Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Jul 2012 19:38 UTC, submitted by tupp
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless It might be a cliche, but sometimes, a picture says more than a thousand words. Over the years, I've often talked about how the technology world is iterative, about how products are virtually always built upon that which came before, about how almost always, multiple people independently arrive at the same products since they work within the same constraints of the current state of technology. This elementary aspect of the technology world, which some would rather forget, has been illustrated very, very well in one of Samsung's legal filings against Apple.
Thread beginning with comment 529145
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Crucifixion
by henderson101 on Wed 1st Aug 2012 11:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Crucifixion"
Member since:

...they had the first comercial(ly successful) graphic OS and they had it for many many years (what like 20)

I've added in the aspects I believe validate the statement**, but even if you ignore them, in no way does that say "the only Graphical os for 20 years" or "only successful graphical os". What it says is two statements joined with "and". If you delete the and and replace it with a period, the meaning doesn't change, but then maybe you might re-read it and realise your error.

Let me help you:

1) They had the first commercial graphical OS (LisaOS)
2) They had (Mac OS) for many many years

They did have the first commercial OS presented to consumers (LisaOS) and first widely commercially successful Graphical OS (Classic MacOS) and they did continue to produce MacOS right on into the 2000's from January 1984.

** change "commercially successful" for "commercial consumer" if you want to, still true.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Crucifixion
by Soulbender on Wed 1st Aug 2012 12:43 in reply to "RE[6]: Crucifixion"
Soulbender Member since:

Well, I was pretty sure it didn't really mean "no other GUI for 20 years" since that's an absurd statement but the sentence was so badly phrased and ambiguous that I just had to pick on it.
If you want you can also read it as they kept using Lisa for 20 years.

Reply Parent Score: 2