Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 10th Sep 2011 10:59 UTC
Legal Well, that's interesting. What some already speculated has now been confirmed by Reuters: Apple's 'victory' in Germany turns out to be remarkably hollow. While Samsung Germany may no longer sell or advertise the Galaxy Tab 10.1, this ban does not cover anybody else. So, retailers will still be able to sell the device - including purchasing new stock from other Samsung branches.
Order by: Score:
This makes me...
by turrini on Sat 10th Sep 2011 11:16 UTC
turrini
Member since:
2006-10-31

\o/

Score: 7

RE: This makes me...
by molnarcs on Sat 10th Sep 2011 17:53 UTC in reply to "This makes me..."
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

\o/

You just violated one of Apple's design patents!

Score: 12

Just like Australia
by unclefester on Sat 10th Sep 2011 11:47 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Galaxy Tabs can be readily purchased in Australia despite an injunction against Samsung,

Score: 5

Whack a' Mole
by joelito_pr on Sat 10th Sep 2011 12:39 UTC
joelito_pr
Member since:
2005-07-07

Is Apple willing to spend the kind of money needed to sue all retailers?

Score: 3

RE: Whack a' Mole
by unoengborg on Sat 10th Sep 2011 13:03 UTC in reply to "Whack a' Mole"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

And everytime they sue, they send a message to the market that the Galaxy tab is the main competitor to the iPad. The iPad will stand out as the product that was not good enough to make it on its own merits without legal help. How smart is that.

Score: 12

RE[2]: Whack a' Mole
by darknexus on Sat 10th Sep 2011 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Whack a' Mole"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

And everytime they sue, they send a message to the market that the Galaxy tab is the main competitor to the iPad. The iPad will stand out as the product that was not good enough to make it on its own merits without legal help. How smart is that.

I think you're under the mistaken impression that the majority of people will actually think about such things. In reality, they won't care. iPad shiny, iPad good. Samsung getting sued, Samsung bad. That's the extent of most average consumers' intelligence these days, at least here in the states.

Score: 6

RE[3]: Whack a' Mole
by JAlexoid on Sat 10th Sep 2011 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Whack a' Mole"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Nahh... Most consumers will say: Tablet? iPad? Is that the thing I can swipe my finger in the electronics store? Lawsuit? Whatrutakingaboot?

Score: 6

RE[3]: Whack a' Mole
by protomank on Sat 10th Sep 2011 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Whack a' Mole"
protomank Member since:
2006-08-03

iPad shiny, iPad good. Samsung getting sued, Samsung bad. That's the extent of most average consumers' intelligence these days, at least here in the states.


I am glad to tell you that, at least here in brazil, most people think: "Apple create great products, but they are bad and expensive, Samsung is goog".

The current best-seller smartphone here is Samsung's Galaxy 5, that is being sold (without a plan) for around 400 R$ (something like US$ 235), that is a really good price for what it delivers.
iPhone owners here are most tech-savy people and other that just want to show theselves, like to get girls or impress their colleagues.

Score: 3

RE[3]: Whack a' Mole
by shmerl on Sun 11th Sep 2011 01:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Whack a' Mole"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

No, most people just will see free advertisement Apple created for Samsung, and will learn about Galaxy. Apple are dumb enough to create free PR for their competitors.

Score: 4

RE[3]: Whack a' Mole
by umccullough on Sun 11th Sep 2011 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Whack a' Mole"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

That's the extent of most average consumers' intelligence these days, at least here in the states.


Yeah, maybe before the internet existed...

I was just at a pool party with some people from my daughter's school, and I asked someone there (who had an iPad with him): did you hear about the German lawsuit against Samsung? And he launched into a discussion with me about how pitiful that behavior is on Apple's part. I smile thinking about it ;)

Score: 4

RE[2]: Whack a' Mole
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 10th Sep 2011 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Whack a' Mole"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, no.

If I wanted a tablet, and had enough for a galaxy, I'd still probably go for the ipad2 at this point.

But at this point, I don't want a tablet. We'll see what ice cream and the ipad 3 bring about. Maybe they'l make 'em actually cost effective.

Score: 3

RE[2]: Whack a' Mole
by MacTO on Sun 11th Sep 2011 05:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Whack a' Mole"
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

Those who are obsessed with Apple to the point of irrationality, sure. But they wouldn't have bought the competitor's product anyhow.

