Steve Jobs who died earlier this month after losing his long battle with pancreatic cancer, said that Google Android was a "stolen product" and that he was willing to "spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank".
Jobs went on to say "I'm going to destroy Android" and that he was "willing to go to thermonuclear war" over the issue of Android stealing Apple's intellectual property.
These remarkable quotes come from the Associated Press, who have obtained a copy Walter Isaacson's new book. Walter Isaacson is Steve Jobs' official biographer.
News of Job's ill feeling towards the Android mobile operating system comes as no surprise to the technology world, as Apple have been making headlines over recent months not just for its new products, but for tirelessly suing other electronics companies over its patents.
- See Apple: We invented Android!
- See Samsung Galaxy S, SII and Ace ban in detail
- See Apple wins ban on Samsung Galaxy smartphones
Last month Apple echoed Job's feelings towards Android and Google Android VP Andy Rubin with this statement to the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) during Apple's Case against HTC, the statement said “Android and Mr. Rubin's relevant background does not start, as HTC would like the Commission to believe, with his work at General Magic or Danger in the mid-1990s. In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed.
“It is thus no wonder that the infringing Android platform used the claimed subsystem approach of the '263 patent that allows for flexibility of design and enables the platform to be "highly customisable and expandable" as HTC touts.
“While Mr. Rubin's inspiration for the Android framework may not be directly relevant to the pending petitions for review, that HTC felt compelled to distort this history is illustrative of the liberties it takes in attacking the ALJ's [initial determination] and the substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's findings.”