FARK.com: (7421969) Judge: Apple, would you be willing to accept my judgment? Apple: No, not really Judge: Case dismissed, have fun paying Google for each iPhone you make

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Judge: Apple, would you be willing to accept my judgment? Apple: No, not really Judge: Case dismissed, have fun paying Google for each iPhone you make (bloomberg.com)		60
		More: Interesting, Apple Inc., Google, Motorola Mobility, patent portfolio, iPhone

• • •

14203 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Nov 2012 at 12:34 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7421969

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

60 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

ZAZ		2012-11-07 09:31:33 AM

There should be a standard-setting body that oversees standard-setting bodies

We have a body that could oversee them: Congress. Pass a law saying implementation of a standard approved by (list of international standards bodies) does not infringe patents under U.S. law or under any law applied in a U.S. court. Royalty drops to zero, patent lawyers can turn to useful work like collecting cans for deposits.

zedster		2012-11-07 09:46:33 AM

ZAZ: There should be a standard-setting body that oversees standard-setting bodies

We have a body that could oversee them: Congress. Pass a law saying implementation of a standard approved by (list of international standards bodies) does not infringe patents under U.S. law or under any law applied in a U.S. court. Royalty drops to zero, patent lawyers can turn to useful work like collecting cans for deposits.

That is the exact opposite of the point of FRAND
The point of FRAND is to stop companies from each having to create their own proprietary standards as well as prevent a cold war in licensing. Instead the companies agree on the value of a pool of patents each has and trade those pools often agreeing to no monetary cost or very little.

Apple entered a market, cell phones, that had a lot of these gentleman's agreements to prevent legal chaos and allow for standardization. Apple, having only a few wifi patents at the time, had nothing to bring to the table and balked at what the prices were for the FRAND patents and tried to ignore them. They got sued for this and have been trying to make it seem like they are the wronged party. They were the new guy on the block and ignored the ground rules.

Your proposed system would require either:
1) A government body to invalidate patents on ground that the patent is too important to be patented
2) A body of some kind that had the resources to buy out essential patents and open source them or license them back at a lower rate

It would also kill most incentives of FRAND with companies instead going back to being as proprietary as possible resulting in the consumers losing out

RexTalionis		2012-11-07 09:54:56 AM

GAT_00		2012-11-07 10:49:27 AM

Apple just doesn't get that they have to play by the rules.

CygnusDarius		2012-11-07 12:37:53 PM

GAT_00: Apple just doesn't get that they have to play by the rules.

Apple plays by no rules, other than its own.

Problem is, its rules are stupid, inane, and make no sense in the real world.

/This is why I'm a tech merc

DoBeDoBeDo		2012-11-07 12:41:24 PM

Wait they tried to treat a court decision like a bargaining table?

Good call!

KrispyKritter		2012-11-07 01:07:48 PM

Put Judge Judy on these cases, she'll give them what for, let me tell you.

BStorm		2012-11-07 01:15:47 PM

DoBeDoBeDo: Wait they tried to treat a court decision like a bargaining table?

Good call!

I don't even think there was even a firm decision yet.. from what I understand the judge asked "If I set a price that I believe is fair will you (both sides) abide by the judgement?" and Apple effectively told the judge "No, because fark you, that's why".

Theaetetus		2012-11-07 01:25:26 PM

BStorm: DoBeDoBeDo: Wait they tried to treat a court decision like a bargaining table?

Good call!

I don't even think there was even a firm decision yet.. from what I understand the judge asked "If I set a price that I believe is fair will you (both sides) abide by the judgement?" and Apple effectively told the judge "No, because fark you, that's why".

Sort of... Basically, Apple said "if we disagree with your judgement, we reserve the right to appeal," so the judge said, "then there's really no point in trying to mediate this, no?"

Herbie555		2012-11-07 01:25:40 PM

BStorm: I don't even think there was even a firm decision yet.. from what I understand the judge asked "If I set a price that I believe is fair will you (both sides) abide by the judgement?" and Apple effectively told the judge "No, because fark you, that's why".

