First Internet message

[Fred Cisin]

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     		cisin at 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  ☺