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 531784
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Resistance is Futile...
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 14:20 UTC 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[8]: Resistance is Futile...
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 14:59 in reply to "RE[7]: Resistance is Futile..."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

They eventually settled AFTER Apple Computer wilfully violated their legal agreements.


They didn't willfully, a MIDI interface and a sound sample are definite grey areas when the agreement is not to enter the music business, both subjects were not very common in 1978. Apple Crops sued because that would yield them more money.


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.


Well, welcome to the real world. Every company, politician, sports team, etc... uses to law/rules to protect themselves and seek the edge of the law to gain an advantage over competitors. Sometimes it isn't sure if something is legal or illegal. Apple Computer thought it wasn't illegal, Apple Corps thought it was. So they agreed on a sum of money and moved on, just like others do.


"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.


I understand you either make stuff up or pull it of of context, promote it to fact with a dogmatic sauce, project it to a generalized group of people, insult them and then make a judgement.

The people who pointed out Orfanum's misjudgment did just that and nothing more, yet you show up claiming they are hypocritical fan boys, adding nothing at all making it seem you just want to look cool and get on Thom's Christmas card list.

Reply Parent Score: 3

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[8]: Resistance is Futile...
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 15:27 in reply to "RE[7]: Resistance is Futile..."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It's hard not to violate anyone's patents these days, that's the whole problem with this system.

Even though I dislike the system, if Nokia owns the patents Apple uses than Apple must pay a fair price. If Samsung violates any of Apple's rights they must pay too.

If anyone, Nokia/Samsung/Apple, lets it comes to a trail if they can't settle and have a judge look at it it's their fair right.

The problem with Apple is that they stopped settling and are going for the win/kill each time. This is something I don't like or agree with. Now I can understand they went after Samsung, but they shouldn't go after companies like HTC or Motorola.

They probably want to be different and think that's a mayor selling point they want to defend, but while companies like Samsung copy they should be busy coming up with the next trend or big thing, not hold on to the old/current one. The world is now used to phones that look and behave like iPhones. Banning Samsung, which would be not only extreme, but also rather unbelievable, just opens the door for another company.

Samsung doesn't have Apple's eco system. If Apple just made their eco system to hard to refuse for customers they'd be winners. No solo Samsung product can beat that.

Just cross license all the patents and work together to fight off patent trolls.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

RE[8]: Resistance is Futile...
by MOS6510 on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 17:46 in reply to "RE[7]: Resistance is Futile..."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Well, Metro was the name of a GUI, Apple was the name of the company. It's easier to drop the GUI name than change your company name. Although it was early days and Apple Computer could have changed their name, then again Apple Corps (Music) and Apple Computer (Computers) used to be two different kind of business, with one selling the famous Beatles and the other DIY kits from a garage. At that time I don't think there was any problem with them both being called Apple.

That Apple used every trick from the book to get results is what they should do, as long it's within the law. If the law is read with different opinions a judge can look at it.

That Apple so aggressive lately is a shame, but I can understand it regarding Samsung. People keep bringing up the rounded corners, but it's not just those. It's a number of things, all combined to create a Samsung product that looks almost like an Apple product. Samsung used to copy Nokia and BlackBerry when they were the market leaders, now they switched to Apple.

So I understand why Apple is upset, but despite Samsung Apple still makes better products AND gets most money. They already have it all and want even more, this gives an image of greed. Why not use this money to make your stuff even better?

If I were Apple I'd make stuff cheaper, that would kill any competition. But for some reason they don't want to have a cheap image.

Reply Parent Score: 1