Woz "hates" Apple patent Case against Samsung, thinks it will be overturned

[Crono]

I like Steve Wozniak, I agree with most of the comments he makes about technology these days. If he were at the helm of Apple it might be a very different company... but then again, who he is...uh... is the reason why he didn't stick around to lead.

I'm not sure that Samsung didn't copy some elements from Apple, but I agree with his sentiment that, "I wish everybody would just agree to exchange all the patents and everybody can build the best forms they want to use everybody’s technologies."

While I don't think any company should blatantly steal the designs of other companies, so long as one company isn't entirely counterfeiting another product the industry should just learn to play nice. Everyone is using each others components, anyway.

 

[cl-scott]

You're insane if you think you can compare the two. Samsung copied everything from software to hardware and back. Coupled that with mountains of internal memos and documents stating their copying by Samsung themselves. Google, the damn father of Android, told Samsung to back off even.

Ah well, no one's going to agree who copied who.

The whole electronics industry is built by smaller companies standing on the shoulders of giants. Microsoft and Apple both have Xerox to thank, along with a number of other little known GUI shells along the way. Apple got its start when Woz was involved in a hobby computer building group, and without making any kind of legal claim, odds are there was something or another he did while working at HP which made its way into the early Apple models, even if it was just some practical hands-on experience with electronic component construction. Ultimately computers are just a more powerful form of the calculator, and the calculator is just an electronic version of the slide rule, which is just a simplified abacus. Objective-C, the foundation for Mac OS X and iOS is just an extension on the language C, which in turn is an evolution of the language B, and the object-oriented aspects of ObjC are taken rather directly from SmallTalk. Mac OS X, and iOS by extension, are based on FreeBSD, which in turn is based on 386BSD, which in turn is based on the original BSD Unix, itself modeled on the original Unix created by Bell Labs... And Unix was in turn modeled largely on several generations of operating systems before it.

The Internet is based on the work done by DARPA, and cell phones are really just long range full-duplex walkie-talkies, which in turn are really just the combination of short-range radio transmitters and receivers. The UI end of cell phones are just a logical extension of the TV. Touch based input is just the electronic version of using a pen and paper or some such, and a logical evolution from stylus based systems that preceded it, replacing the stylus with a finger.

The MP3 player is just a logical extension of the portable CD player, which is a logical extension of the portable cassette player. The CD is based on the exact same basic principles as records, you just replace the needle with a laser.

We could go on for quite some time tracing the evolution of modern products. Point remains that everyone has been copying from everyone else since time immemorial. You'd have to go all the way back to the phonograph created by Edison to find an original idea in electronics, and even there you have some compelling evidence that Edison might have been simply perfecting an idea created hundreds of years previous.

Like one of the former Apple execs said... Apple doesn't actually innovate at all. The unique talent of Steve Jobs was to be able to take things that had already been done, and put them together in a way that appealed to consumers.

 

[openwheel]

agreed with above.

 

[BladeVenom]

Too bad he doesn't really have much of a say in how Apple operates.

 

[MrX8503]

Microsoft and Apple both have Xerox to thank, along with a number of other little known GUI shells along the way.

Apple didn't steal the GUI from xerox. Xerox demoed it for them and Apple paid for it.

 

[HeXen]

"pirates of Silicon Valley"...good show to watch.

 

[cl-scott]

Apple didn't steal the GUI from xerox. Xerox demoed it for them and Apple paid for it.

When did I say anything about them stealing it? I'm saying that what became Mac OS was very clearly inspired by work done by Xerox. Microsoft similarly has Xerox to thank for Windows. Ideas Xerox came up with have their roots in even earlier ideas, which have their roots in earlier ideas yet. To suddenly say that the iPhone is a completely new device is to arbitrarily and wantonly ignore huge swaths of human technological advancement, without which, the iPhone would not be possible.

 

[ControlD]

Apple didn't steal the GUI from xerox. Xerox demoed it for them and Apple paid for it.

Just a question because I am genuinely interested. Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple for Apple infringing on their GUI copyrights. The case ended up be dismissed but why did Xerox file suit if Apple paid them for the GUI? Did Apple end up paying Xerox after the fact?

 

[Zaap]

I truly admire Woz.

Leave it to someone who truly is a great inventor and originator of great ideas to call bullshit on just patenting basic ideas. I'm sure he recognizes that huge corporations would have stopped his ideas that lead to the first Apple computers dead in their tracks if they behaved the same way Apple does now. Wise man.

 

[akugami]

When did I say anything about them stealing it? I'm saying that what became Mac OS was very clearly inspired by work done by Xerox. Microsoft similarly has Xerox to thank for Windows. Ideas Xerox came up with have their roots in even earlier ideas, which have their roots in earlier ideas yet. To suddenly say that the iPhone is a completely new device is to arbitrarily and wantonly ignore huge swaths of human technological advancement, without which, the iPhone would not be possible.

I think the other poster commented because there are so many Apple haters who continue, even in the face of cold hard facts, say that Apple copied/stole Xerox's GUI. Apple paid for it and improved on Xerox's work. Apple is largely responsible for improving the GUI to what we know today.

 

[BladeVenom]

I think the other poster commented because there are so many Apple haters who continue, even in the face of cold hard facts, say that Apple copied/stole Xerox's GUI.

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." -Steve Jobs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

Apple paid for it and improved on Xerox's work.

So you're saying they copied from Xerox. Otherwise they wouldn't have paid Xerox.

Apple is largely responsible for improving the GUI to what we know today.

You mean Microsoft. They made the ideas at Xerox even more popular than Apple did.

