Re: Implementation and Stealing





Frequently Asked Forum Questions

Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact	Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2	Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ \| More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker



Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum \| Archived Posts

Re: Implementation and Stealing

Posted By: PCDestroyer Date: 4/22/02 9:49 a.m.
In Response To: Implementation and Stealing (protexts)

: By the same logic, if I write a novel and decide not to publish it , but send
: it to my friend for his enjoyment and he decides to publish it under his
: name, that is, implement it, it wasn't really stolen.
That's completely different... because he used the exact same words.
If he had taken your idea, ellaborated it, turned it into something very different and published it... then it wouldn't be stealing... at least, by the guidelines of the US courts and patent/copyright offices...
Xerox PARC was a GUI that used windows only to show icons that represented verb actions... "Open" "Close" "Move"...etc. Also, to reposition the windows, you had to use a coordinate box and enter the coordinates on the screen...
Apple took that GUI base and built upon it until they had what we see in Apple's GUI even today... and Xerox's GUI is something we really don't see anywhere anymore... so Apple's was very different and better... and survives today.
Carbon copying is what Windows is to the Mac OS... your example with the novel is a "Carbon Copy" of someone else's work...
Xerox PARC and Apple are examples of someone creating something new off of a basic idea or product.
PCD

Message Index

Replies:

Big News!! - DirectX for Macintosh! Miguel Chavez 4/17/02 11:19 a.m.

Yeah... Kinda Mr. Zarquon 4/17/02 11:56 a.m.

Geez... why the negative spin? ferrex 4/17/02 1:03 p.m.

Because, I am. Mr. Zarquon 4/17/02 1:10 p.m.

Re: Geez... why the negative spin? Kanen Faud'r 4/17/02 1:26 p.m.

Re: Geez... why the negative spin? PCDestroyer 4/17/02 2:32 p.m.

Re: Geez... why the negative spin? Mark Levin 4/17/02 3:07 p.m.

Carmack... Miguel Chavez 4/17/02 3:22 p.m.

Re: Carmack... ferrex 4/17/02 7:08 p.m.

Re: Carmack... Mr. Zarquon 4/17/02 9:31 p.m.

Re: Geez... why the negative spin? PCDestroyer 4/17/02 3:45 p.m.

Re: Geez... why the negative spin? ferrex 4/17/02 7:02 p.m.

Re: Geez... why the negative spin? PCDestroyer 4/18/02 9:57 a.m.

Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG protexts 4/18/02 4:46 a.m.

Re: Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG PCDestroyer 4/18/02 10:11 a.m.

Re: Why PCDestroyer is off protexts 4/18/02 2:11 p.m.

Make a 1AC! 123456789 4/19/02 11:47 a.m.

Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget kiro69 4/18/02 11:19 a.m.

Re: Speak for yourself there, parnter... Lophan 4/18/02 12:09 p.m.

Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget protexts 4/18/02 2:30 p.m.

Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget PCDestroyer 4/18/02 4:37 p.m.

The place where your whole argument falls down... Louis Wu 4/18/02 4:54 p.m.

Re: The place where your whole argument falls down PCDestroyer 4/18/02 5:04 p.m.

Ack. Louis Wu 4/18/02 5:16 p.m.

Re: Ack. PCDestroyer 4/18/02 5:45 p.m.

Re: Ack. protexts 4/18/02 9:34 p.m.

Re: Ack. kiro69 4/19/02 10:36 a.m.

Re: Ack. Louis Wu 4/19/02 10:54 a.m.

Re: Ack. protexts 4/19/02 10:01 p.m.

As I said before, I agree. 123456789 4/19/02 5:36 p.m.

Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget protexts 4/19/02 5:38 a.m.

Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget PCDestroyer 4/18/02 4:26 p.m.

awesome reply, pcd *NM* kiro69 4/18/02 10:43 a.m.

Re: Quick note... Lophan 4/18/02 12:38 p.m.

Re: Quick note... PCDestroyer 4/18/02 4:40 p.m.

Re: Quick note... Warbow 4/18/02 4:42 p.m.

Re: Quick note... PCDestroyer 4/18/02 4:57 p.m.

Re: Let's look at this a little closer... Lophan 4/19/02 12:24 a.m.

Re: Let's look at this a little closer... PCDestroyer 4/19/02 10:24 a.m.

Re: Let's look at this a little closer... vector40 4/19/02 9:03 p.m.

Re: Then again, theoretically... Lophan 4/20/02 12:13 a.m.

Re: Then again, theoretically... vector40 4/20/02 1:12 a.m.

Re: Then again, theoretically... PCDestroyer 4/21/02 6:27 p.m.

Re: Then again, theoretically... protexts 4/20/02 5:15 a.m.

Re: Then again, theoretically... vector40 4/20/02 4:09 p.m.

