Dick gets Xerox PARC completely wrong

[mmelli...@gmail.com]

I just finished the last episode today and I couldn't believe it when I heard Dick Wall say that Apple just ripped off Xerox PARC.  That's completely wrong and a myth.   At this point, I thought it was well known myth.  Apple paid Xerox for access to the information.  From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.)

"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. After visiting PARC, they came away with new ideas that would complete the foundation for Apple Computer's first GUI computer, the Apple Lisa.<sup>[9][10][11][12]"

Here's a little more history on what they actually got from Xerox:

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progress.txt

If you're basing you're opinion on a myth, it doesn't make a very convincing argument. 

-Mike</sup>

[Cédric Beust ♔]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:50 AM, mmelli...@gmail.com <mmelli...@gmail.com> wrote:

"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. After visiting PARC, they came away with new ideas that would complete the foundation for Apple Computer's first GUI computer, the Apple Lisa.^{[9][10][11][12]"}

Paying for the right to visit is not the same as buying a license to use what you see.

And indeed, Xerox ended up suing Apple:

"In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's" (source).

...

"Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoftestablished that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed, for a variety of legal reasons"

It's pretty clear how Xerox felt about Apple stealing their ideas.

-- 

Cédric

[phil swenson]

This covers it more completely:

 http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/

Cedric - Xerox lost their lawsuit.  Somehow you forgot to mention that.  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group.

To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

[phil swenson]

dammit! wish i could retract my snark.  It's in your quote.  sorry

[Cédric Beust ♔]

Xerox didn't lose, their lawsuit was dismissed.

[Michael Mellinger]

If you looked at what was done at Apple vs Xerox, would it look like Apple ripped off Xerox?  Probably not. Xerox sued because the suits thought they could make some easy money.  Isn't that what they did at SCO when they tried to milk Linux?

Sent from my iPhone

[Oscar Hsieh]

License what??????????  You cannot license an "idea" just like you cannot copyright an idea.

That is why Xerox lost its case (sorry I cannot see how it is not a lost)

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

==============================

No Basis Seen for Suit

Apple, which is based in Cupertino, Calif., said in its motion for dismissal that Xerox had no basis for its suit because Apple was merely asserting its own copyrights and not threatening Xerox's copyrights on the Star.

Apple also replied that while it might have borrowed ideas from Xerox, ideas were not protected by copyrights, only the way the ideas were expressed. Mr. Brown, Apple's attorney, said at the hearing that Xerox's asserting that it had originated the Macintosh was as preposterous as a beaver taking credit for the Hoover Dam.

Judge Walker dismissed two counts relating to Xerox's efforts to get Apple's copyright declared invalid, apparently agreeing with Apple that the proper place for such an action would be the Copyright Office, not the courts

==============================

the same reason  why Apple lost its case against Microsoft

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/35/35.F3d.1435.93-16883.93-16869.93-16867.html

==============================

It is not easy to distinguish expression from ideas, particularly in a new medium. However, it must be done, as the district court did in this case. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 25 L.Ed. 841 (1879).11 As we recognized long ago in the case of competing jeweled bee pins, similarities derived from the use of common ideas cannot be protected; otherwise, the first to come up with an idea will corner the market. Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir.1971). Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor which concededly came from Xerox. It can, and did, put those ideas together creatively with animation, overlapping windows, and well-designed icons; but it licensed the visual displays which resulted.

==============================

We should know that the Apple's implementation of GUI is very different to what they saw in Xerox PARC

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=2

==============================

Xerox PARC’s innovation had been to replace the traditional computer command line with onscreen icons. But when you clicked on an icon you got a pop-up menu: this was the intermediary between the user’s intention and the computer’s response. Jobs’s software team took the graphical interface a giant step further. It emphasized “direct manipulation.” If you wanted to make a window bigger, you just pulled on its corner and made it bigger; if you wanted to move a window across the screen, you just grabbed it and moved it. The Apple designers also invented the menu bar, the pull-down menu, and the trash can—all features that radically simplified the original Xerox PARC idea.