Techies who are obsessed with every gadget on the market, well, Apple is giving Samsung great exposure.

The vast majority though? I doubt that many people outside of technophiles and investors will even read the headlines.

Score: 2

RE: Whack a' Mole
by darknexus on Sat 10th Sep 2011 13:53 UTC in reply to "Whack a' Mole"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Is Apple willing to spend the kind of money needed to sue all retailers?

Do you even have to ask?

Score: 3

Nah
by kristoph on Sat 10th Sep 2011 16:17 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

Although retailers can source the product from outside Germany only some small percentage will do that. For others, it will simply not be worth the hassle for a marginally selling product.

More importantly Samsung won't be able to effectively promote the product in Germany making the product unattractive to retailers.

Those who really want the GTab will be able to get it but it won't ever become a well selling product in that environment.

That's a pretty much all Apple wants. Honestly I think they would be fine if Samsung were just forced to stop promoting it and they got more than that.

Score: 2

RE: Nah
by Soulbender on Sat 10th Sep 2011 21:40 UTC in reply to "Nah"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Hooray for competition! no wait...

Score: 3

RE: Nah
by cyrilleberger on Mon 12th Sep 2011 08:25 UTC in reply to "Nah"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

Now I am wondering... can Samsung Netherland promote the galaxy tab in Germany ? After all... it is Samsung Germany that is banned to do that, right ?

Score: 2

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Sat 10th Sep 2011 16:54 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

This is turbo nutter. Compounded with the insane news of banning rectangles in the first place, this has reached a peak of insanity.

Score: 4

This is good news :D
by lucas_maximus on Sat 10th Sep 2011 22:50 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

I am pretty much going to buy a Galaxy Tab once I can afford one just so I have "voted with my wallet" against the iPad ... (probably pointless but will make me feel better).

I still want to get a Kindle First because of the lovely readable screen ... but a Galaxy Tab may replace my laptop as my Sofa Surfing device.

Score: 2

It makes me wonder
by OSGuy on Sat 10th Sep 2011 23:13 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

What would Apple's reaction have been if these two tabs were actually running Windows 8. So the whole design would be identical, everything would be the same except for the OS, Windows 8. I have a feeling the outcome would have been a lot different.

Score: 3

RE: It makes me wonder
by dragossh on Sun 11th Sep 2011 12:14 UTC in reply to "It makes me wonder"
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

Windows 8 violates Apple's sleep patent. And the community design for a rectangle.

Score: 2

I don't want to provoke but....
by Tony Swash on Sun 11th Sep 2011 18:04 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Looks like things may not be as straightforward as this report makes out.

I know FOSS Patents is not Thom's favourite source but Florian Mueller does seem to have some knowledge in this area and his reports always contain more facts and more reasoning than seem to be the case in a lot of reporting - so here is the link. Make your own mind up.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-apples-german-injunctio...

A gold star for anyone who critiques the article from the link without engaging in any ad hominem tactics

Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It sounds very factually and such - until you look closer. His argument basically comes to two things: one, even if Samsung Germany is not involved, Samsung might still be in trouble. Second, it would be insanely easy for Apple to extend the injunction to retailers. Let's look at these, shall we?

So what if MediaMarkt ordered 10,000 Galaxy Tabs 10.1 from Samsung Korea for shipment to, say, the Netherlands? Then Samsung would be treading a dangerous path because subject to the specifics of the deal and the knowledge Samsung has of what MediaMarkt plans to do with those products, Samsung might be found to act in contempt of the injunction. Since MediaMarkt operates stores in a large number of countries, Samsung could always try to defend itself that it assumed the products were going to be sold in other markets than Germany -- but not if Apple can prove that Samsung clearly knew it.


Emphasis added. Read the article carefully, and you'll see not a single quoted law, not a single certainty, all vague ifs and buts and coulds and mights. It's incredibly flimsy.

How on earth can Samsung be privy to the internal distribution structures of MediaMarkt and the dozens of other retailers? That's nonsensical. It would be nigh-impossible for Apple to prove ANYthing in this regard. If retailers order Galaxy Tabs from wherever - either through other retailers in Europe, or other Samsung branches, or wholesalers - then Samsung has ZERO control over where those Tabs end up. That is up to the retailers. Samsung is NOT responsible for what retailers do with products they bought.

Moving on to the second argument, and it gets even sillier.

