Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Android
BBC ^ | 10/21/11

Posted on 10/21/2011 7:07:59 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster

21 October 2011 Last updated at 09:40 GMT

Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Android

Steve Jobs said he wanted to destroy Android and would spend all of Apple's money and his dying breath if that is what it took to do so.

The full extent of his animosity towards Google's mobile operating system is revealed in a forthcoming authorised biography.

Mr Jobs told author Walter Isaacson that he viewed Android's similarity to iOS as "grand theft".

Apple is suing several smartphone makers which use the Android software.

According to extracts of Mr Isaacson's book, obtained by the Associated Press, Mr Jobs said: "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

He is also quoted as saying: "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong."

(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: android; apple; google; stvejobs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 next last
To: longtermmemmory

Star Trek: Voyager (TV Series 1995–2001) - IMDb

Those last two “data pads” are from the above series so are not earlier than 1995


51 posted on 10/21/2011 2:28:39 PM PDT by dennisw (What good is a used up world and how could it be worth having - - Sting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sicon
Didn't Jobs get the idea for the mouse from some government or military computer system he saw, among other

Apple licensed the mouse from the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), whose Dr. Douglas Englelbart is the inventor, paying for an unlimited license. Apple did not steal it. They then patented their one button design among others.

52 posted on 10/21/2011 2:34:13 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: globelamp
Apple offered stock options to Xerox in return for getting access to the PARC research.

Not stock options. Apple gave Xerox one million shares of pre-IPO Apple common stock worth $7 per share. They gave them an interest in the company! Xerox became an owner of Apple! They sold those shares after the IPO for about $16 million.

53 posted on 10/21/2011 2:39:42 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: globelamp
Apple offered stock options to Xerox in return for getting access to the PARC research.

Not stock options. Apple gave Xerox one million shares of pre-IPO Apple common stock worth $7 per share. They gave them an interest in the company! Xerox became an owner of Apple! They sold those shares after the IPO for about $16 million.

54 posted on 10/21/2011 2:41:38 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Apple offered stock options to Xerox in return for getting access to the PARC research.

And Xerox did not accept that deal. Whose private property was that GUI?

And now you are outright telling an outrageous lie!

55 posted on 10/21/2011 3:16:13 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver
You can have my DroidX when you take it from my cold, dead fingers!

When my BB died after 7 years I bought a Droid. I can't wait to dump it and get another BB. In terms of email delivery BB is far superior, especially in areas where signals are spotty, emails still get through eventually, receive and send.

56 posted on 10/21/2011 3:25:53 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rifleman
Xerox PARC invented the mac/windows/gui style user interface, not Jobs. Jobs lifted it from them. Gates lifted it from Jobs and PARC after it showed promise.

Both Apple and Xerox were working on GUIs simultaneously. Apple had hired an ex-professor from California State University San Diego who had done pioneering work in windowing and mouse driven GUIs. He had given several lectures at PARC before going to work at Apple that had sparked their interest in GUIs and he was now the head of Apple's GUI and Mac project. Perhaps you've heard of him? His name is Jef Raskin. HE was later miffed that Jobs took over his Mac project... But later came to realize the genius that Jobs brought to the project through simplification. It was Jef Raskin who is the real father of the GUI at both Apple and PARC... and HE suggested that Jobs visit PARC to see what they were doing and put Jobs in contact with Xerox management to negotiate a deal to visit AND USE WHAT THEY SAW on the visits and it was Jobs and Raskin who went on the first eight hour visit. They lifted NOTHING! In fact, Raskin made suggestions to the PARC engineers on their visit for improvements on their work! In many ways it was a two way street.

On the other hand, Gates did sign an NDA, and violated it in many ways... But the Sugar-water salesman who was CEO of Apple had little tech understanding an wrote a very poor contract with Microsoft and the the judge in the case was a Luddite with even less understanding of software copyrights. . . who ruled that a limited license for Windows 1, was an unlimited license for all subsequent versions of Windows dispite explicit limiting language. He said "Windows is Windows!" ignoring the complete re-write and change that took place from Windows 1 to Windows95. He found only a few similar icons such as the Trashcan were protected. Idiot.

Incidentally, Microsoft did lose a MAJOR patent and software copyright infringement case to Apple in 1997... It cost the more than $150,000,000! It had the potential of costing them billions, but Steve Jobs found a way to save face for them so that both companies won.

57 posted on 10/21/2011 3:45:38 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Not stock options. Apple gave Xerox one million shares of pre-IPO Apple common stock worth $7 per share. They gave them an interest in the company! Xerox became an owner of Apple! They sold those shares after the IPO for about $16 million.

I remember hearing from somebody who worked at Xerox in those days about how Xerox should have held on to that stock for a while. Anybody know what that stock would be worth now?

I know of at least two Apple stock splits, so just with those, Xerox's shares could be worth over a billion and a half dollars.
58 posted on 10/21/2011 3:54:12 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

You are completely and indefensibly wrong on this subject. Apple licensed the tech from Xerox. You are spreading Microsoft FUD that is older than the world wide web itself.


59 posted on 10/21/2011 3:55:18 PM PDT by Comstock1 (You can't have Falstaff and have him thin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

And now he’s dead! That’ll learn ‘im!


60 posted on 10/21/2011 3:57:22 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: real saxophonist
I got an Android phone specifically because it was not an Apple product.

I've got droid tablet for the same exact reason. Soured on Apples popietary thing a long time ago. But I have no problem with Jobs trying to crush google.

61 posted on 10/21/2011 3:59:23 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
Jobs had his pluses and minuses but if he had gotten his way we would’ve all been forced to pay Apple a premium and progress would have been enslaved to whatever pace Apple had seen fit.

Couldn't be further from the truth.
62 posted on 10/21/2011 4:13:10 PM PDT by Terpfen (Any candidate is better than Obama. Any.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
Jobs took the whole icon interface idea from Xerox.

No, he didn't. He paid Xerox for the rights to use concepts they had no intention of implementing.
63 posted on 10/21/2011 4:15:59 PM PDT by Terpfen (Any candidate is better than Obama. Any.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
The Wright brothers tried to patent flying. Imagine if one of the automakers had successfully patented using an internal combustion engine to power a vehicle, or patented the use of inflated tires.

But there WAS a Patient on the car.

http://www.bpmlegal.com/wselden.html

64 posted on 10/21/2011 6:21:54 PM PDT by amigatec (The only change you will see in the next four years will be what's in your pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Would that be anything like swiping the Mac GUI from PARC Meester Jobs???

You know the difference between bought and stolen? If not check out where Bill Gates got DOS.

Apple didn't invent MP3 players but they made them into a product that people wanted to buy. The iPhone was a new beast all together.

The fact that Google sat on the board of Directors shows Job's had a shortcoming in his trust factor, the same can be said for SamSung who happens to have their hands on most of Apples secrets, since they make a major portion of their products.

65 posted on 10/21/2011 6:23:29 PM PDT by itsahoot (There was a bloodless coup in 08, and no one seemed to notice. God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Azeem
We bought two Nooks for the price of one iPad.

Hah, I got two hamburger patties for less than one tenth of the price of a prime rib, piker.

66 posted on 10/21/2011 6:28:28 PM PDT by itsahoot (There was a bloodless coup in 08, and no one seemed to notice. God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

>Jobs took the whole icon interface idea from Xerox.<

It was the other way around, FRiend. Bill Gates was the one who “borrowed” the idea because he simply...asked Xerox if they can “please” demonstrate for a private party how this GUI thing works.

That was the time that he explained to Ballmer that “throughout history, geniuses have stolen ideas and they never borrow” (something like that)


67 posted on 10/21/2011 6:42:58 PM PDT by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

I wasn’t saying that he stole the ideas, but I also am reasonably sure he didn’t pay for them. In any event, the GUI ideas didn’t originate with Apple. Xerox made several thousand Alto computers that used the interface (and mouse) for universities and reseachers. Strangely, Xerox lacked a serious interest in commercializing its GUI. Had Xerox realized what it had, the history of Xerox and the micro-computer industry would have been radically rewritten.


68 posted on 10/21/2011 7:27:18 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: max americana

I think you will find you have confused things. Apple adopted the Xerox GUI (and mouse)first. Some years later Microsoft incorporated it in Windows. Then in 1988 Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement. Apple lost almost all of its case in court, but the matter wasn’t finally settled until 1997.

The truly creative guys were the SRI/Xerox PARC computer scientists. Apple just got lucky on the GUI and, I think, never paid Xerox a cent for the GUI (Apple did hire some of the Xerox/PARC team, though). Losing to Microsoft was karma.


