Hello everyone, I'm an Apple I enthusiast. Recently, I've seen many people online expressing interest in learning about the hardware and software of the Apple I. I'm also a beginner myself, and I'm doing this purely for educational purposes.
Right now, I'm working on reverse-engineering the Apple I's PCB and schematic. I'd like to ask: once I finish, is it okay for me to share the files online for others to download and learn from? I'm not sure whether it's legally allowed.
Should I try reaching out to Steve Wozniak or Apple’s legal department to get their opinion? I’d love to hear what others think about this issue.
Just to be clear, I have absolutely no commercial intent — this is purely for learning and sharing with fellow hobbyists.
In post #1, 'Min' wrote:
" Right now, I'm working on reverse-engineering the Apple I's PCB and schematic. I'd like to ask: once I finish, is it okay for me to share the files online for others to download and learn from? I'm not sure whether it's legally allowed. "
Uncle Bernie comments:
I'm not a lawyer so I can't give you any legal advice. It's not even clear to me what you mean with "reverse-engineering the Apple I's PCB and schematic" ... this makes no sense to me, as there is NO 'reverse engineering' involved and can't be. But I can give you my own, personal opinions about these topics, with no liability or warranty of any kind given or implied. Use my following drivel at your own risk, and your own risk only.
Uncle Bernie's private (and non-professional) opinion:
Basically, what you want to avoid is to run afoul of any of the following laws protecting what we call "IP" = "Intellectual Property" today:
- Copyright Law
- Patent Law
- Trademark Law
- Trade Secret Law
... where the last one you can ignore for your mission assuming you are no Apple employee knowing Apple "Trade Secrets". If you were an Apple employee, you can't disclose the company "Trade Secrets" to anyone. A good because well documented example: "Coca Cola"company and the recipe of their concentrate - this is one of the most valuable and most famous Trade Secrets of all times. If you work for the company and get insight into it, you can't talk about it. Ever. But if you don't work for the company, and brew up your own recipe for some soft drink that just happens to taste alike, you can publish it. And the company can't do anything against it, even if you happen to have derived the same recipe. And (if they are wise) they wouldn't come after you - because if they would start a lawsuit, there is a "discovery" phase where your lawyers can force plaintiff to disclose their recipe to the court, which of course can "seal" it, but in the end, the company hereby would admit you hit the right recipe, or very close to it. So they won't sue. Just to keep the shroud of mystery around their recipe alive.
Trademarks:
You can't use a trademark of any other company for your own product (even Chinese counterfeiters call their fake Rolexes "Rolox" or something like that, I made this example up). Because if you use the trademark for your own products, they can be confiscated, and you can be sued by the owner of the trademark. "Apple" is a registered trademark of Apple Corporation, so you can't use it UNLESS you don't put it on a product not from Apple, but use the word "Apple" to refer to an Apple product in whatever writeup you make. All you need to do is to put the sentence in your writeup: "All trademarks referred to or used in this document are the property of the respective owners of the trademarks". Or something along these lines. It's a "boilerplate" disclaimer you can find in many documents or user manuals. For instance, if you make a slot card of the Apple II, and write anywhere in its user manual that "this card is suited for the Apple II" then you should have the "boilerplate" disclaimer there. And if you really want to play it safe: "this slot card was designed and manufactured by XXX and is not made by Apple".
Patents:
Apple (the corporation), to the best of my knowledge, never had any patent on the Apple-1. For the original incarnation of the Apple II, Woz got two patents granted. But all of these patents have long expired - anyone is free to implement the same circuit(s) shown in the patents and sell the product and there is no legal way to stop him/her. Because the patents have expired !
