Replies

The earlier post is “false” only if “took” can only be interpreted as “steal”, which is false. My point was that Apple wasn’t as creative as people commonly think.

As for the license, I don’t believe there is one. Jobs wanted to look at what Xerox had, and ultimately I believe Xerox said he could take a look in exchange for letting Xerox have 100,000 Apple shares (pre-IPO) for $1 million. “Taking a look” means Jobs got tours and could inspect the technology while on the tours.

Many at PARC thought allowing Jobs to take a look was crazy, but apparently the corporate executives in Rochester didn’t care. There was no license (at least at that point), but I also believe that PARC hadn’t patented the mouse or done any legal intellectual property work on the GUI. Consequently, from a legal perspective both the GUI and the mouse were only protected as trade secrets, which protection would have been waived by the tours in the absence of a confidentiality agreement, of which there was none that I know of. This is why I say that I don’t think there is a license agreement. Moreover, while I was in Silicon Valley during those years I never heard anyone say or suggest that Apple licensed the mouse or the GUI from Xerox. If you have a 10K or something similar that says Apple is a licensee (and this would almost certainly have to be disclosed because the GUI was a major asset of Apple) I will gladly concede the point.

My point was that Apple wasn’t as creative as people commonly think.

This is also false. Where is it alleged that Apple invented the GUI? Where is it alleged that Apple invented the MP3 player? Where is it alleged that Apple invented the smartphone, the tablet, the set-top box, the notebook, the LCD display, the desktop computer, or the touchscreen? No one in their right mind thinks that Apple invented them, but Apple's customers definitely think the company has some very high-quality versions of those concepts.

As for the license, I don’t believe there is one.

Whether you believe a license exists is irrelevant. Apple did indeed license from Xerox. Swordmaker has repeatedly busted this myth in this thread and many other Mac threads on FR. Refer to posts 50, 52, 53, and 57.

My point was that Apple wasn’t as creative as people commonly think.

The Mac GUI was actually quite an improvement over what was at Xerox. Extra creativity went into making a GUI that could work on a machine costing only $2,500 instead of the $50,000 Xerox machines.

That 100,000 for $1,000,000 is a misreporting of the actual facts. Xerox BOUGHT nothing. Apple GAVE Xerox 1,000,000 shares of Apple pre-IPO common stock with a face value of $7 a share in exchange for the visit. Why would Xerox pay Apple to visit them? Apple PAID Xerox For the visits and the right to use what they learned.

but I also believe that PARC hadn’t patented the mouse or done any legal intellectual property work on the GUI. Consequently, from a legal perspective both the GUI and the mouse were only protected as trade secrets, which protection would have been waived by the tours in the absence of a confidentiality agreement, of which there was none that I know of.

There's a lot you "don't know of" since PARC did not invent the mouse or the concept of the GUI. In fact PARC got many of their ideas from Jef Raskin, an ex-professor of computer science and human interface who had lectured at PARC before they started work on their GUI, who was then head of Apple's GUI project and suggest that he and Jobs visit PARC . . .