or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › iPhone Patent Wars: Xerox PARC & the Apple, Inc. Macintosh: innovator, duplicator & litigator
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPhone Patent Wars: Xerox PARC & the Apple, Inc. Macintosh: innovator, duplicator & litigator

post #1 of 100
Thread Starter 
Understanding Apple's intent to patent every valuable aspect of the intellectual property that went into creating iPhone in 2007 requires a look at what happened a quarter of a century earlier in the development of Apple's Macintosh.

After two particularly intense years of patent lawsuits between 2005-2007, headlined by the four outrageous patents detailed earlier, Apple announced the iPhone, emphasizing that virtually every significant aspect of its entirely new experience and industrial design was protected by patents. It wasn't until nearly three years later that a global patent war erupted.

Patented


The previous segment focused on the patent attacks targeting iPod & iTunes, cases where Apple settled out of court as quickly as possible, although not before neutralizing as many incoming patents as it could. This segment looks at the computing world before patents were in widespread use, particularly involving Xerox, Macintosh and Microsoft's Windows. The next segment looks at Apple's subsequent efforts to sell and license its technology in direct competition with Microsoft's copies

Apple as an early innovator



When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, one of his priorities was to get Apple out of its legal skirmishes with Microsoft. Starting in the late 1980s (after Jobs had left), Apple had turned to the legal system in an attempt to stop Microsoft from appropriating the Macintosh user experience that Apple had developed over the previous decade. Rather than litigate, Jobs sought to restore Apple to former identity as an innovator.



At the time that Apple began work on the industry-changing Macintosh in the early 1980s, IBM-compatible PCs of the day used Microsoft's MS-DOS to run "programs," also known as "executables," creating "subdirectories" of "files."

Every program used its own custom routines for talking to printers and for adding control codes that would, for example, configure a portion of text in a file to print out in boldface. Each also presented its own unique set of keyboard commands to trigger saving or printing a file.

For example, to open an existing file in WordPerfect (shown above in an Apple ad that appeared in Newsweek in 1984), you'd use the command F7 + 3. But WordStar used Ctrl + K + O, and in Lotus 1-2-3 you'd type / to open the menu, W for Workspace + R for Retrieve. In Microsoft Word you'd type Esc to open the menu, T for Transfer + L for Load.

Using a computer involved learning how to use a computer, and then learning how to use each program, individually.

Xerox the duplicator



Apple, flush with profits from successfully building computers in the late 1970s, had started work on advanced projects intended to greatly advance computing and make its systems accessible to a broader, mainstream audience, with graphical screens capable of depicting different font faces, rather than just a character grid of monospaced text.

While popular legend says that Apple simply got its Macintosh ideas from the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center after seeing the group's advanced technology in 1979, this isn't the case.


Source: Toasty Tech


Throughout the 1970s, Xerox had worked on an advanced, $16,000 Alto workstation prototype (above, displaying its FileManager interface; below, graphical menu buttons) that as part of an overall package (including networked laser printing and a file server) started at around $75,000. When it tried to bring its own Star successor workstations to market in 1981, it failed.


Source: Toasty Tech


Technologies invented at PARC were rapidly flowing out of Xerox and founding entire new businesses, including 3Com, co-founded in 1979 by PARC's Robert Metcalfe to commercialize its Ethernet networking, and Adobe, founded in 1982 by PARC's John Warnock and Charles Geschke to develop PostScript from the InterPress research Xerox wasn't interested in pursuing on its own.

Microsoft hired PARC's Charles Simonyi in 1981 to port the Alto's Bravo word processing software to other personal computer platforms under the name Microsoft Word.

Xerox willingly invited Apple representatives to visit its PARC think tank after signing an agreement that invested $1 million into the computer maker in the hopes that Apple could take PARC's raw technologies and make them commercially successful in the consumer market, using mass manufacturing, product development and marketing expertise that the academic computer scientists and engineers at Xerox lacked.

Engineering a better mouse



For example, central to Xerox' windowing interface was the "mouse" input device, originally conceived by pioneering computer scientist Douglas Engelbart in the 1960s and further refined by Xerox in the 1970s. However, it was Apple that developed the first version of the mouse that consumers would recognize.

Apple quite literally could not just "steal" Xerox's mouse because there wasn't enough there to even sell. Apple had to develop the technology to make it commercially successful. This was not a simple matter; it involved an interplay of expertise nobody else had achieved, despite the concept having been publicly demonstrated since 1968.

Dean Hovey Mac mouse design
Source: Dean Hovey


Apple's Jobs tasked Dean Hovey's industrial-design firm, as reported Malcolm Gladwell of the The New Yorker, with converting Xerox's three button device, "a mouse that cost three hundred dollars to build and it breaks within two weeks," to Jobs' design spec: "our mouse needs to be manufacturable for less than fifteen bucks. It needs to not fail for a couple of years, and I want to be able to use it on Formica and my bluejeans."

When Apple introduced its Macintosh mouse in 1984, it was such a novel breakthrough that PC columnist John Dvorak wrote, in a review for The San Francisco Examiner, "the Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a ?mouse?. There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I don?t want one of these new fangled devices."

30 years of mouse evolution


Apple's mouse and its related developments would subsequently go on to dominate computing for the next two decades. In fact, 23 years later, a mouse would empower Dvorak to publish another opinion, this time advising Apple to "pull the plug on the iPhone," because "there is no likelihood that Apple can be successful in a business this competitive."

