Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music

Apple Admits iPod Is From 1970s UK 358

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the thats-why-mine-is-filled-with-beegees dept.
MattSparkes writes "Apple has all but admitted that a British man invented the iPod over three decades ago in the 1970s. Unfortunately, he let the patent run out. When another company tried to grab a portion of its iPod profits, though, Apple went running to him to defend them in court. In return, it looks like he's in for a share of the cash generated from the sale of 163 million iPods."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Admits iPod Is From 1970s UK

Comments Filter:
  • by darkmeridian (119044) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [gnauhc.mailliw]> on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:07AM (#24919285) Homepage

    This guy's patents would have expired before the iPod reached the market. It sounds like Apple used the inventor's testimony to establish the prior art in order to invalidate some patentee's claims.

    • by larry bagina (561269) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:11AM (#24919353) Journal
      particularly since the device/patent preceeds every other solid state mp3 player, not just the iPod (which wasn't the "first" by any measure).
    • by alexhs (877055) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:15AM (#24919413) Homepage Journal

      Also from TFA, the patent was simply about a (single song) music player with solid-state storage, which means it's the ancestor of every "MP3 player", not only the iPod, which wasn't the first MP3 player anyway.

      A very bad summary indeed, and a quite bad article to start with.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08, 2008 @11:07AM (#24920131)

        A very bad summary indeed, and a quite bad article to start with.

        You sir, have summed up Slashdot quite well in one sentence.

      • by yyup (1360079) <yyup79 AT hotmail DOT com> on Monday September 08, 2008 @11:25AM (#24920345)
        Yes I agree. Currently almost every 'mp3 player' has the same technical characteristics. In my opinion, the most outstanding part of iPod is not its technology but its design and user interface.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by blitzkrieg3 (995849)
        Pretty bad summary, and the article was short on details. More info here [wikipedia.org].

        Nevertheless, it is interesting to find out that the patent for "digital audio player" is nearly 30 years old.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by lorenlal (164133)

      In fact, the summary isn't right. According to TFA - The dude just got hired as a consultant by Apple. Sounds to me like he's getting some credit.

      It may be overdue, but it's not as bad as the article implies.

  • Not patent-worthy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SolusSD (680489) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:07AM (#24919289) Homepage
    The IPod may have made Apple plenty of money, but the concept isn't revolutionary- its evolutionary. Any person/company could have imagined such a music player. The only thing the world was waiting for was the right technology to make it a reality.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      the iPod wasn't exactly the first mp3 player to be released anyway, just the first successful one

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3_player [wikipedia.org]
      • Re:Not patent-worthy (Score:5, Informative)

        by eln (21727) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:23AM (#24919523) Homepage

        Depends on how you define "success". The Rio players were quite successful well before Apple came along. Apple's was the first (and only, so far) to become a cultural phenomenon, but there was plenty of money being made in the MP3 player market before they got there.

      • According to the linked wikipedia article the Rio PMP300 was the first successful one (the fist portable digital media player was the MPMan F10). I took Apple 3 years to come with the iPod.

      • Not even the first successful mp3 player; Linux Journal had one on the cover (IIRC) a couple of years before the first iPod was launched.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 4D6963 (933028)
      There are cases in which the original idea is everything, the implementation can be done by anyone (i.e. the egg of Columbus). In this case, the idea is obvious, the implementation is the tricky part. That Kramer guy was just the 'first poster', he did what anyone else eventually thought about, only he patented it first.
    • by LWATCDR (28044) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:32AM (#24919677) Homepage Journal

      In the 1970s it sure was.
      What is clearly evolutionary today would have been mind boggling science fiction in the 1970s.
      The cheapest PC you can buy today makes a high end workstation from the 80s look like a toy. In the 70s hard drives might have fit into the trunk of your car. If you had a big car. A megabyte of ram was what you may have in a super computer. The idea of compressing audio and storing gigabytes of data in your pocket?
      Just a little more practical than warp drive.

