An original Apple-1 prototype said to have once been owned by late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs is up for auction. The rare piece of Apple history was apparently hand-soldered by fellow co-founder Steve Wozniak, according to the listing by Boston-based auction house RR Auction.
It was said to have been used by Jobs in a demonstration to Paul Terrell, owner of The Byte Shop in Mountain View, California, in 1976. That demo resulted in Apple’s first big order, after Terrell purchased 50 Apple-1 computers to be sold at $666.66 apiece, the listing says.
Images of the prototype show a long crack down the right side of the circuit board and indications of Wozniak’s ‘three-handed’ soldering technique evidenced “in the tight ‘bubbles’ formed at the soldered connections,” according to RR Auction.
The circuit board was reportedly matched to Polaroid photographs taken by Terrell in 1976 and was reportedly examined and authenticated by Apple-1 expert Corey Cohen in 2022. Cohen’s notarized 13-page report comes with the prototype, which RR Auction expects to fetch more than $500,000.
“Few Apple artifacts could be considered as rare, early, or historic as this Apple-1 prototype, which spent many years on the ‘Apple Garage’ property — a site now entwined in the folklore of American business, where two unlikely heroes founded an empire,” RR Auction said in its listing. “Moreover, it is the perfect embodiment of the symbiosis between Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Silicon Valley: the brilliant businessman, the electronics Einstein, and the infrastructure in which they thrived.”
Neither Apple nor RR Auction immediately responded to CNET’s request for comment.
This story is part of 84 Days of Holiday, a collection that helps you find the perfect gift for anyone. Over the years, I’ve often described Apple’s MacBook Air as the most universally useful laptop you can get (or in this case, give). The latest version, now with Apple’s new M2 chip inside, hits the fresh …
Apple is working on a home-made processor that could be set for Mac computers released from the first half of 2021, MacRumors reported Monday, citing a note by Apple analyst Ming Chi Kuo. Moving from an Intel chip to an Apple-made Arm-based processor would mean Macs work better together with iPads and iPhones because they’d run on the same apps, according to MacRumors.
“We expect that Apple’s new products in 12 to 18 months will adopt processors made by 5nm process, including the new 2H20 5G iPhone, new 2H20 iPad equipped with mini LED and new 1H21 Mac equipped with the own-design processor,” Kuo’s note reportedly says. “iPhone 5G support, iPad’s adoption of innovative mid-size panel technology, and Mac’s first adoption of the own-design processor are all Apple’s critical product and technology strategies.”
Now playing: Watch this:
Apple may open up iOS, tweets get easier to link
1:14
Apple declined to comment on rumors and speculation, but the reported release in 2021 is a delay from previous rumors that Apple would have a home-made chip in Mac computers by 2020. Back in April 2018, it was reported that Apple was in the early stages of creating its own processors for its MacBook and iMac.
Originally published Feb. 24. Update, Feb. 25: Apple declined to comment.
Just hours after Apple and Qualcomm announced a settlement in their long-running patent battle earlier this month, Intel said it would exit the 5G phone modem business. But the chip giant didn’t say at the time whether its decision was based on the settlement.
It apparently was, according to a Wall Street Journal interview with Intel CEO Bob Swan.
“In light of the announcement of Apple and Qualcomm, we assessed the prospects for us to make money while delivering this technology for smartphones and concluded at the time that we just didn’t see a path,” Swan told the newspaper.
Intel on April 16 said it plans to cease working on modems for 5G, the next-generation of wireless technology expected to supercharge mobile connections. It had been working on a processor for Apple, with the chip expected to be in iPhones in 2020. Lately there have been worries the chip wouldn’t be ready until iPhones released in 2021.
The announcement came the same day that Apple and Qualcomm announced they had reached a settlement in their two-year legal battle over licensing royalties. Apple in January 2017 had accused Qualcomm of anticompetitive practices that have raised chip prices, restricted competition and hurt customer choice. Qualcomm, the world’s biggest mobile chipmaker, had countered that the iPhone wouldn’t be possible without its technology, and it deserved to be paid for its innovation.