Apple could easily extend the injunction to retailers or, more likely, use soft pressure to dissuade them from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (and 7.7) in Germany


So, Apple is going to pressure all the dozens of retailers into not selling the Tab? It's going to ask for injunctions against all the important retailers? That's silly, because the relationship between retailers and Apple is not balanced, no matter how much Mueller wants it to be.

In Europe, Apple relies almost exclusively on retailers. There are barely any Apple stores, and those few that exist, are only in the large cities. Apple NEEDS retailers, but retailers don't really need Apple - Apple is only a minutely small part of their sales. They could stop selling Apple stuff today and barely feel a thing.

This is Mueller grasping at straws to do damage control - i.e., to make the ruling seem more significant than it really is. He also completely ignores the Dutch ruling when extolling the importance of the German ruling for the case in the US - even though the Dutch case was FAR more comprehensive, since it included lots of software patents as well. The Dutch ruling will be of far more use to Samsung than the German ruling will be for Apple.

The reason he ignores this is clear: it's his job to make Apple appear as strong as possible, and anything related to Google as weak as possible.

Edited 2011-09-11 18:51 UTC

Score: 9

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

The reason he ignores this is clear: it's his job to make Apple appear as strong as possible, and anything related to Google as weak as possible.


Do you mean 'job' as in paid job or as in self appointed task?

Score: 4

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

The reason he ignores this is clear: it's his job to make any competition to Microsoft appear as weak as possible.


FTFY.

Score: 3

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Luckily this whole thing will be resolved empirically - either the court decision will impact on the distribution of the Galaxy Tab or it won't.

Personally I can't see how it can fail to impact on it's distribution but then I am no expert on either the law in this filed or German electronic retail distribution.

Score: 3

FlorianMueller Member since:
2010-10-07

Concerning the point further above about advertising, it's true that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (and 7.7) can't be advertised by Samsung in Germany as a result of the injunction, and that in and of itself is beneficial to Apple. In fact, Samsung's German press spokeswoman even navigated around any use of the product name in an AndroidPit interview.

The reason I didn't make the advertising point in my post is because retailers like MediaMarkt can still promote until they agree, or are required, to comply, too.

Emphasis added. Read the article carefully, and you'll see not a single quoted law, not a single certainty, all vague ifs and buts and coulds and mights. It's incredibly flimsy.


The ifs/buts/coulds/mights are needed because we're talking about scenarios involving the purely hypothetical behavior of Apple, Samsung, and other parties. I obviously can't say that Samsung did or does sell to MediaMarkt via the Netherlands until it actually happens.

In terms of not quoting the law, I'm not sure OSNews has ever quoted the law other than quoting third parties who did so...

I can speak from actual experience in dealing with this. Don't know what Thom's background is, but I have a real industry background. Apart from that, I have just this year already advised 12 (later today, 13) different clients, including some of the world's leading investment banks, on intellectual property issues and their economic and technical implications. Law.com, the leading U.S. legal website (affiliated with the leading print publication for U.S. lawyers), refers to me as "our go-to smartphone wars commentator". If I know something is the case, I don't have to spend time digging up German case law (which most of my readers couldn't understand anyway) to support my argument.

How on earth can Samsung be privy to the internal distribution structures of MediaMarkt and the dozens of other retailers? That's nonsensical. It would be nigh-impossible for Apple to prove ANYthing in this regard.


Interestingly, the same person who said that I have too many ifs/buts/mights/coulds in my post now restricts the statement with "nigh" before "impossible". So Thom can't commit that it's 100% impossible. He uses a weasel word just so he doesn't have to admit that what I said is true. Since Thom can't commit to "impossible" but says "nigh-impossible", it apparently IS possible, and then I had a point and was right.

If retailers order Galaxy Tabs from wherever - either through other retailers in Europe, or other Samsung branches, or wholesalers - then Samsung has ZERO control over where those Tabs end up. That is up to the retailers. Samsung is NOT responsible for what retailers do with products they bought.


I never said anything to the contrary. However, while I don't know how much Thom knows about the world of business, I have done a fair amount of business with companies like MediaMarkt in connection with a variety of consumer software products. I visited their HQ to talk business, I met their purchasing managers at CeBIT and other tradeshows. I know how that sales process works. The practical reality is that most of the time they will ask you for a so-called cooperative advertising allowance as an additional discount they use for their extensive promotions. And one you talk about cooperative advertising and effectively subsidizing it through a discount, you do talk about where the product gets promoted and sold.