69 posted on 10/21/2011 7:35:43 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
I wasn’t saying that he stole the ideas, but I also am reasonably sure he didn’t pay for them.

You are reasonably wrong. Apple licensed the relevant technology from Xerox, meaning they paid Xerox before putting something on the market.

Xerox made several thousand Alto computers that used the interface (and mouse) for universities and reseachers.

Which is irrelevant to whether or not Apple paid for or stole Xerox's ideas. As they paid for ideas Xerox, by your own admission, had no interest in using, your earlier post is false.
70 posted on 10/21/2011 9:37:23 PM PDT by Terpfen (Any candidate is better than Obama. Any.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

The earlier post is “false” only if “took” can only be interpreted as “steal”, which is false. My point was that Apple wasn’t as creative as people commonly think.

As for the license, I don’t believe there is one. Jobs wanted to look at what Xerox had, and ultimately I believe Xerox said he could take a look in exchange for letting Xerox have 100,000 Apple shares (pre-IPO) for $1 million. “Taking a look” means Jobs got tours and could inspect the technology while on the tours.

Many at PARC thought allowing Jobs to take a look was crazy, but apparently the corporate executives in Rochester didn’t care. There was no license (at least at that point), but I also believe that PARC hadn’t patented the mouse or done any legal intellectual property work on the GUI. Consequently, from a legal perspective both the GUI and the mouse were only protected as trade secrets, which protection would have been waived by the tours in the absence of a confidentiality agreement, of which there was none that I know of. This is why I say that I don’t think there is a license agreement. Moreover, while I was in Silicon Valley during those years I never heard anyone say or suggest that Apple licensed the mouse or the GUI from Xerox. If you have a 10K or something similar that says Apple is a licensee (and this would almost certainly have to be disclosed because the GUI was a major asset of Apple) I will gladly concede the point.


71 posted on 10/21/2011 10:10:03 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
My point was that Apple wasn’t as creative as people commonly think.

This is also false. Where is it alleged that Apple invented the GUI? Where is it alleged that Apple invented the MP3 player? Where is it alleged that Apple invented the smartphone, the tablet, the set-top box, the notebook, the LCD display, the desktop computer, or the touchscreen? No one in their right mind thinks that Apple invented them, but Apple's customers definitely think the company has some very high-quality versions of those concepts.

As for the license, I don’t believe there is one.

Whether you believe a license exists is irrelevant. Apple did indeed license from Xerox. Swordmaker has repeatedly busted this myth in this thread and many other Mac threads on FR. Refer to posts 50, 52, 53, and 57.
72 posted on 10/21/2011 10:31:39 PM PDT by Terpfen (Any candidate is better than Obama. Any.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

There are many, many, many patents related to internal combustion engines,


73 posted on 10/22/2011 12:22:55 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
Had Xerox realized what it had, the history of Xerox and the micro-computer industry would have been radically rewritten.

Xerox management is Kodak writ small.

74 posted on 10/22/2011 12:24:11 AM PDT by Lazamataz (When I see pictures or videos of the Occupation, all that I see is an ocean of mostly white faces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

A more apt one from a while back:

Apple can’t go under, or Microsoft will lose its R&D department.


75 posted on 10/22/2011 12:25:19 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
My point was that Apple wasn’t as creative as people commonly think.

The Mac GUI was actually quite an improvement over what was at Xerox. Extra creativity went into making a GUI that could work on a machine costing only $2,500 instead of the $50,000 Xerox machines.

76 posted on 10/22/2011 12:31:50 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

No doubt yours is the definitive accounting...the short version at least. I like how Xerox got one million pre-IPO shares of Apple stock in payment. What great days those were for pioneers with hi-IQs and guts!


77 posted on 10/22/2011 9:31:42 AM PDT by dennisw (What good is a used up world and how could it be worth having - - Sting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
I remember hearing from somebody who worked at Xerox in those days about how Xerox should have held on to that stock for a while. Anybody know what that stock would be worth now?

IIRC, there have been three splits since the IPO, so those original 1 million shares would be 8 million times ~$400 a share or about $3.2 billion.