Publishing desktop



Apple needed more than just an affordable and reliable mouse however. It needed to create a graphical user environment that could interact with it to accomplish valuable tasks for users and make computing accessible to ordinary people without a particular interest in technology.

As part of its vast development work on what would become Lisa and then Macintosh, Apple employed hardware and software engineers (including many recruited from PARC) along with artists, designers and marketing experts to develop not just a computer and operating system software, but also an entirely new "desktop" user environment that coined user-friendly new terms for existing, techy computing concepts.

On the Macintosh, executable programs were called "applications," while files became "documents" organized into "folders." Along with building a workable mouse, Apple also coined terminology for using it, including "clicking" and "dragging" on icons, ideas that were so novel they required instructions on how to use these new "techniques" (below, an original Macintosh manual captured by Peter Merholz).

Macintosh User Manual - Clicking
Source: Peter Merholz


Apple also created standards governing every facet of the user interface, from new "dialog boxes" used to open, print and save documents the same way in every application; to new windowing controls; to graphical representations of disks, apps and docs known as "icons" in an allusion to religious imagery. All of these ideas were codified in Apple's exhaustive library known as the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines.

The OG HIG



The Mac HIG focused on making everything standardized to the point where it became possible for even small developers to create applications that could be used by people with various types of disabilities, and localized for use in other languages and cultures. In both cases, third party developers could leverage the accessibility and localization experts Apple had hired to create system wide support for entirely new operating system concepts.

Localization
Source: Apple HIG


Apple's HIG also insisted upon developers approaching esthetic appearance as a component of functional design, and introduced minimum standards related to computing behaviors, such as the ability to globally "undo" an action performed by mistake, or the stipulation that users shouldn't be presented with frustrating options they can't actually choose.

Design
Source: Apple HIG


Apple also developed a standardized set of keyboard shortcuts that were intended to work across every application, so users wouldn't have to learn one set of commands for printing or copying and pasting text within WordPerfect word processing, then switch to an entirely different set for Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets, and so on across every program they used. In every Mac application, for example, Command + P was used to print, + O to open, + Z to undo and + Q to quit an application.

Apple also introduced the concept of system wide "cut, copy and paste" for selecting text and graphics in one document and moving it into another application, a concept so novel at the time that the company had to explain how it worked in its marketing materials.

Macintosh manual
Source: Computer History Archive


None of these concepts had originated at Xerox. Apple had also developed the original menu bar and the pull down menu, along with guidelines describing in detail how each should work. One example of this was pioneering and consistently enforcing the idea of "direct manipulation," where users clicked to select an icon and then dragged it into a folder to move its location.

On Xerox's Alto, clicking on graphic representations on the desktop simply resulted in a popup menu of choices. You couldn't drag icons around. Apple's draggable "trash can" and the idea of pulling on the corner of a window to resize it are other examples of Apple's direct manipulation invention.None of these concepts had originated at Xerox.

"The difference between direct and indirect manipulation?between three buttons and one button, three hundred dollars and fifteen dollars, and a roller ball supported by ball bearings and a free-rolling ball?is not trivial," wrote Gladwell. "It is the difference between something intended for experts, which is what Xerox PARC had in mind, and something that?s appropriate for a mass audience, which is what Apple had in mind."

Contrast the roughly $60 million ($170 million in today's dollars) Apple reportedly invested into developing the original Lisa, along with the tens of millions in research and development that went into years of further ongoing work and logistics in building and marketing the Macintosh, with the series of multimillion dollar patent claims brought against iPod around 2005 based on somebody drawing a picture of an interface of menus.

The Macintosh duplicator



Just as Xerox had invited Apple to help it bring its raw, high end business technology to consumers, Jobs invited Bill Gates of Microsoft (then struggling to enter the market for business programs on its own DOS platform) to become a new developer of Mac office applications, exempt from facing any of the first party competition Apple had earlier introduced for its Lisa computer with Lisa Office.

Despite having hired Simonyi from Xerox PARC in 1981 to resell the Alto's Bravo word processor, Microsoft Word faced tough competition on the DOS PC from WordPerfect. Simonyi's team also wrote a clone of the VisiCalc spreadsheet named Multiplan (later Excel), but it similarly faced a difficult barrier to entry on DOS PCs because of the popularity of Lotus 1-2-3.

Jobs presented the Mac as a wide open opportunity for both applications, and Apple promoted Gates' new Microsoft apps next to Mitch Kapor of Lotus Development and Fred Gibbons of the company developing pfs: database (below) as reasons for considering a Macintosh.



Microsoft ported Word and Multiplan to the Mac's graphical new environment, then later acquired third party Mac application PowerPoint in order to create the Macintosh Office suite, software which gave the company its first big break into the applications business, an important expansion outside of its core MS-DOS licensing program.

Gates also realized the potential for selling Apple's Macintosh user interface on IBM's PC hardware. He was not alone. Digital Research, Hewlett-Packard and Xerox PARC itself were also eying to enter this market. After failing to sell its Star workstations, Xerox later attempted to port its Star operating environment as PC software under the name GlobalView (below).