Pretty much, except it was more along the lines of "Only if your 'fair price' is less than a $1 per unit, otherwise fark you"...

joeshill		2012-11-07 01:28:24 PM

Groklaw's take is that as a matter of law, the judge is unable to continue to trial. The courts are not the place for advisory opinions. Unless a dispute can be settled through court order that the parties will abide by, then the decision of the court is only advisory. Since the court cannot advise, only decide, it's only option is to dismiss the case for lack of a remedy under the law.

gingerjet		2012-11-07 01:31:15 PM

GAT_00: Apple just doesn't get that they have to play by the rules.

Ah ... what rules would those be exactly?

/I look forward to your expert insight on patent law and its impact on the mobility industry

bingethinker		2012-11-07 01:43:03 PM

If the judge had given them a possible range of what the settlement would be, they might have gone for it. Leaving it wide open was too risky, given how many "impartial" judges have turned out to be brainwashed iHaters or paid puppets.

Smackledorfer		2012-11-07 01:43:36 PM

Eh screw apple. Apple complaining about unreasonable pricing of anything makes me laugh.

zedster		2012-11-07 02:01:36 PM

BStorm		2012-11-07 02:02:02 PM

bingethinker: If the judge had given them a possible range of what the settlement would be, they might have gone for it. Leaving it wide open was too risky, given how many "impartial" judges have turned out to be brainwashed iHaters or paid puppets.

It's not the judge's job to bargain with the parties like they're at a swap meet, it's her job to make a decision. Apple made clear that they wouldn't agree to any decision unless the judge essentially caved in to their demands, and in light of that the judge decided that there was no point in wasting her time.

DoBeDoBeDo		2012-11-07 02:39:37 PM

BStorm: DoBeDoBeDo: Wait they tried to treat a court decision like a bargaining table?

Good call!

I don't even think there was even a firm decision yet.. from what I understand the judge asked "If I set a price that I believe is fair will you (both sides) abide by the judgement?" and Apple effectively told the judge "No, because fark you, that's why".

That's what I'm saying they played chicken with a judge. It's not a deal where you can request a price or you walk away. You aren't walking away you're going to just have to take whatever ass reaming the other guy demands.

Theaetetus		2012-11-07 03:16:31 PM

BStorm: bingethinker: If the judge had given them a possible range of what the settlement would be, they might have gone for it. Leaving it wide open was too risky, given how many "impartial" judges have turned out to be brainwashed iHaters or paid puppets.

It's not the judge's job to bargain with the parties like they're at a swap meet, it's her job to make a decision. Apple made clear that they wouldn't agree to any decision unless the judge essentially caved in to their demands, and in light of that the judge decided that there was no point in wasting her time.

Or, without the hyperbole, Apple wasn't willing to agree to an open-ended settlement that was entirely at the judge's discretion, and said that if it exceeded a predetermined level, they'd appeal. The judge wasn't willing to agree to a boundary on her discretion, and said "fine, take your dispute elsewhere".

Walker		2012-11-07 03:17:54 PM

joeshill		2012-11-07 03:25:39 PM

Theaetetus: Or, without the hyperbole, Apple wasn't willing to agree to an open-ended settlement that was entirely at the judge's discretion, and said that if it exceeded a predetermined level, they'd appeal. The judge wasn't willing to agree to a boundary on her discretion, and said "fine, take your dispute elsewhere".

I'd be more willing to buy that argument if it weren't for the fact that Apple was the originator of the lawsuit. They filed suit preemptively hoping to use the legal system to force Motorola into the terms that Apple wanted. Apple picked the venue to sue in so as to maximize their chances for a favorable judge (and even favorable set of local rules and precedents).