78 posted on 10/22/2011 10:30:11 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
As for the license, I don’t believe there is one. Jobs wanted to look at what Xerox had, and ultimately I believe Xerox said he could take a look in exchange for letting Xerox have 100,000 Apple shares (pre-IPO) for $1 million. “Taking a look” means Jobs got tours and could inspect the technology while on the tours.

That 100,000 for $1,000,000 is a misreporting of the actual facts. Xerox BOUGHT nothing. Apple GAVE Xerox 1,000,000 shares of Apple pre-IPO common stock with a face value of $7 a share in exchange for the visit. Why would Xerox pay Apple to visit them? Apple PAID Xerox For the visits and the right to use what they learned.

79 posted on 10/22/2011 10:48:20 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
but I also believe that PARC hadn’t patented the mouse or done any legal intellectual property work on the GUI. Consequently, from a legal perspective both the GUI and the mouse were only protected as trade secrets, which protection would have been waived by the tours in the absence of a confidentiality agreement, of which there was none that I know of.

There's a lot you "don't know of" since PARC did not invent the mouse or the concept of the GUI. In fact PARC got many of their ideas from Jef Raskin, an ex-professor of computer science and human interface who had lectured at PARC before they started work on their GUI, who was then head of Apple's GUI project and suggest that he and Jobs visit PARC . . .

80 posted on 10/22/2011 4:20:36 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

The first introduction of the mouse was by Doug Engelbart, of the Augmentation Research Center at Stanford Research Institute, in 1968, probably the most famous demo of all time

http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html


81 posted on 10/22/2011 4:23:51 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

I didn’t say that PARC invented either the mouse or the “concept” of the GUI. PARC did develop working versions of both before Apple. Apple did a better job of commercializing them by, for example, with the mouse, drastically reducing the cost and improving its durability.

What I wrote was also entirely consistent with SRI owning the rights to the mouse. The overall point, however, was that Apple’s use of the mouse together with the GUI was spurred by the visit to PARC. While I agree that most of the ideas and concepts in the valley were traceable to SRI and the universities, development of those ideas generally occurred elsewhere.


82 posted on 10/22/2011 5:00:36 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Try to stop hyperventilating and listen. First, common stock does not have a “face value”. Second, the value in what Apple gave Xerox was the bargain price. Xerox obtained to the right to buy shares pre-IPO at a price that was substantially below what everyone expected the IPO offering price to be. In fact, the IPO price was $22/share, which obviously vindicated taking the option on the 100,000 shares.

Apple, like, most new companies was using its stock as a form of currency, and there were also probably tax benefits for Xerox in that it was probably able to treat part of its gain on the shares as capital gains.

So, yes, Apple paid Xerox for the visits, which is what I wrote. The payment, however, took the form of an option. Xerox made out very well.


83 posted on 10/22/2011 5:17:34 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

I agree.


84 posted on 10/22/2011 5:18:42 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

I think that the common perception is that Apple created the mouse and GUI. Disagree if you like.

The basic “myth” that was attacked in the earlier posts by others was that Apple stole Xerox’s technology. But that is not what I have said. I said that I don’t think that Apple got a license from PARC for the mouse and the GUI. We agree completely on the mouse, and, indeed, Apple licensed it from SRI, not Xerox. As for the GUI, you seem to be insisting that there is a license because you think that only a license clears Apple of the “theft” that some claim. I pointed out, however, that Apple didn’t need a license to have made legitimate use of what it was shown at PARC. Perhaps the stock option documents included a license, or perhaps they didn’t. Ultimately the point is a technical legal point - did Apple license the GUI, or did Xerox simply waive its trade secret protection. Either way, there is no basis for criticizing Apple.


85 posted on 10/22/2011 6:42:29 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000
I said that I don’t think that Apple got a license from PARC for the mouse and the GUI.

And I said that you are wrong. Apple did obtain a license for the products and technologies observed in their visit to Xerox/PARC. Whether you think it happened or not is irrelevant, because it did happen. This is verifiable fact. Specifically, Apple sold pre-IPO stock to Xerox/PARC in exchange for those engineer visits and the rights to create products inspired from those visits.

Put plainly, you are wrong. You're of course allowed to continue being obstinate, but you're still wrong.
86 posted on 10/22/2011 7:04:53 PM PDT by Terpfen (Any candidate is better than Obama. Any.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; Swordmaker; itsahoot; Comstock1; sasquatch
OK, now that Shabbat is over I'll reply.

