Steve Jobs Tried Unsuccessfully to Defuse Patent Dispute with Samsung in 2010

[divinox]

Keep in mind that the original topic of this thread was a report about Steve Jobs' efforts to diffuse a brewing legal dispute with Samsung over IP.

It seems to me that many of the arguments asserted by the anti-Apple people go along the lines of: "Apple product X has feature Y that was similar to something made previously by company Z. Therefore Apple is wrong to sue Samsung."

This strikes me as being a classic example of the Tu Quoque logical fallacy. The conclusion does not follow from the premise: In actual fact Apple's use of feature Y usually either compensated company Z, or did not infringe company Z's patents.

A second line of arguments are examples of the Ad Hominen fallacy: "Steve Jobs was rude to people in an Elevator, Steve Jobs doesn't give enough money to charity, etc. etc. - therefore Apple is a bad company." And therefore Apple is wrong to sue Samsung.

Take a look at any one of the dozens of Samsung threads here: How long before someone starts yammering about Xerox Parc, or posting the notorious "Great Artists Steal" interview quote?

The thing that I, personally, find so fascinating is: Why? I literally cannot understand why so many people get so worked up about one multi-billion dollar corporation suing another. Apple obviously feels it has the facts and the law on its side. But, at the end of the day, the issue will ultimately be decided by Judges far more familiar with the actual facts and laws at issue than any of the armchair litigators present.

Tu quo que, while (oft-times) being a logical fallacy, does not equate "does not follow" per se, as it is not always fallacious. For example, the example given above can be used to show hypocrisy in Apples behavior, in which case the argument (and conclusion) is valid*. I do, however, agree with you on point. I just felt that clarification was needed.

From wiki:

The legitimate form of the argument is as follows:

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, A is dismissed (from his/her role as a model of the principle that motivates criticism P).

The difference from the illegitimate form is that the latter would try to dismiss P along with A. It is illegitimate to conflate the logically separate questions of whether P is a valid criticism and whether A is a good role model.

Examples of legitimate use:

* In disqualifying a self-appointed judge. "He can indeed accuse me of libel even though he was just successfully sued for libel, but perhaps he shouldn't."
​

* one may, of course, make the argument that Apple was always lawful, and that ethics are not part of the business-space, but i am not sure whether or not helps here, other than to draw a line between two separate thoughts (i.e. "moral hypocrisy", and the other).

Got a bus to catch. Ciao!

 

[voonyx]

What is this crap? Nothing more annoying than pseudo-intellectuals cutting and pasting stuff to appear smart.

 

[vrDrew]

* one may, of course, make the argument that Apple was always lawful

Apple recently settled a case with Nokia, agreeing to pay royalties on certain patents that were infringed by the iPhone.

Nobody reasonable would say that Apple has never infringed on other companies' IP. Apple itself conceded that in this instance the iPhone did.

But that admission doesn't forever bar Apple from asserting its own rights. Certainly not legally, and probably not ethically. (A bank that pays its electric bill a week late is still entitled to late-charges from tardy mortgage borrowers.)

I certainly don't recall any discussion here at MacRumors that suggested that Nokia was "bullying" Apple, or that Nokia was "restricting innovation." Indeed, whatever innovations the iPhone represents still happened despite Nokia's insistence on asserting its IP rights.

 

[divinox]

Apple recently settled a case with Nokia, agreeing to pay royalties on certain patents that were infringed by the iPhone.

Nobody reasonable would say that Apple has never infringed on other companies' IP. Apple itself conceded that in this instance the iPhone did.

But that admission doesn't forever bar Apple from asserting its own rights. Certainly not legally, and probably not ethically. (A bank that pays its electric bill a week late is still entitled to late-charges from tardy mortgage borrowers.)

I certainly don't recall any discussion here at MacRumors that suggested that Nokia was "bullying" Apple, or that Nokia was "restricting innovation." Indeed, whatever innovations the iPhone represents still happened despite Nokia's insistence on asserting its IP rights.

