| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Apple vs. DRI: the other look-and-feel lawsuit |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-08-30 17:43:01 |
| We all know about Apple's look-and-feel lawsuit against Microsoft over Windows 2.0, but this wasn't the only look-and-feel lawsuit Apple filed during those years. Digital Research, Inc., the company behind GEM, also found itself on the pointy end of Apple's needle. Unlike the lawsuit against Microsoft, though, Apple managed to 'win' the one against DRI. |
|
| RE: More irony (though more loosely related) |
| By BallmerKnowsBest on 2012-08-31 18:38:37 |
|
> (but it being a mistake seemingly didn't stop the PR machine, the cult, like with the ridiculous campaign of "PowerPC 'supercomputer on a chip' G4" based on a few hand-picked SIMD benchmarks) Ah yes, the "G4 is supercomputer" BS - which was based solely on some outdated US export restrictions, which considered CPUs to be supercomputers if they exceeded a certain number of Gflops. By the same absurd standards, the PS2 was also considered a super computer: http://arstechnica.com/civis/vie... For most technology companies, something that would be one of their most shameful moments. But Apple? I'm not even sure that would make the top 10 in Apple marketing hall-of-shame. After all, this is the same company that tried to make random playback sound like an amazing new feature, when the 1st-gen iPod shuffle came out: http://web.archive.org/web/20050... (WARNING: may cause adverse reaction for those with severe allergies to bullshit) Or there was the time that they tried to associate themselves with George Harrison, in a cynical attempt to cash-in on his death: http://web.archive.org/web/20011... |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE: More irony (though more loosely related) |
| By kovacm on 2012-08-31 18:47:10 |
|
> Icing on the cake: the CEO under which the costly m68k -> PowerPC migration happened, admitted that this was a mistake, that Apple should have went with Intel back then already... Apple could not use intel chips before 2006. simple reason: Mac OS was not CPU agnostic. Mac OS X was. (but it came 5 years later.) ...beside fact that Intel only match SIMD part of Motorola/Apple (4 years old) AltiVec with SSE2... ;) that is called "piece of crap" - Apple did use AltiVec to speed up Composite Desktop in early 2000s while Microsoft made Composite Desktop in 2006. and it require DirectX 9 GPU... lol! |
| - Score: 0 |
| RE[4]: dear Thom |
| By Jaktar on 2012-08-31 22:48:17 |
|
Keep up the great work Thom. People want to be reassured that they "made the right choice". A lot of marketing is aimed at giving you a psychological boost directly to the emotional side of your brain to evoke strong emotions. By writing the facts, you can drive a wedge between reality and the fantasy world that has been marketed to people. At the end of the day, the facts are still the facts. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by kovacm |
| By Johann Chua on 2012-09-01 04:47:23 |
| Dude, could you at least come up with different titles if you're going to spam the comments with multiple threads? |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by kovacm |
| By steampoweredlawn on 2012-09-01 09:51:27 |
| Are you drunk? |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[2]: More irony (though more loosely related) |
| By Johann Chua on 2012-09-01 10:31:26 |
| You do know that classic Mac OS switched from 680x0 chips to PowerPC, right? |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: I agree |
| By phoudoin on 2012-09-01 13:32:54 |
|
These global trading days, *praise* are exprimed in a world-wide common unit, called money. And IIRC, Apple get a lot. Maybe it's not enough, but for me it's far enough and *should* be enough. I'm not ready to move from a consumer to a believer. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: More irony (though more loosely related) |
| By Soulbender on 2012-09-01 13:53:25 |
|
> http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle... haha! I remember that. I also remember my first thought: what, the standard ipod can't?? For real??? |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[3]: More irony (though more loosely related) |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-09-01 14:42:46 |
| It can. |
| - Score: 2 |
| This is U.S. Business |
| By Jordan on 2012-09-01 16:43:01 |
|
Corporations exist to create profit. If Apple sees a competitive threat to its future profits then it is going to use whatever means available (that it can get away with) to block it. Apples behavior as a business entity is the result of the broken patent law, and the complicity of its customers. People who buy Apple products either don't care about or don't believe in the potential damage that their business practices may cause in the long term. Apple has an incredible PR machine which will spin a story to ensure continued complicity in its customers (and anyone else willing to listen) of its vision of the industry. I am glad to see Thom writing articles like this to provide some push back to that PR machine. He is certainly not alone in his beliefs or in doing this. It is also interesting to see these patent issues being portrayed in terms of "stealing" and what is "right" or "wrong". Patent law gives an individual a temporary monopoly granted by the state. It isn't some sort of inalienable right. There is no intrinsic right to control of an idea just because you came up with it. This legal framework was created _SOLELY_ to spur innovation. Rewarding investment through a temporary monopoly was a quick and effective way to do this. To frame a patent violation as theft (as in physical property) is absurd. It is especially absurd given the questionable nature of these patents. The question we need to ask is, "Does this help or hurt innovation?". When it comes to patents on rectangles with rounded corners, I know where I stand. Edited 2012-09-01 16:47 UTC |
| - Score: 1 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |