You need to take your rose tinted glasses off for a second and re-read that quote! Had nothing to do with Apple!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Renews Motion Calling for U.S. Ban on Samsung Products
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You need to take your rose tinted glasses off for a second and re-read that quote! Had nothing to do with Apple!
I was thinking that the iOS7 notification system has copied Androids system straight up. Plus the other ideas they stole from Android and WebOS. Adding to your comment as it were.
Last edited:
Wow apple sounds like child, get over it. You already got paid a large sum.
What was that jobs quote about stealing?
What was that jobs quote about stealing?
I'm with you on this! There will always be a rivalry between two giants, but rather than fight about it and watch the windows phone pass them by, maybe they should focus on a better product and let the features speak for themselves.
You don't begin to get it do you? And don't waste your time replying, just stop while you're not ahead. I've viewed most everyone's reply to your ridiculous post and they are trying to straighten out your convoluted way of thinking and completely distorted version of reality as well. And talk about an attitude... Oy vey.
I'm not saying Apple should be reprimanded, fined or anything of the sort. They obtained that legally. great. I hope they get what they deserve (the rightful money being made from what they got from Xerox).... BUT, it's still not their idea. They copied and tweaked someone elses idea like other companies do.
OK, you've repeated the same ridiculous nonsense about 5 times now in this thread. We get it, you understand nothing about business. Quit embarrassing yourself by regurgitating the same nonsense over and over..
That's not really true. Apple sued Microsoft over Windows 1 and probably could have won in court too. The problem Apple had at the time was that they literally were in so much trouble, they didn't have the cash to fight out a protracted lawsuit at the time. Not to mention, it would have been a more difficult case because so few people had Macs or Windows 1 at the time or even knew what a graphical interface looked like. But technically, Microsoft didn't get a license to Mac OS. They just have a settlement to not get sued for blatantly copying that version of Mac OS. That doesn't mean Apple couldn't sue Microsoft over future versions of Windows, but those original patents are off the table. Plus, while Apple patented a lot of those things, they were originally designed by XEROX, who never used them. That's also why XEROX never sued Apple. They never developed a comparable product nor did they patent a lot of it.
Apple also settled the lawsuit because Microsoft agreed to make several big concessions. Not only invest a hundred million dollars into Apple to keep them afloat, but they also made commitments to continue to provide software products for the then fledgling Mac which was a competitor to Windows. If Microsoft had yanked those software titles and invested money, it's possible there wouldn't be an Apple or a Mac or an iPhone today. Apple would have potentially won after the company was bankrupt and out of business.
Comparing these 2 patent lawsuits is really comparing apples to oranges because that was David vs. Goliath whereas this is Goliath vs. Goliath.
Last edited:
Uh What??? Care to show a link to that version of history I never heard of? I've been a Mac user for 16 years and never heard of this, ever.
I understand what I'm talking about. I repeat myself because you clearly don't understand what I'm saying. Did Apple come up with the idea themselves? No. Why are you having such a hard time with this? Calm your fanboy/girlism.
Not patents back then. Copyrights.
Apple had made a deal with Microsoft in 1985 allowing them to sell Windows 1.0 and derivative works without problem. However, as Windows got to look more like the Mac, Apple sued over look and feel.
Unfortunately for Apple, the courts (original and appeals) decided that each element had to be examined on its own. Almost every piece was found to be either licensed or obvious.
Xerox sold several GUI based office computers, but they were high priced.
Xerox did sue Apple, complaining that Apple had overstepped their own agreement with Xerox, and had failed to acknowledge Xerox's GUI work.
Apple had already lost the look and feel lawsuit, and its appeal. They also wouldn't have gotten much from the later Quicktime code copy thing.
So the investment and cross-licensing was likely more about Microsoft wanting to avoid monopoly charges.
Good job Apple. I hope Samsung burns to the ground. Useless copycat company that profits from the work of others. Samsung destroys creativity and innovation.
