People at my place of employment (including my boss) were moving the department into MacIntosh computers, so it wasn't a "free" decision on my part; it was a matter of file compatibility. Apparently you need to surmise a bogus straw man to have an argument.
This is a story that a lot of us have followed closely for a long time,
Well seeing as I lived in a house with a brand spanking new 40-character screen 16K Apple (pre VisiCalc) I where said future family member of said Apple board of directors lived, so have I, not closely mind you, but I was in very close proximity to people who were.
and it is know that testimony from people who were in the room that worked for Xerox directly disputes what you are saying.
So, you truly KNOW that. Then please explain why there are people suing Apple on behalf of some of those Xerox inventors right now.
Xerox sued over certain terms of the license, not over the fact that they didn’t license the software.
Oh, and what would those "certain terms" be?
Look, we have the principal actor proudly admitting that he stole ideas. We also have a direct and massive beneficiary (many millions) of said event, with both professional and personal reasons to know the Apple players intimately, and NOTHING to gain by so reporting who called it "stolen" to her brother in my presence. I knew her well enough to have ghost written a term paper for for that person. And no, I won't give you that person's name.
You are morally and legally wrong.
I believed that person then and do so now. You'd have to provide me a ton of evidence I don't have the time or interest to read to convince me otherwise. Nor does the substantive content of your posting convince me that you have even the potential of being an objective judge.
I really don’t believe you.
People have offered testimony under oath that directly contradicts your anecdotal “evidence”.
Everything I’ve said is documented and has been reproduced in multiple books and in several documentaries.
And BTW, you are the one who said you “owned” several Apple machines. You originally didn’t say anything about them being just for work.
You are obviously a zealot with an axe to grind, so I’m wasting every keystroke here and I doubt either one of us will be convinced of anything. I just happen to be able prove what I’m saying.
They are not. The Xerox patents suits were tossed out in 1993. You are making things up as you go along.
Look, we have the principal actor proudly admitting that he stole ideas. We also have a direct and massive beneficiary (many millions) of said event, with both professional and personal reasons to know the Apple players intimately, and NOTHING to gain by so reporting who called it "stolen" to her brother in my presence. I knew her well enough to have ghost written a term paper for for that person. And no, I won't give you that person's name.
And you might also give the entire quotation of Steve Jobs showing he was quoting some other great artist! The fact still remains that Jobs negotiated a deal with Xerox management PRIOR to the visits to PARC to see and USE what the saw there and PAID Xerox Handsomely for the rights to what they saw and learned. A later Xerox CEO, ignorant of the terms of that agreement was the one who brought the lawsuit against Apple, which was promptly tossed out when that agreement was entered into evidence in pre trial discovery. Xerox had SOLD Apple the rights to what little they had used, and it was actually very little.
Apple did it legally, and above board, stating their purpose and intentions, to an organization whose purpose was general research to advance computer knowledge and technology. Xerox sold that knowledge and technology. . . They did not necessarily keep it in house.
You have the gall to claim a high moral standing after claiming you ghost wrote her term paper???? BAH!