Posted on 03/08/2005 12:06:04 PM PST by r5boston
Nearly a decade ago, just a few months after Microsoft shipped Windows 95, I asked Bill Gates if it was a conscious decision in the development of that product to give Windows more of a Mac look and feel. Of course I knew he'd say it wasn't, but I couldn't resist asking. "There was no goal even to compete with Macintosh," Gates proclaimed. "We don't even think of Macintosh as a competitor."
That was a crock, so I pressed the issue a little. I asked him how he accounted for the widespread perception that Windows 95 looked a lot like Mac 88, and whether the similarity was just a coincidence. I didn't expect a sobbing confession of mimicry, but I thought it would be cool to see how he'd respond. Surprisingly enough, Gates shifted gears and became more forthcoming.
(Excerpt) Read more at macworld.com ...
That's the great thing about Macs, they're so easy for the computer-inept to use.
If you're in finance, you should understand that this as a general statement is incorrect. It should be: "The Ipod is very much over-priced for me." It is in fact correctly-priced for millions of people.
Please read the 8 technical definitions I posted. Firmware is software stored in read-only memory. Software only equals firmware when it is stored in read-only memory. Firmware is always software but software is only firmware if it is stored in read-only memory
You logic is as lacking as your knowledge of computers.
Socrates = man is a true statement (at least when Socrates was alive)
Therefore using your logic:
man = Socrates must also be true.
You are in way over your head.
Gee, I don't know how the hundreds of millions of computer-inept people can possibly use Windows. I guess they're not able to run games, browse the Web, and read email ... /SARCASM
Correct. One group looked at the code, one group looked at how the code works.
But if you want to take this off on another semantic rant, is source code software?
Are you claiming source code is not software? Oh please!
Your definition of software is instructions that make hardware do stuff
Not my definition, the definition
yet source code does nothing but tell a compiler or assembler how to make something that tells hardware to do stuff.
Source code is one state of software (not complied). Software has many states: source code, object code, machine code. Different states but it is all software. Compilers change the state of software usually from source code to object code. Source code, object code, machine code is merely different types or states of software.
So if you want to get really freaky semantic, Compaq reverse engineered neither hardware nor software, but source code.
Source code = software.
Source code is software readable by people
Object code and machine code is software readable by computers.
I think the jury is still out on whether or not you are a computer person - your seem to be arguing that source code is not software :-)
IBM was the sole legal source of IBM-compatible PC systems
This statement is true. Early you were saying "pc-compatible hardware" which was not true.
Compaq broke IBM's lock on IBM-compatible PC hardware (when hardware is used to describe the complete system).
Problem is hardware is not defined as a complete system. It is an important point. IBM wanted third-party PC-compatible hardware - they just didn't want copies of their complete computer system.
You are trying to invent a new meaning for the word hardware so your earlier comment can be true. Words have meaning - if they don't, communication is impossible.
A strange statement from a person that is trying to twist the meaning of the word hardware to mean only a complete computer system and one who seems to be arguing source code is not software. Nit-picking is in the eyes of the beholder.
Good point. Now we are in agreement.
Just because people buy it - does not mean it is correctly priced. Millions of people bought pet rocks and Ashley Simpson CD's
Maybe I am prejudiced against Apple, though, because I have friends who are as emotionally attached to the Mac cult as they are to their irrational Bush-bashing. They are impervious to reason on either topic.
Things are priced at what the market will bear. Factors can influence this. A market leader can get away with charging higher prices as in the iPod's case, but that price is still the correct price according to the market. Cheaper players have been out long enough for the market to correct for a too-high iPod price.
The exception is monopolies, which can charge an amount far higher than the market is willing to bear, but must bear because it needs that commodity.
No, to include a complete system. You seemed to think it only meant components.
and one who seems to be arguing source code is not software.
When I said you could start getting freaky semantic, I didn't expect you to accept the offer. I was just showing how semantics can obfuscate an issue so far that you can't argue the original point anymore.
"Socrates is man" is false. "Socrates is A man" is true (at least it was when he was alive). To explain this adequately to you, I would need a Venn diagram. Socrates is part of the set called man (the set "Socrates" is a subset of the set "Man"). He as A man. But it is false to say Socrates is man (the set "Socrates" equals the set "Man").
Educating you without compensation has become a tiresome, full-time job.
