Sorry, I don't want to imply that Apple was wrong for copying Xerox. I was trying to make a point about the similarity of the act (though it's possible that you hadn't seen the explanation I gave (you asked for it) when you wrote this).
I'm interested to see a citation about this license you claim that Apple bought. Xerox didn't seem to think that a license was bought. They sued (much later).
Nirvana's mistaken a bit here. They didn't license the technology, but they "did" allow Xerox to buy 100,000 Apple shares for just a million dollar (a year before their IPO).
I'm interested to see a citation about this license you claim that Apple bought. Xerox didn't seem to think that a license was bought. They sued (much later).