After preemptively filing suit. After picking the venue to sue in. They then found the local system less favorable than they wanted, and declared during final pretrial motions that if they didn't get a ruling that they wanted they intended to use every appeal possible to avoid implementation of the ruling. Which set of alarms to the judge that what Apple wanted was not so much a trial and ruling, but an advisory ruling to use as a bargaining chip for which they could still force favorable terms from Motorola.

To this, the judge ruled that it was unable to continue - dismissing the case with prejudice.

Theaetetus		2012-11-07 03:30:45 PM

joeshill: Theaetetus: Or, without the hyperbole, Apple wasn't willing to agree to an open-ended settlement that was entirely at the judge's discretion, and said that if it exceeded a predetermined level, they'd appeal. The judge wasn't willing to agree to a boundary on her discretion, and said "fine, take your dispute elsewhere".

I'd be more willing to buy that argument if it weren't for the fact that Apple was the originator of the lawsuit.

Which argument? I was just restating the facts without the bit about demanding the judge "cave".

They filed suit preemptively hoping to use the legal system to force Motorola into the terms that Apple wanted. Apple picked the venue to sue in so as to maximize their chances for a favorable judge (and even favorable set of local rules and precedents).

After preemptively filing suit. After picking the venue to sue in. They then found the local system less favorable than they wanted, and declared during final pretrial motions that if they didn't get a ruling that they wanted they intended to use every appeal possible to avoid implementation of the ruling. Which set of alarms to the judge that what Apple wanted was not so much a trial and ruling, but an advisory ruling to use as a bargaining chip for which they could still force favorable terms from Motorola.

To this, the judge ruled that it was unable to continue - dismissing the case with prejudice.

Yes, and? Are you implying that plaintiffs shouldn't have a right to appeal adverse decisions?

Also, it wasn't "preemptive" - the dispute already exists. It was prior to the infringement/invalidity trial, but not really preemptive in any way. In fact, if this resolved things, then the infringement/invalidity trial would be moot and everyone could save money and not pay lawyers more. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?

fluffy2097		2012-11-07 03:41:58 PM

I love it.

Apple is going to be bankrupt in a few years.

They're going to piss off every judge on the planet so much they won't be able to sell their products anywhere.

If their hardware manufacturers don't simply decide to stop selling them components.

It's kind of silly to sell people hardware when they're just going to sue you for doing them a gigantic farking favor.

joeshill		2012-11-07 03:48:18 PM

Theaetetus: joeshill: Theaetetus: Or, without the hyperbole, Apple wasn't willing to agree to an open-ended settlement that was entirely at the judge's discretion, and said that if it exceeded a predetermined level, they'd appeal. The judge wasn't willing to agree to a boundary on her discretion, and said "fine, take your dispute elsewhere".

I'd be more willing to buy that argument if it weren't for the fact that Apple was the originator of the lawsuit.

Which argument? I was just restating the facts without the bit about demanding the judge "cave".

They filed suit preemptively hoping to use the legal system to force Motorola into the terms that Apple wanted. Apple picked the venue to sue in so as to maximize their chances for a favorable judge (and even favorable set of local rules and precedents).

After preemptively filing suit. After picking the venue to sue in. They then found the local system less favorable than they wanted, and declared during final pretrial motions that if they didn't get a ruling that they wanted they intended to use every appeal possible to avoid implementation of the ruling. Which set of alarms to the judge that what Apple wanted was not so much a trial and ruling, but an advisory ruling to use as a bargaining chip for which they could still force favorable terms from Motorola.

To this, the judge ruled that it was unable to continue - dismissing the case with prejudice.

Yes, and? Are you implying that plaintiffs shouldn't have a right to appeal adverse decisions?

Also, it wasn't "preemptive" - the dispute already exists. It was prior to the infringement/invalidity trial, but not really preemptive in any way. In fact, if this resolved things, then the infringement/invalidity trial would be moot and everyone could save money and not pay lawyers more. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?