      In the yearly 80s I was saving up for a Commodore 64. They had just been anounced and I decided that was the computer I really wanted. I got mine in November of 82.
      When I got it my friend that was in college asked me why I got it. He was taking programing and asked. "What will you ever do that takes 64k of memory?"
      So in the 70s yes it very well could have been patent-worthy.

      • by MPAB (1074440) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:52AM (#24919963)

        Wow! You were college friends with Bill Gates?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sootman (158191)

        What is clearly evolutionary today would have been mind boggling science fiction in the 1970s... The idea of compressing audio and storing gigabytes of data in your pocket? Just a little more practical than warp drive.

        Methinks the man doth exaggerate too much. Since Star Trek showed pocket-sized communicators in the 1960s, and pocket-sized portable radios already existed at the time, so I don't think a pocked-sized computer-based music player would have been quite "mind-boggling." ANYONE who had ANYTHING to

    • by John Whitley (6067) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:52AM (#24919959) Homepage

      The IPod may have made Apple plenty of money, but the concept isn't revolutionary- its evolutionary.

      The patentability of any particular innovation is a nuanced matter, but a blanket assessment that any product is "not patent-worthy" because it "isn't revolutionary- [it's] evolutionary" is utterly inane.

      Here's a perspective: The iPod's design was the first digital music player that allowed quick and easy navigation of a large library. A collection of well-thought out design innovations made the iPod and its successors the smash hits they've been. Sure, Apple's had its marketing machine at work. But as Apple's varied market failures have well proven, even they can't sell a lemon.

      By comparison, the contemporary players at the launch of the first iPod largely sucked. Many had UI so bad that you'd have had a hard time finding any of the music whether a few meg of flash or 20GB of music on a lurching laptop-sized drive. Others, the relatively successful ones, simply paled in comparison to the iPods relative simplicity and ease of use. This is the revolution that the iPod has ridden: that the user experience should kick ass, not just be a bunch of marketing bullet-points.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:09AM (#24919319)
    Now we just need the news to break that this man was once employed by The Beatles' label and you will hear the sound of a thousand lawyers climaxing at once.
  • Not just the iPod (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eln (21727) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:09AM (#24919329) Homepage

    TFA suggests the patent was just for a method of storing music on a solid state storage device, which covers any number of MP3 players out there.

    However, the fact that the patent lapsed and others got to use the tech seems to me to be an illustration of how the patent system is supposed to work. Although, the fact that he could have actually extended the patent if he had the money to is a little disturbing. How long can you extend international patents, assuming you keep paying the fees?

    • by jrumney (197329)

      How long can you extend international patents, assuming you keep paying the fees?

      As long as you want to keep paying money to whoever is selling you international patents, plots on the moon and the Brooklyn Bridge.

    • Re:Not just the iPod (Score:5, Informative)

      by Otter (3800) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:26AM (#24919569) Journal
      "Extension" here just means getting the normal 20 year term. He lost his after only nine years.
    • by alexhs (877055)

      the fact that the patent lapsed and others got to use the tech seems to me to be an illustration of how the patent system is supposed to work

      But is it ? I thought the first and foremost intention of patents was to reward inventors ? Only the second intention is to get a public domain pool of technologies when the patent expires.

      One could argue that patents in that case could have prevented the earlier emergence of MP3 players. In that case it's obviously wrong, as the technology wasn't ready yet in 1988 (neither solid state storage capacity nor compression techniques), but it already happened in other cases (like for the airbag IIRC).

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Mr. Slippery (47854)

        I thought the first and foremost intention of patents was to reward inventors ? Only the second intention is to get a public domain pool of technologies when the patent expires.

        No. In the United States, under the Constitution the only legitimate use of patents (and copyrights) is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" [cornell.edu]. Rewarding inventors is not the goal; getting technologies out there for people to use is.

        Of course, it's not like the Constitution means much. Under our corporate plutocracy

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 (641858)

        But is it ? I thought the first and foremost intention of patents was to reward inventors ? Only the second intention is to get a public domain pool of technologies when the patent expires.