In a statement at the time, Intel said it would “complete an assessment of the opportunities for 4G and 5G modems in PCs, internet of things devices and other data-centric devices.” It also said it will “continue to invest in its 5G network infrastructure business.”
When Swan was asked whether Intel was considering selling its 5G smartphone modem business, he told the Journal that the company is “evaluating alternatives on what’s the best course for our IP and our people.”
An Intel representative confirmed Swan’s comments but declined to comment further.
It’s a billion-dollar question: Should we care that there’s a GH59-09418A printed circuit board inside a Samsung smartphone?
At US District Court in San Jose, California, the heart of Silicon Valley, Apple and Samsung are trying to persuade a jury to see smartphones in very different ways. An earlier trial in the seven-year case already determined that Samsung infringed three Apple design patents, which cover ornamental elements of a product, and two functional patents, which govern how a product works. But the damages payment a jury now will set depends on just how important the GH59-09418A and thousands of other tidbits are in a phone.
As a result, a parade of Apple and Samsung witnesses have handled various components from Samsung phones: front glass faces, screen displays and bezels — the rims around the phone’s face. They’re all significant because a Supreme Court decision in 2016 means Samsung could pay damages based on profits from an “article of manufacture.” For Apple, that means the whole phone, and by its calculations, damages of more than $1 billion. For Samsung, it means a few components, and potentially a much lower fee.
On Thursday, Samsung began calling its witnesses in the trial. Over and over, the debate boiled down to the components and whether they’re an article of manufacture.
Now playing: Watch this:
Apple, Samsung to duke it out in court again
2:22
The debate is embodied in this exchange between Apple attorney Amy Wigmore and Timothy Sheppard, a Samsung operations and finance vice president who handled service and repair in the US, as Sheppard held a front glass face from a Samsung smartphone.
Wigmore: “Mr. Sheppard, did Samsung sell that product directly to consumers?”
Sheppard: “Yes, in a roundabout kind of way.”
Wigmore also dug into the details of Samsung’s SAP accounting software to determine whether it accounted separately for profits, research expenses, sales expenses for various components. “If you tell me about a specific component, I can explain sales information and cost. It’s in our SAP database,” he said.
Accountant Julie Davis, a witness called by Apple, calculated that Samsung should pay Apple more than $1 billion for infringing three Apple design patents.
sketch by Vicki Behringer
An Apple accounting expert, Julie Davis of accounting firm Davis and Hosfield, testified Wednesday that she believes Samsung owes Apple $1,072,453,256 for infringement of the five patents — all but $5.3 million of that for the design patents.
Thursday, Samsung called a rival witness, Michael Wagner, who offered a very different number. Samsung’s profits on selling its entire phones was $370,831,174, he said. His number was much smaller because he deducted expenses like R&D, sales, marketing, and administrative costs.
Samsung wants to drop that number even further with its argument that it should pay based on the profits from components, not the full phones. His calculation for the profits from the components was just $28,085,061, vastly less than Apple’s suggested $1 billion. He didn’t offer an opinion on how much Samsung should pay in royalties for the two utility patents.
Jinsoo Kim, a vice president in Samsung’s Corporate Design Center, testified through an interpreter that modern smartphones are very complex.
“There are more than 10 antennas involved,” handling different mobile networks, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and other radio communications. And for the total number of components in a phone, the number is hundreds. “If you’re talking about the second-tier suppliers and third-tier suppliers, I’d believe we are talking about thousands of components.”
Supreme Court helps Samsung’s case
After the Supreme Court verdict opened the door for damages based on components instead of the full phone, District Judge Lucy Koh adopted a four-factor test for determining the article of manufacture for an infringed design patent.
In October 2017, US District Judge Lucy Koh ordered Samsung and Apple to use a four-factor test to determine the article of manufacture to which a design patent applies — and thus on which profits are calculated to determine the design patent infringement penalty.
