Am I the only one tired of hearing Apple "stole" this and that?

Cat said:
That would be like 1000 people registering Konfabulator IIRC. I think many more have done that, so the cash wouldn't be a problem IMO.


would be like 1000 people? please! do you not realize the creators, as in 2 people, have LIVING EXPENSES? :rolleyes: it would take a lot more than a thousand registered users to support 2 people financially, let alone give them a healthy enough cash flow to go off patenting things.

everyone loves to yap but puts absolutely no though whatsoever into what they're saying.
 
Is that all the guy does is work on Konfabulator all day? I think he has another job. If not, then that's a pretty risky thing to base your income on.
 
I agree with this discussion. I'm tired of all the complaining. Did the folks that made the so-called stolen products not use a Mac to develop them?

Think about it this way. We all say "Give me a Kleenex." Even though we are using Puffs. But we don't accuse Puffs of stealing an idea. We say "Make a Zerox of this.", even though we may be using a cannon copier. Forget the patent - trademark the name: Konfabulator. Just like we say.. "Open a window on your desktop" - who invented the window? Who stole the idea? Who decided the screen is a desktop? If you trademarked the name I could see it getting into common use. Apple's OS would have a Konfabulator. Windows could have a Konfabulator. Just like both systems have FILES, DESKTOPS, WINDOWS, and other common-named things.

Everything works this way. Cars. Household products, etc.

Don't like what Apple is doing? Write your own operating system and quit complaining. It's about competition people. USA. History is full of people coming up with ideas. The difference is making them real and marketable. I'd much rather have Tiger support these items and having bolt-ons to the OS. Like the new CoreImage and CoreVideo. Now any one can write programs that use the technologies.
 
ElDiabloConCaca said:
Hardly. Try a few thousand dollars. Some things/ideas you can patent for under $1000.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fees.htm

you've never patented anything. neither have i but my dad holds several. his first, a unique bolt used in the construction of commercial security fencing cost him $7000 initially then another $15000. this was nearly 10 years ago.

do you realize how many times you have to submit something to the patent office> do you realize the legal fees involved in searching for prior art? do you realize the cost of securing your idea while its up for review? do you realize the 100 other costs of trying to patent something?

NO, NO you dont.
:rolleyes:
 
kendall said:
you've never patented anything. neither have i but my dad holds several. his first, a unique bolt used in the construction of commercial security fencing cost him $7000 initially then another $15000. this was nearly 10 years ago.

do you realize how many times you have to submit something to the patent office> do you realize the legal fees involved in searching for prior art? do you realize the cost of securing your idea while its up for review? do you realize the 100 other costs of trying to patent something?

NO, NO you dont.
:rolleyes:
I do!

I've patented my product, pzizz, at great personal cost - but it was a decision that had to be made...

I figured that there was no way I could complain about someone "stealing" / "copying" my design if I didn't...

It's simple business (I borrowed from the bank to ensure value in my product for the future)

This seems to be an argument that's not based on any facts - no one knows for SURE why there wasn't a patent in place to protect Konfabulator - or why Apple was able to produce something very similar in Tiger with no legal ramifications.

The fact remains for me : anyone who launches an idea into the world without protection is a fool...

For example, a simple NDA (non disclosure agreement) allows you to talk to all sorts of investors about your "unique idea", if necessary, without needing a patent (i.e. it costs nothing)
 
kendall said:
do you realize how many times you have to submit something to the patent office> do you realize the legal fees involved in searching for prior art? do you realize the cost of securing your idea while its up for review? do you realize the 100 other costs of trying to patent something?

NO, NO you dont.
:rolleyes:

Yes, yes I do. In fact, I know someone who patented something for $1200. He did his own artwork and everything -- that's one of the big costs associated with patenting something: the artwork and description, as well as searching for previous/like patents. You've got to be spot-on or else you'll leave a loophole that someone could drive a bus through, and then your patent means jack.

Plus, there are different kinds of patents -- Konfabulator doesn't have to take out a completely NEW patent on their technology -- it IS possible to patent an idea that builds upon or improves a previously patented idea.

If you have connections, then you can patent stuff for very cheap. If you don't know what the hell you're doing when you patent something, then people will take advantage of that and charge you mega-bucks for artwork, wording and searching of previous patents to name a few.

I do know what I'm talking about. I don't work at the patent office, nor have I ever personally patented anything, but I have enough experience with it not to be talking out of my ass. Patents don't have to cost $15,000, plain and simple. You just have to know how to get it cheaper. Kind of like buying insurance -- you can get royally screwed, or you can research a little bit and get the same thing cheaper.