Xerox GlobalView


Xerox debuted GlobalView with windows and icons that looked similar to the Mac, but its windows couldn't overlap and its icons couldn't be directly manipulated. While its own Star and GlobalView products were failures, Xerox' initial $1 million investment in Apple to commercialize its PARC technologies grew in value to $17 million at Apple's IPO. Had Xerox held its Apple shares, they would today be worth over $2.1 billion, even without considering dividend reinvestment.

Microsoft's own parallel efforts to take Apple's Macintosh work and apply it to the PC resulted in a series of very rough "Windows" releases that similarly lacked the ability to overlap multiple windows on the desktop for years following the release of Macintosh.


Steve Ballmer touts features of Windows 1.0 in 1986


In 1986, Steve Ballmer outlined features of Windows 1.0 in an internal video (above) that referred to the DOS shell as an "advanced operating environment" and took credit for the system-wide copy and paste features Apple had introduced on the Macintosh two years earlier.

In December 1987, Windows 2.0 (below right) added support for displaying overlapping document windows and included for the first time the ability to run graphical versions of Word and Excel, ported from the Macintosh.

Windows 1.0 and 2.0

Windows 1.0, released November 20, 1985 (left) and Windows 2.0, released December 9, 1987 (right)


After five years of attempts that gained virtually no traction, in 1990 Microsoft launched Windows 3.0 and finally convinced PC makers to start pre-installing it on their new systems, expressly with the intent of allowing them to compete against Apple's Macintosh hardware, an aim very similar to Google's Android platform today.

Windows 3.0

Windows 3.0, released May 22, 1990 (left) and Windows 3.11, released December 31, 1993 (right).


Microsoft's difficulty in struggling for years to simply copy the Macintosh interface, seven years after Apple had launched the product (and despite having early access to Apple prototypes as a partner dating back to 1982, and enjoying parallel access to Xerox PARC) demonstrates how inarguably original and innovative the Macintosh actually was.

Lack of Macintosh patents gave Microsoft free rein to copy



Neither Xerox nor Apple had patented any novel aspects of the Alto, Star or Macintosh because nobody foresaw the need to patent anything within the new field of graphical user interfaces in personal computing.

Microsoft's Windows 2.0 appropriated much of the functionality of the Macintosh, introducing only trivial changes like renaming the trash can and locating the menu bar within windows (as MIT's X Window for Unix had). Unlike Apple's significant consumer-oriented technical and conceptual advancements of Xerox's original work, Windows was simply a blatant knockoff of the Macintosh that represented very little innovation. Windows was simply a blatant knockoff of the Macintosh that represented very little innovation.

Apple did claim copyright infringement over aspects of the Macintosh "look and feel," however. In 1988, largely in response to Windows 2.0, Apple successfully stopped other Windows-like PC competitors, including DRI and HP, who were both selling software with similarities to Apple's graphical user interface.

However, in 1985 Gates had secured a licensing contract with Apple's chief executive John Scully to use some Macintosh concepts ("visual displays") in Windows 1.0 in exchange for committing to exclusively deliver Excel for Macintosh.

The courts broadly interpreted this in 1992 and again on appeal in 1994, giving Microsoft (in its own expressed opinion) virtually unrestricted rights to duplicate the rest of Apple's work.

Xerox also tried to initiate copyright claims of its own against Apple, but it didn't start until December 1989. Its claims were thrown out for having exceeded the statute of limitations. Xerox stated that it wanted to broadly license user interface concepts to encourage industry standards in user environment design.


Snow Leopard vs. Windows 7

Windows 95, released Aug 24, 1995 (left) and Windows 98, released Jun 25, 1998 (right).



By late 1995, Microsoft was ready with Windows 95 (above), a new version of DOS hosting a graphical user environment that copied the Mac's look, feel, gestures, behaviors, keyboard shortcuts, terminology and even its human interface guidelines so closely that few people were even aware that virtually none of it actually originated at Microsoft.

Bill Gates, John Sculley and the Xerox-Macintosh myth



Seeking to minimize his blatant appropriation of Apple's Macintosh at Microsoft, Gates helped to promote the popular legend that the Macintosh was largely just a rewarming of Xerox's technology on the same level of his own acquisition of Word, epitomized in his famous quote"we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it.""We both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it." - Bill Gates

Scully's 1987 book Odyssey also strongly implied this. Sculley wrote that "much of the Macintosh technology wasn't invented in the building,'' and stated, ''indeed, the Mac, like the Lisa before it, was largely a conduit for technology developed" by Xerox at PARC.

However, Sculley wasn't even hired by Jobs to run Apple until April 1983, four years into the development of the "Lisa Desktop" and just 8 months before the Macintosh actually went on sale.

Sculley's ill-considered 1985 licensing agreement, which essentially handed all of Apple's Macintosh development work to Microsoft in exchange for a brief commitment by Microsoft to support Office, offered a strong motivation for him to minimize the severity of his blunder and its consequences for Apple.

At the same time, Sculley also presided over Apple's late 80s partnership with Olivetti (the Italian owner of British PC maker Acorn) that culminated in plans to jointly develop a new mobile processor architecture capable of powering Sculley's pet project: the Newton Message Pad (below).

Newton Message Pad


While that early tablet was ultimately much less successful than anticipated, the ARM partnership developed the mobile processor technology Apple later used to power its iPod, and continues to serve as the core of Apple's A6 and related chips powering the iPhone and iPad.