==============================

You can hate Apple as much as you want and you have a very good reason to do so.  

Please just dont use Xerox as an example.  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group.

[Cédric Beust ♔]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Oscar Hsieh <zen...@gmail.com> wrote:

License what??????????  You cannot license an "idea" just like you cannot copyright an idea.

The very judge of that case disagrees with you (emphasis mine):

Judge Walker dismissed two counts relating to Xerox's efforts to get Apple's copyright declared invalid, apparently agreeing with Apple that the proper place for such an action would be the Copyright Office, not the courts

-- 

Cédric

[Fabrizio Giudici]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:09:30 +0200, Oscar Hsieh <zen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> License what?????????? You cannot license an "idea" just like you cannot
> copyright an idea.
>
> That is why Xerox lost its case (sorry I cannot see how it is not a lost)

So the "desktop metaphor" is just an idea and not patentable. The pinch
gesture is not and idea and is patentable (Samsung lost also on that). Ah,
everything is clear!

--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it

[Zankan Hsieh]

#1 - xerox case is copyright, Samsung case is patent
#2 - you can't be serious to compare GUI with pinch and zoom. By the way, you should read an article on the verge about how apple's pinch and zoom patent is actually more specific than most people think and google already implement workaround for it. I post a link in the past, or you can just google for it

[Zankan Hsieh]

Sigh, google for us copyright law.  I am done arguing here.

[Michael Mellinger]

Sigh...Sigh... You didn't explained how Apple legally infringed on Xerox. If an author writes a story about a boy wizard, where is the line drawn for the next author?  Several years after Apple shipped the Lisa, Xerox thought Apple might win a lawsuit against Microsoft so they tried to get in the game.  I'm not aware of Xerox calling Apple after the Lisa shipped and telling them that they ripped off their products. I think Steve was pretty quick in claiming that Microsoft ripped him off.

Sent from my iPhone

[Josh Berry]

On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Zankan Hsieh <zen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> #1 - xerox case is copyright, Samsung case is patent

You are dodging the fact that, in those years, there were no software
patents. I can't help but grant that things are muddied over this,
but to claim this is a cut and dried difference seems disingenuous.
Had Xerox known it could "license" their "ideas" than I'm sure they
would have preferred to do that.

Of course, I am curious how the courts could, in 1994 decide that

"Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical

user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright
law]..." while in 2012 we seem to be allowing them other metaphors
with patent protection. (Quote from quote in wikipedia article.)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation]

[Karsten Silz]

On Friday, September 7, 2012 10:32:28 AM UTC-4, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:

And indeed, Xerox ended up suing Apple:

"In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's" (source).

"Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoftestablished that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed, for a variety of legal reasons"

It's pretty clear how Xerox felt about Apple stealing their ideas.

-- 

Cédric

  

What most people don't know is that Xeroc sold their own computer, based on the Xerox PARC ideas, in 1981 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star); the Mac didn't launch until January 1984. However, at $16k, it failed in the market; the Mac started around $2k.

[Michael Mellinger]

Let's not forget the Lisa.  I found this GUI timeline. It looks like Microsoft actually announced Windows in 1983, before the Mac even shipped, but didn't ship until 1985, and it was awful.

http://toastytech.com/guis/guitimeline.html

Jobs went to Xerox Parc in 1979. By the time the Mac shipped, GUI's were quite the rage. 

Sent from my iPhone

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/ptLgaSWQTXoJ.

[Fabrizio Giudici]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 08:49:44 +0200, Zankan Hsieh <zen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> #2 - you can't be serious to compare GUI with pinch and zoom. By the
> way, you should read an article on the verge about how apple's pinch and
> zoom patent is actually more specific than most people think and google
> already implement workaround for it.

I don't care. Pich and zoom is a subset of a GUI metaphor, this is
completely crazy that the whole is not "protectable" (patent or copyright,
as Josh mentioned we're comparing cases many years apart and with
different laws) and a part is.