Re: Then again, theoretically... PCDestroyer 4/21/02 6:24 p.m.

Implementation and Stealing protexts 4/22/02 3:24 a.m.

Re: Implementation and Stealing Aida-kun 4/22/02 5:15 a.m.

Re: Implementation and Stealing PCDestroyer 4/22/02 9:56 a.m.

Re: Implementation and Stealing protexts 4/22/02 2:45 p.m.

Re: Implementation and Stealing PCDestroyer 4/22/02 9:49 a.m.

Re: Implementation and Stealing protexts 4/22/02 3:05 p.m.

Re: Implementation and Stealing PCDestroyer 4/22/02 8:34 p.m.

Re: Implementation and Stealing kiro69 4/23/02 10:35 a.m.

I agree 123456789 4/17/02 3:19 p.m.

The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33.

Big News!! - DirectX for Macintosh!	Miguel Chavez	4/17/02 11:19 a.m.
Yeah... Kinda	Mr. Zarquon	4/17/02 11:56 a.m.
Geez... why the negative spin?	ferrex	4/17/02 1:03 p.m.
Because, I am.	Mr. Zarquon	4/17/02 1:10 p.m.
Re: Geez... why the negative spin?	Kanen Faud'r	4/17/02 1:26 p.m.
Re: Geez... why the negative spin?	PCDestroyer	4/17/02 2:32 p.m.
Re: Geez... why the negative spin?	Mark Levin	4/17/02 3:07 p.m.
Carmack...	Miguel Chavez	4/17/02 3:22 p.m.
Re: Carmack...	ferrex	4/17/02 7:08 p.m.
Re: Carmack...	Mr. Zarquon	4/17/02 9:31 p.m.
Re: Geez... why the negative spin?	PCDestroyer	4/17/02 3:45 p.m.
Re: Geez... why the negative spin?	ferrex	4/17/02 7:02 p.m.
Re: Geez... why the negative spin?	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 9:57 a.m.
Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG	protexts	4/18/02 4:46 a.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 10:11 a.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is off	protexts	4/18/02 2:11 p.m.
Make a 1AC!	123456789	4/19/02 11:47 a.m.
Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget	kiro69	4/18/02 11:19 a.m.
Re: Speak for yourself there, parnter...	Lophan	4/18/02 12:09 p.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget	protexts	4/18/02 2:30 p.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 4:37 p.m.
The place where your whole argument falls down...	Louis Wu	4/18/02 4:54 p.m.
Re: The place where your whole argument falls down	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 5:04 p.m.
Ack.	Louis Wu	4/18/02 5:16 p.m.
Re: Ack.	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 5:45 p.m.
Re: Ack.	protexts	4/18/02 9:34 p.m.
Re: Ack.	kiro69	4/19/02 10:36 a.m.
Re: Ack.	Louis Wu	4/19/02 10:54 a.m.
Re: Ack.	protexts	4/19/02 10:01 p.m.
As I said before, I agree.	123456789	4/19/02 5:36 p.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget	protexts	4/19/02 5:38 a.m.
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 4:26 p.m.
awesome reply, pcd NM	kiro69	4/18/02 10:43 a.m.
Re: Quick note...	Lophan	4/18/02 12:38 p.m.
Re: Quick note...	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 4:40 p.m.
Re: Quick note...	Warbow	4/18/02 4:42 p.m.
Re: Quick note...	PCDestroyer	4/18/02 4:57 p.m.
Re: Let's look at this a little closer...	Lophan	4/19/02 12:24 a.m.
Re: Let's look at this a little closer...	PCDestroyer	4/19/02 10:24 a.m.
Re: Let's look at this a little closer...	vector40	4/19/02 9:03 p.m.
Re: Then again, theoretically...	Lophan	4/20/02 12:13 a.m.
Re: Then again, theoretically...	vector40	4/20/02 1:12 a.m.
Re: Then again, theoretically...	PCDestroyer	4/21/02 6:27 p.m.
Re: Then again, theoretically...	protexts	4/20/02 5:15 a.m.
Re: Then again, theoretically...	vector40	4/20/02 4:09 p.m.
Re: Then again, theoretically...	PCDestroyer	4/21/02 6:24 p.m.
Implementation and Stealing	protexts	4/22/02 3:24 a.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	Aida-kun	4/22/02 5:15 a.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	PCDestroyer	4/22/02 9:56 a.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	protexts	4/22/02 2:45 p.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	PCDestroyer	4/22/02 9:49 a.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	protexts	4/22/02 3:05 p.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	PCDestroyer	4/22/02 8:34 p.m.
Re: Implementation and Stealing	kiro69	4/23/02 10:35 a.m.
I agree	123456789	4/17/02 3:19 p.m.