 

[-Slacker-]

I'm sure he really means that and it's not just damage control and an attempt to save cred with the hipsters. Funnily enough, it's seems Apple has already managed to convince hipsters that there's nothing wrong with your patent system, so Wozniak statement may instead cause some conflict within hipsterdom.

 

[antihelten]

With regards to Nokia potentially suing Apple over the new ipod nano design, that is never going to happen. Nokias design patents only applies to handsets (http://www.google.com/patents?id=TT...=gbs_selected_pages&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false and http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=Nokia.ASNM.), which the ipod nano is not.

 

[Axon]

There's a chance it will be overturned, but getting a jury decision flipped is a fairly high burden.

 

[lothar]

With regards to Nokia potentially suing Apple over the new ipod nano design, that is never going to happen. Nokias design patents only applies to handsets (http://www.google.com/patents?id=TT...=gbs_selected_pages&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false and http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=Nokia.ASNM.), which the ipod nano is not.

Sounds to me like the people at Nokia are morons.
Rather than filing it for only "handsets", they should have filed it for "in mobile device".

If they had simply changed the word "handsets" in that patent to "in a mobile device" that could be an excellent broad patent. :hmm:
Could cover cellphones, MP3 players, Cameras, and almost anything else portable.

Sounds to me like Apple did their research.
The iPod nano is not a handset, and therefore Nokia can't win anything in court by filing a lawsuit against it.

 

[akugami]

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." -Steve Jobs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU


So you're saying they copied from Xerox. Otherwise they wouldn't have paid Xerox.

These two quotes make it seem as if Xerox was not compensated for the use of their intellectual property. There's a difference between copying (with permission) and appropriating.

You mean Microsoft. They made the ideas at Xerox even more popular than Apple did.

No. I mean Apple. Stuff like the finder (start menu), refinement of how the icons/folders work. The trash can. All stuff created by Apple. Granted it was built upon work done at Xerox's PARC.

I'm sure he really means that and it's not just damage control and an attempt to save cred with the hipsters. Funnily enough, it's seems Apple has already managed to convince hipsters that there's nothing wrong with your patent system, so Wozniak statement may instead cause some conflict within hipsterdom.

Actually, I think the patent system is horribly broken. I don't agree with software patents. Those should only be covered by copyrights.

 

[cl-scott]

I think the other poster commented because there are so many Apple haters who continue, even in the face of cold hard facts, say that Apple copied/stole Xerox's GUI. Apple paid for it and improved on Xerox's work. Apple is largely responsible for improving the GUI to what we know today.

I don't know. Short of someone producing a contract and a cashed check, I'm not sure there will ever be any real resolution to that issue. One side will argue like you, and then the other side will counter that Xerox later filed suit over it, which will be countered by saying that Xerox lost, but then we get back to the fact that AFAIK, no one here has seen an actual contract laying out the exact terms. So, unless it's part of the case file for that lawsuit, there will probably be no agreement on that matter. All of which is why I'm making a point to avoid any matters of law, and merely saying that Apple took the ideas from Xerox (rightfully or not) and forged them into what would become Mac OS.

I'm also not disputing Apple's contributions to GUI development or anything else, I'm merely saying that they are just one more company in a giant relay race carrying on the work started by people before them. Once Tim Cook has succeeded in driving Apple into the ground (I give him until 2030 at the latest), then someone else will pick up the pieces and carry on.

I find it absolutely ludicrous that the patent system is essentially set up so that we pick an arbitrary point in time, and intentionally ignore everything that had to come to pass in order for that point in time to be realized. Design patents in particular I find offensive to the collective intelligence of everyone. Even more so when there are only a limited number of possible designs that make any kind of practical sense. Sure you could make a circular phone or one in the shape of say a 5-point star, but from a practical standpoint those would never work.

Now if someone wants to take credit for your design, that I would have a problem with, but pretty much the whole of human progress has been based around someone taking the good idea of someone else, and improving upon it. To develop a system that says "You cannot do anything remotely like this idea" is to actively promote a system of technological stagnation and regression, which diminishes us all.

 

[akugami]

@cl-scott

My major problem is there are people (on both sides of the fence) who only see things as black and white. There isn't a gray area in the middle. Your post is a perfect example of how things are not always black and white.

With that said, I am a believer that Apple paid for the UI elements it "borrowed" from Xerox. You don't allow someone to come into your house (for money) to look at your shiny new widgets without expecting them to use said shiny new widget.

 

[cl-scott]

@cl-scott

My major problem is there are people (on both sides of the fence) who only see things as black and white. There isn't a gray area in the middle. Your post is a perfect example of how things are not always black and white.

Yes, and I could probably write a lengthy dissertation on why I think that is so in a generic sense, not just in terms of Apple v Whomever.

With that said, I am a believer that Apple paid for the UI elements it "borrowed" from Xerox. You don't allow someone to come into your house (for money) to look at your shiny new widgets without expecting them to use said shiny new widget.

I'm choosing to keep out of that particular quagmire until someone can produce a contract, ideally complete with some kind of proof of payment.

But it really doesn't matter IMO, because the larger issue here is that what this really gets down to is a small group of greedy wankers who don't want to share. They want to reap the rewards of all the people who came before them, and made their contributions possible, but they don't want to then give back to the community in turn.

Such short-sighted, arrogant, and narrow-minded thinking annoys me greatly.

And I'm not talking about just Apple here. There are numerous companies which have resorted to using the legal system to club competitors over the head. All of them claim to be some great and innovative company, and it always begs the question to me of why they don't just innovate some new great product? How many years did it take for the competition to approximate the quality of the iPhone? So if Apple did that again, they'd always be 3-5 years ahead of everyone else.