AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google fighting to suppress evidence Android willfully infringed upon Oracle's Java
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google fighting to suppress evidence Android willfully infringed upon Oracle's Java - Page 9

post #321 of 354
8/8/11 at 10:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Gee... I wish I'd thought of that...

Oh, Kudos - I didn't spot that you'd said it. Still, you have to give me credit for CoffeeBot.
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
post #322 of 354
8/8/11 at 11:50am
deleted
"Surely it is possible to love Apple products and still respect what others have achieved?" - Stelligent
Reply
"Surely it is possible to love Apple products and still respect what others have achieved?" - Stelligent
Reply
post #323 of 354
8/8/11 at 11:58am
Apple didn't lose. Apple always knew it would pay Nokia something. Nokia, however, made those patents available to a standards body to license under FRAND terms. Yet, Nokia wanted to extort from Apple non-FRAND terms, which it wasn't allowed to do.

According to Nokia's financial statements, Apple won. People thought Apple would have to pay Nokia over a billion dollars. Instead, Apple paid less the 600 million. Further, Apple protected most of its patents from cross licensing, which Nokia prior to embracing Windows 7 really wanted. .

Most news source claim Apple came out ahead in that lawsuit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

they are in no way a 'slam dunk' just as oracles move to try and hide jon schwartz's sun blog entries was not a 'slam dunk' for google. both hurt the others case is all. it isn't definitive. unlike the Apple case with nokia where apple didn't feel it should have to pay 'high' license fees (sounds familiar?) and decided to just go ahead and 'steal' the IP from nokia. apple lost that one and settled by agreeing to pay license fees.
google may be ordered to pay more or less or none. have to wait and see.
Reply
Reply
post #324 of 354
8/8/11 at 12:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

When you have more than innuendo or ad hominems to offer, get back to us.

Us? There is no "us" on your side of the discussion. You're either here simply for the purpose of derailing the discussion and distracting from the facts, or you are so far out in the weeds that there is not point in discussing anything with you.
Reply
Reply
post #325 of 354
8/8/11 at 12:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Us? There is no "us" on your side of the discussion. You're either here simply for the purpose of derailing the discussion and distracting from the facts, or you are so far out in the weeds that there is not point in discussing anything with you.

Actually if you bothered to read the thread you'd find that other people have agreed with me. But again, nice to see you maintain your one ad hominem per post average. Keep it up.
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
post #326 of 354
8/8/11 at 1:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Apple didn't lose. Apple always knew it would pay Nokia something. Nokia, however, made those patents available to a standards body to license under FRAND terms. Yet, Nokia wanted to extort from Apple non-FRAND terms, which it wasn't allowed to do.

According to Nokia's financial statements, Apple won. People thought Apple would have to pay Nokia over a billion dollars. Instead, Apple paid less the 600 million. Further, Apple protected most of its patents from cross licensing, which Nokia prior to embracing Windows 7 really wanted. .

Most news source claim Apple came out ahead in that lawsuit.

Also... don't forget that Apple had already accounted for the Nokia settlement in its finances... so much so that there was a net gain to Apple's bottom line.
We know where you are. We know where youve been. We can more or less know what youre thinking about. - Eric Schmidt
Reply
We know where you are. We know where youve been. We can more or less know what youre thinking about. - Eric Schmidt
Reply
post #327 of 354
8/8/11 at 1:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Us? There is no "us" on your side of the discussion. You're either here simply for the purpose of derailing the discussion and distracting from the facts, or you are so far out in the weeds that there is not point in discussing anything with you.

LOl... you don't really think you're going to get the last word... do you?!

You could have said, "the sky is blue", and you would have had at least a 90 post thread in response.

We know where you are. We know where youve been. We can more or less know what youre thinking about. - Eric Schmidt
Reply
We know where you are. We know where youve been. We can more or less know what youre thinking about. - Eric Schmidt
Reply
post #328 of 354
8/8/11 at 1:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Also... don't forget that Apple had already accounted for the Nokia settlement in its finances... so much so that there was a net gain to Apple's bottom line.

