That sounds an awful lot like a tacit admission that you agree Apple is being amoral but you just can't bring yourself to act on it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Requesting Potential Motorola Bond of Up to $16 Billion in German Patent Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That sounds an awful lot like a tacit admission that you agree Apple is being amoral but you just can't bring yourself to act on it.
Correct. Apple is applying to the courts in order to address legal claims. There is no morality at play here because it isn't a moral issue.
You keep making these sweeping statements, with no reasoning at all other than (variable x if you're a fanboy). What does this remind me of? A few things, let me make a list: hypocrite, creationist, hater, fandroid, uncomprehending. Yeah, I think those words stick pretty well for synonyms.
Actually, this has been going on longer than that. The earliest that I can recall right now was the 1982-83 lawsuit against Franklin Computer. The defendant produced and sold a low-price clone of the Apple II--complete with a considerable amount of original Apple code in the ROMs and OS. Franklin was extremely arrogant about the situation and basically thumbed their nose at Apple's comments, letters, and threats of legal action. When Apple sued they (Apple) were demonized and vilified; when they won it got worse.
The majority of anti-Apple comments, both here and on other forums, are recycled from years past--and it's a cyclical phenomenon. People are continually claiming that the "new" Apple is greedy, monopolistic, evil, closed off, too secretive, etc. and, aside from the very first time someone said it, it's all been said before. Yet each time the cycle repeats the people making the claims against Apple think that it's never been said before.
Apple is, fundamentally, the same company they've always been--but people still think there is a "new" Apple.
There's a wide margin of difference between cases such as you describe or the more recent Psystar case where Apple is purely defending their rights, vs the patent cases that are much more open to interpretation. Samsung, Motorola and HTC aren't using considerable amount of original Apple code (they aren't using any, none of these cases are copyright lawsuits), they aren't selling clones of the iPhone, they are selling their own hardware running an OS that was bought and developed by Google. Andy Rubin who started the project is still at the helm of it and he hasn't worked for Apple since the early 90s.
As such, don't be surprised when Apple is not liked for using strong arm tactics in these much less obvious cases of "infringement" before anyone has even been found guilty of infringement at all. All these discussions are still over preliminary decisions in cases that have not been to trial. No one is guilty yet and Apple is using every tactic they know to prevent products from getting to market. In the end, the courts are the ones allowing it all to happen, but Apple was the initiator of this patent nuclear war.
But to come back to this specific thread and topic, the 16 Billion $ bond... I don't get what everyone is getting so worked up for. Apple has a right to ask for anything it wants. It serves no purpose to get worked up over court filings. Wait for results of hearings and judgements rendered. If Apple can prove such a bond is needed and Motorola can't defend against it, then it was fair.
Last edited:
There was also the little problem that substantial parts of QuickTime source code had ended up in Microsoft software (in a situation where Microsoft was most likely not morally at fault, but legally they were).
Yes. Leaders and followers. One of the most basic concepts in business, really. Theres nothing wrong with calling them followers. The problem, and what is called out, is the double standards applied. When Apple leads, everyone following is bad. When Apple follows, Apple is still great.
What *******s? I see very few of these people you are talking about. Especially compared to the people on the other side, who see no wrong in Apple "imitating", but throws a fit when someone else "imitates" Apple. Its as if the second Apple does something they are the only one who is from that point allowed to pursue that very line. It really makes no sense.
Further, i disagree that Apples product are more useful. User friendly, perhaps. But I'm really not sure about that either. Microsoft, for example, have been doing quite extensive research toward that end. The much hated Ribbon e.g., is a clear example of it. Metro, another.
As for predating... see above. Someone is pretty much always predating someone else. How is it that once Apple does something they should have exclusivity - but not the one that came before Apple?
Once more, which people are you referring to?
Apparently.
----------
Ok. Thanks for rephrasing. At least now your point comes across clearly.
As for where i am going, I'm just pointing out that theres a difference between innovation and innovation. Between innovator, and innovator. And i know Gates dropped out, doesn't make him less of an engineer though.
----------
Everything is (or can be made into) a moral issue. :- )
Well, it's not quite so clear cut. They were never found at fault. You're misremembering the case vs the SF Canyon Company. The code at issue was not Apple's quicktime code, it was code Apple had contracted SFCC to write for them using the Quicktime specification.