In my previous post I said "If you say firmware=software than that also means software=firmware....obviously not true" and you replied "Firmware is always software but software is only firmware if it is stored in read-only memory," a statement which AGREES with mine. Congratulations. At least on this matter, you're getting up to speed.
What he said and what you think he meant are two different things.
According to the New York Times it was because of a change in management at Xerox.
...Both former and current Xerox executives said the company's decision to sue Apple can be attributed almost entirely to the arrival of William C. Lowe, a former executive of the International Business Machines Corporation, who joined Xerox last year. Mr. Lowe, who while at I.B.M. oversaw the early development of the I.B.M. PC, has said in interviews that Xerox is evaluating its technology and will take a much more aggressive stand on patent and copyright issues.
Copyright 1989 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
December 20, 1989, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section D; Page 7, Column 1; Financial Desk
LENGTH: 1236 words
HEADLINE: Xerox vs. Apple: Standard 'Dashboard' Is at Issue BYLINE: By JOHN MARKOFF
Hmmmmm a PC guy instituting a suit against Apple... Why did he not sue Bill Gates and Microsoft who ADMITTED stealing from Xerox, if only in jest.
False - the copyright claim was not "bogus" nor was it because Apple "claimed copyrigh.t" Apple claimed copyright on the very first Macintosh GUI released in 1984. Xerox did not object then.
In fact, Xerox was quite happy with the Capital Gains they were making on the pre-IPO stock Apple had given them in exchange for access to and use of the PARC GUI ideas. That stock increased by over 40 times... all from the sale of the Macintosh and its copyrighted desktop GUI. Xerox did not sue until 1989 ... 3-4 months after the Apple v. Microsoft suit was initiated. The lawsuit was initiated by a former IBM executive who "oversaw the early development of the IBM-PC". Connect the dots.
From the New York Times:
A Federal judge today dismissed almost all the closely watched copyright lawsuit filed by the Xerox Corporation against Apple Computer Inc.In what appears to be a sweeping victory for Apple, Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the Federal District Court in San Francisco threw out five of the six counts in Xerox's lawsuit, saying, in essence, that Xerox's complaints were inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons....
...Apple, which is based in Cupertino, Calif., said in its motion for dismissal that Xerox had no basis for its suit because Apple was merely asserting its own copyrights and not threatening Xerox's copyrights on the Star.
Apple also replied that while it might have borrowed ideas from Xerox, ideas were not protected by copyrights, only the way the ideas were expressed. Mr. Brown, Apple's attorney, said at the hearing that Xerox's asserting that it had originated the Macintosh was as preposterous as a beaver taking credit for the Hoover Dam.
Judge Walker dismissed two counts relating to Xerox's efforts to get Apple's copyright declared invalid,. . . agreeing with Apple. He also dismissed three counts relating to the unfair competition assertions, saying that the lawsuit should really be a copyright infringement case, not an unfair competition case.
Copyright 1990 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
March 24, 1990, Saturday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section 1; Page 31, Column 4; Financial Desk
HEADLINE: Most of Xerox's Suit Against Apple Barred
BYLINE: By ANDREW POLLACK, Special to The New York Times
DATELINE: SAN FRANCISCO, March 23
The copyright claim was not bogus in that the Judge threw out five of Xerox's six claims agreeing with Apple's motion to dismiss ... leaving only a claim that Apple intended to deprive them of their STAR technology. The judge gave Xerox 30 days to provide evidence that they had such a fear and a list of witnesses on that point. This probably was (a hard thing to do since Xerox had dropped the STAR four years before! In any case, Xerox did not produce either evidence or witness list and the case was dismissed with prejudice (meaning it could not be brought again).
The judge also pointed out the lack of timeliness in Xerox's action... quite a bit late if they were truly worried about copyright infringement.
That is NOT what contemporaneous reports (see the above posts) in the main stream press said. That would be an issue if the case had been brought before the Copyright Office... The New York Times:
Judge Walker dismissed two counts relating to Xerox's efforts to get Apple's copyright declared invalid, . . . agreeing with Apple
The judge's hrowing out Xerox's copyright infringement suit - and barring it from further litigation - left Apple's Mac GUI copyrights in place. I suspect that Xerox would have a difficult time demostrating an infringment in light of the $1 million dollars in pre-IPO Preferred Stock Apple gave them in exchange for access. In any case, Xerox, although they claimed they were going to appeal, did not and let the matter drop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.