3 ms·

[Article author here] You're missing the real core point. Apple sued to protect its features. So, Microsoft had to do things differently. Apple: drive icons

[Article author here] You're missing the real core point. Apple sued to protect its features. So, Microsoft had to do things differently. Apple: drive icons on the desktop. GEM, Windows: drive icons in folders. Apple: global system menu at top left. Clock at top right. Windows: start menu at bottom left; clock at bottom right. Apple: start apps by browsing to their folder. MS: separate app launcher menu. Apple: no graphical way to switch apps, because classic MacOS multitasked poorly. MS: the task bar, with buttons for each running window. The point is not the broad general similarities. The point is the differences.

guerrilla 4y ago
No, I think you're missing the point. Intellectual property is a joke and none of this belongs to anyone. All any of this did was waste resources. Also, what a terrible article, I think you should apologize. Stop trying to reply with "No" in every comment and take in what people are saying to start with.
- lproven 4y ago
  I actually largely agree with most of that. I do think that being able to patent relatively minor UI stuff is absurd. I do think it was a total waste of resources, and I have said so, in print, for instance here: https://www.theregister.com/Print/2013/06/03/thank_microsoft_for_linux_desktop_fail/ https://www.theregister.com/Print/2013/06/03/thank_microsoft... However, I was there as an active industry watcher and commentator at the time, and it seems to me that the main focus of comments here are simple incredulity. I have seen very very few people responding with any kind of citation or reference or anything else. I do not accept simply argument from authority. The founder of the GNOME project says "no" is not a counter-argument. [1] I am not sure that he was involved in GNOME 3. [2] He then became an MS employee and therefore has (literally) vested interest. Denial is not refutation. Furthermore, as I have said, if anyone involved publicly confessed to it, that would constitute an admission of liability.

guerrilla 4y ago

No, I think you're missing the point. Intellectual property is a joke and none of this belongs to anyone. All any of this did was waste resources. Also, what a terrible article, I think you should apologize. Stop trying to reply with "No" in every comment and take in what people are saying to start with.

lproven 4y ago
I actually largely agree with most of that. I do think that being able to patent relatively minor UI stuff is absurd. I do think it was a total waste of resources, and I have said so, in print, for instance here: https://www.theregister.com/Print/2013/06/03/thank_microsoft_for_linux_desktop_fail/ https://www.theregister.com/Print/2013/06/03/thank_microsoft... However, I was there as an active industry watcher and commentator at the time, and it seems to me that the main focus of comments here are simple incredulity. I have seen very very few people responding with any kind of citation or reference or anything else. I do not accept simply argument from authority. The founder of the GNOME project says "no" is not a counter-argument. [1] I am not sure that he was involved in GNOME 3. [2] He then became an MS employee and therefore has (literally) vested interest. Denial is not refutation. Furthermore, as I have said, if anyone involved publicly confessed to it, that would constitute an admission of liability.