Watch it. That is getting a little too close to facts and we can't have that. I mean I'm sure Google has done the same thing. Oh wait, Google told the judge that they owe $0 in damages sooooo scratch that.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #329 of 354
8/8/11 at 2:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

they are in no way a 'slam dunk' just as oracles move to try and hide jon schwartz's sun blog entries was not a 'slam dunk' for google. both hurt the others case is all. it isn't definitive. unlike the Apple case with nokia where apple didn't feel it should have to pay 'high' license fees (sounds familiar?) and decided to just go ahead and 'steal' the IP from nokia. apple lost that one and settled by agreeing to pay license fees.
google may be ordered to pay more or less or none. have to wait and see.


why's Google trying so hard to hide the emails from the Jury? because even they know that once that email becomes available to the Jury THEY ARE DONE.

Oracle hiding schwartz's blog entries has NO LEGAL IMPACT whatsover in this case because endorsements are NOT LEGALLY BINDING.

taking down schwartz's blog entries was just a PR move.

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply
post #330 of 354
8/8/11 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Apple didn't lose. Apple always knew it would pay Nokia something. Nokia, however, made those patents available to a standards body to license under FRAND terms. Yet, Nokia wanted to extort from Apple non-FRAND terms, which it wasn't allowed to do.

According to Nokia's financial statements, Apple won. People thought Apple would have to pay Nokia over a billion dollars. Instead, Apple paid less the 600 million. Further, Apple protected most of its patents from cross licensing, which Nokia prior to embracing Windows 7 really wanted. .

Most news source claim Apple came out ahead in that lawsuit.

ha ha ha. never heard of someone having to settle cuz they had no case, pay nokia a lump sum somewhere around 600 million or more (no one is quite sure just yet) and a license fee on each and every iphone paid to nokia from now on as 'winning'. must be that charlie sheen version of winning?
Reply
Reply
post #331 of 354
8/8/11 at 5:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Sorry but Apple refused to pay Nokia above FRAND rates which everyone else does all the while giving Nokia IP that Apple felt kept it's phone unique. Apple never said that Nokia's patents were invalid nor did they pretend that it owed Nokia nothing. That was a whole different kettle of fish but if you want to conflate the two instances to make you feel better then by all means. . .

that must have been it...not.
apple hands over 600 million give or take, plus a fee paid to nokia for each and every iphone sold. all out of the goodness of apple's heart and pocketbook? nope. had to go to court and apple caved in cuz they knew they were toast. but i am sure you will spin it as a win cuz apple didn't pay a billion dollars.
stealing IP is stealing IP. doesn't matter if you feel the rates are too high or not.
Reply
Reply
post #332 of 354
8/8/11 at 5:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Stay in business?



Does anyone still use Oracle databases?

Mmmm... Apparently so... Here are today's market caps:

GOOG Market Value of Listed Security\t$*138,139,237,860

ORCL Market Value of Listed Security\t$*131,674,626,320

AAPL Market Value of Listed Security\t$*326,632,713,550

XOM Market Value of Listed Security\t$*345,755,940,000

MSFT Market Value of Listed Security\t$*206,434,136,160
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #333 of 354
8/8/11 at 7:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

that must have been it...not.
apple hands over 600 million give or take, plus a fee paid to nokia for each and every iphone sold. all out of the goodness of apple's heart and pocketbook? nope. had to go to court and apple caved in cuz they knew they were toast. but i am sure you will spin it as a win cuz apple didn't pay a billion dollars.
stealing IP is stealing IP. doesn't matter if you feel the rates are too high or not.


Do people just intentionally overlook details to fit their anti-Apple agenda? Many others have already stated that it wasn't paying Nokia that bothered them but that Nokia was demanding more than was fair, than what others had to pay because Nokia. Now, if it turns out that Sun was demanding more than was reasonable from Google and more than what others had to pay for the same thing, then I'll sympathize with Google's decision.
Reply
Reply
post #334 of 354
8/8/11 at 7:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

LOl... you don't really think you're going to get the last word... do you?! ...

Not at all. But, when someone is that distanced from reality, there's no point in actually trying to argue with them. The only rational response is to simply point out the BS level.
Reply
Reply
post #335 of 354
8/8/11 at 8:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Mmmm... Apparently so... Here are today's market caps:

GOOG Market Value of Listed Security\t$*138,139,237,860

ORCL Market Value of Listed Security\t$*131,674,626,320

AAPL Market Value of Listed Security\t$*326,632,713,550

XOM Market Value of Listed Security\t$*345,755,940,000

MSFT Market Value of Listed Security\t$*206,434,136,160

oracle is used heavily in enterprise.
Reply
Reply
post #336 of 354
8/8/11 at 8:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjaminm3 View Post

oracle is used heavily in enterprise.

Yes! Larry seems to dominate the markets he chooses to enter!
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #337 of 354
8/8/11 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Yes! Larry seems to dominate the markets he chooses to enter!

At least most of the time *cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_computer *cough*.
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
post #338 of 354
8/9/11 at 8:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qualia View Post

Do people just intentionally overlook details to fit their anti-Apple agenda? Many others have already stated that it wasn't paying Nokia that bothered them but that Nokia was demanding more than was fair, than what others had to pay because Nokia. Now, if it turns out that Sun was demanding more than was reasonable from Google and more than what others had to pay for the same thing, then I'll sympathize with Google's decision.

it was that Apple wanted it all their way. apple wanted nokia to license nokia's technology to apple (at a price apple felt was fair?) and apple did not want to cross license anything.
so apple thinks it can take someone else IP and then tell the owner of that IP how things will be. Nokia said no, its our IP and we will license it to you but we want some cross licensing.
Apple wouldn't do it so Nokia had to take it to court.
Moral of the story? If you (Apple) don't like someones offer, steal their IP anyway and make them take you to court.
the point isn't about money its about theft. apple didn't say "we don't want to cut that deal with you" and then remove the infringing IP (i.e. 'give back' the 'product') they stole the IP and said 'we are going to use it and if you don't like it take us to court'. nokia did. and 'won'.
Reply
Reply
post #339 of 354
8/9/11 at 9:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

it was that Apple wanted it all their way. apple wanted nokia to license nokia's technology to apple (at a price apple felt was fair?) and apple did not want to cross license anything.
so apple thinks it can take someone else IP and then tell the owner of that IP how things will be. Nokia said no, its our IP and we will license it to you but we want some cross licensing.
Apple wouldn't do it so Nokia had to take it to court.
Moral of the story? If you (Apple) don't like someones offer, steal their IP anyway and make them take you to court.
the point isn't about money its about theft. apple didn't say "we don't want to cut that deal with you" and then remove the infringing IP (i.e. 'give back' the 'product') they stole the IP and said 'we are going to use it and if you don't like it take us to court'. nokia did. and 'won'.

Apparently you have no clue what FRAND is? Nokia's patents in that case were standardized and are required to be licensed at a particular price. Nokia wanted to charge Apple ABOVE that price AND Apple's IP on the iPhone. If every other handset maker pays a certain price, then why should Apple pay a higher price when that is against the law?

If for some reason Apple's patents became a standard in the industry and it was forced to license them at a set price, I would require the same above board business practices as anyone else.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #340 of 354
8/9/11 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Apparently you have no clue what FRAND is? Nokia's patents in that case were standardized and are required to be licensed at a particular price. Nokia wanted to charge Apple ABOVE that price AND Apple's IP on the iPhone. If every other handset maker pays a certain price, then why should Apple pay a higher price when that is against the law?

If for some reason Apple's patents became a standard in the industry and it was forced to license them at a set price, I would require the same above board business practices as anyone else.

Rubbish. Apple may have "claimed" high price but did not prove it. You and apple must not know about ETSI RECIPROCITY cluase that nokia had and had right to exercise. Apple didnt think they should have to abide. Apple free ride? DENIED.
Reply
Reply
post #341 of 354
8/9/11 at 4:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

Daniel is a brilliant writer, his information is accurate and non biased, perhaps you should go back to the engadget forums. I don't recall any touch screen windows based phones gaining traction like the iPhone did after it's introduction in 2007.

Daniel is a terrible writer, he is so one eyed he may as well be a cyclops.
Reply
Reply
post #342 of 354
8/9/11 at 8:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Daniel is a terrible writer, he is so one eyed he may as well be a cyclops.

As the kettle calls the pot black.
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
post #343 of 354
8/9/11 at 8:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

Rubbish. Apple may have "claimed" high price but did not prove it. You and apple must not know about ETSI RECIPROCITY cluase that nokia had and had right to exercise. Apple didnt think they should have to abide. Apple free ride? DENIED.

Screamie, you taking another ride around here? I though you got all hot an bothered about being called on your faux facts last time around. <3 <3

You are blatantly ignoring the online postings of the ITC complaints and the press released by Apple, Nokia and their associated last quarterly results.

