Please mod this guy down. SD cards are ancient. The 'secure' part of SD means write protection. It has nothing to do with DRM or encryption or anything else.
Wow... You are so very, very wrong. If you really are an EE, you may want to brush up.
SD was created during the whole DRM-fest of the 90s, and was a replacement for the DRM-lacking MMS cards.
End users wouldn't be able to redistribute the AVC add-on to one another.
Which is entirely orthogonal to whether or not Mozilla can support H.264 in Firefox.
On Ubuntu, trying to install any package containing an AVC decoder using apt-get front-ends such as Synaptic or Ubuntu Software Center puts up a big scary warning about patents. Clicking OK is an infringement in those jurisdictions where AVC patents controlled by MPEG-LA are valid.
Then they can buy a fucking codec. A bunch of assholes who will only run free software should not be allowed to hold back the web.
Apart from the AVC decoder embedded in Flash Player, which AVC decoder for Windows XP, Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, or Windows 7 Starter is freely available from a U.S. source?
http://www.apple.com/quicktime
Mozilla doesn't consider it "making the web better" to encourage web developers to make pages that show I'm sorry, you need Frobozz Viewer 3.0 to view this file. It's only $19.99, please have your credit card ready. [fedoraproject.org]
Again, entirely orthogonal to whether or not they can support it. In fact, this is exactly what I've said multiple times. That Mozilla is doing this out of ideology and not due to technological or legal requirements.
It's Mozilla who is choosing not to support H.264 even though they can do so 100% legally and can do it without changing the terms under which they distribute Firefox.
"[T]he terms under which they distribute Firefox" include permitting redistribution to any third party. So yes, adding an AVC decoder would involve "changing the terms under which they distribute Firefox".
Reading comprehension fail on your part. I did not say "adding an AVC [or H.264] decoder". I said "supporting H.264. Why must you constantly lie about this? Firefox can support H.264 with nary a licensing change. WebKit is Open Source, including the right to redistribute binaries and source, and *it* supports H.264. Is Mozilla less technologically capable than Apple? (actually, the answer to that is yes, be even Mozilla has the ability to make an H.264 compatible version of Firefox)
Yes, it's extremely clear that I don't understand the web. In fact, I understand it so poorly that the H.264 codec that I suggest as being superior to WebM is not the most widely supported format on the Internet...
Oh wait, H.264 *is* more widely supported than WebM and Theora combined? Maybe I *do* understand things...
Makes me wonder, oh master of all things Internet, what open video format is the one that "drives the web forward"? Please enlighten me, AC.
So what if users can't redistribute it? Quit acting like this is something that is being imposed on Mozilla. It's Mozilla who is choosing not to support H.264 even though they can do so 100% legally and can do it without changing the terms under which they distribute Firefox.
They won't because they won't, not because they can't.
In order to qualify for an H.264 license, Mozilla would have to make its browser non-redistributable to third parties.
First off, so what? They own the code, they can do that. So the idea that they can't include H.264 is complete bullshit. Also, Firefox isn't completely redistributable as it is. Google "iceweasel" for more info. They could easily make a non-free version that natively supports H.264 in addition to the mostly-free version they have now.
Second, they can support H.264 very easily. They can buy a license for it and distribute it as an add-on.
Third, they can use the codecs installed on people's computers. All Macs support H.264, as does (I think) Windows 7. Linux is just an apt-get (or similar) away from it, and H.264 is freely available for older versions of Windows.
Fourth, they can support it as an add-on one must get from a third party, similar to how DVD playing worked in XP.
This idea that they can't is an outright lie. They just won't. It's as simple as that. What's your motive for continually promoting this lie?
open-source advocates [...] Every single one of those groups can pay.
From the GNU General Public
I was unaware that the GPL stated that "open-source advocates" can never buy non-free software!
Sarcasm aside, even if we narrow it down to open source developers, who use the GPLv3, and taken solely in the context of their specific GPLv3 projects, they can still support codecs like H.264, just not compiled directly into their program (and depending on how you want to look at it, either bundled with the binary and/or directly linked at compile time and then distributed). Firefox, for example (which is most definitely *not* under the GPL, but let's pretend that it is for a moment), could and can fully and legally support H.264 via a proprietary plug-in or through system libraries/frameworks.