Moving on to the second argument, and it gets even sillier.


Yes, something does get silliers -- not my blog post, but Thom's attempts to counter it.

So, Apple is going to pressure all the dozens of retailers into not selling the Tab? It's going to ask for injunctions against all the important retailers? That's silly,


What's utterly and pathetically silly is Thom's failure to understand that any overlap between legal and business considerations needs a look at both sides, and I started with what Apple's legal options would be. My own blog post -- which everyone but "silly" people could see -- makes it clear that and why it's undesirable for Apple to do this. But as far as the law is concerned, it's easy as 1-2-3. They wouldn't need senior law firm partners to do this. This would be almost at the level of what a good secretary can do all by herself.

because the relationship between retailers and Apple is not balanced, no matter how much Mueller wants it to be.
In Europe, Apple relies almost exclusively on retailers. There are barely any Apple stores, and those few that exist, are only in the large cities. Apple NEEDS retailers, but retailers don't really need Apple - Apple is only a minutely small part of their sales. They could stop selling Apple stuff today and barely feel a thing.


Again, it becomes pretty clear that Thom doesn't understand the world of business. It's a different world than the world of blogs. I know both worlds -- Thom appears to know only one of them, which is why I guess professionals wouldn't turn to him for serious advice.

I made it perfectly clear on my blog that what would happen is that Apple approaches retailers about the fact that the product and its promotion are unlawful in Germany, and that retailers would want to stay on good terms with Apple as well. They wouldn't look at this in terms of whether they can survive without Apple. Sure, if a very small vendor came to them, they would just throw out that vendor. But the amount of money they make with Apple products is large enough that they'll be interested in a constructive solution.

If a product is considered unlawful by a court (no matter how I personally, as quoted on Forbes.com, criticize that particular court), a retailer who tells a vendor that he wants to ignore the legal situation does damage to his reputation. At the end of the day those retailers -- unlike Thom -- know very well that one can ignore the law only to a certain point. There are many more situations than just Apple v. Samsung. Only for one Galaxy Tab product, no retailer will throw out all of Apple's stuff, since Apple's customers would easily find plenty of companies willing to sell the product to them in Germany. Those products are legal, so the market (supply and demand) will take care of this. With unlawful products, that's different.

This is Mueller grasping at straws to do damage control - i.e., to make the ruling seem more significant than it really is.


I don't do "damage control". I explain the economic and legal ramifications correctly.

He also completely ignores the Dutch ruling when extolling the importance of the German ruling for the case in the US - even though the Dutch case was FAR more comprehensive, since it included lots of software patents as well. The Dutch ruling will be of far more use to Samsung than the German ruling will be for Apple.


The software patents included in the Dutch case aren't at issue in the U.S. process concerning a preliminary injunction. However, Samsung was found to infringe one of them, and no matter how easily the problem can be fixed, that's how the Dutch case helps Apple. It's a you-win-some-you-lose-some business: it doesn't matter that the Dutch judge threw out 2 patent infringement claims because that happens in pretty much every multi-patent case.

On the design-related right, the Dutch judge disagrees with the German judge. While I think the Dutch judge took a desirable decision, from the perspective of a judge in California, a German court simply has far more relevance than a Dutch court due to the size of the markets. Germany has 82 million inhabitants, the Netherlands 17 million: that's a factor of 4.8.

The reason he ignores this is clear: it's his job to make Apple appear as strong as possible, and anything related to Google as weak as possible.


No. I'm in the business of being right as a consultant and analyst. In that business, Thom would certainly struggle to survive.

Score: 1

Oletros Member since:
2011-09-12

How can be more important German case when the Community Design used in the case is the only thing used and it doesn't exist in USA and the patents used in Dutch case exist in USA?

Score: 2

cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

Again, it becomes pretty clear that Thom doesn't understand the world of business. It's a different world than the world of blogs. I know both worlds -- Thom appears to know only one of them, which is why I guess professionals wouldn't turn to him for serious advice.


Since you know the world of business:
Apple's revenue: 65 billions $
Samsung Electronics: 135 billions $ (and note, Samsung Electronics, so the division that build and sales to consumers, and which is the competitor of Apple)

And now, tell us, which of those two big companies the distributors sell the most products ? And from which of them do they sell most products ? And then which of those two companies they are the most likely to want to piss off.