Theaetetus: joeshill: Theaetetus: Or, without the hyperbole, Apple wasn't willing to agree to an open-ended settlement that was entirely at the judge's discretion, and said that if it exceeded a predetermined level, they'd appeal. The judge wasn't willing to agree to a boundary on her discretion, and said "fine, take your dispute elsewhere".

I'd be more willing to buy that argument if it weren't for the fact that Apple was the originator of the lawsuit.

Which argument? I was just restating the facts without the bit about demanding the judge "cave".

They filed suit preemptively hoping to use the legal system to force Motorola into the terms that Apple wanted. Apple picked the venue to sue in so as to maximize their chances for a favorable judge (and even favorable set of local rules and precedents).

After preemptively filing suit. After picking the venue to sue in. They then found the local system less favorable than they wanted, and declared during final pretrial motions that if they didn't get a ruling that they wanted they intended to use every appeal possible to avoid implementation of the ruling. Which set of alarms to the judge that what Apple wanted was not so much a trial and ruling, but an advisory ruling to use as a bargaining chip for which they could still force favorable terms from Motorola.

To this, the judge ruled that it was unable to continue - dismissing the case with prejudice.

Yes, and? Are you implying that plaintiffs shouldn't have a right to appeal adverse decisions?

Also, it wasn't "preemptive" - the dispute already exists. It was prior to the infringement/invalidity trial, but not really preemptive in any way. In fact, if this resolved things, then the infringement/invalidity trial would be moot and everyone could save money and not pay lawyers more. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?

Well, it kinda was preemptive, as far as things went.

Motorola had not filed a patent infringement suit against Apple.

Motorola had made a licensing offer which Apple rejected.

Apple had not submitted a counteroffer of any kind before filing suit.

Apple had not gone through any of the ETSI complaint mechanisms afforded FRAND licensees before filing suit.

mltain		2012-11-07 04:01:45 PM

2.25% per unit is too damn high, says the company that charges 30%!

rpm		2012-11-07 04:03:12 PM

fluffy2097: Apple is going to be bankrupt in a few years.

Really? They're sitting on more cash than most countries.

TheAnvil		2012-11-07 04:08:11 PM

fluffy2097: If their hardware manufacturers don't simply decide to stop selling them components.

It's kind of silly to sell people hardware when they're just going to sue you for doing them a gigantic farking favor.

These companies make mega millions by selling these components to Apple. They're not doing to be charitable saps.

These lawsuits are daily routine. It's just business, it's nothing personal, Sonny, even if the Corleone family don't even have that kind of muscle anymore, since the Godfather died from pancreatic cancer.

Everyone Sucks But Me		2012-11-07 04:29:33 PM

GAT_00: Apple just doesn't get that they have to play by the rules.

headcase.ie

"Heh, that's about as unlikely as me playing by someone else's rules besides my own, which I would never do. I play by my own rules, nobody else's, not even my own."

Babwa Wawa		2012-11-07 04:38:54 PM

bingethinker: brainwashed iHaters or paid puppets.

Really? So "paid shills" and "MS/Linux/Google fanbois" don't just lurk on internet forums, they sit go to law school, establish themselves with a decades long legal career in the hopes that they get to pass judgement on Apple?

I think I understand your mindset now.

Teufelaffe		2012-11-07 04:56:15 PM

Between the election and this, I am riding a major schadenfreude high right now.

justtray		2012-11-07 05:16:48 PM

Except that's not what happened, but this is Fark and an Apple thread, so there's really no point arguing with hipster haters who insist Apple products suck and their company will go out of business. You just let them continually be on the wrong side of history.

Tickle Mittens		2012-11-07 05:29:37 PM

mltain: 2.25% per unit is too damn high, says the company that charges 30%!

Eh, for fundemental stuff like a FAT file system that Microsoft had a number of patents around M$ charged 25c or something like that per device which Slashdot considered outragious once upon a time. I don't think google really wants to go to war with Microsoft over this since they've got fundemental computer science patents out the ass on everything, all the protons in the universe will decay before a court manages to sort that mess out.

fang06554		2012-11-07 05:52:11 PM

Tickle Mittens: mltain: 2.25% per unit is too damn high, says the company that charges 30%!