This also ignores the various GPL'd software (like VLC and x264) that have been so far legally distributed within the US, without any trouble from either MPEG-LA or the FSF. Although I don't think those projects are entirely without risk of legal claims, it does belie the claim that it's impossible as well as the fear that MPEG-LA has trigger-happy lawyers.
Very few individuals, organizations projects, or companies are unable to support H.264, but there are a handful that are unwilling to.
In other words, it tends to be superior, except for when it isn't. "Government interference" is only one such cause for exception. I'm unaware of any government interference that explains X11.
Also, Mozilla can support H.264 in Firefox, so it's not any government that is holding Firefox back, it's the ideology of those in charge of such decisions at Mozilla.
In fact, I'd wager ideology hinders Open Source more than any law does. On the other hand, ideology is one the greatest motive forces behind Open Source (and especially Free Software), so it's sort of a catch-22.
If you think MPEG-LA, which includes such heavyweights as Apple, MSFT, and IIRC IBM, is just gonna sulk in the corner while you snatch marketshare away from them you got another thing coming.
What do you think MPEG-LA is? They aren't primarily a profit source for it's members. For them, it's a way to get a legal codec out there for everyone to use. Companies like Apple and Microsoft have patents licensed to MPEG-LA, and in return they get a codec they can license that would otherwise be far too legally impractical (the exact sort of problem both WebM and Theora face, actually).
I'm sure if WebM gets any real traction outside of Google properties then MPEG-LA will break out their mighty Troll God hammer and lay the lawsuits of doom upon thee.
Probably, but that first requires the improbable event of WebM gaining sufficient traction.
H.264's patent licensing fees make it a dealbreaker for law-abiding indies, open source advocates and small hardware makers who don't want to pay.
Every single one of those groups can pay. As a web distribution format, H.264 is 100% free if you are non-commercial. If you are commercial, the licensing fees are low enough that you should have no problem recovering the costs. You might as well say something like, "having to pay to run a web site makes it a dealbreaker for...".
As for hardware, the licensing fees must not be that much because pretty much every single video-playing device out there supports H.264.
WebM is free.
Is claimed to be free. The MPEG-LA seems to think otherwise. But regardless, H.264 is pretty much universally supported and technologically superior to WebM. Supporting WebM simply because it's (claimed to be) free strikes me as a rather odd thing to do. It's like saying, "let's choose the shittier option, because the superior one offends my ideology, even though it does so in a way that is absolutely negligible in terms of actual impact upon my life".
No, it's entirely Mozilla. They could support H.264 with absolutely no problem whatsoever, but they won't because they mistook the reason they are so popular in the first place. Firefox gained market share because it was better than IE, not because it was patent-free (I was going to write "Free Software", but it's actually not. Hence Iceweasel).
H.264 is superior to WebM and Theora. By not supporting the best solution, Mozilla is giving up the very thing that made them great. Isn't one of the ideas behind Open Source is that it tends towards technical superiority? Apparently not.
Rubbish. Flash with H.264 is fucking fantastic. That's because H.264 is fantastic. Flash is just a set players (just like VLC or QuickTime), which can suck or not depending on the specific player, just like with any media player.
It is hell to work with, both as a user and as a developer
How so? The only way it seems to be "hell to work with" is if you let ideology get in the way.
and it don't work on mobile phones.
The Flash H.264 players don't work on most phones (and the ones it does work on, tends to not work very well), but that's why they come with their own players. H.264 on iOS is the most seamless, easy-to-use, high-quality combo of media format and player out there.
But your post begs one ENORMOUS question: what format is better than H.264? WebM? WebM is poorer quality and far less widely supported.
As a technical curiosity, WebM is interesting, but as a consumer media format it's rather pathetic. Geek tribalism and anti-patent sentiment may get you modded Insightful, but that doesn't change the reality that H.264 mops the floor with WebM (and Theora). Good luck trying to convince consumers that they should choose an inferior solution for theoretical, hypothetical, and ideological reasons. In fact, anyone who thinks WebM should supplant H.264 ought to ponder their motives. Geeks like to pretend they are above fanboyism and that they objectively choose the best tool for the job, entirely unswayed by emotion or marketing. Yeah, right...
