Shared publicly  - 
Tim Pozza's profile photoManabendra Dutta's profile photoZapric De Nom's profile photoSatish Reddy Yerva's profile photo
Hahaha awesome quote. This could have been a +1 but I'm lame. So it's also a comment.
What a state of affairs that to statesmen of industry would be compared to thieves! 0_o
+Julia Clark you should check out the documentary "The Pirates of Silicon Valley". The whole notion of stealing ideas has long been regarded as a ridiculous notion by the likes of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc. Nevertheless, legal theories were developed, paid for, enacted, to a point where we (stupidly or otherwise), blindly accept the proposition. The absurdity of our present legal understanding of property (which today bares not only no relation to what was meant by the framers of the constitution, but has become, in effect, the very sort of tyranny that precipitated the American Revolution) leads to statements like the above. But do not take the statement by Bill Gates the wrong way: it was not meant as an insult, nor meant to demean the industry itself, nor its critics, who might throw the whole lot of them down with a bunch of common thieves.

Instead, it is our so-called "intellectual property" laws, which are like patents on oxygen, taxing all who consume them, and treating all who breathe freely also as thieves.
Putting the original quote into context helps:
SJ accused BG of 'stealing' all Windows UI design elements from Mac, and this was BG's response. So yeah Windows stole from Mac, but Mac stole it first from PARC/Xerox.
However, intellectual property is important, perhaps there needs to be a separation of types of intellectual property. I do not wish for a conglomerate to take my creative work and use it on a campaign without remunerating me.
Almost all of all windows and apple technologies can be traced back to Xerox.
It was Xerox's fault in the first place. They deliberately didnt lock the house!
+Julia Clark May I recommend you check out Lewis Hyde's "Common as Air"? This book, more than any other I have read, explains how the very concept of control over ideas (as implemented by the Stamp Act) was the spark that led to the American revolution. The stamp act was not so much a rebellion against taxation, but a rebellion against such taxation as would prevent the free flow of ideas that our founding fathers believed were essential for becoming fully enlightened individuals.

As for a defense against conglomerates, you do realize, I hope, that the current rules were written by those very conglomerates. If you want to have any chance of success, you have to break those rules (as in "The Matrix").
+Julia Clark Big conglomerates are inefficient monstrocities. One of the only things that keeps them afloat is the fact that they can bring together a lot of intellectual property in order to "prove" that they came up with your idea first. If intellectual property rights were not as stupidly enforces, they would have a harder time competing. The other factors that let big conglomerates become big (regulatory compliance laws, economies of scale, etc.) are still there, so it's not a panacea, but something to consider.
Apple PAID Xerox for a tech they were going nowhere with.
Is this STILL worthy of discussion?
what BG said is not true. the truth would be:
We had both the rich neighbour Xerox, and I broke into his house to steal this "monitor tube" and then I saw it wasnt there. so I went to you and found NOT a monitor tube, but a realy beautiful flatscreen which one you made out of the idea of the monitor tube. so i stole it from you...
Today Xerox can't come up with patents anymore because they're systematically off-shoring all engineering employees. Their CEO is the most hated in a Tech Industry. Xerox has nothing to fear anymore because they have nothing left to steal except talent, which they've made perfectly clear they're not interested in keeping.
+Lukas Klinzing add to that that you had already had a chat with our rich neighbour Xerox. They were never gonna use their TV because it wasnt working properly so you said, "hey Ill give you $10 to take that off you hands".
Theft is theft. If one takes my creative work and does not credit me that is theft. It is shameful that Bill Gates is causal about thievery; I think it speaks a lot about his character at that time.
That said, I do make it easy for another to use my work. However, I expect credit if one uses my work.
The same patent and intellectual property laws that ensure people get paid for their intellectual contributions are the ones conglomerates use to squeeze out competition. How can we ensure the former but not the latter? Maybe by not having corporations being "legal persons" with the same rights as you or me?
Best reason in the world to run Linux. It's an honestly produced operating system.
It is clear that Steve Jobs stole the idea of a graphical interface from Xerox PARC. And the mouse.
What +Julia Clark said. And even though I strongly disapprove of shallow, uneducated movements like "occupy" or anti-globalists, I believe that Commons are the future, since every person - a lot without realizing it - contributes to the global progress of humankind on a daily basis. Even those who use Apple or Xerox products.
And Google+ stole Facebook's idea, who stole it from MySpace, who in turn stole it from AOL, who...

Sometimes "stealing" is just evolution.
Stealing is irrelevent, Apple PAID Xerox. but hey, don't let facts get in the way.
I don't think there was a theft there. If you read the book you will see that Xerox actually got $1 million worth of Apple shares in exchange for showing their development work. Jobs told them "You are sitting on a gold mine. I can't believe Xerox is not taking advantage of this." I am not sure how the patent, if any were filed, applied - certainly there was a court for that.
Good ole BIll Gates would just like to remember it differently to justify his actions since then.
ANti trust, breaking quicktime etc
Me wonder, what would Apples camp going to say about this?
True, about everything Microsoft put in their operating system development was stolen... MS-DOS => QDOS => CP/M-86 (Digital Research)!
+Petar Karafezov FYI, Xerox did try to use the patent system to cover things like multiple windows on the desktop, but long after that idea had already been independently developed. Even the Xerox team themselves, in testimony before the Court, swore that they did not so much invent anything new as they did realize ideas that were already in the commons. Ultimately three of their patents that made it to trial were found invalid by a jury in East Texas. The transmission and development of ideas is nothing like the property rights that govern a cow (Lessig's favorite example) or a jackass (Ben Franklin's favorite), and attempts to constrain ideas like cows and jackasses consistently create both perverse incentives for some and terribly perverse outcomes for all.
It wasn't literal theft: businessmen often refer to paying a small amount for a great value as a "steal".
I think that there needs to be a separation between acknowledgement of work (such as is required in the various forms of the open source licensing schemes) and acknowledgement of an idea. If you have put together a program that does something that nobody else has done, you should certainly not only get credit for the work, but also get paid for people to use it.

Should you come up with an idea that nobody else has come up with, I do not think the idea should be worthy of being paid for, but it should be required that PROMINENT credit be given to you for your work in getting there. If your work took you so far as to create a product based on your IDEA, and it is not something that would have inevitably been thought up (because your brain is just THAT unique in it's thought processes) then you should get paid and credit should be given if anybody else tries to come up with a LIKE product.

However, if someone then takes your idea and uses it to make a different kind of product, credit should be given to you, but remuneration should not be required. I know this digs into patent law as well, but the patent laws are convoluted as well and almost anybody can patent anything. This is one reason that companies like Microsoft have put together Patent Clearing houses so that they can gather up as many random patents as they can so they can't get sued.

Sorry, I know I kind of got off topic. Basically, I think that things should be simplified.
discussed this post with 2 people in a hangout.
Until Jobs grew in popularity, I didn't think I liked Gates. I guess disliking is all relative.
the irony in copying from Xerox is beautiful.
Thank the Lord that nobody has patented the design of the motor car and how it works. Also the trains and airplanes and ships for that matter.
I think there is some slight revisionist history here from the apple crowd... From what I understand, apple let xerox BUY some pre-IPO stock in exchange for allowing their engineers to LOOK at what xerox had developed... not copy it. Later the apple engineers basically stole the idea and Xerox sued apple. This idea that apple kindly bought the idea from Xerox because they didn't want it anymore is simply revisionist history to shine a positive light on apple's theft. The bottom line, apple didn't invent anything anymore than Microsoft invented it.
This just hit me... why don't people just type text like this rather than posting a pic of the text on a colored background...?
Actually I read the first line, realize I had read it a million other times and decided to finally rant about the over abundance of posts like this (Text on a colored background) that I see all over G+... it almost makes Facebook seem "adult"
They messed this quote up in the pirates of silicon valley movie. They also made bill gates into a god in that movie, and Steve jobs into an evil whiny bitch.
Are you keeping up with Commodore? Cause Commodore is keeping up with you!
And that's why I've never bought an Apple product. Maybe Apple should sue Noah Wyle for copywrite infringement.
The term Intellectual Property is bad and I really wish it could get removed from common usage. Property is not a term that should be applied to something that is infinitely copyable without cost. You steal my my car and I can't use it anymore. You use my idea and I can still act on my idea.

However that does not mean that there should be no protections. If we go back to the constitution where our patent and copy write law comes from:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

It was felt that innovators would be discouraged taking on a lot of up front cost developing an idea if it could copied before they could recover that cost. If we were to stop thinking in terms of property and start thinking in terms of a limited time exclusive right to attempt to recover upfront cost then I think things become a lot clearer. The value of an idea is a nebulous concept however the cost to develop that idea is not.
All hail to the PARC of the 70s-early 80s
Its worth noting what Xerox had was barely useable compared with what Apple produced, No overlapping menus, no draggable icons, VERY expensive mouse, the list goes on
guy yak
talk about thieving | triumph of the nerds precedes
the pirates of silicon valley | 
Think you'll find Digital Research had been their earlier but only took a photo of the TV.
I liked Pirates of Silicon Valley.
the bit where MS 'sell' DOS to IBM and Ballmer steps out of the movies is great.
Also Woz says it pretty much got the personality Jobs down correctly and Jobs even had Noah Wyle come on as him at the start of a keynote.
Apple didn't pay initially, it was SJ who fooled/lied to Xerox about just arranging a visit to their campus to look around, they saw the starts of a GUI type interface and went about developing a similar one. Ideas are in essence stolen from open source on a regular basis, this is the price you pay for developing in a open source enviroment.
When People invest life, hard work, and money, sometimes lots of money and life, getting their idea into a practical realm, they have earned a right to enjoy their fruit for x amount of time without some pirate taking it for nothing and enjoying it with no investment at all.
Pretty sure Xerox knew what they were showing Apple. to say jobs lied or tricked them really makes Xerox out to look like idiots. And they werent.
They had a VERY expensive 'product' that they could barely sell.
Apple paid the rights to take it on and Xerox gladly sold it on.
What Apple saw at Xerox and what Apple later produced were not very similar.
You may as well accuse monet of stealing from paint.
Two great minds over what both played there own part in which only ones stills lives today doesnt sound like one acuseing the other of thivery they wouldnt have the right it sounds more like BG is Aknowledging SJ for his work. which im sure SJ would do the same if it was the other way around
You know, despite the fact that he is an evil person, if Bill Gates had invented the Apple technology, it would be much cheaper.
Visual theft is a mark of civilization. And considering how much jammed paper I have cleaned from copiers, I am glad my PC isn't a Xerox.
"Deborah Aldridge - You know, despite the fact that he is an evil person, if Bill Gates had invented the Apple technology, it would be much cheaper."
I agree, but cheaper in both senses of the word. People underestimate the quality of Apple's hardware. PC's with similar quality hardware are about the same price.
+Douglas Tschetter I agree with you but without the cheaper PC's it would have been tough to penetrate the growing economies where the customer is price sensitive. Unfortunately Linux systems were never good enough for popular consumer consumption and Microsoft filled that void. Once you have tried the PC and then move to Mac you can appreciate the enhancements Apple hardware has and if you have the money you will make the switch.
Another truth is that very few ideas spring out of anyone's head without help from anyone else. Most things in the tech field build on one another, everybody takes some inspiration from somewhere. At the moment Siri on iPhone and Jeannie on Android are beginning to sound like the computer on Star Trek, circa 1964.
If you believe in intellectual property.
Apple and Microsoft acted in bad faith.
If you don't believe in intellectual property.
Xerox didn't realize it's opportunity and only has it's self to blame.
i have used both pc and mac and i agree both have their selling points but i will never use a mac full time as i am not a fan of how it works and there is not as much ability to upgrade machines by yourself for the cost of the parts is much higher than pc parts.
I've worked with both for longer than I care to think about. Macs can be harder to upgrade, but in my experience they become obsolete slower too. It balances out a little.
Looking at Apple's history, it is clear they are thieves. They have stolen plenty of ideas from different platforms. The question is were they thieves in this case. My answer to that is, who really cares? Once a thief, always a thief.
No one commented on Apple taking Xerox's mouse.
Actually Steve payed Xerox for the technology and then Bill stole it...
Apple and Microsoft are both unscrupulous companies....they steal genuine ideas and make money out of it..... genuine people like Richard Stallman create something which is available to's a shame people like him remain unnoticed by many in glitter and glamour of these so-called hot-shot companies!!!
guy yak
paid | p a i d | paid |
+Paweł Prażak My understanding was Steve started copying the technology and at the same time made a stock offer to Xerox to buy into Apple so that it wouldn't be in Xerox interest to then sue Apple.

Does anyone know if technology sharing was part of this deal?
yeah! i heard this in steve jobs documentary...
Back in 1971 I used a Control Data Corp Kronos system to do all my homework. This is what I saw after I logged on: A:\>

That's right, basically a CPM\DOS prompt. Almost all of the OS commands were identical to CPMs or DOS. Even the syntax was nearly the same. And pretty much every computer I used, from HP mini comps, Osborne I, IBM, and my endless series of clones, used the same commands and functioned identically. I'd rearrange my code and slap it on my new system.

The point is that very little is truly original. Every "new" invention builds on what has come before. Some new facet or idea is added to the heap of existing knowledge and we all go, "Wow!" Most of the time multiple people are developing the same ideas at the same time.

Imagine that automobiles had just been invented. And one guy patented the steering wheel, another the brake, and another the accelerator pedal. Now imagine that they spent most of the time suing each other for using the other's ideas in their products. We'd end up with crappy cars that didn't work very well or weren't very safe because the various companies couldn't incorporate the other's basic features. Pretty much what we have right now with technology applications.

In older days companies were more inclined to license and share their ideas. These days Apple and other "closed shops" jealously guard their treasure hoard in their attempt to wring every last dollar out of them. It is their right, I suppose, but we, the end consumers, end up with crappy tech that never quite fulfills its promise because it's incomplete in some way.

Meanwhile, the patent lawyers buy bigger homes and marry better trophy spouses every year.
The computer mouse as a pointing device is older than Xerox PARC. Big Blue filed the patent in the late forties (1948, I think). And SmallTalk had a brilliant interface. I have often said, I wish Jobs had spent the week there to find out why there were three buttons instead of one on the mouse. Stealing of ideas is nothing new either, Gates is following in the tradition of Edison is using other people's work and brain power combined with a corrupt and ill informed legal system to make one rich -- I do not like either.
to much to read try shorting it next time david
David you summed it up pretty good...I agree with your all boils down to pure "GREED"
+Paweł Prażak Not really true. If you read the comments, you'll see that the reality is that Steve allowed xerox to buy shares in return for a tour of their facilities where he then saw their work. Xerox later tried to sue apple, so clearly xerox didn't expect the work to be stolen.

Also, it seems insane to me that apple fans can defend steve by saying he only SAW their technology and copied it (in other words didn't have the code, and changed it somewhat), but in a later breath accuse android of being a rip off of iOS because google MAY have had a few month advance peak of their OS (not the code) and only changed it a little bit. It just seems apple fans aren't comfortable with the kinds of theft and adaptation of ideas that the rest of the tech world commonly does... including apple.
The US Patent System needs a major overhaul and yes, I miss the old Commodore... that was when computing was actually fun (for the masses)!

Commodore 64
I agree with those saying the system needs a huge overhaul, but lets not excuse apple for being the biggest aggressor in taking advantage of that flawed system. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Microsoft is most guilty of taking advantage of the patent system... especially with them terrorizing the Android OEMs through extortion (demanding royalties on questionable patents)!
Xerox made it, Apple made it usable, Microsoft made it ubiquitous
So, they are both thieves. Pray for the thieves of the Silicon valley.
They were both invited in, and Gates is a persian cat and a monocle away from super-villain.
Lol gossip......... Hum..
Maybe we should get back to work and discuss something more important, like how to save the environment or how we can better the world for future generations.
Time to ease up on Gates. Like robber barons of old, Bill has mostly withdrawn from day to day operations at Microsoft and is busy giving his fortune away. He's actually doing a lot of good these days.
So why is every quote embedded in an image lately? Things more profound when they have some formatting and a different background color? These images have been all over facebook for a while, but was hoping G+ would avoid it.
AJ Nix
you say 'save the environment'...I've heard a lot of.. 'the sky is falling crap'... but seen no actual evidence of the 'environment failing'
+Luis Montes Because it makes it stand out and it works, that's why. A simple quote with no background will get lost in the river of posts. And people are naturally drawn to color and pictures. Try it yourself, post a quote with a picture and without and see which develops the longer thread.
Wrong, what we have now with technology patents is a bunch of spoiled brat corporations refusing to pay licences and arguing the point.

You say " It is their right, I suppose, but we, the end consumers, end up with crappy tech that never quite fulfills its promise because it's incomplete in some way. ", as if the right to a 20 year monopoly for your invention/s was somehow unreasonable. That if an invention comes along that improves things so much that the competition looks crappy, competitors should be free to access the invention for the sake of the consumers need for completeness. Bullshit! What you are really saying is you don't believe in Patents at all and that inventions should be freely accessible to all.... anarchy..... screw that..... explain that to the intermittent wiper guy.
Your attitude is the smokescreen these large corporate's hide behind to justify not licensing from inventors and just generally stealing other peoples stuff. It is theft, and the thieves know it. People go to prison for copyright infringement.... why not Patent infringement? Because in copyright infringement its the big guy being stolen from; with Patents its usually the little guy as the victim.
I say, if Apple owns a patent for swipe to unlock, and someone copied it knowing the idea was stolen, (and they did know), then why is there no arrest here? Willful patent infringement is theft, I wonder if people will start to treat it that way? The post after this may be a funny quote, but not if you were Xerox. Shameful.
The text is 186 bytes and searchable. The jpg is 941 times that size. Yay pinterest.
+AJ Nix I think that you have chosen to turn a blind eye to the obvious ...
Saying that these guys stole ideas from each other is ridiculous. Do you think an author of a book invents the words he uses to write it? No, he uses words that are already "invented" by others, and uses similar story arcs with protagonists and antagonists and so on and so forth. Inventing is rarely about making something that is completely new, it's usually about working with things that already exist and making them better (whether that be more affordable, or more features, or more desirable). If you think that Bill Gates simply stole Steve Jobs ideas, then explain to me the current market share despite his late arrival into the market.
+Ryan O'Neill Yes, you're right: Apple bought admission to the Xerox Research Center PARC through a stock deal that appeared to be very lucrative to the narrow-minded Xerox managers on the East Coast. Xerox was allowed to buy 100,000 shares of the Apple start-up company stock before the public offering for a million dollars. In the short term, this deal was worth it: By the time Apple went public a year later, Xerox’s $1 million worth of shares were already worth $17.6 million. But in the long term, Xerox lost the chance to become an industry giant like Microsoft or IBM because the work of their researchers in California had been ignored internally.
This quote is not about piracy or thievery. It is about one Master of innovation, technology, and business admiring the work of another Master of innovation, technology and business.
To think that Xerox actually invented the Windows environment. They did not call it by that name obviously, but the point and click on icons on the screen - the concept that windows is built on - Xerox invented. However, in their opinion at the time, the idea had no potential. Yup, this kind of computing environment was a silly idea they thought.
That's called having the TV, getting it stolen, and not caring. A true example how one man's discard is another man's treasure.
Steve Jobs by Walter Isaaccson
Apple can't steal something they made a deal for (a shrewd deal as it happens). Apple even hired Xerox employees.
Bill Gates "... stolen it and applied patent for the same!".
If only all the Mac history revisionists (fanboys) would gather in the same house...and that house would catch on fire due to all the stupidity.
For Apple is OK to steal, as long as they are the only ones doing it. 
I don't think Steve was a thief. Billy needs to get the phukk out of my house. It is time for him and his covert boy friends to get a life. Leave the fiddle faddle for others more equipped than a burgler to prosecute long terms business efforts. b Rex:) 02
Should check out the TNT classic, Pirates of Silicon Valley. Good movie about both of them.
You guys forgot that MS and Apple worked together on the Macintosh. It was the first graphical UI. 
That was Bill Gates performing the Jedi mind trick on Steve Jobs when Jobs found out about the GUI Microsoft stole from Apple.
They didn't so much steal from each other. They motivated and inspired each other. Facts are facts, however. Steve Jobs pushed his way into a tour into the the secret computer lab know as Xerox Parc in Menlo Park. It was there that he saw the first mouse, an invention of Xerox. And it was there that he saw a computer application running in a desktop window, another invention of Xerox. Bill Gates would like us to believe that he also stole from Xerox and not the MAC OS. Seeing as how Windows came along years later, that is a bit of a stretch.
I lost all respect for Bill Gates after I read that he purposely mislead the IBM team that he was committed to working with jointly on OS/2 in order to have his team work on Windows. He steered the IBM team toward rebuilding OS/2 in 286 Assembler! All with intent to divert resources and win out in the OS wars! Is that strategic brilliance or just plain deceitful business practices? I don't know. We confuse one for the other nowadays and Ethics becomes the name of a course that MBA's take and forget about their first day on the job!
+Michael J Thompson Thats the part of the quote that isn't accurate... Bill probably never knew the neighbor had a television until he saw it at Jobs house.
Intellectual property rights (IPR) are necessary evils. IPR is the only way to capitalize on one's intellect in a monetarized financial system. Our artificial fiat system which ultimately is used to represent all our natural resources (via leverage and inflation) is counter productive as it relates to efficiency, innovation and ethics. In a system that more accurately represents the natural resources available for consumption/utilization (no leverage or inflation) the only way to increase value is to innovate and/or streamline activities as it relates to the use of these resources. In that sort of environment using someone's idea to create a new product or streamline a process would have a positive effect on the whole population. Ironically, all activity would be undertaken with the physical environment in mind as the destruction thereof would effectively shrink the economy. The bankers however would play an equal if not lesser role in determining the state of the union and the world. Our financial masters would never agree to such a thing. 
thanks bill for clearing this out! steve - poorsoul
hey, that's one hell of a quote, I wonder if it's real
I fully admit to being an Apple devotee all my life, it runs in the family, and we had some bad times, when you sounded like a crazy person trying to explain to people the advantages of a system that was no longer innovating the way it once had, and therefore competitors (read: imitators) were catching up.

Truth is, imitating innovation is a fairly solid business strategy, if you have the reach of 90 percent of the market, staying one step behind is pretty good considering the potential costs of innovation. The literal, monetary ones, and most crucially, the chance you could be wrong. You might produce something that isn't ready for the public, or that the public isn't ready for (like Apple's Newton for instance, on both accounts).

The rebirth of Apple has been like a rescue fleet for those of us drifting in the sea of PC hegemony in our special little boats, desperately trying to explain to people that they don't need to tread the briny water, they don't NEED to fight with what was supposed to be a tool of work and creation, an augmentation of our own abilities to help us do what alone would be impossible. iTunes, iPods and all their iterations have given people a glimpse into our world, of intuitive functioning that works the way people work, not the way programmers work.

We could now walk with their heads held high, but what's better is what it has done for everyone who WASN'T always an Apple lover. I just finished Issacson's tremendously fair and beautifully written biography on Steve Jobs, and one of the points that hit me was that since 2000, and the Apple rebirth, PC sales have only wained a paltry 1%, while Apple says have raised 28%, which can only mean that Apple isn't really taking many users from PC, they're bringing in NEW ones, people who didn't own or use computers before now have the advantage of this amazing tool we all so adore.

Point is, and perhaps Mr. Jobs and we, his acolytes, have been bad at getting this across, it's not about stealing programing code, or even an idea. It's about having a vision for the future and actively pursuing it, for putting products and innovation first. When you take all the risks, those riding on your back can be frustrating, especially when they get bigger than you, but it is difficult to argue with the results. Apple, a company run in many ways contrary to what most American companies consider business fundamentals, is now at the top of the world.

Something to consider as we try to find a way out of this economic mess built in no small part by American companies following "business fundamentals" right down the drain.

