Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 07:50 UTC
Legal "After weeks of witnesses, prototypes, and one last failed settlement talk, it came down to this: Apple and Samsung's closing arguments in what is very likely the tech trial of the century. The day saw both sides landing heavy blows before sending the case off to the jury - where anything can happen." The jury has to contend with 109 (!) pages of instructions and a verdict form consisting of whopping 22 pages with over 700 (!) verdicts to make - and they have to be unanimous. This is beyond ridiculous, bordering on the clinically insane. With several options for appeal still open, there is nothing to be gained from this. It's a circus.
Thread beginning with comment 531780
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Resistance is Futile...
by Alfman on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 13:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Resistance is Futile..."
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Thom Holwerda,

Hypocrisy is a typical fanboy response. It's so predictable now that it's boring: their companies are incriminated so they get all roused up and become ridiculously over-defensive, they make tenuous mental algebra to justify their preconceived notions about good and evil corporations. They'll pin the problem on anyone else but can never accept the fact that their leaders are sometimes guilty. I could never be so simple minded as to have blind faith in any entity the way fanboys do, I need to see the good AND the bad.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Resistance is Futile...
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 14:20 in reply to "RE[5]: Resistance is Futile..."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It isn't being hypocritical, it's pointing out Orfanum and Thom are in error when they try to claim Apple is a law breaking repeat offender while in reality they just settled with Apple Corps YEARS after their first agreement when the world changed.

This is something that happens all the time. In 1978 nobody had a computer with a MIDI interface at home, no one could dream that you could be selling music files over the Internet. So the agreement changed and Apple paid money for that.

Orfanum claims these agreement changes someone will make Apple sue people who wear turtle necks and you seem to agree. Well, you're free to believe that and I'm free to point out that it's nonsense.

I know it's your and Thom's hobby to try to prove Apple is evil, but the well of inspiration is getting rather dry if it's these kind of "examples" you need to bring forward to sustain your offensive.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Resistance is Futile...
by Alfman on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 14:44 in reply to "RE[6]: Resistance is Futile..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

They eventually settled AFTER Apple Computer wilfully violated their legal agreements. Thoms point is valid, Apple are willing to use the law when it suits them and are willing to ignore it when it doesn't, regardless of our opinions about right/wrong, it is an example of hypocrisy.

"I know it's your and Thom's hobby to try to prove Apple is evil,"


Speaking for myself, that's a baseless accusation. If you truly believe that, then you don't understand my opinion. Like I already said, you gotta take the good with the bad.

Edit: For the record, neither Thom or I said apple is evil, heck I didn't even mention "apple" at all. Did you consider that you might be overly defensive about the whole thing?

Edited 2012-08-22 14:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Resistance is Futile...
by tonny on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 15:13 in reply to "RE[6]: Resistance is Futile..."
tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

Um.. How about apple using Nokia patent without paying them out? And then paying ONLY WHEN they lose in the court?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Resistance is Futile...
by orfanum on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 16:57 in reply to "RE[6]: Resistance is Futile..."
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

I didn't know I was on Thom's team (I don't mind as such ^^) but, well, what Thom said - it's a question of whether any company, if it is going to make recourse to the law rather than the market, will generally feel itself bound by the law.

The turtle-neck pullover thing was an attempt at humour, it's not entirely salient but it does pointedly echo Samsung's claim that Apple is merely wanting to copyright a large screen with rounded corners - rather a catch-all description that might cover many objects in many environments.

Whether Apple Corps and Apple Computer/Inc. settled eventually regarding the point I am making is neither here nor there, except to the extent that it's obvious to me that once Apple has a goal, it will use almost any tactic (I think in the past it has adopted all these: the law, wheedling, persuasion, money, cease-and-desist) to get there.

Why a company that seems to perform so well in the market anyway, that claims it produces what consumers want, and therefore in my view should be happy to let the market decide (they are good capitalists after all, are they not, being now the richest company 'of all time'?), has this other corporate culture seemingly I find just *odd*.

And if you want a contrast regarding the question of how to handle a dispute around branding differently, just look at the recent 'Metro' case.

Reply Parent Score: 3