Copyrights:
This is your only concern. Copyrights have a very long lifetime and all the Apple-1 and Apple II things- as long as they were Copyrighted in the exact way prescribed by Copyright law - have not lapsed Copyrights yet, and so these Copyrights are still active and enforcable. This is why commercial sellers of Apple-1 manual reproductions have painstakingly made their own rendering of these manuals, everything was newly typeset, and all schematics were redrawn. There is the topic of "slavish copy" possibly infringing on the Copyright, but so far Apple (the Corporation) did not take any legal action against these reproductions. Which would be stupid anyways because doing so could rise a sh*tstorm of epic proportions on the internet and make them lose so much "good will" and "dedicated followership" that it might even negatively affect the Apple stock price ("AAPL"). Instead, so far, and to the best of my knowledge, Apple (the corporation) has stayed silent on all these replica efforts made by Apple enthusiasts worldwide. My take on this is that Apple (the corporation) is far too large and their current product portfolio (which has nothing to do with Apple-1 and Apple II legacy products anymore) is too successful and too valuable to impair that success by arousing Apple aficionados to turn into Apple enemies. Just as an example how brand fans can turn into enemies of the brand, look at the mobs who set Tesla cars on fire or "tag" them with graffity.
Now, the topic of PCB layouts, all layouts for which Gerbers are openly available are best-guess recreations started from scratch, and some have been placed in the public domain by their creators.
Again, there is the topic of "slavish copy", see above.
All these reproductions carry the "Copyright Apple" message but again, so far, Apple (wisely) stayed silent on that.
Conclusion
There are no guarantees that you can do what you want to do, but my own opinion, based on years of experience in the Apple-1 replica / cloning scene, I'd assume you can make any writeup you want, to explain how the Apple-1 works, and so on, and the worst that can happen if you do something stupid which incites Apple's wrath against you, is to get a "Cease and Desist" letter from Apple's (the corporation's) company lawyers. And that does not hurt you in any way, but you could frame it and hang it on a wall, and then you go on youtube and tell the world about this .... and of course, when you see the desired effect, short AAPL stocks to profit from the inevitable repercussions - if that happens, then Apple (the corporation) would have made an incredibly stupid move against the eternal rules of "public relations" dealing with fans of the brand (which also apply not only for corporate brands, but also for the fan base of VIPs, celebrities of all kinds, movie stars, singers, etc.): you can't take any hostile action against any fan in that fan base. Instead, you have to keep them happy, and occasionally give them some "treats". This is how to build a brand. Especially if the brand is so powerful that it has quasi-religious dimensions.
Just my 10 cents of my own opinion, and no warranties given or implied. If in doubt, or if you want to be sure, pay a $6000 retainer to your personal lawyer and let him give a more professional opinion on these questions to the tune of at least $600/hour billed (after paying the retainer). This is how life is, folks. It ain't cheap !
- Uncle Bernie
You know that you can download Gerbers of the Apple-1 motherboard and have PCBs fabbed right? Or just buy a PCB? People sell them on eBay.
Not to discourage you from doing what you want or learning, but just letting you know you may be re-inventing the wheel. If you just want to build an Apple-1 replica you don't have to go quite as far to do so. These days just sourcing all the parts is going to be a pretty big challenge.
In addition to all the points made above, reverse-engineering the Apple I is a bit moot because the complete schematics of the machine were printed in the owner's manual, which has been available online since before the millennium. There is therefore no need to draw out the circuit to understand what it does.
A full description of the circuit's behavior, on a level comparable to "The Apple II Circuit Description" or "Understanding the Apple II" would require a lot more effort, although much of that information can be found here.
In post #4, 'robespierre' wrote:
" A full description of the circuit's behavior, on a level comparable to "The Apple II Circuit Description" or "Understanding the Apple II" would require a lot more effort, although much of that information can be found here. "
Uncle Bernie comments:
I have written a detailed circuit description of the Apple-1 years ago, but it still is unpublished, as all my attempts to use open source / Linux based book typesetting software to whip it into publishable shape were too frustrating for me to continue. But recently, there has been some interest by somebody who has professional (expensive) typesetting software in getting some of my stuff into shape, so there is hope that my works don't stay unpublished for much longer.
- Uncle Bernie