Additionally, the dramatic appreciation of Apple's 47 percent ownership stake in ARM, fueled by the overwhelming popularity of the chip architecture in embedded devices and mobile phones, later provided Jobs with the liquid assets he desperately needed to finance Apple's turnaround in the late 1990s.

Microsoft sets out to kill Macintosh, saved by Jobs' return



After directly and willfully copying Apple's years of non-patented efforts on the Macintosh, minimizing the work Apple had done and implying that it had simply stolen the Macintosh from Xerox, Microsoft, led by Gates and its current chief executive Steve Ballmer, next set out destroy Apple and take all of its business.

Microsoft effectively stopped development of its Macintosh Office software and focused its efforts on enhancing its applications for Windows instead. At the same time, Microsoft also began copying Apple's new QuickTime architecture (below) for digital video and media, first released in 1991.

QuickTime


Microsoft initially announced "Video for Windows" in 1992, followed by ActiveMovie vaporware that was supposed to compete with what Apple was shipping; much of this promised software never actually materialized. The media, however, frequently described Microsoft's vaporware as if it were real and reviewed what Microsoft was promising against the finished work Apple was trying to sell.

When Microsoft ran into problems duplicating Apple's QuickTime work conceptually, it used San Francisco Canyon Company, a third party developer Apple had contracted with, to gain access to Apple's QuickTime for Windows code in order to improve its own Video for Windows product. When it got caught, it complained that the issue was blown out of proportion and minimized the amount of code it had stolen.Apple had Microsoft's fingerprints on a smoking gun and was prepared to sue the company for hundreds of millions of its own over intellectual property theft.

Apple filed suit in 1994, and won a restraining order in 1995 that stopped Microsoft from distributing the stolen code.

By 1996, Microsoft had already paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements related to legal complaints of other anti-competitive activities, including similar instances of direct code theft from its competitors and partners.

In the San Francisco Canyon case, testimony that later surfaced in the Microsoft Monopoly trial showed that Apple had Microsoft's fingerprints on a smoking gun and was prepared to sue the company for hundreds of millions of its own over intellectual property theft.

Apple also threatened to bring dozens cases of patent infringement related to operating system and web browser technologies, based on the growing portfolio of patents Apple had been amassing since losing its "look and feel" copyright case.

However, freshly back at Apple in 1997, Jobs immediately set out to turn the company around and begin building innovative products again, rather than just converting Apple into a Non Practicing Entity focused on litigation the way many of Microsoft's other victims had, most notoriously Caldera, later known as SCO.

Back to the Mac



Jobs addressed Apple's third party developers in August 1997 with plans to work with, rather than against, Microsoft, an idea that actually elicited boos from his audience.

However, Jobs focused on the need to move Apple ahead, outlining plans that required Microsoft to provide a two part demonstration of its investment in the future of Apple: an infusion of $150 million cash (an investment Microsoft subsequently profited from) and a commitment to maintain new versions of Office for Macintosh for five years. Apple settled its patent infringement and civil damages claims against Microsoft, reported by Computerworld at the time to be worth at least $1.2 billion.

In return, Apple settled its patent infringement and civil damages claims against Microsoft, reported by Computerworld at the time to be worth at least $1.2 billion, and designated Microsoft's Internet Explorer as the default, but not exclusive, web browser on the Mac.

By portraying Microsoft as a friendly partner and investor, rather than a litigation defendant and general enemy, Jobs was able focus more attention on making Apple competitive.

Four years later, Apple had recovered to the point of introducing the first release of its own innovative new operating system, the first successful new mainstream personal computing platform since Windows itself, and iPod, a product that rapidly became so successful it turned Apple itself into a target of patent litigation.


OS X Cheetah, Puma

Mac OS X 10.0 "Cheetah," released Mar 24, 2001 (left) and Mac OS X 10.1 "Puma," released Sep 25, 2001 (right).

OS X Jaguar, Panther

Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar," released Aug 23, 2002 (left) and Mac OS X 10.3 "Panther," released Oct 23, 2003 (right).

OS X Tiger, Leopard

Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger," released Apr 29, 2005 (left) and Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard," released Oct 26, 2007 (right).


OS X Snow Leopard, Lion

Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard," released Aug 28, 2009 (left) and Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion," released July 20, 2011 (right).

OS X Mountain Lion, Mavericks

Mac OS X 10.8 "Mountain Lion," released July 25, 2012 (left) and Mac OS X 10.9 "Mavericks," expected Oct 2013 (right).



By focusing on innovation, rather than dwelling on litigation, Apple's Jobs kicked off a decade of work that soundly defeated Microsoft over and over again in the market, first in music players, then in smartphones, then in web browsers, then in tablet computing, and progressively in general software development tools and mobile app merchandising.

Apple surpassed Microsoft in market cap and then revenue in 2010 and then profits in 2011.

Apple is now worth an incredible $412 billion and sits on over $145 billion in cash reserves. Had Jobs simply focused on litigation, Apple may have been awarded a one-time windfall of $1.2 billion before collapsing into an increasingly worthless patent portfolio of a has-been hardware maker, just like Motorola Mobility and Nokia.

