...and the shenanigans begin again with Apple. FUCK{!} is the only word I have for it all. I must pardon my language in advance. Since I've recently switched back to an Apple computing environment, I've been actually regretting it...and here's the why...
Ok, I've had some beefs with Apple recently. If you've read some recent posts, you know this. This time is no different. Apple is up to their usual BS and as such I give a big Colbert wag o' my finger at the software giant as they not so quietly begin their battle of law with various cellphone makers, specifically the infamous HTC, among others. In the suit, Apple is claiming egregious patent infringement on a wide many intellectual properties so-called held by Apple; solely by Apple. Really?
Now, I have no issue with inventors taking claim for innovations thought of, and developed by said inventors. This is all cool. And ok, to be honest, sure, some could see Apple's side of the argument as being sound. Apple is, after all, a leader in product and technological designs. This is true indeed. My issue with Apple is their claims on what they call their own innovations, those developed by them directly, solely by them. Many of these are very suspect. Example: the iPhone. The iPhone is an excellent example of leading innovation in product design. Apple truly did outdo themselves here. This is FACT. Huh, you may say? Wait for it....wait for it ;-) My argument resides in the point that I think much of the technology that comprises a product like the iPhone, could really, and should really not be considered as having a sole inventor. Much of these innovations and ideas that comprise said technology are widely researched, tested, and adopted by a wide variety of other products and they continue to be such. So I ask this; where is the line drawn? ..or where should it be drawn?
An example: Kleenex. As many of you know, Kleenex is a house hold brand name leader in snot rag technology (among other uses). You know it, the brand, I know it well and I'm sure you've used some variety of kleenex-based product at least once in your lives. Kleenex has become the defacto, universally accepted name of snot rags alike. Truth be told, the design of Kleenex-inspired products is universal as well, regardless of brand name or otherwise. Now, my point is this. Let's say, for instance, we have a technology like "multi-point, interactive touch screens" which was truly popularized by the iPhone device. Now, Microsoft has researched and innovated products using said technology. Apple too, and HEY, Google as well! Specifically to Google, they have developed this little operating system called Android and, my oh my, could it be that Apple has some valid competition FINALLY? And even better, some valid open sourced technology!!?? Now sure, it can be said that some aspects of Android were inspired by the iPhone, sure. But really this could be just like how I am inspired by Eric Clapton or Neil Young when I play the guitar. Could it be that if one of my songs sounds similar to Neil Young, not an exact replica, but similar, could Neil knock down my door and smash my guitar? Ha!
Back on point. Like Kleenex, can one really lay claim to every occurrence of such instances without monopolizing the system? I say NO! Now, with technologies such as touch screen technology becoming more mainstream; more the defacto way of developing interactive designs, I say to this as well, NO!
So with this I say to you Apple, oh Apple, Apple oh Apple. Fuck you! Fuck you Steve Jobs! Have you not forgotten how Xerox in the mid-70's "inspired" you? I don't care if you are the CEO of the decade. I truly hope the good guys win this battle and that Google, HTC, and every other company you try and pull this bullshit on, puts you in your place; illuminates you a little, and gives you a better perspective. If this isn't a rallying cry for open source technologies, I don't know what is. I, now more than ever, cannot wait to Ubuntu-ize my Macbook Pro. RMS4LIFE! -tMac