While i agree, i still disagree to some extent on your tu quoque call. To build on the "legitimate use" example given earlier, Samsungs (for example) infringement is of course not dependent on eventual infringments of Apple in the past (that would be a non-following conclusion), but the criticism of A(pple) (which makes criticism of (stealing i)p , while being guilty of (stealing i)p) is valid in its entirety. Its nothing but a classic case of the saying: people living in glass houses shouldnt throw rocks :- )

As for Nokia, i dont seem to recall the same unwillingness to license either, same with MSFT. After all, theres a clear difference between trying to block competition, and wanting to be paid for R&D that other capitalizes on. Also, we must not forget that software patents, unlike hardware patents, are more contestable in the eyes of the "public". While most see hardware patents as necessary, the same can hardly be said about the average software ditto. This too surely has an effect on the overall debate.

As a final remark i must say that the reasoning as such reeks of anachronism; the innovation took place before Nokia asserted their rights. In short, there is no "despite" to speak of.

 

[macsmurf]

Keep in mind that the original topic of this thread was a report about Steve Jobs' efforts to diffuse a brewing legal dispute with Samsung over IP.

It seems to me that many of the arguments asserted by the anti-Apple people go along the lines of: "Apple product X has feature Y that was similar to something made previously by company Z. Therefore Apple is wrong to sue Samsung."

This strikes me as being a classic example of the Tu Quoque logical fallacy. The conclusion does not follow from the premise: In actual fact Apple's use of feature Y usually either compensated company Z, or did not infringe company Z's patents.

A second line of arguments are examples of the Ad Hominen fallacy: "Steve Jobs was rude to people in an Elevator, Steve Jobs doesn't give enough money to charity, etc. etc. - therefore Apple is a bad company." And therefore Apple is wrong to sue Samsung.

Take a look at any one of the dozens of Samsung threads here: How long before someone starts yammering about Xerox Parc, or posting the notorious "Great Artists Steal" interview quote?

The thing that I, personally, find so fascinating is: Why? I literally cannot understand why so many people get so worked up about one multi-billion dollar corporation suing another. Apple obviously feels it has the facts and the law on its side. But, at the end of the day, the issue will ultimately be decided by Judges far more familiar with the actual facts and laws at issue than any of the armchair litigators present.

I believe you're missing the Straw man fallacy.

Anyway "diffuse" is just macrumors' rather loaded description of the fact that Jobs contacted Samsung before Apple sued them. They don't actually know the contents of the conversation.

 

[TinHead88]

While i agree, i still disagree to some extent on your tu quoque call. To build on the "legitimate use" example given earlier, Samsungs (for example) infringement is of course not dependent on eventual infringments of Apple in the past (that would be a non-following conclusion), but the criticism of A(pple) (which makes criticism of (stealing i)p , while being guilty of (stealing i)p) is valid in its entirety. Its nothing but a classic case of the saying: people living in glass houses shouldnt throw rocks :- )

As for Nokia, i dont seem to recall the same unwillingness to license either, same with MSFT. After all, theres a clear difference between trying to block competition, and wanting to be paid for R&D that other capitalizes on. Also, we must not forget that software patents, unlike hardware patents, are more contestable in the eyes of the "public". While most see hardware patents as necessary, the same can hardly be said about the average software ditto. This too surely has an effect on the overall debate.

As a final remark i must say that the reasoning as such reeks of anachronism; the innovation took place before Nokia asserted their rights. In short, there is no "despite" to speak of.

vrDrew was describing why these arguments based on generalisations are nonsense. The basic principle of those arguments does not stand up to logical analysis. Now you are trying to mix in some specifics, but that is not how those other arguments were made.

If you want to argue specifics you'd better know the facts, and nobody here would suggest they have all the facts. Once you do have the facts you can make a judgement call by weighing up both sides of the argument.

It seems you are failing to see the logic here, or perhaps the lack of it.