A patent stockpile begins



In the 1980s Apple had no patents to protect its Macintosh. In the mid 1990s, Apple joined the industry in beginning to patent virtually everything, a shift that occured largely in response to the previous decade's Macintosh, the largest and most expensive infringement of intellectual property that had ever occured in technology (evident across two decades of stock prices, below).


1980s MSFT AAPL

1990s MSFT AAPL

Source: Google Finance


Apple didn't use those patents to win a war against Microsoft, however. Instead, the company used them defensively to prevent an ongoing, crippling war of patent litigation that, without Jobs having negotiated a cross-licensing program with Microsoft in 1997, would almost certainly have derailed the development of both OS X and iPod as both products progressively beat Microsoft's own efforts in the marketplace.

2000s MSFT AAPL
Source: Google Finance


As a result, the last decade has seen a spectacular reversal of fortune between Apple and Microsoft (above). However, just as the decade of the 2010s began, a new battle among smartphone vendors erupted as Apple increasingly pushed its computing platform technology into the existing smartphone market dominated by telephony companies.

Existing mobile hardware vendors had vast patent portfolios related to wireless radio and data networks, while Apple entered the market with decades of Mac operating system and iPod industrial design patents.

Apple also had a new collection of mobile device patents filed with the launch of iPhone. The next segment looks at Apple's subsequent efforts to sell and license its technology in direct competition with Microsoft's copies.
post #2 of 100
This is an incredibly detailed and comprehensive history. Thanks for such an awesome article!
post #3 of 100
This is good stuff. Still laughing about Dvorak.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #4 of 100
Sadly, judges ignore Apple's iPhone patents and let others freely copy the technology.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #5 of 100

so, with that "comprehensive history" nicely done and out...

 

let our next educational/historical enlightenment be on ubiquitous computing/embodied virtuality (think iPads and iPhones) -- http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/UbiHome.html -- terms introduced by the late Mark Weiser -- http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/  --  of Xerox PARC.

two Highly Recommended reads: the 1991 Scientific American article on/about how "The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it":

The Computer for the 21st Century
http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/SciAmDraft3.html

 

and, more recently (March 2013):

 

How Smart Watches and Phablets Fulfill a 20-Year-Old Prophecy about Ubiquitous Computing

"Mark Weiser, who coined the term “ubiquitous computing,” foresaw current device trends decades ago.

“Tabs, pads, and boards.” The phrase may sound like a piece of techno-buzzy cud coughed up at a TEDx or SXSW talk, but it’s actually a precise description of current hardware trends made 22 years ago by a chief scientist at Xerox PARC. That scientist, the late Mark Weiser, was talking about his then-new concept of “ubiquitous computing”: the idea that cheap connectivity and networked devices would liberate “computing” from mainframes and desktop boxes and integrate it into people’s everyday lives. But how? What would that actually look like? Weiser sketched out three basic tiers of ubiquitous computing devices based on interactive display technology: tabs (small, wearable); pads (handheld, mobile); boards (large, fixed).
..

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/512616/how-smart-watches-and-phablets-fulfill-a-20-year-old-prophecy-about-ubiquitous-computing/

 


Edited by a2gsg - 8/10/13 at 1:17am
post #6 of 100
This type of historical perspective is great because it should educate some of the people who have no computer background into the history and development of what has gone before and where we are today.

It also gives justification to the beliefs that many who post here may display toward some companies.

Great summary, I can only hope that some of the anti Apple posters round here take some of the history on board.
I suspect not though because its not convenient and uncomfortable for them to acknowledge it.
Far easier to snipe at Apple and regurgitate their version.
post #7 of 100
So the difference primarily between Apple of 1980's and Apple today, is the fact that they have patents now which they dint back in the 80's.

And this is why, the competition will have to start innovating rather than copying.
post #8 of 100

"Jobs invited Bill Gates of Microsoft (then struggling to enter the market for business programs on its own DOS platform) to become a new developer of Mac office applications"

 

"Gates also realized the potential for selling Apple's Macintosh user interface on IBM's PC hardware."

 

"Neither Xerox nor Apple had patented any novel aspects of the Alto, Star or Macintosh because nobody foresaw the need to patent anything within the new field of graphical user interfaces in personal computing."

 

"Microsoft's Windows 2.0 appropriated much of the functionality of the Macintosh, introducing only trivial changes like renaming the trash can and locating the menu bar within windows"

 

"in 1985 Gates had secured a licensing contract with Apple's chief executive John Scully to use some Macintosh concepts"

 

"By late 1995, Microsoft was ready with Windows 95 (above), a new version of DOS hosting a graphical user environment that copied the Mac's look, feel, gestures, behaviors, keyboard shortcuts, terminology and even its human interface guidelines so closely that few people were even aware that virtually none of it actually originated at Microsoft."

 

My car keeps crashing whenever I do 150mph. It's a design flaw. People tell me to slow down and drive normally but I should be able to use it as I wish.
Reply
My car keeps crashing whenever I do 150mph. It's a design flaw. People tell me to slow down and drive normally but I should be able to use it as I wish.
Reply
post #9 of 100
Yet another fantastic, detailed and factual analysis. Well done.
post #10 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

... "Neither Xerox nor Apple had patented any novel aspects of the Alto, Star or Macintosh because nobody foresaw the need to patent anything within the new field of graphical user interfaces in personal computing."...

 

indeed... and exactly the same here in 1982 with respect to "the new field of" wireless e-mail:

 

In Silicon Valley, a Man Without a Patent

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/technology/16wireless.html?pagewanted=all


Edited by a2gsg - 8/10/13 at 1:21am
post #11 of 100
Originally Posted by GTR

... "Neither Xerox nor Apple had patented any novel aspects of the Alto, Star or Macintosh because nobody foresaw the need to patent anything within the new field of graphical user interfaces in personal computing."

The irony here is that they had the patents in place with iOS and the fcukers stole the guts of it anyway
Well not the guts of the OS but the look and how a user interacts with a device.
Still yet to be resolved. Jeez
post #12 of 100

Like they say "Necessity was the mother of all inventions".

 

It became a necessity in order to promote real Innovation, you needed to have a way to protect those trying to Innovate.

 

Therefore the Patent system. However the system has too many loop holes and will continue to mature with time.

 

If Android is popular today, its simply because of all those loop holes that exist in the Patent System.

 

This win for Apple over Samsung is just the beginning. Wait until they render copycats useless over time. This case of Apple vs Samsung at the ITC, will send a message across everyone out there in the industry, looking forward to make money out of stolen ideas of another company.

 

Moral of the Story: If there's something that will stop Google and there bunch of licensee's from repeating the windows story of the 80's again, its the patent system. If that fails, God help us all, because it will hamper innovation.

post #13 of 100

The Steve Balmer video is proof that he has always been insane.

 

He must have been copying the "Crazy Eddy" commercial at the time.

 

Amazing...

post #14 of 100
Wow. Nice article.

Giggled at Dvorak, and howled with laughter at that Ballmer video in the middle%u2026

A precursor to the "but wait there's more!" infomercials of the future%u2026?

The guy was a total clown then, and remains a slightly more sophisticated model today. Could you have imagined that high-pitched lunatic would one day be CEO of Microsoft? I think they got what they deserved. A fast-talking huckster at the helm.

Apple (and the rest of us) were so lucky to get Jobs back in the late 90s. HOw different things could have been.

Looking forward to the next segment. Excellent work DED!
post #15 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

So the difference primarily between Apple of 1980's and Apple today, is the fact that they have patents now which they dint back in the 80's.

And this is why, the competition will have to start innovating rather than copying.

 

Not just patents, Apple worked really hard to address the its shortcomings. They now:

 

  • have their own stores (one big problem was IBM and clones dominated the retail, leaving little space for Apple or - by some reports -even sabotaging Apple's demos)
  • aren't dependent on any particular company's applications
  • have patents
  • have products that are much more affordable (we have to remember the Apple Lisa was selling for $10,000 - and that's 1983 money! For comparison you could buy a PC back then for $5,000, which while still a lot of money is a big difference)

 

but most important of all we have the Internet and sites like AppleInsider to read enlightening articles like ones written by Daniel Dilger. The tech media isn't the sole domain of confused pundits like John Dvorak anymore.

post #16 of 100
1) someone's going to quote the entire article, no?

2) why don't the video's in the thread show up, makes me need to go to the homepage, which I never visit

3) why don't the pictures in the comments show up on the homepage, only in the thread?

4) I certainly hope GTR has unlimited sources for his pictures and renderings, including his funny mind

2+3 probably are due to the fact that we get to switch from http://www.gesamtbild.com to http://www.huddler.com
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #17 of 100

In the eighties software was protected by "copyright":

"In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office." (from Wikipedia).

IMHO this is still the case, hence no need for patenting software (the code itself).

 

However, if you want to protect the outcome of your software (like functions, use of icons/buttons, ...), you will need a patent.

post #18 of 100
I think this and the last article are great, it's a good insight into the past world of computing. Very interesting, very well written.
post #19 of 100
I love your Mouse Evolution chart. The ADB II mouse is my favorite looking one. The Macintosh user manual looks really well typeset too. Have never seen that, my first Mac was a G4 lamp iMac.
 
In some ways the arguments about "Apple invented this," "PARC invented that," "Microsoft invented...." miss the point that all inventions are thoughts, and thoughts occur in a brain, and only individuals have brains not groups or companies. It's really certain individuals (such as Steve Jobs or Doug Engelbart), who are the heroes of tech history, regardless of where they were working at the time. Though certain corporate cultures can encourage or discourage bright individuals.
post #20 of 100
2) why don't the video's in the thread show up, makes me need to go to the homepage, which I never visit

3) why don't the pictures in the comments show up on the homepage, only in the thread?

Maybe if you tried an iPad you could see everything. It is all there on my iPad.
post #21 of 100
Great article. So nice to see the anti-Apple myths shown for what they are. I am so sick of the trolls repeating them ad nauseam.

I always wondered why Xerox didn't partner more closely with those fledgling companies they helped spawn. They seem to have let loose so much and I have to think any one of those companies that grew out of PARC would have welcomed partial ownership, financial input and support from Xerox. I am thinking of Adobe and 3COM. Or perhaps they did, any scoop on that? I bet they regret cashing out of Apple when they did!

On a side issue, I have always felt the VisiCalc team got royally shafted. Loved that program!

p.s. Link to Ballmer video missing for me…

here it is again incase it was removed for some reason

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4ffa5_pub-tv-de-windows-1-0-par-steve-bal_news
Edited by digitalclips - 8/10/13 at 6:56am
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #22 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

The Steve Balmer video is proof that he has always been insane.

He must have been copying the "Crazy Eddy" commercial at the time.

Amazing...

Crazy Eddie is right but I don't think most people ever saw those commercials. The crazy thing is how Ballmer looked just as old in '86 than he does now. Great article, I've learned a few new things today.

Edited by dasanman69 - 8/10/13 at 6:39am
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #23 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Crazy Eddie is right but I don't think most people ever saw those commercials. The crazy thing is how Ballmer looked just as old in '86 than he does now. Great article, I've learned a few new things today.

Compared to Ballmer, Crazy Eddie is the very definition of sedate! 1biggrin.gif

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4ffa5_pub-tv-de-windows-1-0-par-steve-bal_news
Edited by digitalclips - 8/10/13 at 8:15am
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #24 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Compared to Ballmer, Crazy Eddie is the very definition of sedate! 1biggrin.gif

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4ffa5_pub-tv-de-windows-1-0-par-steve-bal_news

I think Ballmer missed his true calling. He would've been great in a John Hughes movie. lol.gif
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #25 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Crazy Eddie is right but I don't think most people ever saw those commercials. The crazy thing is how Ballmer looked just as old in '86 than he does now. Great article, I've learned a few new things today.

I used to live 20 minutes from a Crazy Eddie location back in the 80s and their commercials used to run ad nauseum.
post #26 of 100

Well the article is very informative but it won't change the popular myths that Apple "stole" the GUI from Xerox and that Microsoft "saved" Apple from bankruptcy. It's sort of like the conspiracy theories about the Twin Towers being brought down by controlled demolition or the moon landing hoax theories. The people that promote these idiocies have a vested interest in them and no amount of logical refutation will convince them. Let any of the AI local trolls read this article and they will promptly dismiss it as lies and propaganda. Heck, they won't even read the whole thing. The first paragraphs will be enough for them before total dismissal.

 

But the video of Ballmer hawking Windows 1.0 is priceless. Once a used car salesman, always a used car salesman, complete with polyester suit coat. That video is better than all the other stupid Ballmer videos combined. Dance monkey boy, dance!

post #27 of 100

Good read, many of the details I have not read anywhere else, nice work!

post #28 of 100

Couple things---

 

1. Having an idea isn't as important as being able to produce a salable product from it. Xerox PARC (and many others) had great ideas but couldn't produce anything of value from them. Hollywood has tons of visionary ideas (especially Star Trek) but claiming them as prior art negates all the real effort that goes into producing them. I don't care how many ideas Xerox PARC came up with, I only care about the products Xerox and other companies actually were able to produce from those ideas. These are the real inventors and the ones who should have the patents. The other guys are like everyone else in the world who have ideas but can't figure out how to apply them. 

 

2. I know there's always two sides to every story but Jobs, Gates and Ballmer were young when all of this started so it doesn't surprise me that Jobs was the philanthropic one helping out his friends. What bothers me is that Gates and Ballmer (and the rest of Microsoft) turned against their friend and tried to put him out of business. I've always known how rustless Microsoft has been and they're finally reaping the seeds they've sown as Apple no longer has an open door policy for them. Jobs tried to be friends with Eric Schmidt by putting him on Apple's board only to see Eric steal Apple technology for Google. I know Steve Jobs wasn't perfect but history will show he did more to advance computer technology for the masses than any of his former friends. The problem is, as Daniel has said, this will never show up in anyone else's stories because all the other technology writers hate Apple. This is obvious with everything happening in today's patent wars. Apple is always the bad guy.

post #29 of 100

Good article, I enjoyed it.

 

We do, however, all rewrite history. Apple did enter a "late 80s partnership with Olivetti (the Italian owner of British PC maker Acorn) that culminated in plans to jointly develop a new mobile processor architecture capable of powering Sculley's pet project: the Newton Message Pad". The alliance didn't create the ARM architecture though, that already existed within Acorn and was used in the Archimedes desktop computer. Indeed, ARM - Advanced RISC Machine - was the new meaning of the acronym originally created as Acorn RISC Machine.

 

Amusingly, when Apple first advertised PowerPC Macs in UK as the most powerful RISC desktops, Acorn was urged to appeal to the UK's Advertising Standards body because of their own supposedly more powerful ARM powered desktop. ARM's management proved visionary though, perhaps through Apple's help, leading to today's dominant low power, high performance chips in almost all smart phones and much else. Acorn, meanwhile, lost its way despite its excellent technology in an echo of 1990s Apple. However, without a visionary leader to return to rescue it, it withered and died. Only ARM now remains :-)

OS X and iOS user

Reply

OS X and iOS user

Reply
post #30 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Well the article is very informative but it won't change the popular myths that Apple "stole" the GUI from Xerox and that Microsoft "saved" Apple from bankruptcy. It's sort of like the conspiracy theories about the Twin Towers being brought down by controlled demolition or the moon landing hoax theories. The people that promote these idiocies have a vested interest in them and no amount of logical refutation will convince them. Let any of the AI local trolls read this article and they will promptly dismiss it as lies and propaganda. Heck, they won't even read the whole thing. The first paragraphs will be enough for them before total dismissal.

