Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Oct 2011 23:17 UTC, submitted by jello
Apple So, how serious is the legal battle between Apple and the various Android phone makers, really? Surely, it's just logical business sense that's behind it, right? Calculated, well-planned precision strikes designed to hurt Android where simply making better, more innovative products isn't enough? Well, no, not really. We already knew Steve Jobs took this personal - now we know just how personal.
Thread beginning with comment 493715
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by Jennimc
by frderi on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 11:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Jennimc"
frderi
Member since:
2011-06-17

> I was talking about features that were said, like "combine the PDA with the smartphone" or the features that offered Palm Pilot, Ibm Simon, Apple Newton, etc.

>That "ran away with" expression is too similar to "stealing", they are not stealing, Apple did not steal anything from Xerox or IBM Simon or Knight Ridder(*), even if Steve Jobs says it

I think making a clear distinction between features and design is very important in this debate. I do believe products that are designed too similar and clearly mimick the whole widget of an original product is theft. One could speak of product identity theft, corporate identity theft or theft of goodwill related to the original product or company, because a sale of the cloned product will not result in a sale of the original product. So is this stealing? Yes. Its theft of sales, thats what it is.

Consider human reproduction. Nobody will sue you for making another human and giving him the chances in life to become a fully developed individual. You will not get sued for having the same features of other people. We are all equipped with the same ones, some more pronounced than others in each individual, some working considerably well in some individuals, others sadly being impaired or defunct in some individuals. You will get sued, however, when you mimic another person so close that people cannot distinguish between the original person and the other properly, and you start receiving benefits associated with this original person, such as cashing in his monthly wage. This is considered identity theft and fraud.

Indeed, Apple did not steal from Xerox. They commercialized parts of the GUI ideas at Xerox, a market Xerox wasn't interested in entering in the first place. So they licensed these ideas and Xerox took a stake in Apple. They also put a lot of work in actually implementing and making the ideas from Xerox in an actual usable product. The Xerox Alto was a concept, not a finished product.

Edited 2011-10-22 11:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[7]: Comment by Jennimc
by rr7.num7 on Sun 23rd Oct 2011 00:27 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Jennimc"
rr7.num7 Member since:
2010-04-30

One could speak of product identity theft, corporate identity theft or theft of goodwill related to the original product or company, because a sale of the cloned product will not result in a sale of the original product. So is this stealing? Yes. Its theft of sales, thats what it is.


By that reasoning, "cloned" products are killing iPhone sales, so is it murder?

Consider human reproduction. Nobody will sue you for making another human and giving him the chances in life to become a fully developed individual. You will not get sued for having the same features of other people. We are all equipped with the same ones, some more pronounced than others in each individual, some working considerably well in some individuals, others sadly being impaired or defunct in some individuals. You will get sued, however, when you mimic another person so close that people cannot distinguish between the original person and the other properly, and you start receiving benefits associated with this original person, such as cashing in his monthly wage. This is considered identity theft and fraud.


Terrible analogy. It would only be relevant if these other companies were selling phones/tablets with an apple logo, calling them "i-Phone", "i-Pad" or claiming they are selling an Apple product.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[8]: Comment by Jennimc
by frderi on Sun 23rd Oct 2011 11:14 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Jennimc"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17


It would only be relevant if these other companies were selling phones/tablets with an apple logo, calling them "i-Phone", "i-Pad" or claiming they are selling an Apple product.


A product is more than a name. So it is OK for you to dress up as someone else and pick up his monthly tab, as long as you can just trust on the fact that you don't have to identify yourself to someone else and you don't tell anyone you're him?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by Jennimc
by Nth_Man on Sun 23rd Oct 2011 07:50 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Jennimc"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

A sale of the cloned product will not result in a sale of the original product. So is this stealing? Yes. Its theft of sales, thats what it is.

If it was true, then:

1) Steve Jobs would be a thief, after stealing a lot, and Steve Jobs would be right when he said:
"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
"Good artists copy; great artists steal."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

2) Steve Jobs would be a thief and would have stolen from Xerox:
"Jobs and a team of engineers visited Xerox PARC, where they saw a demo of mouse and graphical user interface"
http://www.maniacworld.com/alto-computer-video.html [includes an interesting video of Xerox Alto]
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/storysupplement/stevejobs/in...

