Would you want to owna product from a company that does buisness like this?

[BlueAbyss]

Originally Posted by Ron99

I suspect they will have another success on their hands. Did you ever use a Newton? I had one years ago. It was a great device but also a bit ahead of its time. If a slightly sleeker newton had debuted around the same time as the palm pilot Apple would probably have killed Palm.

Here's an interesting perspective on Apple vs. the critics:

http://www.theweek.com/article/index..._first_reviews

I played with one years ago, I liked the interface and it's applications. I didn't, however, like the screen on any of the PDAs of the day. I found them all to be difficult to read, and the lack of a light exacerbated the problem.

What I was referring to is exactly that, the possibility that the public won't 'get' the product and it will be pushed aside by the marketplace. I think the iPad might be a winner... though if I personally bought one, I'd have to buy a keyboard to go with it.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by BlueAbyss

just like back in the day when Microsoft went for Apple's jugular, and Apple fought back. Stuff like this between tech companies happens, it's just the way it goes (and hopefully, we the consumer eventually benefit). Let's just all try to remember that we are the consumers... spend your cash wisely.

.

um, that was Apple that went after Microsoft.. microsoft fought back with all of Hells fury and wone. that when apple tried to destroy Microsoft over windows. not xp but version 1 Apple almost was eliminated and lost a lot of there momentum back then over there lawsuit against microsoft. If they never would have launched that they would probably be just as big as MS now.

Steve

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

um, that was Apple that went after Microsoft.. microsoft fought back with all of Hells fury and wone. that when apple tried to destroy Microsoft over windows. not xp but version 1 Apple almost was eliminated and lost a lot of there momentum back then over there lawsuit against microsoft. If they never would have launched that they would probably be just as big as MS now.

Steve

You have a very shallow understanding of what happened.

Apple filed suit over the changes introduced in Windows 2.0, the elements used in Windows 1.0 were licensed from Apple but didn't extend to overlapping windows. Apple also went after HP and some others at the same time for similar reasons and won. Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds during this period but for some reason they never sued MS. Microsoft did hire some of the staff from Xerox PARC so maybe they took some patents with them or something, that was how they defended the Apple lawsuit at least.

This was about the same time MS started to play footsie with IBM in the OS/2 project though so it could be that IBM offered them some additional cross license protection from their portfolio. The OS/2 partnership may have also been Apple's target all along as well, soon after MS pulled out of OS/2 for the Chicago / NT strategy Apple started working with IBM on Taligent. What killed Apple's momentum during this period were the successive failures of the Taligent and Copeland projects, and the relative success of MS' Chicago (win95). These lawsuits are not even a blip.

I don't know why you hate Apple so much now but unless your understanding of the current situation is much better than understanding of the past you may want to reconsider. Good lord, look at how much money Microsoft gave to those scumbags at SCO so they could go after linux, that makes Apple look saintly in comparison.

[StirCrazy]

actualy I was worng on the version number it was two not one..

"Without warning, Apple filed suit against Microsoft in federal court on March 17, 1988 for violating Apple's copyrights on the "visual displays" of the Macintosh. (Apple also filed suit against HP for its NewWave environment that ran on top of Windows 2.0.)
Apple's suit included 189 contested visual displays that Apple believed violated its copyright.
Microsoft countersued, but it failed to stem the bad publicity. Windows' development community was terrified that any court ordered changes to the software would render their products incompatible and make Windows undesirable to consumers. Borland's CEO said it was like "waking up and finding out that your partner might have AIDS."
Fortunately for Windows developers, Judge W. Schwarzer ruled on July 25, 1989, that 179 of the 189 disputed displays were covered by the existing license, and most of the other ten were not violations of Apple's copyright due to the merger doctrine (the merger doctrine stipulates that ideas cannot be copyrighted). In the case of Apple vs. Microsoft, many of the displays Apple contested were ideas and could not be protected by copyright.
The lawsuit was decided in Microsoft's favor on August 24, 1993."

certionaly looks like they launched a lawsuit against MS to me.

in fact if MS wounldn't have given money to Apple in 97, there might not be a apple. but like anything else... MS needs compatition or they are declaired a monopoly so it was in there best interest to keep Apple floating. just like the comercials they let apple run.

"The lawsuit single-handedly tainted Microsoft-Apple relations until 1997, when Microsoft pumped $100 million into Apple.
The 1985 agreement hurt Sculley almost as much as the judgment did. Mac users everywhere were shocked that the Apple CEO would give Microsoft unfettered access to the Macintosh interface in exchange for Excel and Word.
Apple appealed the ruling and made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case"


Steve

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

certionaly looks like they launched a lawsuit against MS to me.

I never said they didn't, I said the details you posted were incorrect.

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

in fact if MS wounldn't have given money to Apple in 97, there might not be a apple. but like anything else... MS needs compatition or they are declaired a monopoly so it was in there best interest to keep Apple floating. just like the comercials they let apple run.

That's a pretty common interpretation and a deeply flawed one. There is no way Microsoft could defend a charge of being a monopoly by highlighting Apple, they owned 100 Million in preferred stock! Pointing out that you own a big chunk of your strongest competition would NOT help.

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

"The lawsuit single-handedly tainted Microsoft-Apple relations until 1997, when Microsoft pumped $100 million into Apple.
The 1985 agreement hurt Sculley almost as much as the judgment did. Mac users everywhere were shocked that the Apple CEO would give Microsoft unfettered access to the Macintosh interface in exchange for Excel and Word.
Apple appealed the ruling and made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case"

I'd respectfully suggest you link to wikipedia entries in the future rather than do the copy / paste thing, even if you do use quotes. The only obvious indication of the transition is the lack of spelling mistakes.