Screenshot by Stephen Shankland/CNET
To push its case, Samsung called an expert witness, Sam Lucente, an industrial designer and interface designer who worked at IBM, Netscape and Hewlett-Packard. Naturally, he agreed with Samsung.
He said he applied the four-factor test and indeed ordered parts and kits off the internet to replace screens on Samsung phones. “I replaced the display screen, front glass and bezel in 35 minutes, and the phone worked fine,” he said, an action he said bears on the fourth factor about whether a component can be physically separated from the rest of the product.
Three Apple design patents
In 2012, a jury found that 18 now discontinued Samsung phones infringed three Apple design patents: US Patent No. D618,677 (D’677 for short), which describes a black, rectangular, round-cornered front face for an electronic device, US Patent No. D593,087 (D’087), which describes a similar rectangular round-cornered front face plus the surrounding bezel, and US Patent No. D604,305 (D’305), which describes a grid of colorful icons.
Apple attorney Nate Sabri questions University of Toronto computer scientist Ravin Balakrishnan at a US District Court trial determining Samsung damage payments for infringing an Apple patent.
Sketch by Vicki Behringer
Lucente argued that the article of manufacture that those patents apply to are only components. “For the D’677 patent, the design applied to glass front face,” he said. “For D’087, patent was the applied to bezel and glass front face. For D’305, the patent was applied to the display screen.”
To tackle another of the four factors, the prominence of the patented feature in a product, Lucente also compared the infringing Galaxy S phone with the noninfringing Galaxy Ace. The Galaxy S infringed the D’677 and D’087 patents that govern the front face of the phone.
“By simply changing a small detail — adding a chrome finish to a feature, changing slightly the shape of button at the bottom and a small change of the bezel — it’s now a noninfringing alternative design,” Lucente said.Apple: See what’s up with the tech giant as it readies new iPhones and more.
First published May 17, 2:17 p.m. PTUpdate 3:27 p.m. PT: adds further details from Samsung witnesses Sam Lucente’s testimony. Update 4:04 p.m. PT: adds comments from Samsung witnesses Jinsoo Kim and Michael Wagner.
‘Hello, humans’: Google’s Duplex could make Assistant the most lifelike AI yet.
Tech Enabled: CNET chronicles tech’s role in providing new kinds of accessibility.
Two Apple expert witnesses — industrial designer Alan Ball and graphic designer Susan Kare, who designed the icons for the original Macintosh computers in the early 1980s — agreed with Apple’s view of the matter. But Samsung attorneys managed to extract some limited acknowledgements from the two that the lawyers doubtless hope will help steer jurors toward its way of thinking.
An earlier trial in the seven-year case already determined that Samsung infringed three Apple design patents, which cover ornamental elements of a product, and two functional patents, which govern how a product works. The central dispute that remains is whether to base Samsung’s damages payment on the profits from entire phones, as Apple argues, or just from some components, as Samsung believes.
Now playing: Watch this:
Apple, Samsung to duke it out in court again
2:22
At stake is whether design patents, which govern ornamental aspects of products, are powerful tools to keep competitors at bay or relatively limited in power. Apple — where good design is job one, company executives testified Tuesday — is pushing for power. It’s seeking more than $1 billion in damages from Samsung for infringing the three design patents.
One law school professor not involved with the case sees things Samsung’s way.
“Apple’s theory would lead to an award that is totally disproportionate to any actual harm suffered. And while Samsung can afford to fight this type of claim, not every accused infringer can,” Sarah Burstein, a University of Oklahoma law professor who studies the article of manufacture issue, said in an interview.
“I agree with Samsung on this one,” she said. “After looking into the historical meaning of the phrase ‘article of manufacture,’ it’s clear Congress didn’t intend for someone to be able to patent a design for a screen and get the profits from the whole phone.”