As to Apple not having "proved" anything, well if your only definition is an open courtroom judgement you might be able to start defending your point, but really you can't because there was a settlement in the case. A settlement which caused Apple to pay less than Apple voluntarily put in reserve to cover FRAND licensing fees. That looks an awful lot like a minor loss for Noika. There were some cross licenses granted, stated to not be iPhone related which in every world but yours shows Apple threw Nokia an empty press release-bone to save a little face with.

While that might not prove anything in your world, the implication is so strong as to prove conclusively that your world is a world of one. As usual.
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
post #344 of 354
8/9/11 at 8:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

Rubbish. Apple may have "claimed" high price but did not prove it. You and apple must not know about ETSI RECIPROCITY cluase that nokia had and had right to exercise. Apple didnt think they should have to abide. Apple free ride? DENIED.

Did you ever actually read that clause?

'When an ESSENTIAL IPR relating to a particular STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION is brought to the attention of ETSI, the Director-General of ETSI shall immediately request the owner to give within three months an irrevocable undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant irrevocable licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions under such IPR to at least the following extent:
● MANUFACTURE, including the right to make or have made customized components and sub-systems to the licensee's own design for use in MANUFACTURE;
● sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of EQUIPMENT so MANUFACTURED;
● repair, use, or operate EQUIPMENT; and
● use METHODS.
The above undertaking may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree to reciprocate.'

I'm quite sure that Apple's argument would be that Nokia are only entitled to demand that Apple reciprocate by licensing any patents they hold that are essential IPR relating to a standard or specification. But Apple did hold any such patents, so by that entirely reasonable interpretation the clause did not apply. Now in future Nokia may be able to use that clause to require Apple to license the LTE patents that they just bought, but that's a very different matter.
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
post #345 of 354
8/9/11 at 10:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Did you ever actually read that clause?

'When an ESSENTIAL IPR relating to a particular STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION is brought to the attention of ETSI, the Director-General of ETSI shall immediately request the owner to give within three months an irrevocable undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant irrevocable licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions under such IPR to at least the following extent:
● MANUFACTURE, including the right to make or have made customized components and sub-systems to the licensee's own design for use in MANUFACTURE;
● sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of EQUIPMENT so MANUFACTURED;
● repair, use, or operate EQUIPMENT; and
● use METHODS.
The above undertaking may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree to reciprocate.'

I'm quite sure that Apple's argument would be that Nokia are only entitled to demand that Apple reciprocate by licensing any patents they hold that are essential IPR relating to a standard or specification. But Apple did hold any such patents, so by that entirely reasonable interpretation the clause did not apply. Now in future Nokia may be able to use that clause to require Apple to license the LTE patents that they just bought, but that's a very different matter.

I am sure that was apples argument too. The problem was that nokia had a better one.do some more research. But the fact isthat if nokia was violating frand ETSI so simply then why the long battleand why the nod to nokia? Nokiawasnt under the gun here.apple was.
Reply
Reply
post #346 of 354
8/10/11 at 3:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

As the kettle calls the pot black.

Please explain? Are you trying to refer to me? If so, I'm afraid you are wrong, I purchase devices from a number of manufacturers, I choose the ones that perform the task I want, weather it be from Apple, Sony, Samsung, whomever...
Reply
Reply
post #347 of 354
8/10/11 at 4:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

I am sure that was apples argument too. The problem was that nokia had a better one.do some more research. But the fact isthat if nokia was violating frand ETSI so simply then why the long battleand why the nod to nokia? Nokiawasnt under the gun here.apple was.

Nokia's argument isn't better, which probably explains why they never went to court and ended up settling for less than Apple had been accruing. Nokia's argument is extreme, and far from generally accepted. In fact some argument has been made that the interpretation should be even more restrictive and only requires reciprocal licensing of patents relevant to the same standard, not even any standard.
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
post #348 of 354
8/10/11 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Screamie, you taking another ride around here? I though you got all hot an bothered about being called on your faux facts last time around. <3 <3

You are blatantly ignoring the online postings of the ITC complaints and the press released by Apple, Nokia and their associated last quarterly results.

As to Apple not having "proved" anything, well if your only definition is an open courtroom judgement you might be able to start defending your point, but really you can't because there was a settlement in the case. A settlement which caused Apple to pay less than Apple voluntarily put in reserve to cover FRAND licensing fees. That looks an awful lot like a minor loss for Noika. There were some cross licenses granted, stated to not be iPhone related which in every world but yours shows Apple threw Nokia an empty press release-bone to save a little face with.