 

[divinox]

vrDrew was describing why these arguments based on generalisations are nonsense. The basic principle of those arguments does not stand up to logical analysis. Now you are trying to mix in some specifics, but that is not how those other arguments were made.

If you want to argue specifics you'd better know the facts, and nobody here would suggest they have all the facts. Once you do have the facts you can make a judgement call by weighing up both sides of the argument.

It seems you are failing to see the logic here, or perhaps the lack of it.

And i was describing why, sometimes, they're not. As for "those" arguments, he provided none, making outside analysis and validity-checking of his claim impossible (yes, impossible as the category is undefined and thus just reading the thread would not be sufficient). As we could not discuss specifics, but only quite polarized lines of thought, i felt it was timely to draw a line by acknowledging that some of the critique raised in this thread, and others, while being tu quoque, is still legitimate (and non-fallacious).

 

[TinHead88]

And i was describing why, sometimes, they're not. As for "those" arguments, he provided none, making outside analysis and validity-checking of his claim impossible (yes, impossible as the category is undefined and thus just reading the thread would not be sufficient). As we could not discuss specifics, but only quite polarized lines of thought, i felt it was timely to draw a line by acknowledging that some of the critique raised in this thread, and others, while being tu quoque, is still legitimate (and non-fallacious).

I just knew you were the type of person who would argue to the end despite having no leg to stand on.

You are missing the point. The arguments made in this thread are based on opinion not facts. No one here has access to the information that would qualify them to make the assertions they are making. Those people aren't even trying to back up their arguments with facts beyond very superficial observations.

If you want to call throwing around an opinion based on no facts a legitimate argument then we'll just have to disagree on what a legitimate argument is.

I think the Straw Man is coming into play now...

 

[divinox]

I just knew you were the type of person who would argue to the end despite having no leg to stand on.

You are missing the point. The arguments made in this thread are based on opinion not facts. No one here has access to the information that would qualify them to make the assertions they are making. Those people aren't even trying to back up their arguments with facts beyond very superficial observations.

If you want to call throwing around an opinion based on no facts a legitimate argument then we'll just have to disagree on what a legitimate argument is.

I think the Straw Man is coming into play now...

I am neither "arguing", or "missing the point". I made a clarification of my intent, as it - based on your response - appeared to be in the need of such. All i really did is to explain why some of the "tu quoque":s raised towards Apple are legitimate, which in fact, some are. This, i felt was necessary as the original post seemed to imply that such reasoning per se was flawed.

That said, in doing so i never denied that people do use fallacious tu quoques, or rant in general when Apple enters the discussion. But that was always besides my point.

As for your second last paragraph, i am not the one who decided the use to be "legitimate", and i am not making such claims "based on no facts". Quite simply, all i did was to refer to "what logic states". If you have a beef with logic, fine by me. But theres no need to place me in the middle. Or how they say: "dont shoot the messenger".

 

[TinHead88]

I am neither "arguing", or "missing the point". I made a clarification of my intent, as it - based on your response - appeared to be in the need of such. All i really did is to explain why some of the "tu quoque":s raised towards Apple are legitimate, which in fact, some are. This, i felt was necessary as the original post seemed to imply that such reasoning per se was flawed.

Then you will have no problem showing me where exactly you made a statement that utilises facts to show that even one of the arguments thrown at Apple in this thread are valid. Otherwise we can just start saying "I hope Samsung beats Apple to a pulp in court because Apple steals babies late at night and keeps them in a dungeon to power their headquarters."

One of your comments made some vague accusations of Apple stealing and this is meant to be a justification for the critiques in this thread. But you don't say what Apple was supposedly stealing, and even if you did would you know the complete picture (licensing deals, etc)?

Looks to me like good example of a Tu quoque argument.

 

[Oletros]

Then you will have no problem showing me where exactly you made a statement that utilises facts to show that even one of the arguments thrown at Apple in this thread are valid. Otherwise we can just start saying "I hope Samsung beats Apple to a pulp in court because Apple steals babies late at night and keeps them in a dungeon to power their headquarters."