Eh, for fundemental stuff like a FAT file system that Microsoft had a number of patents around M$ charged 25c or something like that per device which Slashdot considered outragious once upon a time. I don't think google really wants to go to war with Microsoft over this since they've got fundemental computer science patents out the ass on everything, all the protons in the universe will decay before a court manages to sort that mess out.

Isn't MS currently charging like $5 / phone to various handset manufacturers for those patents?

fluffy2097		2012-11-07 05:53:12 PM

TheAnvil: These lawsuits are daily routine. It's just business, it's nothing personal, Sonny, even if the Corleone family don't even have that kind of muscle anymore, since the Godfather died from pancreatic cancer.

Contract disputes are much different from lawsuits that will result in the banning of products being sold in major world market.

If it was just business it would be handled by the lawyers outside of court.

Tickle Mittens		2012-11-07 06:10:52 PM

fang06554: Tickle Mittens: mltain: 2.25% per unit is too damn high, says the company that charges 30%!

Eh, for fundemental stuff like a FAT file system that Microsoft had a number of patents around M$ charged 25c or something like that per device which Slashdot considered outragious once upon a time. I don't think google really wants to go to war with Microsoft over this since they've got fundemental computer science patents out the ass on everything, all the protons in the universe will decay before a court manages to sort that mess out.

Isn't MS currently charging like $5 / phone to various handset manufacturers for those patents?

I think that covers the entire suite of patents and indemnification from a lawsuit like google's via motorola. Sort of like how the UK leases nuclear weapons from the US. No matter how it starts, everyone dies at the end.

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat		2012-11-07 06:49:37 PM

justtray: Except that's not what happened, but this is Fark and an Apple thread, so there's really no point arguing with hipster haters who insist Apple products suck and their company will go out of business. You just let them continually be on the wrong side of history.

Translation: "My reading comprehension ranks somewhere below that of a pygmy goat. However, I've bought into the cult of Apple, so I refuse to accept reality and will instead insist that any criticism of my Lord and Saviour Apple Inc. is just 'hipster haters' (which adds an extra layer of irony to my post, since hipsters tend to be Apple fans, rather than detractors.)"

Name one thing, other than smugness, that Apple has been truly innovative with. They've never been the first to bring a given technology to market, and they have a long history of failing to adapt even basic features their competitors have until years later. FFS, the only reason Apple even still exists today is because Microsoft gave them a shiat-ton of money in the 90s. But I'm sure you're too busy sucking on Jobs' zombie wang to be aware of any of that.

Theaetetus		2012-11-07 06:57:03 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Name one thing, other than smugness, that Apple has been truly innovative with. They've never been the first to bring a given technology to market

Innovative and efficient design and user interfaces. See, e.g. Fitz' Law.

joeshill		2012-11-07 07:01:42 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: justtray:

Name one thing, other than smugness, that Apple has been truly innovative with. They've never been the first to bring a given technology to market, and they have a long history of failing to adapt even basic features their competitors have until years later. FFS, the only reason Apple even still exists today is because Microsoft gave them a shiat-ton of money in the 90s. But I'm sure you're too busy sucking on Jobs' zombie wang to be aware of any of that.

Key Apple Innovations:

The Lisa - not to be confused with the Xerox STAR system
The Newton - not to be confused with the Psion Organizer
Mac OS X - not to be confused with NEXT
The iPhone - not to be confused with the Prada LG Phone

Derigiberble		2012-11-07 07:05:12 PM

Theaetetus:
Yes, and? Are you implying that plaintiffs shouldn't have a right to appeal adverse decisions?

Also, it wasn't "preemptive" - the dispute already exists. It was prior to the infringement/invalidity trial, but not really preemptive in any way. In fact, if this resolved things, then the infringement/invalidity trial would be moot and everyone could save money and not pay lawyers more. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?

