Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by andybak on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:05AM
(#4727875)
"Xerox was allowed to invest in Apple in exchange for access to PARC.": http://www.quora.com/Retrocomputing/Did-Apple-need-to-licens...
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by bigfudge2 on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:05AM
(#4727874)
How many times. Jobs paid for the IP from Xerox. Check your facts. There probably are things Apple have stolen over they years, but this wasn't one of them.
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by jivatmanx on Thursday November 01, 2012 @12:05PM
(#4728201)
Xerox sued, but the case was dismissed without addressing the claims, because it was filed as the wrong type of case, in the wrong court.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-s...
Xerox did give Apple access to PARC, but see how that allows Apple to freely use any of their IP without compensation.
According to Xerox:
''The ruling does not mean Apple hasn't taken substantial portions of the Star and claimed them as their own,'' a statement issued by Xerox said. ''The court merely held, we believe erroneously, that Xerox does not have standing to present facts in support of our contention.''
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by Evbn on Thursday November 01, 2012 @12:34PM
(#4728347)
Wow, Apple even copied Xerox's non-apologies for lost lawsuits.
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by Karunamon on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:39AM
(#4728055)
Great. It's still a copy. Whether they paid for access to it or not is irrelevant - it's still a copy of someone else's innovation.
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by JasonFruit on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:49AM
(#4728109)
I doubt a patent attorney would consider that irrelevant, and it's not irrelevant when you're discussing corporate conduct.
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by Karunamon on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:55AM
(#4728142)
I don't mean legally, I meant in the "Apple is soooooo innovative" sense.
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by mkr-hn on Thursday November 01, 2012 @12:03PM
(#4728182)
It seems like most Apple acolytes have conceded that point.
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by javajosh on Thursday November 01, 2012 @03:05PM
(#4729147)
Emphasis can be a powerful thing. If you see an array of amazing things (as I'm sure Jobs & Co did at PARC), and then you select a key item to emphasize and popularize, then you have, in fact, contributed value. One could say that this was Steve Jobs' first act of 'technology curation' - an act which has (successfully) been commoditized and monetized via the App Store.
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by rimantas on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:51AM
(#4728124)
And Apple added a lot to the original.
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by vacri on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:04PM
(#4729698)
Like 'a black rectangle with rounded corners'?
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by derleth on Thursday November 01, 2012 @12:33PM
(#4728345)
> And Apple added a lot to the original.
Ah, sarcasm.
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by mung on Thursday November 01, 2012 @07:21PM
(#4730311)
you should really take a look at what they "copied"
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by derleth on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:39PM
(#4731125)
Let's see: Windows, Icons, Menu, Pointer. Which of those were Apple's invention?
Re:Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on fron...
by 1SaltwaterC on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:38AM
(#4728052)
Probably?
I don't blame them for this because I simply don't believe any design patents are legitimate, but the hypocrisy is astounding.