Sure, but you can install a different browser on WM6 et al. If the iPhone browser was broke, you'd be eternally screwed.
I see, your attacks on the iPhone now require "ifs" that aren't? Well, hell, *if* the iPhone devoured babies, that would be pretty bad, and *if* Android electrocuted anyone holding it, maybe if both those things happened, WP7 would be a huge hit!
I can feel the WP7 getting more successful with every new "if". This must be what it feels like to be Steve Ballmer.
The reason it should not be legal is that it is a promise to buy from a particular supplier. It would be OK (not necessarily good policy, but not wrong in the same way) for him to promise to buy tablets from whichever vendor offered the best deal on suitable hardware and software.
I still don't see why that would be illegal (let alone wrong). He's not making a promise to Apple, he's making it to his constituents.
As for the idea of him instead saying, "tablets from whoever will offer the best deal", right now that is the iPad. There are no other tablets that can reasonably be said to compete with the iPad. The closest thing is the Samsung Galaxy Tab, which is more expensive, smaller, less storage...
Basically, "the best tablet" just means iPad anyway, and will for some time to come. A vocal number of Slashdotters seem to think that the iPad is overpriced and underpowered, but half a year later not a single competitor has been able to match it, and there's no reason to expect that to change any time soon. Apple will have released the second iPad before the competition has even caught up with the first.
You might want an open source OS, or multiple app stores, but I can promise you those aren't important to the vast majority of consumers, and a hospital is not going to care either.
So, I'm still curious on how this can be illegal. I mean, other than "I don't like anyone promising to buy something in government".
Also, do you want Apple to control what kind of software your health care system can use?
Apple does not "control what kind of software [they] can use". It's also extremely unlikely there are any legitimate medical apps that are being outright rejected from Apple's store (which, contrary to popular misconception, is not the only official way to distribute iOS apps).
I'm sure they could make a 2-20GB SSD for much less than the Bigfoot drives costed, and they won't need to be 5.25" form factor either.
Besides, you have it backwards, smaller physical SSD chips are cheaper. With silicon chips, you generally pay more for surface area than you pay for transistor density. Surface area increases the cost of the chip at an exponential rate per chip. Transistor density primarily increases the cost of the fab.
What I meant was if Lisa ripped of PARC, then Lisa would also likely be a research center, since they would tend to be similar things (although I wasn't being terribly serious since it's pretty clear that's not what you meant).
But my main point is that Lisa (or Macintosh) didn't rip off from the Alto. Apple paid for what they got from Xerox, and significantly improved upon what they saw at PARC.
There's a lot of verbs that can be used to describe the relationship between Xerox's GUI and Apple's GUI, but "ripped off" definitely isn't one of the most accurate.
I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion. There was only one suit regarding Windows copying Mac OS.
The QuickTime lawsuit was separate and about a contractor for MS actually stealing Apple source code.
Microsoft did infuse cash into Apple to the sum of approximately $150 million. Analysts at the time considered it to be "propping up" Apple.
Which is a total load of shit. Apple had over 10x that in cash in the bank. I doubt many analysts considered that "propping up" Apple, and if they did, they're wildly mistaken. MS sold the stock they bought not long afterwards anyway and Apple's cash reserves never dropped to the point where $150M would have made a difference.
There WERE multiple suits. Look up "The History of Apple" on Youtube and you'll see Scully outright say he pretty much bet the company on the look and feel [wikipedia.org] lawsuit, and that by the time the courts ruled against them they were already 5+ years behind and simply were never able to catch up under Scully.
I did look it up, and there weren't multiple suits on this topic. The agreement from 1997 was from the original suit. Basically, Apple lost, but they weren't convinced the issue was settled. The agreement in 1997 settled it.
And as much as Apple guys will scream bloody murder for anyone saying this and will probably modbomb me to hell, if it weren't for MSFT Apple simply wouldn't be here now. Look up the first two years Steve-notes after Steve returned and he will say it over and over again. By investing in Apple and promising to put out products custom built (as opposed to ports) for Apple MSFT gave the other software houses confidence that making Apple software wasn't a waste of resources.
