None of the $429 million that Apple paid for NeXT went to Steve
Jobs, it went to the investors. Jobs got Apple stock for his
part of NeXT. He was not the "owner".
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 Reportedly Disrupting iPhone Competitors With Legal Threats Backed Up by HTC Suit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
None of the $429 million that Apple paid for NeXT went to Steve
Jobs, it went to the investors. Jobs got Apple stock for his
part of NeXT. He was not the "owner".
Uggg!
1) Google is not being sued!
2) Multi-touch is not one of the patents that is part of the HTC suit. Apple has never sued anybody over multi-touch (to my knowledge) in general.
It sounds more like you are the one that is naive. You say Apple is a timid animal in the corner with a bad attitude toward business relations? Are you joking or serious? I hope your joking, because that doesn't even make one drop of sense. Apple is more like the oversized lion on the mountain looking down from slumber while licking it's paws after devouring the competition fair and square AND not even on purpose, they just got in the way. Lol and the only attitude I see is when companies that usually work with them become lazy or purposely try to hinder the sales of soon to be released devices made by Apple by not supplying the product they normally supply out of spite. The only ones I see not playing friendly here are Adobe with their flash and CS compatibility and Microsoft withholding office. If even either of those two things were on the ipad, the things would fly and these companies know that.
I think what some people don't remember is that when Apple applied for those patents the other devices didn't exists there was nothing like the iPhone. I think they are right to defend the patents. I really don't think there trying to eliminate android but say hey do your own thing and we will do ours.
May I remind you that in that batch of patents, was Visual Voice Mail, which Apple have lost the patent.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080616/2258471431.shtml
Not.
Delicious Monster Visual Designer = Mike Matas
Sr Visual Designer at Apple = Mike Matas (left Apple July 2009)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicious_Monster
Apple owned the designer of Delicious. Apple's implementation doesn't look like Delicious, but rather, is a bookshelf like the other scads of apps that use bookshelf graphics.
Common interface.
http://xander.am0.co.uk/2008/10/classics-iphone-ap ...
http://code.google.com/p/shelves/
http://www.gadgetvenue.com/iphone-c64-emulator-090 ...
http://www.gstsdesigns.com/Educational/SoftTouch/M ...
http://scottrhoades.com/wordpress/?p=146
Are you blind?
To me, it looks like the main difference with Apple's copy is that
instead of walnut wood with a horizontal grain, Apple is using
oak wood with a vertical grain.
I agree with you.
Rather than focusing on making great products, why don't we spend years in court racking up lawyers fees so that the tech companies can jack up the device prices and screw the avg. person. That makes total sense.
Because most large technology companies use patents as a defensive mechanism. Basically if you attack me then I have something that I can threaten you with. The only time companies pull them out in the offensive is when they feel they are already losing. If you're already winning there is no reason to spend the money on a legal battle, opening the can of worms that the company you threaten may have their own trump patents, and/or risking going to court and having your patent overturned (then it's completely useless for defense later).
Thank you Stella, my case and point:
Apple did its homework and went after HTC because they have very few patents to fight back with. I don't expect we'll see Apple go after MS, Motorola, or Google for that matter because all those companies have their own war chest of patents that they can pull out and go tell Steve to f' off like Sun did in 2003.
Um, what exactly has Apple been doing for the past decade? Selling lemonade?
It shouldnt matter.
1) Its not a patent issue.
2) At worse its a copyright issue, except Shipley admits there is none.
3) Books on a bookshelf is not specific and I would bet money is not patentable. Its far too generic of a concept.
4) Delicious Library and the iBook app perform different functions.
Look and feel is not patents - thats copyright. Totally different.
If Android devices proliferate using Apple's patented technology, that's a problem.
What was the Sun 2003 issue?
edit: don't worry, found a link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100309-716589.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines
The 27" iMacs were lemons. 2009 Mac Pros would suck up electricity and heat up to 70°C just playing a freaking MP3 file until Apple released a fix nearly a year later. Time Capsules are crapping out after 18 months. And Snow Leopard may very well be the buggiest OSX release yet.
Problem? Sure. The problem is that Android is Linux. Linux is just a concept though that is not owned nor is it something that you can profit on. Google doesnt make money on Android. Its not worth going after them since getting damages is harder to get.
Handset makers are easier since they do profit because they sell at a profit.
The Apple Boombox flopped too...
But the majority of Apple products have been successful.
Apple also didn't invent the dock on Mac OS X, but guess what? The Apple community and the company itself act like they did.
Aperture has only corrupted 2 of my photo libraries. The first one it ate the RAW data and left me with previews.
As a consumer company, I am behind them 100-consumer-percent.
As a pro company, I am getting frustrated.
Why would anyone care about what Schwartz has to say? Sun did all the wrong things under him, failed, and now he's running his mouth online. Looking Glass failed because it was crap.
If iPhone devices proliferate using Nokia's patented [GSM] technology, that's a problem.
Nothing is invented in a vacuum. I know you think that the universe started with Apple and if SJ came out on stage tomorrow and said Apple is introducing this great new patented idea called the Internet you would think he really did invented it.
It's not really Apple that bothers me in this case as much as the Apple fanboys praise them for defending their IP, but then rip other companies who sue Apple in defense of their IP. A modicum of logical consistency is all I'd like to see.