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.
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.
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.
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.
Sounds about right to me.