Designers on the stand
Ball evaluated the article of manufacture issue for two Apple design patents, US Patent No. D618,677 (D’677 for short), which describes a black, rectangular, round-cornered front face for an electronic device, and US Patent No. D593,087 (D’087), which describes a similar rectangular round-cornered front face plus the surrounding rim called a bezel. Kare did the same evaluation but for US Patent No. D604,305 (D’305), which describes a grid of colorful icons.
“To me, no question — in each case, the D’305 [patent] was applied to each of these finished phones — the whole phone,” Kare said.
Alan Ball, an independent industrial designer, testifies in US Northern California District Court in San Jose about Apple iPhone design patents Samsung was found to infringe.
Vicki Behringer
And for the D’677 and D’087 patents, Ball said the Samsung articles of manufacture are “the entire smartphones.”
Yes, phones are made of components
An illustration from Apple’s US Patent No. D604,305 (D’305), a design patent that describes a grid of icons
Screenshot by Stephen Shankland/CNET
But Samsung lawyers worked hard to get the witnesses to acknowledge that phones are made of components even if those components aren’t ordinarily something a person might buy.
“I get that a display screen is a thing,” an article of manufacture along with other components, Kare said. And she accepted that in the design patent illustrations, some elements of the phone drawn with dotted lines are not part of what Apple claimed in the patent.
But she stuck to her overall position that it’s an “organic, holistic design” that infringes Apple’s D’305 patent. And asked whether the icons governed by D’305 appear on a phone’s screen, she said, “Honestly, I’d say you see it on the phone.”
Ball also pointed to “unitary or monolithic” phone designs. He acknowledged that phones could be disassembled with the right tools, “but we have to look at whether it was intended,” he said. “Just because you can take something apart doesn’t mean it was designed to be that way. If you replace [a component], you’re trying to get back to that thing that you bought.”
What about a medical device?
Samsung attorney Bill Price also asked Ball to imagine a medical device that looked just like one of the infringing Samsung phones but actually was a revolutionary scanner that could detect cancer and was worth millions of dollars.
Accountant Julie Davis, a witness called by Apple, calculated that Samsung should pay Apple more than $1 billion for infringing three Apple design patents.
Vicki Behringer
“Using your logic, that incredibly expensive medical device would be the article of manufacture, right?” Price asked.
Ball answered, “No. not necessarily. It’s a hypothetical situation.”
To determine what exactly is the article of manufacture, he’d have to apply the four-factor test US District Judge Lucy Koh previously has provided. Those factors are the scope of what’s actually patented, how prominent the design is in the overall product, whether the design is conceptually different from the overall product, and if the patented item can be physically separated from the overall device.
It’ll be up to the jury to assess Ball’s views on medical devices and Samsung phones. Closing arguments should be presented Friday, with jury deliberations Monday.
Apple: See what’s up with the tech giant as it readies new iPhones and more.
‘Hello, humans’: Google’s Duplex could make Assistant the most lifelike AI yet.
A key US agency has officially stepped into the legal battle between Apple and Qualcomm.
The US International Trade Commission, which has the power to ban products from entering the country, confirmed on Tuesday it will investigate Qualcomm’s complaint that Apple was illegally using its cellular technology in iPhones powered by modems made by Intel. Qualcomm is seeking to bar all iPhones using Intel modems, which run on the AT&T and T-Mobile networks.
While there’s no specific timing, the ITC said it would set a target date to complete the investigation within 45 days after its start. Qualcomm General Counsel Don Rosenberg warned in July that any decision from the ITC likely wouldn’t happen for about 18 months.
The ITC stepping in is the latest turn of the legal drama that is the Apple-Qualcomm spat, which began when Apple decided it was paying too high a licensing fee for Qualcomm’s mobile technology. Apple believes it should be paying a licensing fee based on the value of the modem, while Qualcomm argues it should be based on the value of the phone, considering all of the other technology it’s helped developed.
Going to the ITC is a common tactic when engaging in battles over patents because the prospect of a product ban is often devastating enough to get both sides to the bargaining tables. Tech companies who involve the ITC in their disputes often figure out a resolution before any ban is put into effect.
It’s a common route for Qualcomm, the world’s largest provider of mobile chips, which is no stranger to patent battles. The company in July filed its complaint with the ITC, accusing Apple of infringing on six mobile patents. A ban would allow iPhones using its own chips to enter the US. Those models run on Verizon’s and Sprint’s networks.
“Qualcomm is pleased with the ITC’s decision to investigate Apple’s unfair trade practices and the unauthorized importation of products using Qualcomm’s patents,” said Don Rosenberg, executive vice president and general counsel of Qualcomm. “We look forward to the ITC’s expeditious investigation of Apple’s ongoing infringement of our intellectual property and the accelerated relief that the Commission can provide.”
Intel declined to comment.
Apple pointed to this prior statement from June: “Qualcomm’s illegal business practices are harming Apple and the entire industry. They supply us with a single connectivity component, but for years have been demanding a percentage of the total cost of our products – effectively taxing Apple’s innovation.”
With the new IBM MobileFirst for iOS apps, such as Passenger+ (pictured), Apple aims to fly deeper into corporate kingdoms.
Apple/IBM
The partnership between Apple and IBM is starting to bear fruit.
The companies, which in July struck a deal to deliver mobile apps to big businesses, on Wednesday released 10 apps as part of the IBM MobileFirst for iOS product line. The apps span industries including airlines, telecommunications, insurance, banking and government, and are all designed for corporate customers.
Plan Flight, for instance, is designed for pilots to manage their in-flight activities to help airlines save costs, while Passenger+ is intended to help flight crews offer personalized services to passengers in-flight. Another, called Retention, targets the insurance industry to help agents keep top customers in the fold. The government-focused apps focus on helping caseworkers and on crime prevention.
Companies among the initial wave of adopters are Citi, Air Canada, Sprint and Banorte.
In time, the Apple-IBM venture aims to create over 100 vertical-focused enterprise apps built for the iPhone and iPad. In addition, IBM’s cloud services will be optimized for iOS, and the giant enterprise-focused company will sell Apple products bundled with the software to companies around the globe. Apple’s support platform, AppleCare, will also be tailored for IBM customers and include on-site support from IBM employees.
The move was a surprising, but also exceedingly important, one for Apple. Over the last few years, Apple has talked up the increasing use of its products in the corporate world. With each quarterly earnings call, the company’s executives have shared how many Fortune 500 companies have so far adopted or tested iOS products. As of this writing, nearly all are at least testing the company’s products to see if they make sense for corporate use.
“This is a big step for iPhone and iPad in the enterprise,” said Philip Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of Worldwide Marketing, in a statement. “The business world has gone mobile.”
The shift, referred to as BYOD (for “bring your own device”), began as a grass-roots movement among corporate employees who were increasingly using smartphones and tablets in their personal lives and wanted the same convenience in their professional spheres.
For IBM, the deal with Apple provides access to customers who otherwise might not be using its products and services. It also can capitalize on Apple’s cool factor — something somewhat lacking historically from the IBM brand.
The collaboration led to “beautiful, elegant, smart apps, which also have the chops for serious business,” said Bridget van Kralingen, senior vice president at IBM Global Business Services.
Among the early customers, Air Canada said that the Plan Flight app will help take the guesswork out of its operations.
“Today, dispatchers and pilots determine how much extra fuel is loaded onto a plane based largely on current factors and their individual judgements,” Jim Tabor, vice president of system operations control at Air Canada, said in a statement. Plan Flight, he continued, will deliver “recommendations based on several variables, including weather conditions, anticipated taxi time and historical data to determine the optimal amount of fuel for each flight.”
Apple declined to comment beyond its joint press release with IBM.
From left: Beats co-founder Jimmy Iovine, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Beats co-founder Dr. Dre, and Apple SVP Eddy Cue.
Apple
The European Union’s competition watchdog, the European Commission, will make a decision on Apple’s $3 billion deal to buy Beats by the end of next month.
