i was just being sarcastic about the new ipod range updated this week...... was humour.
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.
Facebook, Google and Other Silicon Valley Companies Side with Samsung in Patent Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i was just being sarcastic about the new ipod range updated this week...... was humour.
Why? If it's irrelevant if you have a bias or not, it surely must be irrelevant if other have it too, no?
Threads like these crack me because folks act like samsung personally copied them or violated their own patents.
Samsung did copy Apple. But apple has also copied from samsung and android. It's all fair game.
This is what cooperations do. People need to get over themselves and stop acting like Apple is on some higher moral and ethically ground and Samaung is scum of the earth.
Samsung did copy Apple. But apple has also copied from samsung and android. It's all fair game.
This is what cooperations do. People need to get over themselves and stop acting like Apple is on some higher moral and ethically ground and Samaung is scum of the earth.
Maybe, but you see them equally on both sides in my experience.
The point though was that he said that it was irrelevant. If it's irrelevant, why point it out. If you, yourself comes accross as an apologist, it's a bit hypocritical perhaps.
Ive read his posts and in my opinion he is not a hater. The other poster was trying to discredit his input into this forum by saying it was void cause he is a serial hater.... tsk tsk....
"play the ball, not the player"
A patent is what allows the inventor to bother to develop his idea by monitize get it and having the right to use it sell licenses for a limited amount of time.
When a patent is violated, presumably by an entity interested in making profit (sometimes directly at the expense of the patent holder's product), I don't find it perverse that the infringer should be required to pay profits to the infringed patent holders.
Unless this can happen, potential infringers are not restrained and make business at the expense of the inventor or its licensee or assignee. When such happens, the value of a patent is diminished because infringers feel no need to license because there is no value in doing so as there is no consequence for not doing so.
When a patent is violated, presumably by an entity interested in making profit (sometimes directly at the expense of the patent holder's product), I don't find it perverse that the infringer should be required to pay profits to the infringed patent holders.
Unless this can happen, potential infringers are not restrained and make business at the expense of the inventor or its licensee or assignee. When such happens, the value of a patent is diminished because infringers feel no need to license because there is no value in doing so as there is no consequence for not doing so.
Well that's the only mobile platform that's actually doing some innovating these days. WP doesn't get as much attention and and props as it should.
That’s not a good argument for doing it. For one thing, the term “intellectual property” is merely a collective term and has no substantive legal meaning on its own. What you should be looking at are patent law, copyright law and trademark law – which are all separate legal concepts. I agree that we should get rid of the notion of intellectual property and see these three fields of law for what they are: economic policy.
Patents always had a very noble goal: more innovation. This goal has been subverted ever since companies started seeing patents as inherent property rights to everything they were doing, but that is not what patent law was created for. It was meant to be an instrument, an incentive, to get inventors (especially those within companies) to disclose their inventions for society to see and build upon, in exchange for temporary protection against commercial use. Patents should only ever be granted when the inventive step was considerable and a company has legitimate interests in seeking protection, e.g. if the investment was substantial. Some sectors, like medicines, can spend millions on research and development with no immediate prospect of making a profit. It would be worse if these companies and institutions start withholding their inventions for fear of lost opportunities to recuperate these investments or start innovating less, because there is no reward for regaining those investments. Patent law can be that carrot on a stick. We don’t need to get rid of patent law, we should bring it back to its essential function and get rid of all the rest.
Petty inventions should not be patentable and even when we agree that Samsung has copied many aspects of the iPhone, that is what companies should be allowed to do in a free market. Samsung still needs to design their own phone, their own industrial process for mass-producing it, their own software and all. That is expensive and not trivial and ultimately it is in the benefit of the consumer that this competition happens. Blaming Samsung for what American companies have gratuitously done in the past is beyond hypocritical.
Last edited:
Who said anything about being a "hater", the post claimed that perhaps he had an oposite bias. I agree, play the ball not the player, that's the entire point....
this I agree with. Most will never try it due to thier bias, but its a very good platform. Im impressed
You obviously do not understand the quote. Best of luck to you. It is clear that apple has hurt you greatly. I hope you can find peace.
Reading between the lines....polite, but the message is there (this started the whole thing)
Tubamajuba said: ↑
The majority of your posts about Apple are negative, and I've seen you post more positive things about Apple's competitors than Apple itself.
And there's nothing wrong with that, but it suggests that you might have the opposite bias. Generally, someone who focuses on the positive aspects of a company likes that company, and someone who focuses on the negative aspects dislikes the company.
An apologist calling someone a hater is indeed equal to a hater calling someone an apologist.
When someone can't seem to say a negative word about Apple, they're an apologist. When someone can't seem to say a positive word, they're a hater.
And no, someone that has an objective point of view isn't a hater. But when someone is always spouting negativity about Apple, there's obviously not much objectivity involved.
I admit, I laughed at the people at the beginning of this thread essentially declaring nuclear war at the companies that filed this briefing- including that gem of a comment about Newegg being overpriced. I am fully aware that we have fanboys on this site that type before they think. But the anti-Apple crew isn't much better when it comes to being keyboard warriors for their cause.
First of all nice grammar. Second, if Samsung wins, who cares? The war is over, dude...Apple won. Apple's latest phone is selling at a record pace while Samsung's latest and greatest is a dud. This isn't even a discussion worth having anymore.
And what is the message?
The posts are overly negative for Apple, and overly positive for competitors, suggesting a bias.
The posts are overly positive for Apple, and overly negative for competitors, suggesting a bias.
Same old story, a thread about samsung, same old same old.
MR knows these stories result in posts and are a huge click bait. And we are the suckers in this zoo
personally I am disapointed how many good knowledgeable posters no longer post on MR, cause they go abused as being haters over time..... our loss!
Apple paid for a tour of the facility... do you really want to talk about getting it right?