Originally Posted by Scaramanga89
Fair points, but I meant from a more ethical standpoint - Steve Jobs made some serious noise (as do many others still on his behalf) about Google/Android and the way they played the game, this is no different. It may be more cost effective, but you can't accuse one company of being unethical then do it yourself, it's hypocrisy.
This is the difficult point. Are we talking about business or ethics (or justice ..) ? From business standpoint, all these matters are treated from the cost/benefit angle, that's all. As I am (nevertheless ...) an Apple fan, I should also say that in this particular case, there also seemed to be a question of validity of the patent, raised by Apple (I am not qualified to say whether this is justified or not).
Given the tens (may be more) cases which are now currently brought to Justice (everyone accusing everyone, on many different subjects), anybody will anyhow find arguments to point at the "bad guy", based on the outcome of a particular case. It is clearly more complicated than that....
Having said that (and I aggravate my case ...), it makes no doubt for me that some companies innovate, while others just copy. This does not always translate into Justice decisions, because justice is about legislation, not ethics ...
As this argument will probably used against me, yes Steve did say that great artists copy. But in the context of this statement (Xerox innovations), it can be pinted out that :
1) Xerox management knew what they were doing in showing their research results, and that was part of a deal (see Isaaccson's book)
2) the Xerox interface only ran on a costly machine, and what Apple made out of it was clearly a vast improvement on many points, not just servile copy
3) I have not heard of Xerox suing Apple (but may be my information is incomplete)