As to whether or not the use of Xerox' intellectual property was theft. Unless a property owner has full control of the use of their property, they do not own that property. Hence, any use that is adverse to that intent is theft. Whether or not a judge can construe otherwise from the events is immaterial.

In letting Jobs see the system at PARC, Xerox obviously intended to interest him in more. He was permitted to SEE it, he was NOT permitted to manufacture any part of the idea in whole or in part. How do I know? Xerox sued when he did. Any further use than what they intended is theft on a moral basis. I don't give a crap what the courts said, the "golden rule" being what it is.

IOW, mine is a moral distinction, not a legal one. Thus our differences are a difference of opinion, not a "lie" Swordmaker. Yet this moral difference would be less material were it not for the fact that Steve Jobs had every intention of stealing ideas.

I know more of Steve Jobs' behavior than any of you would prefer. I happened to know people who were privy to the minds of the Apple BOD at the time of this visit to Xerox. In fact, I was living in the parents' home of one of them who was "in the family" (literally) of a prominent member of that Board. She was laughing and bragging at how they had duped Xerox for a pittance. That betrays intent to steal. Then again, I don't have to make a case for Jobs' intent to steal, as he said so himself, "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

He was a jerk. Did you know that people at Apple HQ got off the elevator if Steve got in so that he wouldn't fire them on the spot? His was a reign of terror.

Finally, I've owned a fair number of Apple products. Every one was a rip off. Try paying an extra grand for a Mac II and then running it for a year on 1MB of RAM because the other MB was "back-ordered." Try finding out that the CAD system they said worked did not (Pegasys II was a serious loser), containing serious rounding errors that made it worthless for CAM purposes. Oh yeah, Lisa, Apple III, etc. were all big winners too. /s

Jobs made a lot of money, but was notoriously tight when it came to charity. He profited like a capitalist, but his politics were borderline Marxist. IOW, he was a hypocrite to boot. So in sum, while Steve Jobs was certainly financially successful, he was miles behind a great corporate leader, true innovator, and decent human being like David Packard.

87 posted on 10/22/2011 7:28:17 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

OK, so now we are down to a license or a sharing of trade secrets. It hardly matters, but how would you explain Xerox licensing the mouse when SRI had the patent? Apple did get a license from SRI for the mouse. That would normally make any sort of license on the mouse from Xerox/PARC irrelevant. As for the GUI, had Xerox copyrighted the GUI? If not, it could hardly have licensed it.

The point that seems to elude you is that intellectual property isn’t always transfered by a license. You claim the GUI was licensed to Apple from Xerox/PARC. You may be right, but you haven’t provided so much as a link for your claim that it is verifiable. As I said before I am more than happy to concede the point if you have some good evidence.


88 posted on 10/22/2011 7:32:39 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

So what you’re saying is that you knew Jobs was a jerk and Apple products were the result of moral fraud, yet you went and paid thousands of dollars extra to own them?
This is a story that a lot of us have followed closely for a long time, and it is know that testimony from people who were in the room that worked for Xerox directly disputes what you are saying.

Xerox sued over certain terms of the license, not over the fact that they didn’t license the software.

You are morally and legally wrong.


89 posted on 10/22/2011 10:13:40 PM PDT by Comstock1 (You can't have Falstaff and have him thin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Comstock1
So what you’re saying is that you knew Jobs was a jerk and Apple products were the result of moral fraud, yet you went and paid thousands of dollars extra to own them?

People at my place of employment (including my boss) were moving the department into MacIntosh computers, so it wasn't a "free" decision on my part; it was a matter of file compatibility. Apparently you need to surmise a bogus straw man to have an argument.

This is a story that a lot of us have followed closely for a long time,

Well seeing as I lived in a house with a brand spanking new 40-character screen 16K Apple (pre VisiCalc) I where said future family member of said Apple board of directors lived, so have I, not closely mind you, but I was in very close proximity to people who were.

and it is know that testimony from people who were in the room that worked for Xerox directly disputes what you are saying.

So, you truly KNOW that. Then please explain why there are people suing Apple on behalf of some of those Xerox inventors right now.

Xerox sued over certain terms of the license, not over the fact that they didn’t license the software.

Oh, and what would those "certain terms" be?

