I had a very big scary chemo/rad problem as well, leaving me with lots of deleted, re-routed and altered OEM. That was then, this is now. It's all good, K, no matter how you got here.
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.
Insight into Steve Jobs' Product-Centric Approach in 1985 Interview
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I had a very big scary chemo/rad problem as well, leaving me with lots of deleted, re-routed and altered OEM. That was then, this is now. It's all good, K, no matter how you got here.
If you did not perform an inventive step, you cannot be listed as an inventor. If you did perform an inventive step, you must be listed as an inventor. To do otherwise could invalidate the patent or specific claims in a patent. Jealous, much?
Exactly, the work of Marie Curie (radioactivity), Röntgen (x-ray) and Fleming (penicillin) has had a profound effect on the world. I see people here comparing Jobs to Einstein and it's laughable. The Apple community is a consumer ethnocentric community and we have Steve Jobs to thank for that
A well made computer or electronic device can absolutely change the world for the better, and I place it alongside the others you mentioned.
Many of the disenfranchised of the world are finding their salvation through the use of these devices. Penicillin can help treat a person who's sick, but a cell phone and internet connection can give them a livelihood.
Yah, a product with terrible battery life, and that you could cook your dinner on. That's why it's a good thing they didn't listen to their customers.
I'm sure the PowerBook G5 exists collecting dust in a Cupertino vault somewhere.
It would be interesting if some day Apple opened a museum of all of the things that didn't make it out of their labs.
They could call it the Catacombs of Infinite Loop.
Last edited:
Then quote those "people" (or that person), and challenge the merits of such statements directly. Personally, i think "who was more profound" arguments are a bit unnecessary... but you're not even making a modicum of effort at refuting *specific* statements. More likely, you're misunderstanding what's actually being said, (but we can't really tell, because you didn't bother to quote them).
Say whaaaat?The Apple community is a consumer ethnocentric community and we have Steve Jobs to thank for that
Stop with the vague finger-pointing and the sweeping generalizations already. BINGO! [he's jealous waaayyy too much, and constantly so.]
The Apple community is a consumer ethnocentric community and we have Steve Jobs to thank for that
Did you mean egocentric, perhaps. It fits better.
An "inventive step" can be merely reviewing the patent. Sometimes that review is very important, and sometimes it's perfunctory.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out Jobs' role in an RF design patent.
BTW, I am one of the inventors on six issued US patents. It probably took 5 days (40 hours, spread over several weeks or months) of blah-blah-blah for each patent. The easy, fast part is coming up with the idea. The time consuming part is writing it up, dealing with the patent lawyers in the company's IP department to come up with the application, creating any diagrams, dealing with the IP lawyers because their revision completely lost the original idea, (repeat the last couple of clauses 3 to 7 times)....
I simply can't see that the CEO of Apple would have the time needed to make any substantial input to that many patents - therefore I can only conclude that he had a perfunctory role. Considering the huge number of patents that one "Steve Jobs" is listed on, I don't see how anyone can come up with any other conclusion.
Unless you think that Apple's CEO is a deity, in which case he could bend space-time in order to provide substantive input for those hundreds of patents.
Last edited:
Absolutely not true. A review is not an inventive step. You may discover something when reviewing the work, but the review is not an invention.
Oh please!
The straw man argument is that Stave Jobs did not invent the Apple products so he shouldn't be acknowledged for his genius.
blah blah blah
First of all anyone offering this argument can't tell you the inventor of the LCD without a google search so I doubt they are very concerned about due recognition.
Secondly, we aren't talking from bottom to top invention. We are talking about new products that work intuitively and are appreciated by the public as seen by sales numbers among other things.
Suppose Jobs and Apple weren't around. Yes there would be mp3 players and tablets and so on. But the interface and quality wouldn't have been pushed to a level that made them adoptable or desirable by so many.
I'm sure there are people sitting around saying they were merging their computer with their living room experience long before Apple or anyone else. Sure. But how many people want a big beige box with a giant CRT monitor sitting next to the television set (not to mention the scanner on the coffee table).
And yes there were programmers and designers who did the work but without Jobs and his company, their resources would have been wasted at Microsoft or in a cubicle somewhere.
The straw man argument is that Stave Jobs did not invent the Apple products so he shouldn't be acknowledged for his genius.
blah blah blah
First of all anyone offering this argument can't tell you the inventor of the LCD without a google search so I doubt they are very concerned about due recognition.
Secondly, we aren't talking from bottom to top invention. We are talking about new products that work intuitively and are appreciated by the public as seen by sales numbers among other things.
Suppose Jobs and Apple weren't around. Yes there would be mp3 players and tablets and so on. But the interface and quality wouldn't have been pushed to a level that made them adoptable or desirable by so many.