While that might not prove anything in your world, the implication is so strong as to prove conclusively that your world is a world of one. As usual.

A simple google search and some reading shows that everything i said was true and that the consensus is this was a victory for nokia. Apple took ip that didnt belong to it. No doubts about that. White knights my a$$. Corporate thugs dazzling the mentally weak with shiny aluminum and dreams of grandeur.
Reply
Reply
post #349 of 354
8/10/11 at 2:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Screamie, you taking another ride around here? I though you got all hot an bothered about being called on your faux facts last time around.
al.

Its fun to stop by and laugh and feed the 'pigeons' now and again.
Reply
Reply
post #350 of 354
8/10/11 at 7:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

A simple google search and some reading shows that everything i said was true and that the consensus is this was a victory for nokia. Apple took ip that didnt belong to it. No doubts about that. White knights my a$$. Corporate thugs dazzling the mentally weak with shiny aluminum and dreams of grandeur.

Only in your own personal universe.

I haven't read anything that actually considered Nokia a winner in that case. It's possible that there are a few scattered examples out there, but the consensus is all in your head.
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
post #351 of 354
8/11/11 at 6:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Only in your own personal universe.

I haven't read anything that actually considered Nokia a winner in that case. It's possible that there are a few scattered examples out there, but the consensus is all in your head.

Huffington post, nyt, foss patents, gizmodo, ars technica, wsj, and on call this a win for nokia. You sir, are the one spreading b.s.
Reply
Reply
post #352 of 354
8/12/11 at 5:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

Huffington post, nyt, foss patents, gizmodo, ars technica, wsj, and on call this a win for nokia. You sir, are the one spreading b.s.

Right, lets consider that shall we.

Huffington Post: 'Analysts said Nokia could be estimated to get between 1 and 2 percent of iPhone revenues'. We now know that estimate to be way way too high.

NYT: didn't report it as a win for Nokia, they reported Foss as saying that. They made no such claim
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/te...y/15nokia.html

Gizmodo: I can find no gizmodo editorial where they say that this was a win for nokia.

Ars Tech: 'We suspect the amount is somewhere between what Apple considers "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" and what Nokia had been asking for before the disagreement spilled over into the courts.' - nowhere do they describe the result as a 'win for nokia'
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...r-lump-sum.ars

Foss: Didn't present it as a huge win for Nokia - 'I were an Apple shareholder, I would probably view this outcome favorably.'.

WSJ: The most pro-Nokia part of their coverage was when they said 'The settlement is clearly positive for Nokia as Apple's one-off payment and future royalties will boost the Finnish company's profits and cash flow, said Evli Bank analyst Mikko Ervasti.'. Not exactly a clarion call, more a statement of the bleeding obvious.

So basically every source you just cited didn't say what you said they said, except HuffPo which did but was just hopelessly wrong on the details (as usual).

Really I don't see how you can claim that a settlement which Apple has subsequently revealed caused an INCREASE in their gross margins can be considered a loss to them.
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
post #353 of 354
8/13/11 at 6:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Evil is indeed a discussion of morality, but patents are a matter of law, as is copyright. It's ludicrous to suggest that patent infringement is evil - I invite you to find a major religion with an injunction against it, or a moral philosopher with a cogent argument for it as 'evil' or immoral.

Evil is definitely used to mean extreme immorality. When George W Bush railed against the Axis of Evil, even americans didn't think he was including people who cheated on their spouses or double dipped their chips.

If Google is evil, then Apple is evil and no doubt even Ben and Jerries were evil. If everybody is evil then nobody is evil. A little sense of proportion would go a long way.


I'm sure you impress yourself as a philosopher/polemicist - worthy opponent.

To begin, look up the definition of sophistry, or better still look in a mirror, or if you have the courage, look inside your own heart. One of the 10 commandments is DO NOT STEAL, another is DO NOT COVET.

If it is attention you seek, try a bar.
Reply
Reply
post #354 of 354
8/13/11 at 7:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

Huffington post, nyt, foss patents, gizmodo, ars technica, wsj, and on call this a win for nokia. You sir, are the one spreading b.s.


Sorry, you lost all credibility when you reference Huffington Post and the NY Times.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google fighting to suppress evidence Android willfully infringed upon Oracle's Java
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google fighting to suppress evidence Android willfully infringed upon Oracle's Java