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 ...
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
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.
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.
I agree.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
Red on the outside. White on the inside!
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.
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.
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.
That´s not the argument, the argument is that post-iPhone smartphones are very different compared to pre-iPhone smartphones.
Sounds about right to me.
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.
—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.
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.