One of your comments made some vague accusations of Apple stealing and this is meant to be a justification for the critiques in this thread. But you don't say what Apple was supposedly stealing, and even if you did would you know the complete picture (licensing deals, etc)?

Looks to me like good example of a Tu quoque argument.

And exactly the same in the other way

 

[divinox]

Then you will have no problem showing me where exactly you made a statement that utilises facts to show that even one of the arguments thrown at Apple in this thread are valid. Otherwise we can just start saying "I hope Samsung beats Apple to a pulp in court because Apple steals babies late at night and keeps them in a dungeon to power their headquarters."

One of your comments made some vague accusations of Apple stealing and this is meant to be a justification for the critiques in this thread. But you don't say what Apple was supposedly stealing, and even if you did would you know the complete picture (licensing deals, etc)?

Looks to me like good example of a Tu quoque argument.

I have read comments on this board that raises critique towards what they feel is hypocrisy on Apples behalf. Similarly, i have seen comments that are responses to hypocrisy from those who comment on Apples behalf. I do not, however, at this instant have the time to read through the read to come up with examples.

But fine, if it makes you happier i will reformulate my claim and instead state that IF such arguments were indeed raised, they would not be fallacious. As long as we can come to agreement on that point, i am more than happy. In the end, I have no interest in defending stupidity of others.

Last, which one of my comments "made vague accusations of Apple stealing"? And how did i, through this, justificate stealing of others? While i, indeed hold such a position for ideological reasons that i can not go into lengths here*, i do not feel that i have raised such claims here (as i rarely bring my own ideological preferences into discussions that are grounded in a societal context, where rules are set). My memory is not flawless though, so if i indeed did such a thing, please remind me of when and where - preferably by quoting the response.


* in short, and overly-simplified: From my ideological standpoint rights are always given, and thus can always be stripped. Consequently, one that does not respect the rights of others (e.g. through stealing), have no (necessary) right-based protection from theft** (as ones right to ownership through the act of stealing could be revoked).

** not necessarily in this 1:1 fashion as in "you steal, people can steal from you". the extent to which rights are revoked is not necessarily symmetrical, or fixed.

 

[voonyx]

I have read comments on this board that raises critique towards what they feel is hypocrisy on Apples behalf. Similarly, i have seen comments that are responses to hypocrisy from those who comment on Apples behalf. I do not, however, at this instant have the time to read through the read to come up with examples.

But fine, if it makes you happier i will reformulate my claim and instead state that IF such arguments were indeed raised, they would not be fallacious. As long as we can come to agreement on that point, i am more than happy. In the end, I have no interest in defending stupidity of others.

Last, which one of my comments "made vague accusations of Apple stealing"? And how did i, through this, justificate stealing of others? While i, indeed hold such a position for ideological reasons that i can not go into lengths here*, i do not feel that i have raised such claims here (as i rarely bring my own ideological preferences into discussions that are grounded in a societal context, where rules are set). My memory is not flawless though, so if i indeed did such a thing, please remind me of when and where - preferably by quoting the response.


* in short, and overly-simplified: From my ideological standpoint rights are always given, and thus can always be stripped. Consequently, one that does not respect the rights of others (e.g. through stealing), have no (necessary) right-based protection from theft** (as ones right to ownership through the act of stealing could be revoked).

** not necessarily in this 1:1 fashion as in "you steal, people can steal from you". the extent to which rights are revoked is not necessarily symmetrical, or fixed.

So you won't defend the stupidity of others, but you will extend the opinion of these same "stupid" people to further your point?

 

[divinox]

So you won't defend the stupidity of others, but you will extend the opinion of these same "stupid" people to further your point?

I merely nuanced the debate by highlighting that there are legitimate ways to use tu quoque, and (now with my restated claim) by arguing that holds true in this context as well (e.g. in highlighting hypocrisy on behalf of Apple or other commentators).

Ergo, i have not extended the opinion of anyone.