In essence it was code written and copyrighted by SFCC, but under contract for Apple. Ownership of said code depends on what the contacts say, something we'll never know as the lawsuit was settled in the 1997 settlement.
WE can't change how or what other people think. Nor do I see the need to, personally. It just irks and saddens me when what could otherwise have been a rather fruitful discussion get derailed into...this.
From what I see, Apple doesn't just blindly imitate. They actually make the effort to improve or even revoluntionise it. But when some other companies imitate apple, they are practically just copying the entire design wholesale, changing just the logo on it, and maybe just making minor aesthetic changes overall. Heck, at least Asus bothered to add a sliding keyboard to their own tablet offering.
Case in point, I don't recall the ipad ever being similar to any product in the market prior to it in either form or essence. You can say that it is essentially a touchscreen netbook sans the keyboard, but even marketing that took guts in a market traditionally dominated by laptops, IMO.
From what I see, Apple doesn't just blindly imitate. They actually make the effort to improve or even revoluntionise it. But when some other companies imitate apple, they are practically just copying the entire design wholesale, changing just the logo on it, and maybe just making minor aesthetic changes overall. Heck, at least Asus bothered to add a sliding keyboard to their own tablet offering.
Case in point, I don't recall the ipad ever being similar to any product in the market prior to it in either form or essence. You can say that it is essentially a touchscreen netbook sans the keyboard, but even marketing that took guts in a market traditionally dominated by laptops, IMO.
From what i see, neither do Google, or even Samsung. Ultimately, consumer market is the one that will decide. And, like stated, it doesn't matter if Apple product X was a "leader". Unless, of course, we are to prevent anything BUT leaders, in which case we would be stuck in a time pre-stone age.
Now it seems you are changing the direction of your statement once you found out Apple is not necessarily being the first one to bring up a lawsuit.
People are not being stupid. They don't have the time to keep up with court cases to buy products based on ethical/moral standards. People base their purchases based on price/features/hardware ect.
I think if Apple was a smaller company like it was in the late 90's, people would view this as just another squabble between various rivals. But because Apple is now a very large & profitable company they must be doing something wrong by what they perceive as defending their own patents.
Wondercow
I don't disagree with you, nor did I comment on anything like that.
My post simply illustrates that the Apple of today is the Apple of yesterday; there is no "new Apple", as many posters like to claim. The "new" Apple is the old Apple, and all of the self-righteous claims of the "new" Apple being so bad, evil, whatever have all been said before--there has been a "new Apple", and the associated disgust, every year right back to 1976.
I am surprised. I am surprised by the idiocy and willful ignorance of the general forum user who thinks that there is a "new" Apple doing these things--the implication being, of course, that the "old" Apple didn't.
Not to mention that any straight-thinking person can see that Apple is special in these areas. By that I mean that Apple is held to different standards than just about anyone else, e.g. Apple, with their 5% market share, is a monopoly because they don't license the OS, yet, Burger King is not a monopoly despite them not licensing the Whopper, Nintendo is not a monopoly despite not licensing the Wii's OS, and it's fine for Corvette to retire the stingray design but not license the rights to said design to others.
Someone in this very thread bashed Apple for requiring users to buy a new keyboard, mouse, and monitor when they purchase a new computer. Apple, of course, does no such thing, but it's OK--for both sides--to defenestrate logic and sensibility when discussing Apple.
I don't get it either; but it all comes back to the idiocy and willful ignorance of the general forum user these days. People are acting like Apple is requiring--or asking a court to require--Motorola to pay them $16B upfront. Does no one have a dictionary? Does no one read anymore? Does no one say to themselves "gee, I wonder what this 'bond' thing is all about? I wonder if German lawsuits work differently than my home country's? Maybe I'll look into it before ranting like a lunatic about how it *must* be Apple being evil and greedy."?
What it all boils down to is this: I detest the illogicality of people these days. I mean, it grates at my soul. That's why I don't post much--on any forum--anymore. It used to be fun....
*sigh*
I don't disagree with you, nor did I comment on anything like that.