I'm sure there are people sitting around saying they were merging their computer with their living room experience long before Apple or anyone else. Sure. But how many people want a big beige box with a giant CRT monitor sitting next to the television set (not to mention the scanner on the coffee table).
And yes there were programmers and designers who did the work but without Jobs and his company, their resources would have been wasted at Microsoft or in a cubicle somewhere.
How many patents do you have in your name?
The process that I've described is what my company (which has a *lot* more patents granted than Apple) follows. "Inventors" are given a substantial cash award and are listed on the patent. Normally, patents are limited to three inventors - although that number is flexible if you can document that a larger number of people made substantial contributions to the patent.
An "inventor" can be someone who reviewed the application and made substantive comments and/or improvements to the patent claim. (The concept of "peer review" is important here.)
Looking at the absurd number of Apple patents that list a certain known non-technical being named "Steve Jobs", I cannot help be come to the conclusion that Apple has a much looser definition of "inventor" that puts the CEO's name on most/all of the patent submissions by the company.
Such a "disaster" that nobody wants an iPhone4 - especially all the Verizon folks that have been waiting. LOL
And 10% of departing T-Mobile folks leaving for iPhone4.
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/lawmakers_look_to_ban_ipod-obsessed_runners/
Real disaster there with "AntennaGate" - LOL
Hats off to SJ for creating products helping people like Congresswoman Giffords.
Gabrielle Giffords reading iPad, trying to speak
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47895.html
Gee, why is it the doctors chose an iPad over an Android (no need to answer, that was rhetorical)? Its amazing how people try to minimize the impact SJ has had this century. Nice try Apple haters - LOL
Last edited:
How many patents do you have in your name?
The process that I've described is what my company (which has a *lot* more patents granted than Apple) follows. "Inventors" are given a substantial cash award and are listed on the patent. Normally, patents are limited to three inventors - although that number is flexible if you can document that a larger number of people made substantial contributions to the patent.
An "inventor" can be someone who reviewed the application and made substantive comments and/or improvements to the patent claim. (The concept of "peer review" is important here.)
Looking at the absurd number of Apple patents that list a certain known non-technical being named "Steve Jobs", I cannot help be come to the conclusion that Apple has a much looser definition of "inventor" that puts the CEO's name on most/all of the patent submissions by the company.
Patents are for applications of technology too, not just development of technology.
Yes - but did I imply otherwise?
My argument is still the same - whether new technology or a new application of existing technology, the names on the patent itself are the names submitted by the applicant. My company only uses the names of those who made material contributions to the invention or the application.
Apple would appear to use a much looser definition of "contributor".
The inventor of a technology is often not the most key person in making those inventions change the world.
There are books on this. Where X really invented something, but couldn't get anybody to listen to them or want to manufacture their widget, leaving it pretty much dead for years/decades. Who benefits from those geniuses?
Great artists ship AND get the world to look at their work.
Ok so has Jobs done nothing? Or has he contributed at all? Is he worthy of some praise or is he a fraud?
As has been pointed out, that's simply false. Only if you contribute to the conception or reduction to practice of at least one claim can your name be listed.
Of course you can't help it... just like you can't keep from squirming every time a thread with the name "Steve Jobs" in its title passes through these news forums. A clear case of technis envy. (especially painful i'd imagine, since we are slowly being led to believe that you know more than Steve).
And even if you were "right"... what difference does it actually make? Right again: none.
it'd be just about the opposite. think olpc and you see something that's about as far away from apple as you can get. open, cheap, function over form
That's correct. Woz did the electronic design and most of the code for the first Apple.
Nope, Jobs can't do software either. According to Woz, Jobs has never programmed anything in his life.
My take is that The Loop will be the last to move into the place. The top secret -- and still operational no matter who says they are not -- facilities on Bubb Road and Green Valley drive will probably go first. Also, they will finally get out of that obscene Cupertino City Center lease that has ballooned on them in the last ten years.
If I was a betting man, I'd buy up a commercial lot in walking distance of the new campus and set up a restaurant. This is for sure, there will be more Apple folks at The Duke of Edinburgh than Britannia Arms for lunch in a few years.
If Steve can get away with it, we'll have a big red button on the Apple web site -- or better an iPhone app -- that will start the detonators to level The Loop as a last final flip off to John Scully.
I just keep on thinking what a sweet target that picture is to have in your sights for a massive EMP gun guided out by a medium dispersal cone antenna.
Agree. No wonder Steve is on the board of Disney. Walt Disney himself didn't draw but produced some of the greatest animated characters out there. He also transformed the artistic amusement park with mechanical rides (Tivoli Gardens in Denmark) and made it a smashing success placing in his characters for America.
We've often joke about Apple buying the Great America Amusement Park here in Silicon Valley and making it an Apple-themed amusement park. Strangers things have happened ...