3) Bill Gates would be a thief and would be right when talking to Steve Jobs:
"Well, Steve, I think there’s more than one way of looking at it. I think it’s more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox, and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/01/0119apple-unveils-lisa/
http://www.mac-history.net/the-history-of-the-apple-macintosh/rich-...
http://www.macworld.co.uk/blogs/index.cfm?blogId=8&entryId=392
http://www.wservernews.com/archives/wservernews-20090330.html

Edited 2011-10-23 07:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Comment by Jennimc
by frderi on Sun 23rd Oct 2011 11:23 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Jennimc"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17


If it was true, then:

1) Steve Jobs would be a thief, after stealing a lot, and Steve Jobs would be right when he said:
"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
"Good artists copy; great artists steal."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

2) Steve Jobs would be a thief and would have stolen from Xerox:
"Jobs and a team of engineers visited Xerox PARC, where they saw a demo of mouse and graphical user interface"
http://www.maniacworld.com/alto-computer-video.html [includes an interesting video of Xerox Alto]
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/storysupplement/stevejobs/in...

3) Bill Gates would be a thief and would be right when talking to Steve Jobs:
"Well, Steve, I think there’s more than one way of looking at it. I think it’s more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox, and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/01/0119apple-unveils-lisa/
http://www.mac-history.net/the-history-of-the-apple-macintosh/rich-...
http://www.macworld.co.uk/blogs/index.cfm?blogId=8&entryId=392
http://www.wservernews.com/archives/wservernews-20090330.html


As noted earlier : Apple didn't steal from Xerox. They LICENSED the technology and Xerox took a stake at them. So Xerox was very much aware and okay with what Apple was doing. Microsoft didn't license anything. They saw the Apple prototypes and developed Windows behind everyones back.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alto and Star
by Nth_Man on Sun 23rd Oct 2011 07:59 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Jennimc"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Indeed, Apple did not steal from Xerox. They
commercialized parts of the GUI ideas at Xerox, a
market Xerox wasn't interested in entering in the
first place.

"It was not a commercial product, but several thousand units were built and were heavily used at PARC, other Xerox facilities, and at several universities for many years."

So they licensed these ideas and Xerox took a stake
in Apple. They also put a lot of work in actually
implementing and making the ideas from Xerox in an
actual usable product. The Xerox Alto was a concept,
not a finished product.

You don't sell thousands of "concepts". Anyway, if someone does not take Xerox Star into account, he can also make all type of conclusions...

Xerox Alto:

Price:
Never sold but often given away. Star, a commercial derivative of Alto eventually retailed for $16,595 in 1981

Units Shipped:
2,000 inside Xerox and to universities & research centers.

[There's more in http://www.digibarn.com/collections/systems/xerox-alto/]

The Xerox Star:

Introduced:
April 27, 1981

Price:
Retailed for $16,595 in 1981 [Before Apple Lisa and Apple Macintosh]

Units Shipped:
Tens of thousands

[There's more in http://www.digibarn.com/collections/systems/xerox-8010/index.html]

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Alto and Star
by frderi on Mon 24th Oct 2011 22:57 in reply to "Alto and Star"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

Your knowledge of the Alto and Star products obviously don't go much further than skin deep. A prototype released as a product is still a prototype.

Macintosh innovated heavily on the UI front, perhaps its biggest achievement was that the whole Mac UI concept was essentially a self learning system that lowered the bar at who could work with a computer significantly. Yes, the Alto and Star had a rudimentary UI and a mouse, but its functionality was severely limited, as most tasks would still require one to memorize commands. The Mac had the Menu Bar, which allowed someone to look up the commands available in a program and execute them directly trough menus instead.

The Mac also introduced things like resizable windows with the mouse, drag and drop in the Finder, overlapping Finder windows, ... which are traits that have come to be shared with all modern day graphical UI's and were non-existent in the Xerox machines. In hindsight, their machines were proofs of concept, whereas the Mac was the first finished, easy to use and commercially viable product.

Edited 2011-10-24 22:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1