Linked by umad on Thu 25th Aug 2011 22:51 UTC
Permalink for comment 486888
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-08-25
You'll find that Apple benefited substantially from the work of Xerox PARC. In my college days, we had one of the Xerox machines on site, and the similarities were unmistakable.
And regarding software patents, many here may remember that the US patent refused to grant patents on software - it was subject to copyright law instead. Thus there was a legal recourse for copying source code, but not for an independent clean room effort that yielded the same results.
Considering the relationship between software and mathematics, I wonder how we'd all get along if we all had to pay royalties to Newton (or Leibniz) every time we used calculus. They'd probably still have their descendants in court now...