6 ms·

> There was no theft. I didn't know that touring somewhere meant you could copy all their designs. Was that explicitly stated?

by iczero 2y ago

cortesoft 2y ago
Why would they give away 1m in stock just to look?
- iczero 2y ago
  Was it only for the tour? Was it actually $1M, or did it later increase in value? Did Xerox value a strategic relationship? "A whole load of ideas" seems worth more than $1M to me, especially if you're Xerox back then.
- lupire 2y ago
  They didn't. They got paid $1M!
- lolinder 2y ago
  OP misrepresented what happened (intentionally or otherwise). They didn't give away $1M in stock, they granted Xerox the right to buy $1M in stock.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Same difference. At some point you're just arguing about what the number was. I don't care about the broader argument, but the right to buy $1MM of private shares is, in fact, real consideration.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Is it real consideration that anyone could consider to be worth "all the IP that you happen to be able to see while on this tour", or is it real consideration that Xerox thought was worth "an opportunity to see how we run the best tech lab of our generation"? Don't forget that Apple presumably got paid $1M dollars out of the deal in addition to the tour. I'm having a hard time seeing the argument that the right to pay Apple for some of their shares in 1979 was perceived as being worth any of Xerox PARC's IP, much less "as much as you can carry in your head". (None of which is to say that Apple was wrong to copy what they could, morally or legally. I just find the argument that these shares are evidence that it was an above-board trade that Xerox was on board with to be very weird.)
      - tptacek 2y ago
        I don't care; as far as I'm concerned, that argument is isomorphic to "would $1MM literal dollars be enough for what they saw, or should the number be higher". Maybe. But the right to buy shares is not really a meaningful distinction to the simple issuance of shares in this historical context. That's all I'm arguing.
        rsanek 2y ago
        in retrospect? sure. at the time? radically different. just ask your average sv startup employee if they think options and RSUs are the same
        tptacek 2y ago
        Options and RSUs are both universally acknowledged as consideration. That's all I'm arguing. Should it have been $1MM in stock, or $50MM, or $200k? Hell if I know.
        viridian 2y ago
        What? It absolutely is. One has a face value of $1,000,000.00 The other has a face value of $0.00 If Apple offered me one of these right now it would completely change my life, and the other would be something I wouldn't even take them up on.
      - turnsout 2y ago
        It was 100% an above-board trade. Xerox at that point had poured an ocean of money into PARC and hadn't really seen any return on it. I don't think they would have seen it as an IP transfer, because it wasn't. Apple didn't rush out to implement Smalltalk. Instead they were inspired by the principles, misunderstood some stuff, and came up with something 100% better for the average consumer. Xerox wasn't stupid—they were trying to get some value out of this research lab that was, on paper, lighting money on fire.
  - turnsout 2y ago
    You're right of course—another way to put it is that Xerox got the chance to make a $1M investment in pre-IPO Apple.
kragen 2y ago
in general you can copy all of someone's designs even without touring. exceptions are when they're covered by copyright or patent
- immibis 2y ago
  Which they are by default.
  - rsanek 2y ago
    not by patent
  - kragen 2y ago
    no. copyright has a rather limited scope that excludes the aspects of design you most want to copy; patents must be applied for and received; and both expire
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > exceptions are when they're covered by copyright or patent And when there's (A) an enforceable confidentiality agreement (written or, sometimes, oral), and/or (B) an implied obligation of confidence, e.g., for employees, corporate officers and directors, and possibly others, depending on the facts and circumstances.
  - kragen 2y ago
    yes, agreed. and there are other possible circumstances that could change the situation as well
turnsout 2y ago
If you read a bit about it, you'll understand that Apple did not copy the Alto—they did something that was actually way harder. They created a better version of what the Alto was attempting to do, and got it to run on lower-grade hardware they could sell for 1/10th the cost. But yes, Xerox knew exactly what they were doing when they invited Steve and his team in.
- collinmanderson 2y ago
  > But yes, Xerox knew exactly what they were doing when they invited Steve and his team in. Right. Xerox got Apple stock out of the deal. Not really stealing. Bought and paid for.