Even still, I'm pretty sure Arlo and Perry aren't betting their futures on Konfabulator. They've gotta have second jobs (or primary jobs) or something. The income from Konfabulator alone wouldn't feed them both plus provide housing for them both.

I'm sticking to my notion that they were silly to release Konfabulator unprotected and then pretend like they were shocked when Apple ripped it off. They both knew about the Watson fiasco -- did they expect that it was a one-time thing and that Apple was sorry or something? What Apple did was legally cool. You don't leave your car unlocked, you don't leave your bike outside at night, and you don't put your valuables in plain view. You don't release unprotected software.
 
Apple does not operate to benefit the public, or are they or any other business "moral" except as forced to by law and goverment auditing. Business exists to make profit for its owners, through stock or otherwise. Jobs and others at Apple are not your "friends". They'll sell stuff at what the market will bear. In Apple's case, those of us who own stock are happy about their profitability and their large cash reserves that allow them to explore technologies that don't have immediate payoff, also to our benefit.

Expecting Apple to behave otherwise is foolish. I'll stick with them as I have for almost 20 years because they create the best user environment.

...Larry

GroundZeroX said:
It seems like the way you get a lot of attention in this forum is by claiming Apple stole something from you.

Launchbar was "copied" in Spotlight, even though Apple developed the frameworks for addressbook, calendar, itunes, iphoto, and etc, along with the Searchkit that it uses.

Konfabulator was "copied" in Dashboard, even though it is based on webkit, based off of the idea of Desktop Accessories from the original MacOS, and Konfabulator copied DesktopX, and Active Desktop.

Well I want a lot of attention too. Apple stole my idea of making the iPod's in various sizes. Can you believe it? I kept getting e-mails congratulating me on Apple hiring me because it was my idea long before there were so many sizes out.
 
20K is a very high figure to patent things. The usual range is between 1k and 10k, depending on quite a few variables.

Regardless of that, it's not a patentable idea. It's been done for a long time before and widget is a generic name/description.

widget

2. [possibly evoking "window gadget"] In graphical user
interfaces, a combination of a graphic symbol and some program
code to perform a specific function. E.g. a scroll-bar or
button. Windowing systems usually provide widget libraries
containing commonly used widgets drawn in a certain style and
with consistent behaviour.

-----

n. 1. A meta-thing. Used to stand for a real object in
didactic examples (especially database tutorials). Legend has it
that the original widgets were holders for buggy whips. "But
suppose the parts list for a widget has 52 entries...." 2. [poss.
evoking `window gadget'] A user interface object in {X} graphical
user interfaces.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=widget
 
I wanted to thank everyone for the support. I haven't been able to be on the boards because of a test I have today.

I did want to bring up a couple of points. I see more in common with Desktop Accessories then I do with Konfabulator. Most of the stuff that Dashboard does is not even internet related. The best ones I saw were the Calculator, and Stickies. Most of the ones that Konfabulator has are pretty but nearly unusable, because they put so much emphasis on being pretty.

As for Launchbar, you can't claim that Apple stole Launchbar, because Launchbar probably uses Apple's SearchKit feature that is their OWN SDK. The whole idea of Spotlight has been something the entire computer industry has been trying to reach for years. Microsoft has been trying to achieve this since before Windows 95, and only someone completely ignorant of the computer industry would make such an accusation. Microsoft had project Cairo, which was supposed to do exactly what Spotlight does, along with a few other things, but it wasn't ready because the computers of the time weren't capable of doing such things. Part of Copeland, from any of the information I have been able to find has made similar references of trying to build robust search features that made finding stuff incredibly efficient. I have personally never used LaunchBar, but I have used other products that are similar.

No one can simply say that Apple copied them, when Apple has made it a point not to go around publically discussing future products or features until they are ready. But this is what I can say with confidence. Spotlight has been something Apple has been trying to do for a long time, OSX is the platform that let them do it optimally. As for Konfabulator, Arlo has no case. The more I read about Dashboard, the bigger difference I see between Dashboard and Konfabulator. If anyone is interested, please read http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_konfabulator it goes into great detail about both products.
 
I made quite a few posts on Konfabulators board. Arlo questioned me, so I decided to give him a Reality Check.

applewhore said:
Arlo, there is a man on MacOSX who claims to be a close friend of yours. He said that people inside of Apple contacted you, and either got you builds of Tiger with Dashboard on it, or showed you it or something along those lines. It was also heavily implied from this "friend" of yours that you based your whole crappy implementation of Konspose on what you have on Tiger.