In all likelihood, neither of them. But then, neither Apple nor Samsung are willing to piss them off, so in the end, it will be a stalemate on the front of distributors.

Score: 1

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"Again, it becomes pretty clear that Thom doesn't understand the world of business. It's a different world than the world of blogs. I know both worlds -- Thom appears to know only one of them, which is why I guess professionals wouldn't turn to him for serious advice.


Since you know the world of business:
Apple's revenue: 65 billions $
Samsung Electronics: 135 billions $ (and note, Samsung Electronics, so the division that build and sales to consumers, and which is the competitor of Apple)
"

I am afraid your figures are little out of date and fail to take into consideration Apple's massive recent growth.

Based on the last quarter (which was not a holiday buying season) Apple's annualised revenue is around $114 billion. Apple has grown every quarter for sometime now and the expected launch of the iPhone 5, iCloud, Apple's new carrier deals in China and the looming holiday buying season will almost certainly push that figure up significantly in the coming year.

It is almost certain that Apple will surpass Samsung revenues in the next year. Apple is of course much more profitable than Samsung.

Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It is almost certain that Apple will surpass Samsung revenues in the next year. Apple is of course much more profitable than Samsung.


Apple has a long way to go before it surpasses Samsung in revenue. Samsung Electronics is only one part of the Samsung Group. The Samsung Group - the equivalent of Apple, Inc. - has a revenue of $172.5 billion (2009).

Apple has grown every quarter for sometime now and the expected launch of the iPhone 5, iCloud, Apple's new carrier deals in China and the looming holiday buying season will almost certainly push that figure up significantly in the coming year.


And this does not Apply to Samsung?

To make it even better: As Apple sells more iPhones, Samsung's revenues go up ;) .

Edited 2011-09-12 10:38 UTC

Score: 1

hot_spare Member since:
2011-09-12

Well, I just registered to say something here. I was a regular reader of fosspatents blog. I thought it was an interesting read. He definitely is one of the guys who takes pride in his trade and does provide descriptive analysis. I am in no way connected with patents or legal matters, but just found the subject interesting. But then it started getting boring with his subtle remarks towards anything against Apple. He claims he is an authority in terms of IP-related law suits. I am sure he is, as I see his articles being tagged across other multiple websites. But he seems to enjoy deriding other fellow writers/bloggers. I am sure most people here are intelligent and have expertise in some field. But that does not mean we have to be rude or condescending. Few days back, I was reading an article, and I was seriously agitated when I read this line - "Lucy Koh, the judge presiding over the lawsuit in California, is the first-ever Korean-American U.S. federal judge. There's no reason whatsoever to doubt her fairness."

Now, tell me this isn't racist. This is like saying...forget that. I never heard anything similar about an "pure-American" judge working on any other case. What is that supposed to say about the nature of person? He maybe be very good at his skills, but maybe, just maybe, he needs to develop better personal skills.

Score: 2

FlorianMueller Member since:
2010-10-07

Few days back, I was reading an article, and I was seriously agitated when I read this line - "Lucy Koh, the judge presiding over the lawsuit in California, is the first-ever Korean-American U.S. federal judge. There's no reason whatsoever to doubt her fairness."
Now, tell me this isn't racist. This is like saying...forget that. I never heard anything similar about an "pure-American" judge working on any other case. What is that supposed to say about the nature of person?


You may be hypersensitive in this regard, but you can be sure that it's not a coincidence at all that the court appointed the first-ever Korean-American judge to this high-profile case involving a major American and a major Korean company.

It has nothing to do with racism, but you can find judges around the world -- of all races -- that tend to be biased toward domestic companies, just like you can find judges of all races who are unbiased.

Score: 1

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Well, I just registered to say something here. I was a regular reader of fosspatents blog. I thought it was an interesting read. He definitely is one of the guys who takes pride in his trade and does provide descriptive analysis. I am in no way connected with patents or legal matters, but just found the subject interesting. But then it started getting boring with his subtle remarks towards anything against Apple. He claims he is an authority in terms of IP-related law suits. I am sure he is, as I see his articles being tagged across other multiple websites. But he seems to enjoy deriding other fellow writers/bloggers. I am sure most people here are intelligent and have expertise in some field. But that does not mean we have to be rude or condescending. Few days back, I was reading an article, and I was seriously agitated when I read this line - "Lucy Koh, the judge presiding over the lawsuit in California, is the first-ever Korean-American U.S. federal judge. There's no reason whatsoever to doubt her fairness."