        No, you're thinking of copyright. Patents have one goal only - to encourage disclosure of innovations. When patents were introduced, trade secrets were the only way of protecting innovations. If you invented an improvement on some part of a steam engine, for example, you would typically add it and a load of extra meaningless bells and whistles to your new engine. Your competitors would then take one apart and try to figure out which of the changes improved performance, and then incorporate them. This m

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by NormalVisual (565491)
          No, you're thinking of copyright.

          No, copyright exists for exactly the same reasons - to enrich society as a whole. Giving the creator an exclusive lock on their creation for a limited time is the means by which this enrichment is encouraged, and applies to both patents and copyrights.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by villindesign (1260484)
      There is no such thing as an international patent. Patents are per country, and in the UK, the patent term is up to 20 years from the filing date.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Bobb Sledd (307434)

        There is the European Patent Organisation (which is different from the European Patent Office) and WIPO. They provide a way of centrally filing for patents and examination, and cover 137 countries.

        So there is not a quick-n-dirty way of patenting your invention internationally, but (I think) there is a faster way of filing your patents in multiple countries without having each one be examined separately.

        I used to be a patent paralegal... but I didn't deal with foreign patents. But we did have them.

  • Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Otter (3800) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:10AM (#24919341) Journal

    In 1979 Kane Kramer from Hertfordshire filed a patent for a digital music player that stored just three and a half minutes of music to a solid state chip - limiting media options to just one short song. Nonetheless, a company was set up by Kramer to bring the IXI to a commercial release, but it slipped into the public domain in 1988 when the firm failed to raise the £60,000 needed to renew international patents. Because of this patent lapse, Kramer has received no money from the sale of any of the 163 million iPods Apple has so far sold.

    Huh? The patent would have expired two years before the iPod was introduced! At most, Kramer could have earned some royalties from Rio and those other early MP3-player makers whose names escape me.

    • Huh? The iPod was introduced in 2001. The patent expired in 1988. That would make it 12 years. :P Other than that you're right that others were before the iPod.
  • how? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pak9rabid (1011935) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:10AM (#24919349)
    So..explain to me how this patent was granted? I was under the impression that in order for a patent to be granted, a prototype has to be built. I wasn't aware flash drives even existed back in 1979.
    • Re:how? (Score:5, Informative)

      by gruntled (107194) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:13AM (#24919381)

      In the very old days, you had to build an object to get a patent. That requirement hasn't existed for a long time.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SCHecklerX (229973)

      So..explain to me how this patent was granted? I was under the impression that in order for a patent to be granted, a prototype has to be built. I wasn't aware flash drives even existed back in 1979.

      If that is the case, how then, can business method and software patents even exist? (I agree with you, however, that this is how it *should* be).

      • Re:how? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Em Ellel (523581) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:21AM (#24919483)

        So..explain to me how this patent was granted? I was under the impression that in order for a patent to be granted, a prototype has to be built. I wasn't aware flash drives even existed back in 1979.

        If that is the case, how then, can business method and software patents even exist? (I agree with you, however, that this is how it *should* be).

        Requirement to build a prototype would favor large corporations and put individual inventor in a huge disadvantage. A lot of modern inventions, especially in electronics industry, would take a very large amount of money to prototype.

        -Em

    • Re:how? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by larry bagina (561269) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:16AM (#24919425) Journal
      ROM. EPROM. PROM. EAROM. EEPROM.

      Lameness filter encountered. Don't use acronyms. It's like yelling.

    • Re:how? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jimcrofty (1048900) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:17AM (#24919439)
      TFA refers to a solid state chip being used not 'flash drive'. There were non volatile storage options available in the 70s and 80s that would have been up to the task (at least in a prototype). Eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_memory [wikipedia.org]
    • by Ironsides (739422)
      EEPROM and EPROM have been around a long time. EEPROM since 1983 and EPROM since 1971. Both are flash memmory.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Gordonjcp (186804)

      It wouldn't necessarily have to be flash - you could use EPROMs or mask-programmed ROMs if you didn't want to change what was recorded on the chip. The Psion Organiser used a pair of removable cartridges with an EPROM built in that had data blown into it to when it was saved to. When it was full you used a "Datapak Formatter" which was just a UV Eprom Eraser to clear the chip back to a usable state.