That's absurd. MS's monetary investment was minuscule. The commitment of Office and IE were important, but to claim that Apple would have folded is utterly insane. I could just as easily claim that without Apple, MS wouldn't be here today (Basic for the Apple ][, Word and Excel for the Mac, the head-start Mac OS gave MS in their development of Windows, etc.). Even with all that, I wouldn't make that claim because it's silly. Even at its worst in the late '90s, Apple had billions of dollars in cash reserves.
You're a PC guy. Your musings on Apple are adorable, but ultimately skewed by your own limited point of view. Sure, I'm mainly a Mac guy, but I try hard to not let that bring me to make absurd claims about "the other side", like you do with regularity.
I'm [sic] not Microsoft's fault that you can't maintain an OS.
Yes, in fact it is. MS defines how Windows is to be maintained. If maintenance of Windows is too difficult for most of their customers, that responsibility lies entirely at MS's feet. MS doesn't market Windows only to trained professionals, it markets Windows to the general public. The fact that Windows is too complex for the general public to properly maintain is not something to blame the users for.
Even the Mac is barely too complex for a large portion of the computer using public. The iPad is pretty much the only computer that is truly ready for the mass market.
But this entirely sidesteps the real issue: Windows doesn't crash merely due to improper maintenance by the user. Up until XP SP2, crashing was an unavoidable reality. Even today Windows still crashes, although nowhere near the extent to which it did in the past.
Apple sued MS because they had an agreement that allowed MS full and early access to the source for Mac OS which they felt MS violated by creating Windows. They did not "sue everyone over the look and feel thing".
GEOS is still available and under active development.
Slashdot Mirror
Electrical Engineer here...
Please mod this guy down. SD cards are ancient. The 'secure' part of SD means write protection. It has nothing to do with DRM or encryption or anything else.
Wow... You are so very, very wrong. If you really are an EE, you may want to brush up.
SD was created during the whole DRM-fest of the 90s, and was a replacement for the DRM-lacking MMS cards.
the term BBC (which is unpronounceable)
I've always pronounced it "bee bee cee".
End users wouldn't be able to redistribute the AVC add-on to one another.
Which is entirely orthogonal to whether or not Mozilla can support H.264 in Firefox.
On Ubuntu, trying to install any package containing an AVC decoder using apt-get front-ends such as Synaptic or Ubuntu Software Center puts up a big scary warning about patents. Clicking OK is an infringement in those jurisdictions where AVC patents controlled by MPEG-LA are valid.
Then they can buy a fucking codec. A bunch of assholes who will only run free software should not be allowed to hold back the web.
Apart from the AVC decoder embedded in Flash Player, which AVC decoder for Windows XP, Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, or Windows 7 Starter is freely available from a U.S. source?
http://www.apple.com/quicktime
Mozilla doesn't consider it "making the web better" to encourage web developers to make pages that show I'm sorry, you need Frobozz Viewer 3.0 to view this file. It's only $19.99, please have your credit card ready. [fedoraproject.org]
Again, entirely orthogonal to whether or not they can support it. In fact, this is exactly what I've said multiple times. That Mozilla is doing this out of ideology and not due to technological or legal requirements.
It's Mozilla who is choosing not to support H.264 even though they can do so 100% legally and can do it without changing the terms under which they distribute Firefox.
"[T]he terms under which they distribute Firefox" include permitting redistribution to any third party. So yes, adding an AVC decoder would involve "changing the terms under which they distribute Firefox".
Reading comprehension fail on your part. I did not say "adding an AVC [or H.264] decoder". I said "supporting H.264. Why must you constantly lie about this? Firefox can support H.264 with nary a licensing change. WebKit is Open Source, including the right to redistribute binaries and source, and *it* supports H.264. Is Mozilla less technologically capable than Apple? (actually, the answer to that is yes, be even Mozilla has the ability to make an H.264 compatible version of Firefox)
Yes, it's extremely clear that I don't understand the web. In fact, I understand it so poorly that the H.264 codec that I suggest as being superior to WebM is not the most widely supported format on the Internet...