You are missing a bit of a key bit here, Apple wasn't talking about appeal. Apple was asking the court to force Motorola to set a FRAND license price for the patents. The court asked "If we determine a FRAND price, will Apple be obligated to license it at that price?" Apple responded "Nope! But if it is less than $1 per unit we probably will take that." The Judge rightfully came to the conclusion that the case was worthless unless the results were binding on both parties and thus solved the dispute, thought that Apple had started the case in bad faith (as they were unwilling to be bound by the court's future ruling), and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Simply put Apple's position was that they didn't even have to appeal if they didn't like the price; they instead could just walk away.

HeartBurnKid		2012-11-07 07:18:57 PM

TheAnvil: fluffy2097: If their hardware manufacturers don't simply decide to stop selling them components.

It's kind of silly to sell people hardware when they're just going to sue you for doing them a gigantic farking favor.

These companies make mega millions by selling these components to Apple. They're not doing to be charitable saps.

These lawsuits are daily routine. It's just business, it's nothing personal, Sonny, even if the Corleone family don't even have that kind of muscle anymore, since the Godfather died from pancreatic cancer.

Samsung already decided not to sell them LCD panels. Which is why they're relying on Sharp as a supplier for the iPhone 5. Sharp, who's teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

Theaetetus		2012-11-07 07:20:31 PM

Derigiberble: Theaetetus:
Yes, and? Are you implying that plaintiffs shouldn't have a right to appeal adverse decisions?

Also, it wasn't "preemptive" - the dispute already exists. It was prior to the infringement/invalidity trial, but not really preemptive in any way. In fact, if this resolved things, then the infringement/invalidity trial would be moot and everyone could save money and not pay lawyers more. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?

You are missing a bit of a key bit here, Apple wasn't talking about appeal. Apple was asking the court to force Motorola to set a FRAND license price for the patents. The court asked "If we determine a FRAND price, will Apple be obligated to license it at that price?" Apple responded "Nope! But if it is less than $1 per unit we probably will take that." The Judge rightfully came to the conclusion that the case was worthless unless the results were binding on both parties and thus solved the dispute, thought that Apple had started the case in bad faith (as they were unwilling to be bound by the court's future ruling), and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Simply put Apple's position was that they didn't even have to appeal if they didn't like the price; they instead could just walk away.

No, sorry, that's just false. Apple's explicit statement was:
"Motorola cannot offer evidence at this trial that the rate should be higher than $1 per phone, but to the extent the Court sets the rate higher than $1 per unit, Apple reserves the right to exhaust all appeals,"

You're correct that the judge concluded the case was worthless if the results weren't binding on the parties, but this has nothing to do with bad faith, and dismissing a case with prejudice does not mean that it was brought with bad faith - it merely means the case cannot be refiled. Simply, Apple wanted a court judgement of a royalty determination, and Motorola and the court wanted to do non-appealable binding arbitration. I think the court made the right decision to drop the case, and I also think Apple made the right decision to walk away from a proverbial black box.

HeartBurnKid		2012-11-07 07:22:43 PM

bingethinker: If the judge had given them a possible range of what the settlement would be, they might have gone for it. Leaving it wide open was too risky, given how many "impartial" judges have turned out to be brainwashed iHaters or paid puppets.

It is not Apple's place to determine whether a judgment imposed by the legal system is fair or not. The judge refused to be party to a farce in which a corporation declared themselves above the government of the United States -- good for him.

And please, if you have any evidence of judges being "paid puppets" as you state, come forward. Bribing a judge is illegal, for both the briber and the bribee.

Tourney3p0		2012-11-07 07:33:20 PM

bingethinker has been extra derpy since his majesty died.

Theaetetus		2012-11-07 07:39:27 PM

HeartBurnKid: It is not Apple's place to determine whether a judgment imposed by the legal system is fair or not.