      You wouldn't get much on an EPROM from the late 1970s - to store 3 minutes of CD-quality music you'd need ar

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Sloppy (14984)

        You wouldn't get much on an EPROM from the late 1970s - to store 3 minutes of CD-quality music you'd need around 30MB of memory!

        They key words there are "CD quality," and CD quality was not the benchmark before CDs came along.

        TFA is pretty vague, but doesn't even clearly state that we're talking about digitized music (i.e. a recording of an actual performance); it might have just been pattern based [wikipedia.org] (maybe using realistic samples for the instruments, and maybe not) or something like that, which drasticall

    • Maybe not "flash drives", but solid state erasable memory did in many formats like EAROM, EEPROM, UVEPROM etc.

      In the early-mid 1980s, the company I worked for had designed their own sound effects boards for use on flight and vehicle simulators with digitised copies of real sounds in EPROM.

      The lab trick was to rig up a tank gunnery board to a speaker behind someone's desk and let them have it when they sat down!

      Happy days!

  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:11AM (#24919355)

    Many clever inventions. The banks however, won't touch anything but property with a ten foot pole.

     

  • Right (Score:4, Funny)

    by kellyb9 (954229) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:12AM (#24919365)
    So - let me get this straight, he invented the "iPod" before stored music was even available? Before any substantial file compression existed? Right.. I actually, ummm, invented televisions back during the Taft administration.
    • Re:Right (Score:4, Informative)

      by inode_buddha (576844) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:20AM (#24919467) Journal
      Sound was compressible and storable back then. Very high-end answering machines, note recorders, and PBX's used it. Think EEPROMS or even conventional RAM. Most everything was done in hardware, however -- sampling and digitizing, etc.
    • Re:Right (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hey! (33014) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:39AM (#24919775) Homepage Journal

      While this notion sounds a bit quaint to modern ears, in times past it was understood that the word "invention" referred to something that, heretofore, had not yet existed.

      It is only within the last generation or so that the word "invention" has come to mean the first formal description of something that already exists or that is in the process of entering the market. Back in the day, the "patent office" was not the equivalent of a frontier "land office".

    • Re:Right (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Lumpy (12016) on Monday September 08, 2008 @11:10AM (#24920163) Homepage

      Back in 1983 I made a hardware music player without a processor.

      I stored the music on 2 512K eproms and played it back by starting an osc that drove a binary counter setup.

      worked great. and who needs compression, I used the straight wav at 8 bit value shoveling it out a DtoA.

      I used a RadioShack CoCo to encode the audio into the data to shovel into my heathkit eprom programmer. really really basic digital electronics stuff.

  • My friends and I also 'invented' the iPod. We all took small automobile cassette players, hooked them up to batteries and headphones. We put this in a small pack so that we could have our tunes while skiing in Lake Tahoe in the 70s. Sony and others came along later with their 'Walkman'.

    This was interesting and innovative but should it have earned a patent?

  • by ohxten (1248800) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:14AM (#24919393) Homepage
    iPod wasn't the first MP3 player, was it?
  • WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 4D6963 (933028) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:14AM (#24919397)

    He didn't invent the iPod, he patented (and didn't actually develop if I understood correctly) a digital music player.

    Here's what I don't understand : what does it have to do with the iPod, shouldn't every other digital music player be equally affected, the patent slipped in the public in 1988, so why on Earth is that guy getting compensated by Apple??

    • by anss123 (985305)

      so why on Earth is that guy getting compensated by Apple

      Perhaps because he was helpfull?

