Actually Apple bought that tech from them since they were not doing anything with it. But Jobs saw the potential in it for computers. If my memory serves.
The first successful commercial GUI product was the AppleMacintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.[6]
Much later, in the midst of the 1988–1994 Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Apple Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.[7]
However, Apple's designs included quite a few concepts that were not part of (or were non-trivial advances to) the prototype developed at PARC. For example:[6]
The mouse was not invented at PARC, but by Douglas Engelbart in 1963, Apple's mouse was an improvement on PARC's version.
Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype was incapable of any direct manipulation of widgets.
Get your head out of your Ballmer. The Korean Hangul alphabet was devised in 1443 ("recently", you say?), and is widely recognized as wonderfully innovative - the forms of the individual "letters" are actually related to phonology (i.e., to the shape of the mouth). You can count on one hand the number of natural writing systems with that feature. Hangul are NOT derived from Chinese characters. (Japanese kana syllables? Those ARE explicitly derived from Chinese characters, should anyone care to know.)
But that's utterly, completely irrelevant. Nations and nationalities do not invent or copy or go on trial, as if they were some sort of unified entities. Organizations and individuals do. "Koreans" (let alone 15th century Koreans) are not on trial in this case. Samsung is.
This should not be remotely difficult to understand. (And yet, sadly…)
You're right, point taken.
What kind of innovations in technology have we seen from Korean companies thus far?
When I walk into a Korean supermarket their packaging looks awfully identical to the Japanese and their cars (Hyundai Genesis coupe and Infiniti G37),
Their written language is a good example. They wanted to separate themselves from the Chinese. I don't understand when it comes to technology and automotive why can't Korean companies make the same separation.
This is the part everyone misses. Apple sues to prevent commoditization of their products. If The iPhone can be flagrantly copied then Apple can be beat on price and they lose. Same scenario with the MacBook Air and the ultrabooks.
Same scenario with the MacBook Air and the ultrabooks.
When's that gonna happen, by the way? They threw eMachines into bankruptcy when they stole the iMac design; why haven't we heard anything about throwing every PC manufacturer into bankruptcy for stealing the MacBook Air design?
And Intel needs punished for claiming they're the ones that came up with this idea.
Get your head out of your Ballmer. The Korean Hangul alphabet was devised in 1443 ("recently", you say?), and is widely recognized as wonderfully innovative - the forms of the individual "letters" are actually related to phonology (i.e., to the shape of the mouth). You can count on one hand the number of natural writing systems with that feature. Hangul are NOT derived from Chinese characters. (Japanese kana syllables? Those ARE explicitly derived from Chinese characters, should anyone care to know.)
Before Hangul Koreans used hanja (which *is* based on Chinese characters). And while Hangul was commissioned in the 1400's it wasn't until the early 20th century that it became widespread.
Before my current Chinese girlfriend I was dating a Korean woman and both of them are under 30 years old. Both knew the history of hanja and neither explained to me about Hangul. Whenever my Korean girlfriend wrote on my arm she did it in hanja leading me to believe that even fairly recent generations of literate Koreans likely read and write in both hanja and Hangul.
I care very little about these legal wars between big companies. Today they do a big show, like if they were playing the World Cup final or something. Tomorrow they forget the match, they come to a intellectual property agreement, and it's like if nothing happened.
The current IP system clearly protects big companies. Intelectual property was created to protect the small businesses, as well as individual inventors with little resources. However, it ended up working in the opposite direction.
IP was created to advance "Science and the Useful Arts". Nothing in the Constitution said anything about individual, small businesses, big business, etc. Yes, like everything else in this economy, money talks and politicians listen, and the legal system is too expensive for the little guy to use effectively. Even Adam Smith, in "The Wealth of Nations" has a lengthy discourse on this matter in general. It is far more than the IP system, but the IP system is still valuable, if, perhaps, overly complex.
But, those on this forum should understand at the gut level, most of us being nerd and programmer types, most things we create get more and more complex and costly to correct and change over time. The laws and legal system have the same problems. The hard sciences and mathematics are the only "institutions" that take parsimony seriously, and actively focus on simplifying understanding to make the areas more clear and cohesive. Those programmers who are focused on the Agile methods do the same. But the legal system, as well as society itself, becomes more complex over time and with it develop problems that defy understanding, perhaps, purposefully.
So, instead of ranting, it is best to focus on what aspects of IP complexity is inherent, and which aspects are artificial, and unnecessarily harmful to individuals and small businesses.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypoluxa
Actually Apple bought that tech from them since they were not doing anything with it. But Jobs saw the potential in it for computers. If my memory serves.
Just to add . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)
Adoption by Apple
The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC's work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.[6]
Much later, in the midst of the 1988–1994 Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Apple Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.[7]
However, Apple's designs included quite a few concepts that were not part of (or were non-trivial advances to) the prototype developed at PARC. For example:[6]
The mouse was not invented at PARC, but by Douglas Engelbart in 1963, Apple's mouse was an improvement on PARC's version.
Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype was incapable of any direct manipulation of widgets.
Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's prototype did not feature Menu bars, or pull-down menu, nor the trash.
Unlike the Macintosh, PARC's windows could not overlap each other.
References
^ "Contact." PARC. Retrieved on November 11, 2010. "PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) 3333 Coyote Hill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA"
^ "driving & public transportation directions." PARC. Retrieved on November 11, 2010.
^ "map." PARC. Retrieved on November 11, 2010.
^ Map of Stanford Research Park on Stanford University Real Estate web site
^ Xerox PARC was the first research group to widely adopt the mouse invented by Douglas Engelbart's Augmentation Research Center at the Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) in Menlo Park, California,
^ a b Gladwell, Malcolm (2011-05-11). "Creation Myth: Xerox PARC, Apple, and the truth about innovation". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2011-10-09.
^ Pollack, Andrew (1990-03-24). "Most of Xerox's Suit Against Apple Barred". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-12-01.
^ "Milestones, PARC, a Xerox company".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac'em X
Get your head out of your Ballmer.
Very good!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac'em X
Get your head out of your Ballmer. The Korean Hangul alphabet was devised in 1443 ("recently", you say?), and is widely recognized as wonderfully innovative - the forms of the individual "letters" are actually related to phonology (i.e., to the shape of the mouth). You can count on one hand the number of natural writing systems with that feature. Hangul are NOT derived from Chinese characters. (Japanese kana syllables? Those ARE explicitly derived from Chinese characters, should anyone care to know.)
But that's utterly, completely irrelevant. Nations and nationalities do not invent or copy or go on trial, as if they were some sort of unified entities. Organizations and individuals do. "Koreans" (let alone 15th century Koreans) are not on trial in this case. Samsung is.
This should not be remotely difficult to understand. (And yet, sadly…)
You're right, point taken.
What kind of innovations in technology have we seen from Korean companies thus far?
When I walk into a Korean supermarket their packaging looks awfully identical to the Japanese and their cars (Hyundai Genesis coupe and Infiniti G37),
Their written language is a good example. They wanted to separate themselves from the Chinese. I don't understand when it comes to technology and automotive why can't Korean companies make the same separation.
Originally Posted by mike_t
Same scenario with the MacBook Air and the ultrabooks.
When's that gonna happen, by the way? They threw eMachines into bankruptcy when they stole the iMac design; why haven't we heard anything about throwing every PC manufacturer into bankruptcy for stealing the MacBook Air design?
And Intel needs punished for claiming they're the ones that came up with this idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac'em X
Get your head out of your Ballmer. The Korean Hangul alphabet was devised in 1443 ("recently", you say?), and is widely recognized as wonderfully innovative - the forms of the individual "letters" are actually related to phonology (i.e., to the shape of the mouth). You can count on one hand the number of natural writing systems with that feature. Hangul are NOT derived from Chinese characters. (Japanese kana syllables? Those ARE explicitly derived from Chinese characters, should anyone care to know.)
Before Hangul Koreans used hanja (which *is* based on Chinese characters). And while Hangul was commissioned in the 1400's it wasn't until the early 20th century that it became widespread.
Before my current Chinese girlfriend I was dating a Korean woman and both of them are under 30 years old. Both knew the history of hanja and neither explained to me about Hangul. Whenever my Korean girlfriend wrote on my arm she did it in hanja leading me to believe that even fairly recent generations of literate Koreans likely read and write in both hanja and Hangul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
I care very little about these legal wars between big companies. Today they do a big show, like if they were playing the World Cup final or something. Tomorrow they forget the match, they come to a intellectual property agreement, and it's like if nothing happened.
The current IP system clearly protects big companies. Intelectual property was created to protect the small businesses, as well as individual inventors with little resources. However, it ended up working in the opposite direction.
IP was created to advance "Science and the Useful Arts". Nothing in the Constitution said anything about individual, small businesses, big business, etc. Yes, like everything else in this economy, money talks and politicians listen, and the legal system is too expensive for the little guy to use effectively. Even Adam Smith, in "The Wealth of Nations" has a lengthy discourse on this matter in general. It is far more than the IP system, but the IP system is still valuable, if, perhaps, overly complex.
But, those on this forum should understand at the gut level, most of us being nerd and programmer types, most things we create get more and more complex and costly to correct and change over time. The laws and legal system have the same problems. The hard sciences and mathematics are the only "institutions" that take parsimony seriously, and actively focus on simplifying understanding to make the areas more clear and cohesive. Those programmers who are focused on the Agile methods do the same. But the legal system, as well as society itself, becomes more complex over time and with it develop problems that defy understanding, perhaps, purposefully.
So, instead of ranting, it is best to focus on what aspects of IP complexity is inherent, and which aspects are artificial, and unnecessarily harmful to individuals and small businesses.