It's also not usually a district court's place to determine whether its judgment is appeal-proof, y'know. ;)

Gordon Bennett		2012-11-07 08:39:16 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Name one thing, other than smugness, that Apple has been truly innovative with.

Hypercard. Hypercard was brilliant in its time. With the included tools and a bit of scripting you could create interactive media. There are stacks on all sorts of subjects. Educational stacks, games, applications and more. It was the first manifestation of what would come later with the Web and it was fantastic.

I'm not sure if Hypercard started on the Mac or on the IIGS. The IIGS also had scalable fonts and CD-ROM support quite early on, possibly before anything else on the market. And it had the mouse plug in through the keyboard. Oh, and I belive the Apple II was the first microcomputer with a colour display. It definitely had Steve Wozniak's new, cheap and efficient floppy disk access hardware.

There were a number of fresh ideas around the Apple II.

rthanu		2012-11-07 08:49:44 PM

Tourney3p0: bingethinker has been extra derpy since his majesty died.

He's just another troll that drops one post to try and stir the pot, then is not seen again until the next apple thread. Not sure why people respond to him. I guess he's the lunatic to theaetetus' straight man.

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat		2012-11-07 08:56:00 PM

Gordon Bennett: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Name one thing, other than smugness, that Apple has been truly innovative with.

Hypercard. Hypercard was brilliant in its time. With the included tools and a bit of scripting you could create interactive media. There are stacks on all sorts of subjects. Educational stacks, games, applications and more. It was the first manifestation of what would come later with the Web and it was fantastic.

I'm not sure if Hypercard started on the Mac or on the IIGS. The IIGS also had scalable fonts and CD-ROM support quite early on, possibly before anything else on the market. And it had the mouse plug in through the keyboard. Oh, and I belive the Apple II was the first microcomputer with a colour display. It definitely had Steve Wozniak's new, cheap and efficient floppy disk access hardware.

There were a number of fresh ideas around the Apple II.

You know what, I had forgotten about Hypercard. I stand corrected, Apple was innovative...30 years ago.

joeshill		2012-11-07 08:56:21 PM

Gordon Bennett: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Name one thing, other than smugness, that Apple has been truly innovative with.

Hypercard. Hypercard was brilliant in its time. With the included tools and a bit of scripting you could create interactive media. There are stacks on all sorts of subjects. Educational stacks, games, applications and more. It was the first manifestation of what would come later with the Web and it was fantastic.

I'm not sure if Hypercard started on the Mac or on the IIGS. The IIGS also had scalable fonts and CD-ROM support quite early on, possibly before anything else on the market. And it had the mouse plug in through the keyboard. Oh, and I belive the Apple II was the first microcomputer with a colour display. It definitely had Steve Wozniak's new, cheap and efficient floppy disk access hardware.

There were a number of fresh ideas around the Apple II.

Xerox PARC - Notecards

But even that was second generation, as the hypertext concept dates back into the 1970's (or even to the 1940's depending on the references).

GhostFish		2012-11-07 10:02:18 PM

This is like the Judgment of Solomon.
Except Solomon isn't suggesting that the baby be cut in half.
Instead, the two women are tearing the baby in half with their bare hands.

So maybe it's not like the Judgment of Solomon after all.

joeshill		2012-11-07 10:22:57 PM

GhostFish: This is like the Judgment of Solomon.
Except Solomon isn't suggesting that the baby be cut in half.
Instead, the two women are tearing the baby in half with their bare hands.

So maybe it's not like the Judgment of Solomon after all.

Apple: That is my baby!!!
Motorola: Actually, it's my baby. Here's the birth certificate. And the hospital photos. And the birth announcement.
Judge: Will you accept my judgement?
Motorola: Yes
Apple: Only if you say it's my baby!!!

starsrift		2012-11-08 01:23:36 AM

Bahahaha.

Apple, if the "technology is only worth $1 per phone", then drop the price of your phones by $1 and the feature. If you are correct, the market will prove you right.

Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.