6 ms·
This makes me sad for a variety of reasons. One, because HP are being assholes and making what is clearly a knock-off product. Apple has every right to be upset
by ender7 14y ago
This makes me sad for a variety of reasons. One, because HP are being assholes and making what is clearly a knock-off product. Apple has every right to be upset, and probably sue them for trade dress infringement.
And second, because everyone (on both sides) is going to be conflating this with Apple's UI patents, which are total bullshit and which they shouldn't be able to sue over. Ah well.
- calpaterson 14y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star
- tjogin 14y agoAs you are obviously implying, Apple secured the rights to Xerox's technology, very much unlike HP.
- calpaterson 14y agoNo, Apple paid to visit the PARC, they did not buy or licence any patents
- nirvana 14y agoFalse. Apple obtained a license from Xerox for the technology being developed at PARC by selling them pre-IPO Apple shares. Further, by bringing this up, you are trying to say that Apple copied Xerox years ago, which is a form of trying to say "its ok to copy apple or steal their technology because apple did it in the past". Which is silly because if it was wrong for Apple to do it, as you imply, it is also wrong for HP or Samsung to do it, as you are trying to justify. Further, when you tell a falsehood like this-- one that you really, if you're at all informed on the issue, would know is a falsehood, you impeach your own integrity.
- kyberias 14y agoIs the Wikipedia article then also incorrect when it states clearly that the shares were exchanged to get a visit NOT A LICENSE: "In return for the right to buy US$1,000,000 of pre-IPO stock, Xerox granted Apple Computer three days access to the PARC facilities." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#Xerox_PARC_and_the_Lisa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#Xerox_PAR...
- ricardobeat 14y agoYes, like an expensive trip to the park, just for a little fun.
- philwelch 14y agoThat's willfully disingenuous. One does not pay a million dollars of pre-IPO stock to see a bunch of ideas and not use them.
- kyberias 14y agoWell, licence implies that there was some kind of license-agreement or contract. Was there? Where is the evidence?
- philwelch 14y agoPresumably, the inventions at PARC were protected by nothing but trade secret, so the only release of IP involved was to literally reveal the secrets to Apple. You'll notice that Xerox never filed a patent suit, that Apple's industrial design and trade dress were in fact remarkably different from Xerox's, and that the Lisa and Macintosh interfaces were remarkably different from that of the Alto in any case.
- koeselitz 14y agoWhat you've said is true, but it should be noted that not only did Xerox never file a patent suit - nobody filed a software patent suit for at least a decade afterwards. Software patents were at that time unknown. If Xerox had wanted to file a software patent suit, a good lawyer would have disabused them of that notion instantly by pointing out that that wasn't how patents worked then. So the fact that Xerox didn't file a patent suit doesn't say much, I don't think. That doesn't mean that Xerox wasn't in the wrong or that Apple wasn't in the right; it just means that patent lawsuits really weren't the way people went about these things then.
- jmreid 14y agoIt seems that Apple did financially compensate Xerox for both the visit and the ideas: "Fact: Apple obtained permission ahead of the Xerox PARC visit. In addition, Apple provided compensation in exchange for the various Xerox PARC ideas such as the GUI" http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/ http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-st...
- goatforce5 14y agoApple paid to have access to PARC ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#Xerox_PARC_and_the_Lisa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#Xerox_PAR...
- calpaterson 14y ago"Xerox did go to trial to protect the Star user interface. In 1989, after Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement of its Macintosh user interface in Windows, Xerox filed a similar lawsuit against Apple; however, it was thrown out because a three year statute of limitations had passed. (Apple eventually lost its lawsuit in 1994, losing all claims to the user interface)." Apple didn't pay for any patents, it paid for a tour.
- nirvana 14y agoFalse. Apple obtained a license from Xerox for the technology being developed at PARC by selling them pre-IPO Apple shares. Further, by bringing this up, you are trying to say that Apple copied Xerox years ago, which is a form of trying to say "its ok to copy apple or steal their technology because apple did it in the past". Which is silly because if it was wrong for Apple to do it, as you imply, it is also wrong for HP or Samsung to do it, as you are trying to justify. Further, when you tell a falsehood like this-- one that you really, if you're at all informed on the issue, would know is a falsehood, you impeach your own integrity.
- calpaterson 14y agoSorry, I don't want to imply that Apple was wrong for copying Xerox. I was trying to make a point about the similarity of the act (though it's possible that you hadn't seen the explanation I gave (you asked for it) when you wrote this). I'm interested to see a citation about this license you claim that Apple bought. Xerox didn't seem to think that a license was bought. They sued (much later).
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
- nirvana 14y agoI really don't think that posts that consist of nothing but a single link, like this one, should be acceptable. You link to a web page and don't make any argument. This is disingenuous. It lets you pretend like you've taken a position or refuted the person you're responding to, but since you haven't actually said anything you can't be debated with. You can't be pinned down on saying any position, which means you can't be refuted. Now, if you made an argument, and then linked to a wikipedia page to support that argument, besides the fact that wikipedia is not authoritative and is edited by amateurs, often with an agenda, that would be much better. At least then you're introducing potential facts to support an argument.