> There was no theft. I didn't know that touring somewhere meant you could copy all their designs. Was that explicitly stated?

by iczero 2y ago

> There was no theft. I didn't know that touring somewhere meant you could copy all their designs. Was that explicitly stated?

cortesoft 2y ago

Why would they give away 1m in stock just to look?

iczero 2y ago
Was it only for the tour? Was it actually $1M, or did it later increase in value? Did Xerox value a strategic relationship? "A whole load of ideas" seems worth more than $1M to me, especially if you're Xerox back then.
lupire 2y ago
They didn't. They got paid $1M!
lolinder 2y ago
OP misrepresented what happened (intentionally or otherwise). They didn't give away $1M in stock, they granted Xerox the right to buy $1M in stock.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Same difference. At some point you're just arguing about what the number was. I don't care about the broader argument, but the right to buy $1MM of private shares is, in fact, real consideration.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Is it real consideration that anyone could consider to be worth "all the IP that you happen to be able to see while on this tour", or is it real consideration that Xerox thought was worth "an opportunity to see how we run the best tech lab of our generation"? Don't forget that Apple presumably got paid $1M dollars out of the deal in addition to the tour. I'm having a hard time seeing the argument that the right to pay Apple for some of their shares in 1979 was perceived as being worth any of Xerox PARC's IP, much less "as much as you can carry in your head". (None of which is to say that Apple was wrong to copy what they could, morally or legally. I just find the argument that these shares are evidence that it was an above-board trade that Xerox was on board with to be very weird.)
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I don't care; as far as I'm concerned, that argument is isomorphic to "would $1MM literal dollars be enough for what they saw, or should the number be higher". Maybe. But the right to buy shares is not really a meaningful distinction to the simple issuance of shares in this historical context. That's all I'm arguing.
      - rsanek 2y ago
        in retrospect? sure. at the time? radically different. just ask your average sv startup employee if they think options and RSUs are the same
        tptacek 2y ago
        Options and RSUs are both universally acknowledged as consideration. That's all I'm arguing. Should it have been $1MM in stock, or $50MM, or $200k? Hell if I know.
      - viridian 2y ago
        What? It absolutely is. One has a face value of $1,000,000.00 The other has a face value of $0.00 If Apple offered me one of these right now it would completely change my life, and the other would be something I wouldn't even take them up on.
    - turnsout 2y ago
      It was 100% an above-board trade. Xerox at that point had poured an ocean of money into PARC and hadn't really seen any return on it. I don't think they would have seen it as an IP transfer, because it wasn't. Apple didn't rush out to implement Smalltalk. Instead they were inspired by the principles, misunderstood some stuff, and came up with something 100% better for the average consumer. Xerox wasn't stupid—they were trying to get some value out of this research lab that was, on paper, lighting money on fire.
- turnsout 2y ago
  You're right of course—another way to put it is that Xerox got the chance to make a $1M investment in pre-IPO Apple.

kragen 2y ago

in general you can copy all of someone's designs even without touring. exceptions are when they're covered by copyright or patent

immibis 2y ago
Which they are by default.
- rsanek 2y ago
  not by patent
- kragen 2y ago
  no. copyright has a rather limited scope that excludes the aspects of design you most want to copy; patents must be applied for and received; and both expire
dctoedt 2y ago
> exceptions are when they're covered by copyright or patent And when there's (A) an enforceable confidentiality agreement (written or, sometimes, oral), and/or (B) an implied obligation of confidence, e.g., for employees, corporate officers and directors, and possibly others, depending on the facts and circumstances.
- kragen 2y ago
  yes, agreed. and there are other possible circumstances that could change the situation as well

turnsout 2y ago

If you read a bit about it, you'll understand that Apple did not copy the Alto—they did something that was actually way harder. They created a better version of what the Alto was attempting to do, and got it to run on lower-grade hardware they could sell for 1/10th the cost. But yes, Xerox knew exactly what they were doing when they invited Steve and his team in.

collinmanderson 2y ago
> But yes, Xerox knew exactly what they were doing when they invited Steve and his team in. Right. Xerox got Apple stock out of the deal. Not really stealing. Bought and paid for.