I said that I dont 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.
posted on 10/22/2011 7:04:53 PM PDT
(Any candidate is better than Obama. Any.)
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.
posted on 10/22/2011 7:32:39 PM PDT
("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson