License what?????????? You cannot license an "idea" just like you cannot copyright an idea.
That is why Xerox lost its case (sorry I cannot see how it is not a lost) http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm ============================== No Basis Seen for Suit Apple, which is based in Cupertino, Calif., said in its motion for dismissal that Xerox had no basis for its suit because Apple was merely asserting its own copyrights and not threatening Xerox's copyrights on the Star. Apple also replied that while it might have borrowed ideas from Xerox, ideas were not protected by copyrights, only the way the ideas were expressed. Mr. Brown, Apple's attorney, said at the hearing that Xerox's asserting that it had originated the Macintosh was as preposterous as a beaver taking credit for the Hoover Dam. Judge Walker dismissed two counts relating to Xerox's efforts to get Apple's copyright declared invalid, apparently agreeing with Apple that the proper place for such an action would be the Copyright Office, not the courts ============================== the same reason why Apple lost its case against Microsoft http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/35/35.F3d.1435.93-16883.93-16869.93-16867.html ============================== It is not easy to distinguish expression from ideas, particularly in a new medium. However, it must be done, as the district court did in this case. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 25 L.Ed. 841 (1879).11<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/35/35.F3d.1435.93-16883.93-16869.93-16867.html#fn11> As we recognized long ago in the case of competing jeweled bee pins, similarities derived from the use of common ideas cannot be protected; otherwise, the first to come up with an idea will corner the market. Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir.1971). Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor which concededly came from Xerox. It can, and did, put those ideas together creatively with animation, overlapping windows, and well-designed icons; but it licensed the visual displays which resulted. ============================== We should know that the Apple's implementation of GUI is very different to what they saw in Xerox PARC http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=2 ============================== Xerox PARC’s innovation had been to replace the traditional computer command line with onscreen icons. But when you clicked on an icon you got a pop-up menu: this was the intermediary between the user’s intention and the computer’s response. Jobs’s software team took the graphical interface a giant step further. It emphasized “direct manipulation.” If you wanted to make a window bigger, you just pulled on its corner and made it bigger; if you wanted to move a window across the screen, you just grabbed it and moved it. The Apple designers also invented the menu bar, the pull-down menu, and the trash can—all features that radically simplified the original Xerox PARC idea. ============================== You can hate Apple as much as you want and you have a very good reason to do so. Please just dont use Xerox as an example. On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:50 AM, [email protected] < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> "In return for the right to buy US$1,000,000 of >> pre-IPO<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPO>stock, Xerox granted Apple Computer >> three days access to the PARC >> facilities. After visiting PARC, they came away with new ideas that would >> complete the foundation for Apple Computer's first >> GUI<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUI>computer, the Apple >> Lisa >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa>.[9]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#cite_note-8> >> [10] >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#cite_note-9>[11]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#cite_note-10> >> [12] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#cite_note-11>" > > > Paying for the right to visit is not the same as buying a license to use > what you see. > > And indeed, Xerox ended up suing Apple: > > "In the midst of the *Apple v. Microsoft* lawsuit, > Xerox<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox> also > sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's" > (source<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation> > ). > > > ... > > "Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if *Apple > v. Microsoft*established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then > Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was > dismissed <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)#Adoption_by_Apple>, > for a variety of legal reasons" > > > It's pretty clear how Xerox felt about Apple stealing their ideas. > > -- > Cédric > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