The Commission announced the news Wednesday, saying that while it could clear the deal with no concessions, it reserves the right to launch an in-depth investigation into the agreement to deal with any competitive issues that might result from the acquisition.
The European Commission is just one of several governmental bodies that need to approve the Apple deal, including US regulators, who will also examine whether it poses any anticompetitive concerns. That seems unlikely, given the sheer amount of competition in music streaming today and the small sliver occupied by Beats Music in the space owned by Pandora and Spotify.
In addition to streaming music, Apple would get its hands on Beats’ popular headphones. Apple’s brand has arguably lost some of its “coolness” factor over the last few years, while Beats, riding the success of its headphones, has become a pop culture phenomenon.
When the deal closes, Apple will also bring aboard rap star and Beats co-founder Dr. Dre, as well as Interscope Records chairman and Beats co-founder Jimmy Iovine.
CNET has contacted Apple for comment on the EU approval date. We will update this story when we have more information.
It’s called Weed Firm. And, yes, its principles don’t divert entirely from the challenges experienced by Mary-Louise Parker’s character on “Weeds.”
The game’s makers describe it like this: “Follow the story of an expelled botany sophomore Ted Growing as he inherits a growing operation and expands it. Learn to grow weed, plant new varieties to increase your yields, expand your customer base and interact with the characters to become the biggest weed dealer in town.”
Yes, of course you have to bribe the police along the way. That’s called a business expense.
Some might find it odd that Apple, which does occasionally adhere to strict moral principles, approved this game at all. (And it’s definitely available beyond Colorado and Washington.)
Those who have reviewed it in the iTunes Store seem generally pleased with its performance.
One reviewer, though, offered frustration: “I hate when the gangsters break in and steal all of your money and weed and if you haven’t already got any seeds or weed, you can’t buy or sell anything else.”
Life can be like that. Heartless.
Manitoba Games, the makers of Weed Firm, insist they don’t condone smoking pot or making money out of dealing. Their disclaimer reads: “The plot of this game is solely a work of fiction and should be viewed only as such.”
Personally, I enjoyed their other warning, one that will surely serve everyone as they go through their daily lives: “Watch out for thugs and cops.”
A juror in the Apple vs Samsung trial has spoken exclusively to our sister site CNET News. He’s spilled the beans on how the jury decided Samsung had infringed Apple’s patents, and how it came to award the Cupertino company more than $1bn.
There were several “heated” debates, according to juror Manuel Ilagan. He says nothing was rushed, despite the jury coming to their conclusion in just 21 hours of deliberations, and he says they carefully considered all the evidence.
“We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented,” Ilagan said. “It was clear there was infringement.”
So what pieces of evidence helped them come to this conclusion?
“Well there were several,” Ilagan said. “The emails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, [Apple] showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out.
“Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video from Korea — I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn’t answer one of them. They didn’t help their cause.”
Samsung didn’t win a penny of its asked-for $421m damages. But Ilagan said it wasn’t clear until after the first day of deliberations that the jurors were in agreement.
The bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom patents proved particularly tricky topics to debate. But the deliberation process sped up once they agreed Samsung had infringed Apple’s patents.
“Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents, it’s easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same,” Ilagan said. “Like the trade dress — once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the bezel… then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn’t rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated.”
He also denied there was any hometown bias for the California-based Apple. And he was clear the jury knew the ramifications their decision could cause.
“I realised that’s a big deal if Samsung can’t sell those phones,” he said. “But I’m sure Samsung can recover and do their own designs. There are other ways to design a phone. What was happening was that the appearance [of Samsung’s phone] was their downfall. You copied the appearance… Nokia is still selling phones. BlackBerry is selling phones. Those phones aren’t infringing. There are alternatives out there.”
It’s been a controversial case from the off. What do you reckon of the outcome? Is it right, or a loss for the consumer? Let me know in the comments, or on our Facebook page.