Oh wait, H.264 *is* more widely supported than WebM and Theora combined? Maybe I *do* understand things...
Makes me wonder, oh master of all things Internet, what open video format is the one that "drives the web forward"? Please enlighten me, AC.
So what if users can't redistribute it? Quit acting like this is something that is being imposed on Mozilla. It's Mozilla who is choosing not to support H.264 even though they can do so 100% legally and can do it without changing the terms under which they distribute Firefox.
They won't because they won't, not because they can't.
In order to qualify for an H.264 license, Mozilla would have to make its browser non-redistributable to third parties.
First off, so what? They own the code, they can do that. So the idea that they can't include H.264 is complete bullshit. Also, Firefox isn't completely redistributable as it is. Google "iceweasel" for more info. They could easily make a non-free version that natively supports H.264 in addition to the mostly-free version they have now.
Second, they can support H.264 very easily. They can buy a license for it and distribute it as an add-on.
Third, they can use the codecs installed on people's computers. All Macs support H.264, as does (I think) Windows 7. Linux is just an apt-get (or similar) away from it, and H.264 is freely available for older versions of Windows.
Fourth, they can support it as an add-on one must get from a third party, similar to how DVD playing worked in XP.
This idea that they can't is an outright lie. They just won't. It's as simple as that. What's your motive for continually promoting this lie?
open-source advocates [...] Every single one of those groups can pay.
From the GNU General Public
I was unaware that the GPL stated that "open-source advocates" can never buy non-free software!
Sarcasm aside, even if we narrow it down to open source developers, who use the GPLv3, and taken solely in the context of their specific GPLv3 projects, they can still support codecs like H.264, just not compiled directly into their program (and depending on how you want to look at it, either bundled with the binary and/or directly linked at compile time and then distributed). Firefox, for example (which is most definitely *not* under the GPL, but let's pretend that it is for a moment), could and can fully and legally support H.264 via a proprietary plug-in or through system libraries/frameworks.
This also ignores the various GPL'd software (like VLC and x264) that have been so far legally distributed within the US, without any trouble from either MPEG-LA or the FSF. Although I don't think those projects are entirely without risk of legal claims, it does belie the claim that it's impossible as well as the fear that MPEG-LA has trigger-happy lawyers.
Very few individuals, organizations projects, or companies are unable to support H.264, but there are a handful that are unwilling to.
In other words, it tends to be superior, except for when it isn't. "Government interference" is only one such cause for exception. I'm unaware of any government interference that explains X11.
Also, Mozilla can support H.264 in Firefox, so it's not any government that is holding Firefox back, it's the ideology of those in charge of such decisions at Mozilla.
In fact, I'd wager ideology hinders Open Source more than any law does. On the other hand, ideology is one the greatest motive forces behind Open Source (and especially Free Software), so it's sort of a catch-22.
If you think MPEG-LA, which includes such heavyweights as Apple, MSFT, and IIRC IBM, is just gonna sulk in the corner while you snatch marketshare away from them you got another thing coming.
What do you think MPEG-LA is? They aren't primarily a profit source for it's members. For them, it's a way to get a legal codec out there for everyone to use. Companies like Apple and Microsoft have patents licensed to MPEG-LA, and in return they get a codec they can license that would otherwise be far too legally impractical (the exact sort of problem both WebM and Theora face, actually).
I'm sure if WebM gets any real traction outside of Google properties then MPEG-LA will break out their mighty Troll God hammer and lay the lawsuits of doom upon thee.
Probably, but that first requires the improbable event of WebM gaining sufficient traction.
H.264's patent licensing fees make it a dealbreaker for law-abiding indies, open source advocates and small hardware makers who don't want to pay.
Every single one of those groups can pay. As a web distribution format, H.264 is 100% free if you are non-commercial. If you are commercial, the licensing fees are low enough that you should have no problem recovering the costs. You might as well say something like, "having to pay to run a web site makes it a dealbreaker for ...".
As for hardware, the licensing fees must not be that much because pretty much every single video-playing device out there supports H.264.
WebM is free.
