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."
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!