And, a Happy Humbug to you, too!
Fleas Navy Dad and Yo new huevo!spellling?
I^@^Ym not familiar with U.S. law but didn^@^Yt Xerox ^@^Xown^@^Y the
patent(s) t$ technology? Again to my knowledge Microsoft and Apple both
^@^Xappropriated^@^Y and/or ^@^Xmisapproriated^@^Y, depending on your
point-of-view, this exact technology!
Xerox took the position that ideas like that were not patentable, and
could not be hoarded for financial gain. It is not clear to me whether
that was a truly altruistic position, or a tacit acknowledgement that it
was resistance is futile.
__
| |
|_/\/\/\/\/\/\_|__
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!
Does commercial-use, read profit, subsume legal rights
eventually in the U.S. and I suppose elsewhere in the capitalist world?
Not OFFICIALLY.
However, those with more money have more and better lawyers.
"Justice is not for sale". But it can be bought.
Given what has happened in the past 45 yrs. or so, and the almost equal
value of Microsoft and Apple(determined by the stock exchange), has the
marketplace prevailed? Have we the consumer benefited the most or more
accurately the 2 richest high-tech, transnational corporations?
Wouldn't it be nice if we, the consumer, would benefit?
Apple, having copied the technology brought legal actions against
Microsoft and Digital Research (GEM). Apple and Microsoft made some
unpublicized deal(s).
Maybe I'm cynical, ("MAYBE??!?")
but I interpret it as "We stole it FIRST" (much like the battles between
the european interests over America).
Xerox did not assert ownership of the ideas.
Analogously, a story from the usual unreliable source:
In 1946, "It's A Wonderful Life" seemed to be a failure at
the box office. In 28 years (the duration of USA copyright in those
days), 1974, it hadn't even broken even, so they didn't bother to renew
the copyright, although they said that that was due to "a paperwork
snafu".
BTW, Disney et al lobbied for extremely extended copyright duration; the
motto of the intellectual property lawyers is "Don't mess with the
mouse!".
When "It's A Wonderful Life" became public domain, independent TV stations
and small networks had a grand opportunity to have something that they
could play without royalties. So, they played it. A LOT. It saturated
the playlists.
The public got used to it, and it became "a Christmas Tradition".
It became the most popular home video of all time (even more than porn)
In 1993, Republic Pictures cited Steward V Abend (SCROTUS 1990), and
re-acquired the sound rights, and re-asserted ownership of the picture!
So, now that the movie was an enormous success, the TV stations HAD to
continue the holiday tradition, but now had to pay royalties!
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
I???m not familiar with U.S. law but didn???t Xerox ???own??? the patent(s) to
GUI
technology? Again to my knowledge Microsoft and Apple both ???appropriated???
and/or ???misapproriated???, depending on your point-of-view, this exact
technology! Does commercial-use, read profit, subsume legal rights
eventually in the U.S. and I suppose elsewhere in the capitalist world?
Given what has happened in the past 45 yrs. or so, and the almost equal
value of Microsoft and Apple(determined by the stock exchange), has the
marketplace prevailed? Have we the consumer benefited the most or more
accurately the 2 richest high-tech, transnational corporations?
Happy computing - and best wishes for a prosperous New Year for all.
Murray ???