As far as what I've heard about you being fired, I've been told from developers that have met you, and probably still know you. Will I go into any further details about it? No. I don't want to say anythingmore about what I do and do not know.

What I can tell you is that your product is a copy of Active Desktop from MIcrosoft, and couple others from Object Desktop. I'm not being snide about it right now, but I don't think you have any room to complain. Apple created Desktop Widgets, and from what I've seen, the only widgets I saw that had ANYTHING to do with your little Active Desktop wannabe product is the Stock Ticker, and the webcam. Your product is a better copy of Active Desktop, but it is a copy nonetheless.

You can't really claim to have never heard about Active Desktop, because Active Desktop is part of the reason why MS got in trouble with the Justice Department, because it is what helped integrate the browser into the Explorer.

You claiming to invent the whole concept of widgets, is like Henry Ford claiming to invent the Car or Al Gore claiming to invent the Internet. You didn't invent widgets as you created them. Your widgets are nothing more then Desktop Accessories, and Active Desktop combined.

Personally, I don't care. I hope you get plenty of pity-party sales. To anyone who knows anything about the computer industry, no one buys your little claim. You can't pull one over on me because I have studied the computer industry for years. I have probably done more reading on the subject then any of your forum readers. For example, Spotlight isn't the first operating system to have this "type" of feature, but it is the most robust one yet. The whole concept that Spotlight has, was in BeOS in the Be Tracker. You were able to search for anything from a centralized interface. I don't know if you were able to group things, but I have done tons of research on the matter. The concept of Spotlight has been around since the late 80's, early 90's approximately. Microsoft was trying to come out with a product that would give people access to their information anywhere, along with building new ways to store data, using meta data, with similar ways of querying it like a relational database. Around 93 (approximately) they canned the product, and put the GUI they were developing for the interface, on a pseudo Win32 API set, and shipped it as Windows 95 in mid to late 94. There were similar features to Spotlight in Copeland from what I have read about the project, but Copeland was so badly managed, and the expectations were so high, that no product at that time could have met what them. The concept your product takes advantage of, is something that was a major buzz word around 96-97. It was a concept called "Push", where information was pushed to the desktop. Pointcast popularized it. Microsoft and Netscape went to war over who would standarize it, and create a platform for it. Thats when the Active Desktop was born. It was part of a platform that was soon abandoned by MIcrosoft, that was Active Desktop, CDF, and Dynamic HTML. CDF was a format to attempt to give new capabilities to HTML, and extend it. Microsoft used their "Adopt and extend" tactic where they adopted HTML 3.2 and 4.0, then "extended" it with their own proprietary html code, that was only compatible with MS browsers. Active Desktop would have taken off better if broadband would have been around, but since it wasn't, it was a massive resource hog. It dominated your modem almost all the time, leaving many to disable it. Microsoft stopped pushing it.

You can't fool me with you saying that there has never been another product like this, because I lived through it. I beta tested it in several forms as well. I love my Mac, but I am not so deluted to think that Apple invented the entire concept on their own. Apple did what they did not because of you, but because they are staying competitive. Microsoft is rolling out a new form of your claimed innovative "Widgets" in Longhorn in the form of the Sidebar. Don't go claiming that you invented the Sidebar too, because i've seen concepts of it since 97 of what it's going to do. I can go on for hours on this subject. Like I said, I lived it.

Reality Check:
1. Arlo didn't "innovate" anything with Konfabulator, just did a better Active Desktop.
2. Al Gore didn't invent the internet
3. Henry Ford didn't invent the car
4. Neither Apple nor Microsoft invented the GUI (though they did both popularize it)
 
just so there's no confusion - it appears there's another "applewhore" out there - I didn't post this stuff you're quoting, GroundZeroX...
 
Does anyone know the reason why Arlo wrote Konfab? Was he looking to make a ton of money from it? Does he even care?

Software like Konfab are often created as a hobby. Hobbies aren't businesses. If the intention behind Konfab was to build a business, then perhaps some effort should have been made into patents or other protection.
 
GroundZeroX said:
I made quite a few posts on Konfabulators board. Arlo questioned me, so I decided to give him a Reality Check.

Wow, that was one of the most badly thought-out rants I've seen in a while.

Well, that's not true, maybe it's just the sheer volume of the badness...
 
Back
Top