Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jaycee 6580 days ago
This piece in a lot of ways reads like a hack piece, but I'd like to point out the author's repeated examples of Microsoft stealing from Apple. In particular:

Apparently Microsoft has already stolen...excuse me...incorporated "multi-touch" into a preliminary version of Windows 7...I suspect there will be a lawsuit if Windows 7 comes with anything resembling the multi-touch features already found on the iPhone.

Multi-touch has been in development for approximately 25 years, and technically in the Apple Vs MS battle, MS struck first with the Surface, which was usable (if not purchasable) in April of 2007. The iPhone was available in June of that year. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch)
2 comments
raganwald 6580 days ago
I agree, that was a weak beat. I consider the surface computer to be like a concept car from Detroit: it's an exercie in puffery. Apple did the same thing with their "Knowledge Navigator" video.

And any ways, stealing from Apple is MSFT's job. I sold my MSFT stock a while back, but if I still had any I would be distressed if they weren't stealing anything. We're talking about Ballmer's job here. His job is to make the stock make money for investors.

Does anyone go long on MSFT because they want to put some R&D in their portfolio? I don't think so. They buy MSFT because they want to invest in a company that executes on monetizing other people's ideas.

(side beat: much as they invest in GOOG because they want to invest in a company that monetizes other people's content.)

link
xirium 6580 days ago
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch the Microsoft Surface runs Windows Vista and costs between US$5,000 and US$10,000 and the hardware for an open source clone is between US$500 and US$1,000. You're not going to sell many Microsoft Surfaces when your local computer shop can make five times as many for the same price.
link
jaycee 6580 days ago
Granted, and bear in mind I'm not saying the Surface is a viable product--but the assumption in the article is that Multi-Touch is Apple's, when the tech is anyone's.

That Apple has the trademark is another story, and raises (for me) questions of how trademarks are managed and issued.

link