Both of which he seemed to make up for later in life when, you know, he grew up.

I have no idea what you think they should get for "recognition" that they already haven't gotten. Ive has been knighted, given wheelbarrows full of awards, and will retire a very, very wealthy man. Wozniak -- I think he got all the recognition he wanted. He was a big player back when floppy disk drives were a new technology, and is (so I hear) still on good terms with the executives at Apple. But he left almost 30 years ago.

If I were Ive I wouldn't budge from my position. He's basically in the heart of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, with any toy, process, tool, material, and workforce he needs to get something done, and essentially no responsibility for some of the more tedious parts of running the business. And now he's got the software side of things, so hopefully we see the end of some of the more...creative...apps and back to something that's more functional.

If Forstall refused to sign the letter apologizing about Maps and instead forced Cook to do it so that they could have some public response, that's not a very smart move on Forstall's part. Making your boss take the heat on something that was your screw-up is never a good play, especially at the executive level.

No it isn't.

See, that's why categorical arguments fail. As soon as you make one, you're wrong.

If we were to replace the word "computer" with the word "washing machine" or "refrigerator," then you might start to see how people don't even _want_ to seek even the smallest amount of computer competence. You're essentially asking them to re-install the OS on their washing machine, or re-wire the heating coils of their dryer for some abstract goal of "increased knowledge" and "freedom".

The computer is an appliance. You press a button, it sends an e-mail. You press another one, it plays music for you. If it breaks, you call someone to fix it or you toss it to the curb and get a new one. I'm not saying these people are stupid, I'm just saying they have different priorities.

Except they didn't. In what way did Samsung make a better tablet than the iPad?

Samsung was not interested in making a better iPad or iPhone. They were interested in riding the wave of Apple's success, and hoping to score some cheap marketing by making their products nearly identical to Apple's.

Unless you can tell that he isn't a premium subscriber, there's no restriction on what you can do with your code on GitHub. Yes, it's free for open-source projects, but you can also open-source projects with a paid account, in which case you can do whatever you want with it.

It's quite likely that any patents Palm has are in part derived from -- guess who -- Apple, since Palm was essentially a spin-off from the Newton project. And Newton had icons on a grid before Palm even existed.

And Apple bought the company that first commercialized multi-touch gestures (Fingerworks), so they likely own the patents on that too.

seeing != stealing.

As noted in this thread and many, many, many, many times before: Apple paid Xerox for the rights in stock options. I'm sure they've gotten many times their R&D money back out of that deal, assuming they still have those stocks.

And how, exactly, did they do that? "Stealing" from BSD is like saying you're "stealing" from a box labelled "free stuff!"

If you find "stolen" code on http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1072/, I'm sure they'd like to know about it.

Most protests don't start out with any idea other than "something's wrong here." It's only afterwards that we can see that they changed something; while it's happening it's pretty much just chaos.

And they do have a list of what's wrong: You have to look no further than the fact that they're occupying Wall St. instead of the National Mall. They're protesting the disproportionate financial imbalance between those who drove the economy into the ground without having to take responsibility for it, and those who are actually shouldering the burden of their actions.

As many people have already pointed out, this is very similar to the conditions which led to the French Revolution, so I wouldn't dismiss them too readily. After all, that was organized by a bunch of largely illiterate people who got tired of bearing the burden of a collapsing but insulated monarchy. It didn't end too well for the monarchy.

Yes, you're right to a degree. But there are thousands of talented engineers at hundreds of other firms that are making nowhere near the impact that Apple had. The CEO is the person who recognizes genius and puts it forward as the driving force of the company. So, yes, Apple would be nothing without their engineers, but the engineers would be nowhere without a CEO that recognizes their work and places it at the centre of their corporate strategy. I think that when most CEOs look for genius they go to their marketing department, while Apple turns to its engineering and design departments.

His name is on 300+ patents from Apple. Not all patents from Apple, which makes me think he actually did something substantial to earn those 300. He's often not listed first, but sometimes he is. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/24/technology/steve-jobs-patents.html) Draw your own conclusions.

I'll bet these scientists, who have advanced degrees in this field and have been working on this problem for *years* are all reading your comment on Slashdot and collectively slapping their foreheads and saying "Of course! WHY didn't we think of that. That *must* be the problem."

Seriously? You think they didn't check that?

Because the law is an art, not a science?

The definition of "legal" is pliable. I'm sure MS doesn't think that what they're doing is illegal, and they probably wouldn't call it extortion but a judge or jury might think otherwise after hearing evidence and weighing contextual factors.

That's kinda the problem. If you can simply last long enough in a court room to see someone actually come to a judgement about it, then you might be in the right and MS is in the wrong. Trouble is, most individuals or even corporations don't have the kind of resources to wait that long, especially against giants like MS with huge war chests, so they just pay to settle and nothing gets decided.

Why would Apple build a brand new <a href="http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/01/apples-new-data-center-is-visible-at-last-from-space/">multimillion-dollar data facility</a>, only to farm out their biggest and most high-profile internet services to external parties?