Products first, the consumers and their hard earned dollars will come, and you will have gained their trust along the way.
+Nicholas John Bilotta I think that's all good and well, but i think what you're missing is that Apple hasn't had a problem nabbing ideas from here and there. They're no different than any of the other innovative companies. Tech moves so fast as we know. A company invents something, and its the norm almost instantly. Before long, someone else, who has already adapted the conventions, invents something else... that becomes the norm, and it just flourishes. Apple has had no problem benefiting from that system at any point. They do however seem to have a problem with EVERYONE else benefiting from it. I completely appreciate your love of apple and their products and wish you to be able to use them forever no matter who they nabbed the ideas from. I just wish your company would show me the same respect.
Percentage points are not individuals. So, although the PC market is holding, remember that new PC users (you may call them "sheep") are offsetting the numbers who shift to Apple, or are getting on Linux, or died. It's good that Mac users are increasing. That shows that there are more people doing graphics and other Mac-friendly things with computers. And art is a good thing.
And why Steve Jobs is held in high regard as a visionary.
+Ryan O'Neill I fully agree, I don't think Apple has ever personally invented any tech in-house, just different, innovative ways to use them. The company is designed to work together constantly, designers, engineers, marketing, etc, instead of in isolated pods who's department heads war for favor from the executive level, as is the case in the vast majority of companies, tech or otherwise. I think this has been crucial to their success in the past and their resurgence but constant innovation is at the core of their success, and when it was lacking, their failure.

I am sorry you feel disrespected by Apple as a company, that may be the attitude of it's loyalists, like myself, who I think react the way all nerds do when their niche obsessions become mainstream. Also it is well documented, again, in no better a source than Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs, how emotional and often times irrational Mr. Jobs could be when defending his ideals and products, or frankly, breathing. He was apparently a very black and white guy, people were either heros or shit-heads, and that sort of attitude is bound to disrespect at the very least. Most great visionaries have incredibly frustrating negative personality traits to say the least, I am not sure why that is, perhaps to humanize them and remind us not to hold anyone too high.

Please don't judge the company though, or it's products, because they were designed to be helpful and used by real people, are incredibly powerful and really fun.
Agree that patent sucks... If they were exist in past we will have company "Prometheus" which will have rights all over any use of fire :-)
patent rights have to be keep until they become breaks for the progress. Balance have to be found. GPL 3 is good option. But the way Apple use patent rights looks for me like " devil reads the bible"...
At the moment Apple and Oracle react like patent trolls. The whole entertainment industry too... All this ACTA/PIPA/SOPA bring to my mind years of inquisition, communistic and fascistic propaganda when every idea considered wrong or materials given abroad were burned and peoples involved were killed.
Cute but totally inaccurate and the people that were there knows that more than anyone. Dr. Gary Kildall (President of Digital Research) asked Xerox if it was ok if he could take the concept of the GUI and put it on a OS. They laughed at him and told him how unpractical that was but gave him the thumbs up. He did so and made GEM. Dr. Gary Kildall made the first OS CP/M. He made the first GUI based OS, GEM. Both Atari (GEM/TOS) and Apple (MacOS) paid Digital Research to make their OS. Microsoft just reverse engineered and ripped off as they went. Ironically Billy-Boy Gates doesn't like it when people reverse engineers his stuff. So much so he had special legislation put in the US law (DMCA) that allows Microsoft and all corporations to define what is "fair use" of their products. Which basically allows Ford or GM to suit you if you upgraded your car stereo and they didn't approve of it. Microsoft wanted this because they didn't want anyone to compete with them like how they competed with everyone else when they started.
But anyway, it's amazing how skewered the history books of computers has gotten. Most people don't know who Dr. Gary Kildall is, but he single-handedly invented most of modern computing as we know it today.
Perspective usually is the "missing key".
Not fan of Bill Gates, but so much truth in this sentence... Both of them used Xerox concepts and introduce to world as own inovation
+Jam Bra cause of promotion.. ppl react more and put more intention on picture with alot of color then on pure text:)
My name is donald trump i get a billion every time i take a dump
That statement is very funny.
+Julia Clark maybe that's why Gates gives billions to charity. What did Jobs give??
S Dayal
He who steals LAST, is the Winner !
no the first one is the winner because the first one steals the most valuable stuff.
I fully support copyright and even - to some extent - patent right, but I think the idea of information can be owned (the concept of intellectual property) is an oxymoron and illogical. Imagine this: we read a paragraph of text and then a person came and said the information we glean from the text in our head is theirs and we cannot do anything with that information and even if technology allow he will strap us into a machine to delete that information from our head.

