environment, allowing the company to remain active on the market throughout the late ‘80s (despite Apple’s attempts to sue). The machine even sold at Sears, to the detriment of the Commodore 128.