Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hype.it" data-source="post: 39167" data-attributes="member: 4085">&quot;It's a lot more than we'd ever anticipated,&quot; said 31-year-old Silicon Valley native Arlo Rose, who with his business partner, Perry Clarke, cooked up the idea during long lunch breaks when they were both employed at Sun Microsystems. &quot;The idea behind it was to come up with a little utility to let you do whatever you wanted to with little or no programming experience.&quot;If the above quotation is true... and both Arlo Rose &amp; Perry Clarke was employed by Sun Microsystems. By means of employment, they both signed a &quot;Contract of Employment.&quot; Then I would have to tell you this... the 'Widgets' technology would be owned by &quot;Sun Microsystems&quot;.Why? Because under most terms of employment, especially those involving development, computer and technology there is one sections that states something like &quot;during the term of employment any technology developed or produce during employment will remain the property of blah blah blah&quot; in this case &quot;Sun Microsystems&quot;But this contract of employment rule changed from company to company. If Sun Microsystems were a wise bunch of people they would have enlisted this sort of rule in their employment contract.Just to through a spanner in the works....&quot;Rose once worked for Apple doing user interface design and was co-creator of the Kaleidoscope shareware for manipulating pre-OS X Apple user interfaces.&quot;&nbsp;So... if Dashboard &amp; Gadgets come from the idea of Kaleidoscope, could the widgets technology be owned by Apple Computers, Inc. anyway? <a href="http://news.com.com/Mac+applets+coming+soon+to+Windows/2100-1046_3-5126248.html?tag=nl" target="_blank">Source...</a>This is assuming that both Widgets and Gadgets are identical, from the way they are created and executed. Personally i think gadgets are completely different, but similar in function.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hype.it, post: 39167, member: 4085"] [i]"It's a lot more than we'd ever anticipated," said 31-year-old Silicon Valley native Arlo Rose, who with his business partner, Perry Clarke, cooked up the idea during long lunch breaks when they were both employed at Sun Microsystems. "The idea behind it was to come up with a little utility to let you do whatever you wanted to with little or no programming experience."[/i] If the above quotation is true... and both Arlo Rose & Perry Clarke was employed by Sun Microsystems. By means of employment, they both signed a "Contract of Employment." Then I would have to tell you this... the 'Widgets' technology would be owned by "Sun Microsystems". Why? Because under most terms of employment, especially those involving development, computer and technology there is one sections that states something like "during the term of employment any technology developed or produce during employment will remain the property of blah blah blah" in this case "Sun Microsystems" But this contract of employment rule changed from company to company. If Sun Microsystems were a wise bunch of people they would have enlisted this sort of rule in their employment contract. Just to through a spanner in the works.... [i]"Rose once worked for Apple doing user interface design and was co-creator of the Kaleidoscope shareware for manipulating pre-OS X Apple user interfaces."[/i] So... if [b]Dashboard & Gadgets[/b] come from the idea of Kaleidoscope, could the widgets technology be owned by Apple Computers, Inc. anyway? [URL=http://news.com.com/Mac+applets+coming+soon+to+Windows/2100-1046_3-5126248.html?tag=nl]Source...[/URL] This is assuming that both Widgets and Gadgets are identical, from the way they are created and executed. Personally i think gadgets are completely different, but similar in function. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Name this item 🌈