I do support copyright and patent right as a part society contracts of developing the information and contributing it to society, i.e. because the person develop the developing the information and contributing it to society, the society agree to give them exclusive right on the use of the information for certain time, some kind of rewards of the person's service to society. However this should be different than ownership of the information by the person.
Jobs was just a judgemental douche who tried to pick an obscure faith to create a persona geeks/certain people would try to follow and emulate. Unfortunately 'desire' is frowned upon by Buddhism and is a big no-no. Jobs made things to be desired and desired Android to be destroyed. Cancer seems like karma.
+Ryan Lamb let's be honest Jobs was an evil whiny bitch. And did what ever it took to get what he wanted on his terms be it right or wrong. If you think other wise you are viewing him through iGlasses.

I think am excelent example of this is still going strong and shows no end of stopping in the ridiculously stupid patent wars.

The fact that his last act at apple will not be a new iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, or even a new home system is sad, but proves it. The patent war he started will be the last thing he started to be finished.

It wasnt started in the idea of give us credit for our ideas. If that were the case they would be suing for money, not the items to be pulled from shelves. He started this to end any idea of competition. And leave one company standing, and consumers with no options. Which is ironic from a company who once wanted you to think differently. Apparently just by not thinking at all.

I'm not saying other tech giants aren't the same way, but they diva better job of hiding it, or actually understand competition is good for both innovation, and consumers.

Jobs was a great idea guy, and the fact that he saw things others didn't is the only thing that made him the tech idol that he is.

But ultimately its Xeroxs fault for not knowing what they had, the fact that jobs and gates knew instantly what Xerox had but didn't know what value it has is sad, and almost brought down Xerox.
+Shawn Rapp I'm not sure I've heard the same version of history as you. My understanding is that Kildall saw the version of Apple's OS on Lisa, and used it as inspiration to make GEM, which apple sued him for. I'm certainly not stating he didn't go on to work with apple, I have no idea on that, but I don't think that Kildall saw the xerox interface, he saw apple's version after apple's engineers toured Parc and created Lisa's interface based on what they saw. I'm not stating my version as fact, but just my understanding from what I've heard/read.
Not all PC's are windows.
All I have to say is Linux.
Why dont you steal his other tv set? Hes rich anyways.
Hey thatz cool!!!!! & awesome
Stupid haha!!!!! $$$0$0$0$$$0$0$
+Ryan O'Neill actually your right about the order. I just looked up the history from Digital Research. But it seems everyone was inspired by Xerox. Apple had actually made a contract with Xerox. The confusion occurs because Apple suited DR for making it look too much like theirs. In particularly the "trash can." Seems not much has changed with Apple. Still waiting for their lawsuit against god for making a fruit that resembles their logo.
LOL "Still waiting for their lawsuit against god for making a fruit that resembles their logo."
Lets talk about touch interface that ma wanted for the working environment in the late 90s. Steve Jobs said that touch is not the future. But then comes our with the iPhone. 
This quote proves that: without context, quotes are useless and make no sense.
Steve Jobs was a giant self-important pretentious douche. Said Bill never invented anything. Look who's talking. Everything apple has ever done was already done by someone else before them. Bill wrote a programming language from scratch. It's still in widespread use today. Steve was good at putting a pretty package on stuff, and calling it "new."
Lol... I wonder what they where talking about.
If one pisses in the stream, can they call it theft and charge the people down stream for drinking the water or do you charge the person that pissed in the stream?
+Jiggy Kapadia Why you think that the motor car got no patents? And why you do think this is relevant? Patents are not forever, and if we stop one day disney from extending their micky mouse copyright till eternity copyright is not forever.

Times were slower back than when benz and daimler worked on their cars, so maybe its time for shorter duration of patents, like 7 years, so they will not be as problematic for progress as they are now.
404 00:00:00:00:00:00
steev jobs is not the thief. bill gates is the thief. let no man persuade you diff'rent than this
Wrong Rapp,His name was Burn Jobs,as in LSD Steve from crapple.
Well, shoot, he already 'broke into' Intergalactic Digital Research and 'stole' CP/M, breathed on it and sold it to IBM as PC-DOS. I hate Gates. Microsoft is the Evil Empire.
Funny and crazy at the same time! Sad Xerox.
Wish I could have been a part of Silicon Valley during these wild west days. So much awesome in one place!
Add a comment...