Is claimed to be free. The MPEG-LA seems to think otherwise. But regardless, H.264 is pretty much universally supported and technologically superior to WebM. Supporting WebM simply because it's (claimed to be) free strikes me as a rather odd thing to do. It's like saying, "let's choose the shittier option, because the superior one offends my ideology, even though it does so in a way that is absolutely negligible in terms of actual impact upon my life".
The problem with H.264 isn't Mozilla.
No, it's entirely Mozilla. They could support H.264 with absolutely no problem whatsoever, but they won't because they mistook the reason they are so popular in the first place. Firefox gained market share because it was better than IE, not because it was patent-free (I was going to write "Free Software", but it's actually not. Hence Iceweasel).
H.264 is superior to WebM and Theora. By not supporting the best solution, Mozilla is giving up the very thing that made them great. Isn't one of the ideas behind Open Source is that it tends towards technical superiority? Apparently not.
flash with H.264 has not been working great.
Rubbish. Flash with H.264 is fucking fantastic. That's because H.264 is fantastic. Flash is just a set players (just like VLC or QuickTime), which can suck or not depending on the specific player, just like with any media player.
It is hell to work with, both as a user and as a developer
How so? The only way it seems to be "hell to work with" is if you let ideology get in the way.
and it don't work on mobile phones.
The Flash H.264 players don't work on most phones (and the ones it does work on, tends to not work very well), but that's why they come with their own players. H.264 on iOS is the most seamless, easy-to-use, high-quality combo of media format and player out there.
But your post begs one ENORMOUS question: what format is better than H.264? WebM? WebM is poorer quality and far less widely supported.
As a technical curiosity, WebM is interesting, but as a consumer media format it's rather pathetic. Geek tribalism and anti-patent sentiment may get you modded Insightful, but that doesn't change the reality that H.264 mops the floor with WebM (and Theora). Good luck trying to convince consumers that they should choose an inferior solution for theoretical, hypothetical, and ideological reasons. In fact, anyone who thinks WebM should supplant H.264 ought to ponder their motives. Geeks like to pretend they are above fanboyism and that they objectively choose the best tool for the job, entirely unswayed by emotion or marketing. Yeah, right...
Sure, but you can install a different browser on WM6 et al. If the iPhone browser was broke, you'd be eternally screwed.
I see, your attacks on the iPhone now require "ifs" that aren't? Well, hell, *if* the iPhone devoured babies, that would be pretty bad, and *if* Android electrocuted anyone holding it, maybe if both those things happened, WP7 would be a huge hit!
I can feel the WP7 getting more successful with every new "if". This must be what it feels like to be Steve Ballmer.
The reason it should not be legal is that it is a promise to buy from a particular supplier. It would be OK (not necessarily good policy, but not wrong in the same way) for him to promise to buy tablets from whichever vendor offered the best deal on suitable hardware and software.
I still don't see why that would be illegal (let alone wrong). He's not making a promise to Apple, he's making it to his constituents.
As for the idea of him instead saying, "tablets from whoever will offer the best deal", right now that is the iPad. There are no other tablets that can reasonably be said to compete with the iPad. The closest thing is the Samsung Galaxy Tab, which is more expensive, smaller, less storage...
Basically, "the best tablet" just means iPad anyway, and will for some time to come. A vocal number of Slashdotters seem to think that the iPad is overpriced and underpowered, but half a year later not a single competitor has been able to match it, and there's no reason to expect that to change any time soon. Apple will have released the second iPad before the competition has even caught up with the first.
You might want an open source OS, or multiple app stores, but I can promise you those aren't important to the vast majority of consumers, and a hospital is not going to care either.
So, I'm still curious on how this can be illegal. I mean, other than "I don't like anyone promising to buy something in government".
Is this kind of thing legal?
Why wouldn't it be?
Also, do you want Apple to control what kind of software your health care system can use?
Apple does not "control what kind of software [they] can use". It's also extremely unlikely there are any legitimate medical apps that are being outright rejected from Apple's store (which, contrary to popular misconception, is not the only official way to distribute iOS apps).
Slim Pickens rode a bomb not a missile.
Which, once released, became a missile. QED.
You have to dial in directly.
I'm sure they could make a 2-20GB SSD for much less than the Bigfoot drives costed, and they won't need to be 5.25" form factor either.
Besides, you have it backwards, smaller physical SSD chips are cheaper. With silicon chips, you generally pay more for surface area than you pay for transistor density. Surface area increases the cost of the chip at an exponential rate per chip. Transistor density primarily increases the cost of the fab.
What I meant was if Lisa ripped of PARC, then Lisa would also likely be a research center, since they would tend to be similar things (although I wasn't being terribly serious since it's pretty clear that's not what you meant).
But my main point is that Lisa (or Macintosh) didn't rip off from the Alto. Apple paid for what they got from Xerox, and significantly improved upon what they saw at PARC.
There's a lot of verbs that can be used to describe the relationship between Xerox's GUI and Apple's GUI, but "ripped off" definitely isn't one of the most accurate.
Actually, he's more precise than you.
I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion. There was only one suit regarding Windows copying Mac OS.
The QuickTime lawsuit was separate and about a contractor for MS actually stealing Apple source code.
Microsoft did infuse cash into Apple to the sum of approximately $150 million. Analysts at the time considered it to be "propping up" Apple.
Which is a total load of shit. Apple had over 10x that in cash in the bank. I doubt many analysts considered that "propping up" Apple, and if they did, they're wildly mistaken. MS sold the stock they bought not long afterwards anyway and Apple's cash reserves never dropped to the point where $150M would have made a difference.
There WERE multiple suits. Look up "The History of Apple" on Youtube and you'll see Scully outright say he pretty much bet the company on the look and feel [wikipedia.org] lawsuit, and that by the time the courts ruled against them they were already 5+ years behind and simply were never able to catch up under Scully.
I did look it up, and there weren't multiple suits on this topic. The agreement from 1997 was from the original suit. Basically, Apple lost, but they weren't convinced the issue was settled. The agreement in 1997 settled it.
And as much as Apple guys will scream bloody murder for anyone saying this and will probably modbomb me to hell, if it weren't for MSFT Apple simply wouldn't be here now. Look up the first two years Steve-notes after Steve returned and he will say it over and over again. By investing in Apple and promising to put out products custom built (as opposed to ports) for Apple MSFT gave the other software houses confidence that making Apple software wasn't a waste of resources.
That's absurd. MS's monetary investment was minuscule. The commitment of Office and IE were important, but to claim that Apple would have folded is utterly insane. I could just as easily claim that without Apple, MS wouldn't be here today (Basic for the Apple ][, Word and Excel for the Mac, the head-start Mac OS gave MS in their development of Windows, etc.). Even with all that, I wouldn't make that claim because it's silly. Even at its worst in the late '90s, Apple had billions of dollars in cash reserves.
You're a PC guy. Your musings on Apple are adorable, but ultimately skewed by your own limited point of view. Sure, I'm mainly a Mac guy, but I try hard to not let that bring me to make absurd claims about "the other side", like you do with regularity.
The Apple Lisa directly ripped off Xerox's PARC.
The Lisa was a research center?
If you mean the Xerox Alto, that is what Xerox showed off to Apple, but "directly ripped off" it's not.
Windows stopped crashing after windows 98.
Laughable claim.
I'm [sic] not Microsoft's fault that you can't maintain an OS.
Yes, in fact it is. MS defines how Windows is to be maintained. If maintenance of Windows is too difficult for most of their customers, that responsibility lies entirely at MS's feet. MS doesn't market Windows only to trained professionals, it markets Windows to the general public. The fact that Windows is too complex for the general public to properly maintain is not something to blame the users for.
Even the Mac is barely too complex for a large portion of the computer using public. The iPad is pretty much the only computer that is truly ready for the mass market.
But this entirely sidesteps the real issue: Windows doesn't crash merely due to improper maintenance by the user. Up until XP SP2, crashing was an unavoidable reality. Even today Windows still crashes, although nowhere near the extent to which it did in the past.
Apple sued MS because they had an agreement that allowed MS full and early access to the source for Mac OS which they felt MS violated by creating Windows. They did not "sue everyone over the look and feel thing".
GEOS is still available and under active development.