I was mistaken here. I had forgotten that Xerox was compensated for their tech that Apple used, so it is more like Apple bought it.
Still, core point still stands that Apple takes ideas and repackages them a lot - its not that they don't do their own innovation as well, but we need to keep in mind that Apple doesn't always "innovate" everything that comes out of its doors... indeed, many of the most novel concepts were started outside of Apple and bought up.
I don't know what version you watched, but there was wenches and krakens in mine.
I think i got the wrong "pirates" then. mine didnt have Krakens... Lots of scantily clad wenches though....
come to think of it... i thought 18+ was the rating the movie got!
No, you were right.
According to Xerox's later lawsuit against Apple, Apple never compensated (nor even credited) Xerox.
The myth that a demo invitation after Xerox invested in Apple (for marketing purposes), somehow equated to obtaining a GUI license, was made up years later on the internet.
It's like saying that anyone who buys Apple stock and visits an Apple store, can therefore steal Apple's ideas without license or credit.
well, lets use an extention of tthat logic for fun
(this is all sarcasm)if I go buy apple stock, doesn't that mean i'm now part owner of apple, and therefore part owner of all Apple owns, including patents and licences, and can therefore use those as I deem fit, since you know, i'm part owner
(its new years eve, i'm at work and bored, bare with me
)
if I go buy apple stock, doesn't that mean i'm now part owner of apple, and therefore part owner of all Apple owns, including patents and licences, and can therefore use those as I deem fit, since you know, i'm part owner
Actually, that's a great question, because it also goes to the heart of another myth... that corporations must always try to increase shareholder value.
The answer is no, a shareholder does not own a piece of the corporation or any asset of the corporation. They only own a security bond.
A corporation is legally like a person. You cannot own a person. But you can invest (buy stock) in that person's ideas and work.
The brains of this corporate person are its board members. They control the corporation's actions, assets, and dividends.
The members do not have to "maximize profits" like so many people repeat. They can refuse takeovers even if the offer is great. They can fire top employees. They can stop R&D. And so forth. They can also raise people's salaries. Increase spending on parties or buildings. And so forth.
In fact, the board members have a duty beyond shareholder value, and can make decisions that instead prioritize employees, customers, or the community.
oh i get it. i was just playing around with ideas for fun.
I'm not a fan of "maximize profits year in and year out" mentality. I dont think that continued revenue growth and record profits year after year is healthy, nor beneficial for any company or the economy.
Corporations should "owe" downwards. With an aging populace (boomers) and an arguably smaller next generation (in Canada, 60%+ of our population is over the age of 60 right now). the means of record profits horded by the few will end up in disaster when the population can no longer support that growth.
it will end up driving the costs of goods up. Which means higher inflation overall. If the companies are generally making less revenues due to lower purchasing populace, Then costs will be shaved, and usually at the bottom to middle manamagement. Which means less money is being trickled down to prop up the top, which leads to... recession and depressions.
yes. Profit is good. it is the goal and the strive for everyone to earn more profit. But at somepoint you have to realize it is unfeasible for this insane growth to continue forever.
companies can continue to be viable, grow and 'innovate' while not making record profits that are stashed in a bank somewhere.
now we're off topic though... really, Work is bloody dull this morning
I know. Alas, I'm married to a teacher, and it's rubbed off. So I used your kidding around as a convenient jumping off point
There's just so many myths around. And we all know our sacred male duty...
Apple Renews Motion Calling for U.S. Ban on Samsung Products
Both fanboy sides disgust me and most of their arguments are laced with fallacies and erroneous information. About a third of you don't even know what the hell you're talking about, you just picked a side and decided to throw stones. I despise ignorant masses.
I own both products and will continue to own both products and to hell with the lot of you.
Both fanboy sides disgust me and most of their arguments are laced with fallacies and erroneous information. About a third of you don't even know what the hell you're talking about, you just picked a side and decided to throw stones. I despise ignorant masses.
I own both products and will continue to own both products and to hell with the lot of you.