Look, we have the principal actor proudly admitting that he stole ideas. We also have a direct and massive beneficiary (many millions) of said event, with both professional and personal reasons to know the Apple players intimately, and NOTHING to gain by so reporting who called it "stolen" to her brother in my presence. I knew her well enough to have ghost written a term paper for for that person. And no, I won't give you that person's name.

You are morally and legally wrong.

I believed that person then and do so now. You'd have to provide me a ton of evidence I don't have the time or interest to read to convince me otherwise. Nor does the substantive content of your posting convince me that you have even the potential of being an objective judge.

90 posted on 10/22/2011 10:39:12 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

I really don’t believe you.

People have offered testimony under oath that directly contradicts your anecdotal “evidence”.

Everything I’ve said is documented and has been reproduced in multiple books and in several documentaries.

And BTW, you are the one who said you “owned” several Apple machines. You originally didn’t say anything about them being just for work.

You are obviously a zealot with an axe to grind, so I’m wasting every keystroke here and I doubt either one of us will be convinced of anything. I just happen to be able prove what I’m saying.


91 posted on 10/22/2011 10:56:49 PM PDT by Comstock1 (You can't have Falstaff and have him thin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
According to extracts of Mr Isaacson's book, obtained by the Associated Press, Mr Jobs said: "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

The Onion has a great cartoon touching on this subject. St. Peter sends Jobs to Hell with the words: "Thin different, Mr. Jobs. It seems you pilfered your iPhone idea from Star Trek!" While the angels of 'Roddenberry' and 'Doohan' look on. "No iCloud for you!"

92 posted on 10/23/2011 7:16:12 AM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Jobs made a lot of money, but was notoriously tight when it came to charity. He profited like a capitalist, but his politics were borderline Marxist. IOW, he was a hypocrite to boot.

Red on the outside. White on the inside!

93 posted on 10/23/2011 7:41:55 AM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

I have never said Apple products were not over priced, if Windows did for me what Apple did, I would buy them, but all Windows ever did for me was problematic.

I don’t go on windows boards and tell windows users they are stupid, I just don’t buy their products, maybe you could try the same thing.


94 posted on 10/23/2011 6:07:02 PM PDT by itsahoot (There was a bloodless coup in 08, and no one seemed to notice. God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
I don’t go on windows boards and tell windows users they are stupid,

I didn't. All I said was that the very thing Jobs was complaining about with Google was very similar to what he did to PARC.

95 posted on 10/23/2011 6:38:20 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (At least I have the decency to kill my food before I eat it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
He was permitted to SEE it, he was NOT permitted to manufacture any part of the idea in whole or in part. How do I know? Xerox sued when he did.

Actually, no. Xerox sued in the late 80s, many years later, only because William Lowe (father of the IBM PC) moved to Xerox at the time and thought he could belatedly make some money off of Xerox tech he saw sitting around. Management at the time of the trip didn't even consider that what was learned couldn't be reused.

So as far as "golden rule" is concerned, Apple is in the clear. Xerox broke the rule by playing Indian giver. Then again, I don't have to make a case for Jobs' intent to steal, as he said so himself, "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

That you write this as you did shows you know nothing. That is extremely out of context, showing nothing about his intent.

96 posted on 10/23/2011 8:43:20 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: CSI007

That´s not the argument, the argument is that post-iPhone smartphones are very different compared to pre-iPhone smartphones.


97 posted on 10/24/2011 12:08:47 AM PDT by globelamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Sounds about right to me.


98 posted on 10/24/2011 12:14:50 AM PDT by dennisw (What good is a used up world and how could it be worth having - - Sting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Mr Jobs told author Walter Isaacson that he viewed Android's similarity to iOS as "grand theft".

But what about PARC? Who stole PARC's ideas?

Ideas don't count. The computer industry is about execution, not about who thought of it first.

99 posted on 10/24/2011 12:29:32 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

—There are many, many, many patents related to internal combustion engines,—

Yes. that is why my comment was generic. I am a very black and white thinker. I brought it up in the context of the Wright brothers trying to patent flying, while fully aware that a typical aircraft has a heck of a lot of patents.

If Henry Ford had thought like Steve Jobs, the first competitors car that used four wheels would have been sued for using the same number of wheels as a Ford.

I believe that patent law is what has allowed western culture to flourish, but sometimes it does get silly when applied beyond its purpose.


100 posted on 10/24/2011 5:14:13 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson