My over all point is that some of you make it sound as if Apple extending him the possibility of a job was an insult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
As... difficult (please tell me you can pick THAT up)... as it was to tell through his misuse of grammar and spelling, yes, he's being sarcastic. Though the guy wasn't looking for a job, anyway.
I'm all for Apple, don't get me wrong, but the way this is presented by AI the clear conclusion is that Apple ripped off the developer (app and logo). Is it the whole story? Doubtlessly not, as I don't for one second believe AI has done the yeoman's work of delving into real research and performed the necessary interviews to vet this story.
Apple didn't offer the guy a job. They asked for his resume. I don't think there are very many software developers out there who would refuse to send in the resume - even if they didn't want the job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicNReason
Oh, the "[who's] looking for a job?" comment was clearly sarcastic, sounding like the guys should have taken the job because a lot of people don't have one. While it's unlikely, I was hoping that his stance that the guy should have taken the job was sarcastic.
I'm all for Apple, don't get me wrong, but the way this is presented by AI the clear conclusion is that Apple ripped off the developer (app and logo). Is it the whole story? Doubtlessly not, as I don't for one second believe AI has done the yeoman's work of delving into real research and performed the necessary interviews to vet this story.
What? That's like journalism or something. Journalism is dying. It will be replaced by twitter and blogs.
What's with the euphemisms? Appropriating? [R]ipping off? I read articles about this on other sites and most say apple accused of stealing?
The horrible thing is that the sensationalist bloggers are now all frothing at the mouth, spittle dripping on their keyboards, accusing Steve of stealing from devs. here's one that says Steve stole at least 10 "features" from small devs:
I'm all for Apple, don't get me wrong, but the way this is presented by AI the clear conclusion is that Apple ripped off the developer (app and logo). Is it the whole story? Doubtlessly not, as I don't for one second believe AI has done the yeoman's work of delving into real research and performed the necessary interviews to vet this story.
All the AI said was that some stupid kid had some unsubstantiated claims, with no patent, no trademark, no nothing.
How can you conclude that this idiot has a leg to stand on? Apple has HUNDREDS of in-house lawyers.
IMO, the AI article proves that the kid ain't got a chance in court. I hope he has the balls to pursue this. Steve is going to crush him.
Oh come on man, I don't have a dog in either fight, and I'd like to think I come in here with a pretty objective viewpoint, but I just can't read a comment like that and think "hmm.. that's logical".
Maybe it's just my failing 24 year old memory, but I can't think of anything from anyone that was referred to as an "app store", publicly/officially, or even just by users, in the mobile device world - and as I sit here thinking about it, I can't even think of anything in the PC world either.
But let's set that aside and concentrate on the matter at hand..
So we know you (and if I'm being honest I'm really speaking to everyone) wouldn't argue that this kid invented the theory of wirelessly syncing an iPhone, because that would just be idiotic (if I'm being honest, I'd have a hard time believing "wireless syncing" wasn't on the docket since before the iPhone ever hit store shelves). Of course there is one potential reality that could exist, resulting in legitimate "injury" or "loss" (if we're speaking "lawyerese"), but the fact that not a single one of the comments I've read here refers to it, tells me that 99.9% of you people are same people that take every opportunity you get to rail against Apple simply because you don't like something about the company, not because logic or sound reasoning has anything to do with it - the same people that have no idea what Apple is getting at when the company points out that the Galaxy S is the inbred cousin of the iPhone 3G, and at the end of the day, the same people that destroy any chance of these "forums" becoming a place for intelligent discussion.
The one factor I'm referring to, and the one factor that anybody should even be discussing, is whether or not any of the actual code from the supposed "stolen app" exists in iOS 5. That's it. Because no one with a sane mind would ever conceive of arguing that the kid invented the idea of wirelessly syncing an iPhone, but on the other hand, if that copied code exists, none of that even matters because Apple is then morally, but more importantly (in court), legally, bound to pay the kid for his work.
BOOM, headshot. Nailed it. I often feel like I'm getting stupider reading messageboard posts. 99% of the comments are knee-jerk cliched garbage based on preconceived feelings, rarely if ever employing real objectivity and a reasonable and rational assessment of the facts.
...and it was wrong for Apple not to at least offer to pay for a license agreement...
Please explain why Apple owes someone who wouldn't follow their rules anything at all.
Quote:
...before Apple found a creative way to rip them off...
Ah, so that's it.
I still don't understand how Apple's can hold a Lodsys license agreement and share it with every developer on the planet.
Quote:
That's like saying one license agreement allows a large family of endusers to share a single copy of Mac OS X.
Which it does, as of Lion.
Quote:
For example, I have a family with over 200 members, four generation in multiple states and cities. If I decide to copy and distribute Mac OS X to all 200 of them, Apple would sue me over it.
LOL, as if you're that important.
And no, it's perfectly fine for you to do that with Lion as long as every single one of their computers uses YOUR account. Though as Apple IDs can only be used on a certain number of computers and as if they change that Apple ID to a new one (read: theirs), they're not allowed to keep using Lion, the point is moot.
Quote:
If Appel wins against Lodsys, I'm going to make 200 copies of Mac OS X and share it with my family, following Apple's example.
Enjoy your pirated software. Heaven forbid you ever make anything to sell.
That's just wrong, wrong, and wrong! As much as I like Apple products and Steve Jobs, I think this young man was a victim and deserve a win in court. It was wrong for Apple to reject his App, it was wrong for Apple to steal his ideas, and it was wrong for Apple not to at least offer to pay for a license agreement. If Apple start ripping people off like this, they are going to become no morally better than IBM and Microsoft. By the way, at least Lodsys got a little money before Apple found a creative way to rip them off big time.
I still don't understand how Apple's can hold a Lodsys license agreement and share it with every developer on the planet. That's like saying one license agreement allows a large family of endusers to share a single copy of Mac OS X. For example, I have a family with over 200 members, four generation in multiple states and cities. If I decide to copy and distribute Mac OS X to all 200 of them, Apple would sue me over it. But then I say something like," the license agreement in place extends to all my family members and they are protected under the license agreement."
If Appel wins against Lodsys, I'm going to make 200 copies of Mac OS X and share it with my family, following Apple's example.
So much idiocy and ignorance in this post. Amazing.
Maybe it's just my failing 24 year old memory, but I can't think of anything from anyone that was referred to as an "app store", publicly/officially, or even just by users, in the mobile device world - and as I sit here thinking about it, I can't even think of anything in the PC world
The issue is not whether Apple already had wireless sync planned or in development. The issue is whether they used this guy's code to ultimately implement the functionality (as I doubt he patented any methods he used). There is some circumstantial evidence that suggests they did. Trying to hire him is one such piece. His claim that Apple told him their engineers had seen his app is another. It doesn't mean they did, but it is a bit silly to claim there is no evidence to support his potential claim. Discovery could very well reveal more evidence. Or not, but he is within his rights to find out.
As for the wireless sync, some keep describing it as sync only to iCloud. That's not true. It actually includes wireless sync between iTunes on your personal computer and the iOS device.
That's just wrong, wrong, and wrong! As much as I like Apple products and Steve Jobs, I think this young man was a victim and deserve a win in court. It was wrong for Apple to reject his App, it was wrong for Apple to steal his ideas, and it was wrong for Apple not to at least offer to pay for a license agreement. If Apple start ripping people off like this, they are going to become no morally better than IBM and Microsoft. By the way, at least Lodsys got a little money before Apple found a creative way to rip them off big time.
I still don't understand how Apple's can hold a Lodsys license agreement and share it with every developer on the planet. That's like saying one license agreement allows a large family of endusers to share a single copy of Mac OS X. For example, I have a family with over 200 members, four generation in multiple states and cities. If I decide to copy and distribute Mac OS X to all 200 of them, Apple would sue me over it. But then I say something like," the license agreement in place extends to all my family members and they are protected under the license agreement."
If Appel wins against Lodsys, I'm going to make 200 copies of Mac OS X and share it with my family, following Apple's example.
My over all point is that some of you make it sound as if Apple extending him the possibility of a job was an insult.
Oh, then excuse me if I was unclear . I was not saying it was insult. Rather, I was saying that if you're of the belief that Apple DID do something wrong offering him a job (which they didn't actually do) is NOT an adequate means of compensation.
It would be very surprising if Apple stole his code.
Agreed. When you submit to the appstore you don't submit the code, you submit the compiled app. So unless he sent his code to Apple separately for another reason (and I can't think why he would) they can't have stolen his code because they never had it.
Slightly off-topic, but if Apple's SDK *lets* developers see un-approved APIs then someone at Apple needs to read a book.
It doesn't. The private APIs aren't in any header files, aren't listed in the documentation and you can only find them by dumping the libraries. The nature of objective-c however is such that if you find out a method exists, you can call it and the library has to export the names of methods, you really can't hide them very well.
Apple's app store submission process actually looks for any uses in the compiled app of any private APIs or even apps which have used the same method name as a private API and the app is automatically rejected.
Comments
My over all point is that some of you make it sound as if Apple extending him the possibility of a job was an insult.
As... difficult (please tell me you can pick THAT up)... as it was to tell through his misuse of grammar and spelling, yes, he's being sarcastic. Though the guy wasn't looking for a job, anyway.
Oh, the "[who's] looking for a job?" comment was clearly sarcastic, sounding like the guys should have taken the job because a lot of people don't have one. While it's unlikely, I was hoping that his stance that the guy should have taken the job was sarcastic.
I'm all for Apple, don't get me wrong, but the way this is presented by AI the clear conclusion is that Apple ripped off the developer (app and logo). Is it the whole story? Doubtlessly not, as I don't for one second believe AI has done the yeoman's work of delving into real research and performed the necessary interviews to vet this story.
What? That's like journalism or something. Journalism is dying. It will be replaced by twitter and blogs.
What's with the euphemisms? Appropriating? [R]ipping off? I read articles about this on other sites and most say apple accused of stealing?
The horrible thing is that the sensationalist bloggers are now all frothing at the mouth, spittle dripping on their keyboards, accusing Steve of stealing from devs. here's one that says Steve stole at least 10 "features" from small devs:
http://gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ws-from-others
I've seen lots more. They recite chapter and verse of apps that were (so they say) lifted wholesale and incorporated into ios.
These bloggers shouldn't be allowed to sleep at night.
What? That's like journalism or something. Journalism is dying. It will be replaced by twitter and blogs.
What do social networking solutions have to do with research and citations.
I'm all for Apple, don't get me wrong, but the way this is presented by AI the clear conclusion is that Apple ripped off the developer (app and logo). Is it the whole story? Doubtlessly not, as I don't for one second believe AI has done the yeoman's work of delving into real research and performed the necessary interviews to vet this story.
All the AI said was that some stupid kid had some unsubstantiated claims, with no patent, no trademark, no nothing.
How can you conclude that this idiot has a leg to stand on? Apple has HUNDREDS of in-house lawyers.
IMO, the AI article proves that the kid ain't got a chance in court. I hope he has the balls to pursue this. Steve is going to crush him.
...
Goodness greif.
Oh come on man, I don't have a dog in either fight, and I'd like to think I come in here with a pretty objective viewpoint, but I just can't read a comment like that and think "hmm.. that's logical".
Maybe it's just my failing 24 year old memory, but I can't think of anything from anyone that was referred to as an "app store", publicly/officially, or even just by users, in the mobile device world - and as I sit here thinking about it, I can't even think of anything in the PC world either.
But let's set that aside and concentrate on the matter at hand..
So we know you (and if I'm being honest I'm really speaking to everyone) wouldn't argue that this kid invented the theory of wirelessly syncing an iPhone, because that would just be idiotic (if I'm being honest, I'd have a hard time believing "wireless syncing" wasn't on the docket since before the iPhone ever hit store shelves). Of course there is one potential reality that could exist, resulting in legitimate "injury" or "loss" (if we're speaking "lawyerese"), but the fact that not a single one of the comments I've read here refers to it, tells me that 99.9% of you people are same people that take every opportunity you get to rail against Apple simply because you don't like something about the company, not because logic or sound reasoning has anything to do with it - the same people that have no idea what Apple is getting at when the company points out that the Galaxy S is the inbred cousin of the iPhone 3G, and at the end of the day, the same people that destroy any chance of these "forums" becoming a place for intelligent discussion.
The one factor I'm referring to, and the one factor that anybody should even be discussing, is whether or not any of the actual code from the supposed "stolen app" exists in iOS 5. That's it. Because no one with a sane mind would ever conceive of arguing that the kid invented the idea of wirelessly syncing an iPhone, but on the other hand, if that copied code exists, none of that even matters because Apple is then morally, but more importantly (in court), legally, bound to pay the kid for his work.
BOOM, headshot. Nailed it. I often feel like I'm getting stupider reading messageboard posts. 99% of the comments are knee-jerk cliched garbage based on preconceived feelings, rarely if ever employing real objectivity and a reasonable and rational assessment of the facts.
It was wrong for Apple to reject his App...
Their store. Their allowed APIs. Their rules.
...it was wrong for Apple to steal his ideas...
You can't steal that idea. It wasn't his idea.
...and it was wrong for Apple not to at least offer to pay for a license agreement...
Please explain why Apple owes someone who wouldn't follow their rules anything at all.
...before Apple found a creative way to rip them off...
Ah, so that's it.
I still don't understand how Apple's can hold a Lodsys license agreement and share it with every developer on the planet.
That's like saying one license agreement allows a large family of endusers to share a single copy of Mac OS X.
Which it does, as of Lion.
For example, I have a family with over 200 members, four generation in multiple states and cities. If I decide to copy and distribute Mac OS X to all 200 of them, Apple would sue me over it.
LOL, as if you're that important.
And no, it's perfectly fine for you to do that with Lion as long as every single one of their computers uses YOUR account. Though as Apple IDs can only be used on a certain number of computers and as if they change that Apple ID to a new one (read: theirs), they're not allowed to keep using Lion, the point is moot.
If Appel wins against Lodsys, I'm going to make 200 copies of Mac OS X and share it with my family, following Apple's example.
Enjoy your pirated software. Heaven forbid you ever make anything to sell.
That's just wrong, wrong, and wrong! As much as I like Apple products and Steve Jobs, I think this young man was a victim and deserve a win in court. It was wrong for Apple to reject his App, it was wrong for Apple to steal his ideas, and it was wrong for Apple not to at least offer to pay for a license agreement. If Apple start ripping people off like this, they are going to become no morally better than IBM and Microsoft. By the way, at least Lodsys got a little money before Apple found a creative way to rip them off big time.
I still don't understand how Apple's can hold a Lodsys license agreement and share it with every developer on the planet. That's like saying one license agreement allows a large family of endusers to share a single copy of Mac OS X. For example, I have a family with over 200 members, four generation in multiple states and cities. If I decide to copy and distribute Mac OS X to all 200 of them, Apple would sue me over it. But then I say something like," the license agreement in place extends to all my family members and they are protected under the license agreement."
If Appel wins against Lodsys, I'm going to make 200 copies of Mac OS X and share it with my family, following Apple's example.
So much idiocy and ignorance in this post. Amazing.
Maybe it's just my failing 24 year old memory, but I can't think of anything from anyone that was referred to as an "app store", publicly/officially, or even just by users, in the mobile device world - and as I sit here thinking about it, I can't even think of anything in the PC world
SalesForce Dec 2006.
That doesn't affect your point though.
As for the wireless sync, some keep describing it as sync only to iCloud. That's not true. It actually includes wireless sync between iTunes on your personal computer and the iOS device.
What do social networking solutions have to do with research and citations.
Nothing.
That's just wrong, wrong, and wrong! As much as I like Apple products and Steve Jobs, I think this young man was a victim and deserve a win in court. It was wrong for Apple to reject his App, it was wrong for Apple to steal his ideas, and it was wrong for Apple not to at least offer to pay for a license agreement. If Apple start ripping people off like this, they are going to become no morally better than IBM and Microsoft. By the way, at least Lodsys got a little money before Apple found a creative way to rip them off big time.
I still don't understand how Apple's can hold a Lodsys license agreement and share it with every developer on the planet. That's like saying one license agreement allows a large family of endusers to share a single copy of Mac OS X. For example, I have a family with over 200 members, four generation in multiple states and cities. If I decide to copy and distribute Mac OS X to all 200 of them, Apple would sue me over it. But then I say something like," the license agreement in place extends to all my family members and they are protected under the license agreement."
If Appel wins against Lodsys, I'm going to make 200 copies of Mac OS X and share it with my family, following Apple's example.
Isn't it way past your bedtime?
The grammar was wrong, but what was misspelled?
My over all point is that some of you make it sound as if Apple extending him the possibility of a job was an insult.
Oh, then excuse me if I was unclear
Did he read it? Particularly Section 5.3?
From WIRED: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/ga...-agreement.pdf
It would be very surprising if Apple stole his code.
Agreed. When you submit to the appstore you don't submit the code, you submit the compiled app. So unless he sent his code to Apple separately for another reason (and I can't think why he would) they can't have stolen his code because they never had it.
He did sign the iPhone SDK Agreement.
Did he read it? Particularly Section 5.3?
From WIRED: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/ga...-agreement.pdf
There is a word to describe Huges. "Screwed"
Slightly off-topic, but if Apple's SDK *lets* developers see un-approved APIs then someone at Apple needs to read a book.
It doesn't. The private APIs aren't in any header files, aren't listed in the documentation and you can only find them by dumping the libraries. The nature of objective-c however is such that if you find out a method exists, you can call it and the library has to export the names of methods, you really can't hide them very well.
Apple's app store submission process actually looks for any uses in the compiled app of any private APIs or even apps which have used the same method name as a private API and the app is automatically rejected.