Maybe now....the Saint title can be dropped.

It's nice to finially see the reality of who Jobs is/was regarding his character and morals. I just have to refer to the early example of how Jobs treated his "Friend" Steve Wozniak when Woz helped Jobs on the Atari Breakout game. Jobs hide the fact that there was a 5,000 bonus payout on that project. All due to the technical expertise of Woz.

Jobs was a con-artist/car salesman then and in his later years. No respect for the man at all. He was the face man for Apple, but not the "Innovator" the general public like to believe. Just cult followers refusing to see the man for who He was. He took a $1.00 salary for the tax benefits, not because He was a swell guy. Of course if I could do that, I would as well, since its current tax law. IMO, Newts suggestion to offer an option of 15% flat tax or current tax system was a realistic approach to addressing the 1,000's of tax policies.

Best wishes for all,

Why can't Jobs stay in his coffin like other people?

This bastard simply refuses to die, properly.

We all know what he was. But this is a family magazine (read by impressionable teenagers). It's a pity Edward Colligan didn't use an Android and tape the conversations.

Apple's true colors yet again..

It's all coming out how corrupt Apple really are...

Disrespectful?

Fan or not, was there any need to write 'dead' in the headline?

Damn Mayans Again

What's the Mayan angle ?

Well the Mayans practiced Human Sacrifice, albeit famously less than their neighbours to the North the Aztecs. Enter the Conquistadores who hunted gold and would have enslaved to get it. What did not happen is the incorporation of Human Sacrifice into European Culture.

The Silicon Valley Conquistadores offered slavery or iPhones to Asia and the deal was sealed. This is the Moral Hazard of celebrating CEO's who are clever, but !(educated people|moral people).

I've never been a great fan of Steve Jobs - mostly because of his personal behaviour in dealings with other people. Bascially the guy comes across as a user. I.e. he'd use you up for his own ends without a qualm. But I suppose that's not too different from many people at the top of business.

As the saying goes: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts abslutely.

Defensive tool. Not

Apparently after Apple were sued for $100m in 2006 by Creative, Jobs' attitude was patent everything, especially as the iPhone was being released. Reads to me as though Apple got a bloody nose and Jobs' attitude was not to get caught out like that again.

Interesting article here on his "Defensive tool".

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/10/08/the-day-apples-steve-jobs-got-serious-about-patents/

...and an extract here:

It was 2006, and Apple was preparing to unveil the first iPhone. Life inside company headquarters, former executives said, had become a frenzy of programming sessions and meetings between engineers and executives. And, increasingly, patent lawyers.

Just months earlier, Apple reluctantly agreed to pay $100 million to Creative Technology...

Privately, Mr. Jobs gathered his senior managers. While Apple had long been adept at filing patents, when it came to the new iPhone, "we're going to patent it all," he declared, according to a former executive who, like other former employees, requested anonymity because of confidentiality agreements.

"His attitude was that if someone at Apple can dream it up, then we should apply for a patent, because even if we never build it, it's a defensive tool," said Nancy R. Heinen, Apple's general counsel until 2006.

Soon, Apple's engineers were asked to participate in monthly "invention disclosure sessions." One day, a group of software engineers met with three patent lawyers, according to a former Apple patent lawyer who was at the meeting.

The first engineer discussed a piece of software that studied users' preferences as they browsed the Web.

"That's a patent," a lawyer said, scribbling notes.

Another engineer described a slight modification to a popular application.

"That's a patent," the lawyer said.

Another engineer mentioned that his team had streamlined some software.

"That's another one," the lawyer said.

"Even if we knew it wouldn't get approved, we would file the application anyway," the former Apple lawyer said in an interview. "If nothing else, it prevents another company from trying to patent the idea."

The disclosure session had yielded more than a dozen potential patents when an engineer, an Apple veteran, spoke up. "I would like to decline to participate," he said, according to the lawyer who was at the meeting. The engineer explained that he didn't believe companies should be allowed to own basic software concepts.

Looks like there was only one kind of tool

Thus proving

Even a dead dick is still a dick.