My post simply illustrates that the Apple of today is the Apple of yesterday; there is no "new Apple", as many posters like to claim. The "new" Apple is the old Apple, and all of the self-righteous claims of the "new" Apple being so bad, evil, whatever have all been said before--there has been a "new Apple", and the associated disgust, every year right back to 1976.
I am surprised. I am surprised by the idiocy and willful ignorance of the general forum user who thinks that there is a "new" Apple doing these things--the implication being, of course, that the "old" Apple didn't.
Not to mention that any straight-thinking person can see that Apple is special in these areas. By that I mean that Apple is held to different standards than just about anyone else, e.g. Apple, with their 5% market share, is a monopoly because they don't license the OS, yet, Burger King is not a monopoly despite them not licensing the Whopper, Nintendo is not a monopoly despite not licensing the Wii's OS, and it's fine for Corvette to retire the stingray design but not license the rights to said design to others.
Someone in this very thread bashed Apple for requiring users to buy a new keyboard, mouse, and monitor when they purchase a new computer. Apple, of course, does no such thing, but it's OK--for both sides--to defenestrate logic and sensibility when discussing Apple.
I don't get it either; but it all comes back to the idiocy and willful ignorance of the general forum user these days. People are acting like Apple is requiring--or asking a court to require--Motorola to pay them $16B upfront. Does no one have a dictionary? Does no one read anymore? Does no one say to themselves "gee, I wonder what this 'bond' thing is all about? I wonder if German lawsuits work differently than my home country's? Maybe I'll look into it before ranting like a lunatic about how it *must* be Apple being evil and greedy."?
What it all boils down to is this: I detest the illogicality of people these days. I mean, it grates at my soul. That's why I don't post much--on any forum--anymore. It used to be fun....
*sigh*
I can see the fanboys are downrating this even though they know it's true.
You know every time I see the case I can't help but wonder whether my recent purchase of an iMac and MacBook Pro was a giant mistake. Apple needs to grow up and realise that just because something looks slightly similar when viewed from a particular angle doesn't put that product or the corporation as some sort of threat. From my point of view the whole legal wrangling that is taking place really shows the paranoia and lack of confidence they have in their own products when they have to chase after someone like Samsung the way they do.
There are so many things Apple can beat Samsung on - it shouldn't require what I would consider 'in the gutter fighting' to win over customers by blocking a rival from getting their products to market. Once again it seems that Tim is Steve's natural heir with all the arrogance and stupidity that comes with the territory.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
These people like you. You don't slam apple 100% of the time but just 94% of the time. You think you disguise your unwarranted attacks by bring verbose but you do not. You are one of the many problem users that are negatively plaguing these forums. You take anti apple stances in almost every thread you post in, no matter what the subject. No matter how you try to couch it you are just a hating troll like the others who are dragging this forums down.
Good job pretending like you don't see who these people are when you are front and center one of them who regularly trolls the macrumors stories forum spreading anti apple propoganda in almost every topic you choose to post in.
Do you not have any hobbies or things you enjoy I life or does your only enjoyment come from negativity and attacking others areas of interests?
By the way for those of you who just want to argue your ignorance with others there are also middle ground forums where people of all interests converge. So at least if you can't find any thing you enjoy in life you could spend your Quixote behavior with others who might actually care about engaging you. We just want you to go away. Enough is enough.
divinox said:
These people like you. You don't slam apple 100% of the time but just 94% of the time. You think you disguise your unwarranted attacks by bring verbose but you do not. You are one of the many problem users that are negatively plaguing these forums. You take anti apple stances in almost every thread you post in, no matter what the subject. No matter how you try to couch it you are just a hating troll like the others who are dragging this forums down.
Good job pretending like you don't see who these people are when you are front and center one of them who regularly trolls the macrumors stories forum spreading anti apple propoganda in almost every topic you choose to post in.
Do you not have any hobbies or things you enjoy I life or does your only enjoyment come from negativity and attacking others areas of interests?
By the way for those of you who just want to argue your ignorance with others there are also middle ground forums where people of all interests converge. So at least if you can't find any thing you enjoy in life you could spend your Quixote behavior with others who might actually care about engaging you. We just want you to go away. Enough is enough.
The iMac and MacBook Pro that you hold in your hands is the result of billions of dollars worth of R&D that Apple spent. You would be pretty pissed off too if someone ripped of the fruits of your investment of hard time and money.