      • by 4D6963 (933028)
        How, that's what I don't understand.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by kithrup (778358)

          He was "useful" because Apple is being sued for patent infringement by another company. By showing that this guy invented something similar (if not identical -- I haven't read any of the patents in question, so I'm going solely on what I've read elsewhere!) the company suing Apple loses to prior art.

          However, I've seen absolutely no indication that Apple paid him. I would assume they paid his travel expenses, and may even have paid him as an expert witness, but I've seen absolutely nothing indicating that

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by gnasher719 (869701)

      Here's what I don't understand : what does it have to do with the iPod, shouldn't every other digital music player be equally affected, the patent slipped in the public in 1988, so why on Earth is that guy getting compensated by Apple??

      Apple was being sued by Burst for infringing on some of their patents; this guy's patents were prior art and saved Apple lots of money. According to the real article, it seems that Apple may have agreed to pay him an unknown amount of money for the copyrights on his original designs and drawings; not because these drawings are of any value anymore, but because he saved the company a lot of money.

  • by Em Ellel (523581) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:15AM (#24919411)

    Of course there have been solid state chips that stored sounds before ipod - I mean you could buy one in Rat Shack in the 80's for a few bucks. Does this really make this guy an inventor of iPod? I don't think so. Its like crediting the guy who invented the wheel with creation of the Prius.

    on the other hand (from the article):

    Kramer isn't resting on his laurels, though. He is currently working on a new device which will record telephone calls and send the audio file via email. The device is expected to be used for business meetings and interviews.

    I believe this is something that has been offered by most teleconference bridges and corp voice mail systems for at least 10 years. I know I was getting WAV files of my voice mail via email back in 1999.... not to mention "visual voice mail" on iPhones.

    -Em

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by NoisySplatter (847631)
      But his will be called the iMail and will use proven technology to do things other devices already do in a proprietary vaguely patentable way. In spite of this he will fail to achieve any results himself and after the patent expires he will then make his money by being paid to act as a coprorate shill in a scam lawsuit.
  • Hmmmmm.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by spasmhead (1301953)
    More amusing than this story is trying to imagine what a 1970's iPod would have been like. I'm sure its "ultra portable" battery would have needed wheels but the white headphones, which would be so heavy as to break your neck, would still scream "MUG ME!".
  • I mean, isn't it just an audio player like any other?
  • Bullocks. Everyone knows John Lennon invented the iPod:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuxnePjQidE [youtube.com]

  • by paiute (550198) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:22AM (#24919505)

    on something called a "transistor". Apparently Apple hovered in the wings waiting for the patent on this technology to expire so they could steal it.

    Who is this Taco fellow and why can't he read for comprehension?

  • by Lord Lode (1290856) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:23AM (#24919521)
    Why do they compare a player that can play music from a solid state chip with an iPod? Such music players already existed before the iPod: MP3 players from Creative and many others. Apple just made a similar MP3 player and used its name to make it sell better. They're doing as if the iPod is the only such portable player in existance, which is exactly as ignorant as saying that World Of Warcraft is the MMORPG!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CarlDenny (415322)

      They're focusing on the iPod because Apple are the one's being sued for patent infringement.

      Other MP3 players aren't useful as prior art, as they'd either be still covered by patents themselves, or got rolling after the patent squatters who're suing Apple.

      No one is going to sue Creative Labs to milk their amazing windfall profits, so they don't get mentioned.

  • Say WHAT (Score:5, Informative)

    by russotto (537200) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:25AM (#24919559) Journal

    According to the article, the guy came up with a digital music player in 1979. Everyone on Slashdot should know that Apple's wasn't the first digital music player, nor even the first commercially successful one, not by a long shot. So no news here, except that Apple hired this guy to help defend themselves against a patent troll.

  • Wow (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bogtha (906264) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:26AM (#24919583)

    Unfortunately, he let the patent run out.

    Now there's a sentence I didn't expect to see on Slashdot.

  • by wcrowe (94389) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:27AM (#24919599)

    "Apple was unavailable for comment at the time of writing."

    What, the entire company?

  • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JonTurner (178845) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:31AM (#24919659) Journal

    Lots of people invent interesting devices. But inventing and bringing to market *at a point when the customer/market is ready to accept it* are two different things. Few items succeed merely on technical merits and most succeed purely on marketing (how else to explain the music top-40 list or clothing fashion?).

    I'd say the iPod is the product of a Wurlitzer jukebox crossed with the Sony Walkman and fueled by the Napster music-sharing craze. Napster was the greater technological breakthrough, since it involved new economic as well as social dynamics and rocked an entire industry. The Sony Walkman enabled personal, portable music, and the jukebox gave access to a wide catalog. All were well understood ideas, but the iPod brought them together and Apple marketed it well. Breakthrough? Not really, I'd say it is an application and refinement of existing technologies enabling new behaviors but technology has allowed the device to scale to a point that it is practical.

  • Before people laugh (Score:4, Informative)

    by voss (52565) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:36AM (#24919729)

    http://www.kanekramer.com/html/development.htm [kanekramer.com]

    http://www.kanekramer.com/downloads/IXI-Report.pdf [kanekramer.com]

    A very interesting business plan had the RIAA not been so technophobic they could have had digital music in stores years before high speed internet and a recording format that probably
    been harder to duplicate.

    Then again I can only imagine...
    "IXI music player new for 1992, 8mb of storage,
    DOS, amiga and atari compatible...mac coming soon"

  • by m.ducharme (1082683) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:36AM (#24919731)

    for anyone still confused by the summary, it would make more sense if you changed the title from "Apple Admits IPod Is From 1970s UK" to

    "Patent Troll Foiled by Original Inventor of Digital Music Player"

  • Let me see if I got this right Kane Kramer invented the digital-to-analog converter [cnet.co.uk] (DAC) in 1979 ..
  • Summary. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lancejjj (924211) on Monday September 08, 2008 @10:50AM (#24919937) Homepage

    Apple has all but admitted that a British man invented the iPod over three decades ago in the 1970's.

    Interpretation: Apple has not admitted that a British man invented the iPod.

    Unfortunately, he let the patent run out.

    Interpretation: Like all patents, this patent expired.

    When another company tried to grab a portion of its iPod profits, though, Apple went running to him to defend them in court

    Interpretation: Apple used "prior art" to invalidate someone else's claim that they recently invented a "solid state audio recorder/player".

    In return, it looks like he's in for a share of the cash generated from the sale of 163 million iPods.

    Interpretation: His patent pre-dated the technology to make a decent flash audio recorder/player, and therefore he was unable to collect royalties on his patent. Apple and the world may give him a pat on the back for inventing the solid-state audio recorder/player, but it would be financially irresponsible for them to give him royalties on a long-expired patent.

  • Star Trek (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dr. Tom (23206) <tomh@nih.gov> on Monday September 08, 2008 @11:29AM (#24920387) Homepage
    Star Trek invented the flip phone in the '60s, too. Not to mention the stun gun, the replicator, matter transport, and FTL. :-)
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by SlappyBastard (961143)
      Not to mention the redshirt, interracial on-screen romance and genetically engineered supersoldiers.
  • by Orion Blastar (457579) <orionblastar.gmail@com> on Monday September 08, 2008 @01:57PM (#24922359) Homepage Journal

    Stole the Commodore logo key to make the Apple logo keys in the Apple //e.

    Stole the compact design of the Vic-20 and Commodore 64 to make the Apple //c.

    Stole the Amiga design to make the Macintosh II and Apple //gs computers use 4096 or more colors and co-processors and most of the OS in ROM like Amiga Kickstart.

    Stole the Amiga Video Toaster to make the iLife and Mac OSX video applications and hardware.

    Stole the Mac OSX interface from AmigaOS/Workbench and AROS.

    That helped drive Commodore out of business, and Microsoft had a hand in it as well taking features of AmigaDOS/AmigaOS/Workbench to make Windows 95 and Windows NT/2000/XP.

I use technology in order to hate it more properly. -- Nam June Paik

Working...