But the video of Ballmer hawking Windows 1.0 is priceless. Once a used car salesman, always a used car salesman, complete with polyester suit coat. That video is better than all the other stupid Ballmer videos combined. Dance monkey boy, dance!

I partially agree. There are those that want to perpetuate the myths for their own belief system's sake. There are those that just want to believe them and they probably believe in alien invasions too.

However, there are lots of normal, rational folks out there that upon reading such an article may be open to realizing they were believing false information and change their views. I have found and educated quite a few such folks. They are especially amenable to conversion to the truth once they get an Apple product and love it. Many long time, die hard PC users, now with iPads and iPhones are next looking at MacBooks or iMacs and they seem to love to learn they were fed a load of bull by the PC Illuminati. It frees them up mentally to enjoy their Apple goodies even more.
Edited by digitalclips - 8/10/13 at 8:08am
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #31 of 100

So funny how Balmer looks essentially identical way back in that Windows advert as he does today.  That suit could almost fit into his current wardrobe.  1smile.gif

 

That man was born old (in both mind and body).

post #32 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Well the article is very informative but it won't change the popular myths that Apple "stole" the GUI from Xerox and that Microsoft "saved" Apple from bankruptcy. It's sort of like the conspiracy theories about the Twin Towers being brought down by controlled demolition or the moon landing hoax theories. The people that promote these idiocies have a vested interest in them and no amount of logical refutation will convince them. ...

 

I agree, but just to be picky, conspiracy theories aren't popular because of the wackos that "promote" them, those guys are essentially interchangeable and irrelevant.  Conspiracy theories exist and propagate because the story they tell is a "better story," or closer to what people want to believe than the truth is.  

 

The reality is that most people (close to all people actually), believe what seems best or right first, and then kind of "prove it to themselves" or justify that belief, later.  The number of adult humans that actually use reason and logic to figure out for themselves what is true or not is a startlingly small number, even among intellectuals and educated folks.  We are all animals first after all.  Cool, smart, ingenious, "top of the heap" animals, but still animals.  

 

Because it was such a long time ago, and because it was followed up by essentially nothing at all, a lot of folks (especially those who weren't alive at the time) find it easier to believe that we never landed on the moon.  The moon landing is the singular proof of the realities of outer space and the fact that we are all living on a tiny ball, so to deny it, means that we can go on believing in God and our uniqueness here in the same way as we always have before.  Similarly, because a lot of Americans find it hard to believe that they were so weak as to allow the 911 attacks to happen (which goes against the American myth of ultimate strength), it's easier to believe it was an inside job.  That way the US wasn't defeated by a stronger enemy, the stronger enemy was the US.  

post #33 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

So funny how Balmer looks essentially identical way back in that Windows advert as he does today.  That suit could almost fit into his current wardrobe.  1smile.gif

That man was born old (in both mind and body).

Can you even imagine having to work for that sweat bag?
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #34 of 100

Nice trip down memory lane.

Where can I get the pigs-n-rainbows wallpaper from the Xerox PARC prototype?

 

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #35 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Great article. So nice to see the anti-Apple myths shown for what they are. I am so sick of the trolls repeating them ad nauseam.
 

 

I don't think that will ever change.

 

People believe what they want to believe, and they're not going to hear otherwise.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #36 of 100
A pleasure to read! Thanks : )
post #37 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

Great summary, I can only hope that some of the anti Apple posters round here take some of the history on board.
I suspect not though because its not convenient and uncomfortable for them to acknowledge it.
Far easier to snipe at Apple and regurgitate their version.

 

Somehow I don't think anti-Apple posters are going to be persuaded by a brief, unsourced piece that a case presided over by numerous judges, attorneys, etc., for a period of years was wrongly decided. 

 

I think the real villain of the piece is Sculley, whose memoir suggests that he didn't defend Apple's interests competently. If Apple didn't put on the right case, it's not the courts' fault the company lost.

post #38 of 100
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post
unsourced

 

Are you black/blue colorblind? 1tongue.gif

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #39 of 100
Very well done and accurate. I had an Apple Test Drive Mac 128k I purchased in 1984. As an engineer, I followed closely the engineering and design behind it. IEEE Spectrum had a great article on the development of the Macintosh as well as the evolution that got Apple there in 1984 or 1985.

I always thought it was a shame that Apple did not patent and/or enforce their patents in the 1980's, it they had, it would be a totally different environment today.
post #40 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Are you black/blue colorblind? 1tongue.gif

 

Sorry, my claim was hyperbole. But the citations here wouldn't even meet Wikipedia's standards, much less the legal community's. The case generated tens of thousands of pages of documents, written and reviewed by dozens of judges and attorneys on all sides. Those documents have hundreds if not thousands of citations of every pertinent fact. The case also turned on points of law and precedent that are not analyzed at all here. An objective reader (haha!) would probably be inclined to favor the judges' decision to this post; it's only people who are already persuaded that Apple got screwed who are likely to think that this post proves anything. 

 

Of course, I'm probably being silly for criticizing a blog post for not being a proper legal brief. But criticizing Sculley was my main focus! :)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
  • iPhone Patent Wars: Xerox PARC & the Apple, Inc. Macintosh: innovator, duplicator & litigator
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › iPhone Patent Wars: Xerox PARC & the Apple, Inc. Macintosh: innovator, duplicator & litigator