Now, tell me this isn't racist. This is like saying...forget that. I never heard anything similar about an "pure-American" judge working on any other case. What is that supposed to say about the nature of person? He maybe be very good at his skills, but maybe, just maybe, he needs to develop better personal skills.


I am not defending Florian Mueller, he can do that himself, and I don't defend his remarks about the ethnicity of the judge but Thom who runs this blog regularly calls the guy a shill and in fact frequently dismisses people he disagrees with as being a trolls and shills. I don't think doing that is very helpful and nor does it foster rational discourse amongst those with disagreeing views.

Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I am not defending Florian Mueller, he can do that himself, and I don't defend his remarks about the ethnicity of the judge but Thom who runs this blog regularly calls the guy a shill and in fact frequently dismisses people he disagrees with as being a trolls and shills. I don't think doing that is very helpful and nor does it foster rational discourse amongst those with disagreeing views.


Exactly. And that's why you NEVER do the same*cough*.

I rarely call someone a troll. I usually use the terms zealot and fanatic. That's something else entirely.

Score: 1

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Why not just quit the insulting all together? It doesn't add anything.

I hope the name calling isn't the way this site wants to be different from other blogs.

Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Fanatic or zealot is not namecallng. If I see someone ONLY posting about Apple, and then ONLY defending EACH AND EVERY action of Apple, while at the same time continuously questioning my intelligence, and while creating multiple accounts...

Then what other label than fanatic or zealot am I supposed to use to describe said person?

Edited 2011-09-12 11:02 UTC

Score: 2

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"I am not defending Florian Mueller, he can do that himself, and I don't defend his remarks about the ethnicity of the judge but Thom who runs this blog regularly calls the guy a shill and in fact frequently dismisses people he disagrees with as being a trolls and shills. I don't think doing that is very helpful and nor does it foster rational discourse amongst those with disagreeing views.


Exactly. And that's why you NEVER do the same*cough*.

I rarely call someone a troll. I usually use the terms zealot and fanatic. That's something else entirely.
"


Why bother? Why insult anybody? Why call any names? Why not try to foster an emotionally cooler tone of discourse, one that favours the rational over the emotional. We all, perhaps oddly, have emotional responses to technologies which may explains why we tend to attack or defend certain things. That's just being human. But surely it is better to have a debate that in content is as rational and reasoned as possible. I don't think anybody should use the word troll or shill. It seems pointless, unproductive and unhelpful.

Thom why not start a new campaign, through personal example, to make the discussion on OS news the most rational and productive it can be. What's to lose?

Score: 4

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I'm for that!

Score: 2

whats at stake
by unclefester on Mon 12th Sep 2011 11:34 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Android has the potential to reduce Apple to a minor player within five years in the worst case scenario

Samsung on the other hand is probably looking at losing no more than 0.1% of it's annual revenue if the German injunction remains.

This is why Apple is taking such an aggressive approach.

Score: 3

Still disturbing
by bitwelder on Mon 12th Sep 2011 12:06 UTC
bitwelder
Member since:
2010-04-27

While I'm glad for (German) consumers that in practice they won't have problems to buy their Samsungs, I'm still afraid that the Apple PR machine would claim it a victory and make the best use of it to feed their R.D.S. and broadcast the messages "you see? It's demonstrated even in the European courts: *we* are the innovators..."

Score: 2

The key here
by Windows Sucks on Mon 12th Sep 2011 12:51 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

Is not that Apple has totally stopped EVERYONE from selling it. Apple has just made the small margins that everyone makes from these devices, even smaller.

Now you have to jump through hoops to get them in the stores, on top of the fact that they don't sell well anyway.

In the end it will still sell in Germany but it wont make a dent. And with all the hassle to get it the device in to Germany now, Samsung may just give up that market or at least not focus on it.

Score: 4

RE: The key here
by unclefester on Mon 12th Sep 2011 21:18 UTC in reply to "The key here"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Samsung has been around since 1938. They will still be going strong long after Apple Inc has ceased to exist.

There is no such thing as too much hassle for a Korean chaebol. They will enter any business that is profitable even if the margins are tiny.

Score: 2