- calpaterson 14y agoI think pointing out the Xerox Star is sufficient to make my point. I agree that it's important that you can pin my argument down though so hopefully this will make it clear: HP's copying of the iMac is not much different from Apple's copying of the Xerox Star. The two main differences are that a) Apple copied a huge amount from Xerox and HP seem to just have copied the UI rather superficially and the end result seems mediocre and b) America has software patents now.
- demallien 14y agoApple licensed the technology that it "copied" from Xerox. Are you suggesting that HP has licensed the loc of the iMac from Apple?
- calpaterson 14y agoI don't know whether HP licensed anything. I doubt it, I suppose. It seems Apple didn't license anything from Xerox either. Considering you think otherwise, I'd be interested in a citation. It's well documented that Xerox tried to sue (but they failed).
- myspy 14y agoXerox and Apple had a deal, so all you are implying is wrong. I found this article, it's German, but a couple YT videos are embedded about that time. I read about it in the Steve Jobs bio too. http://www.mac-history.de/die-geschichte-des-apple-macintosh/reicher-nachbar-mit-offenen-turen-apple-und-xerox-parc http://www.mac-history.de/die-geschichte-des-apple-macintosh...
- podperson 14y agoPlease see my list of ways to reassign credit for everything Apple does to save time: http://loewald.com/blog/?p=4423 http://loewald.com/blog/?p=4423 After all, you don't want to just admit that Apple invented the rounded rectangle.
- calpaterson 14y agoHard to tell whether you're being sarcastic or not, but for what it's worth I wouldn't say that Apple deserves no credit. (I think they deserve lot of credit, but copying is something they do too.)
- achompas 14y agoI really don't see how Apple's actions some 30 years ago excuse obvious trade dress violations by HP. Even if we accept that Apple "copied" Xerox, it is still clear that HP is grossly copying the iMac design. How is that remotely acceptable?
- calpaterson 14y agoSorry, I'm not trying to say that its relevant to any case that Apple might raise. IANAL, let alone an American one. I'm trying to point out that copying is rife (and, I would argue, legitimate) in technology.
- podperson 14y agoFor the record, I am being sarcastic (which I believe the linked post makes clear).
- objclxt 14y agoThat's not really the same at all: hardware design and software design are very different legally. Apple didn't copy the physical design of the Xerox Star, whereas it's pretty clear that HP are 'inspired' by the iMac here. Industrial design and software design are rather different.
- kalms 14y ago- And they didn't copy the software or GUI either. They took the concepts and did something, if not entirely different, then at least something fairly original with them. It might be bullish, but at least it was not blatant copying.
- nicholassmith 14y agoThis bubbles up every time one of these arguments appears, bear in mind industrial design around that point was heavily constrained by toolchains and what could be manufactured. This does not give Apple a free pass, they could have picked different colour plastic, or different proportions or a dozen other things. Manufacturing has improved massively in 30 years, that's why the argument is about now and not then.
- lispm 14y agoThe Xerox Star computer did not look like a Mac. That was a totally different machine.
- rbanffy 14y agoYour comment would be fair had Apple built the Lisa to weight 100 pounds and boot in 10 minutes. If you never saw a Star in operation, I strongly suggest you watch one of the many videos available on YouTube. You'll see how little Apple borrowed beyond black letters on a white background. And how unusable the Star really was.
- toddmorey 14y agoI'm sad because there are a lot of great design solutions waiting to be discovered. I think a company the size of HP (and especially with their roots) should be able to provide the market novel and world-class design. The problem is that they don't want to take the risk anymore--they'd rather copy market-proven concepts. The modern film industry is in a very similar and sad spot.
- ThomPete 14y agoI wish HP saw your comment.
- wonderyak 14y agoThis is romanticising the film industry; it has not changed much in the past few decades. People remember one or two films a year out of THOUSANDS. It's always been that way; there are a few gems in a sea of the same old shit.
- toddmorey 14y agoI agree that this may be a decades-old problem. But it's not just that there are that many bad scripts and movies by the numbers. It's this sad reality: creating sequel 4 of a known series is a much safer financial bet than greenlighting something original. That was my analogy here.
- philwelch 14y agoThousands overall maybe, but the number of mass market films is in the hundreds. I, personally, have a familiar definition of "mass market film". I grew up in a small town with about nine total screens, usually one movie per screen and one screen per movie. Figure they turn over 4 screens per week for new releases. That's 208 movies per year. You'd need 3-4 more doublings to get it over 1000, so it's pretty clear that "hundreds" is the better order of magnitude. I picked a year at random: 2008. The following movies were all released in 2008: The Dark Knight, Wall-E, Iron Man, Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, In Bruges, Kung Fu Panda, Gran Torino, Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, and Quantum of Solace. Your average moviegoer will easily remember more than "one or two" of those (though not necessarily the same ones). So the proportion goes from two in a thousand to maybe five in 250, or from 1 in 500 to 1 in 50.
- joe_the_user 14y agoI am not a lawyer but it seems to me that the concept of trade dress is being abused here. Trade dress like trademark doesn't exist to protect design. It exists to prevent consumers from actually thinking they are buying a different product. However much of a "knock-off" this might be, can you seriously argue someone would actually believe this is an Apple? Seriously.
- rayiner 14y agoYou don't argue it, you do surveys and see if it confuses people. Remember, trade dress doesn't just protect the dress as seen in store. It protects, e.g., someone noticing their neighbor's new computer that she says she is very happy with. I can totally see an unsophisticated consumer confusing the two.