Samsung shop features Apple's App Store, Safari icons on decorative app wall - Page 6

Combine post two with the responses from ThPixelDoc, TonTon and the assists from Muppetry and Galbi and the whole issue would have been pretty well settled within a dozen posts instead of 200.

There's seldom a bad reason to ask good questions.

If only they were good questions.

The really funny thing here is that not long ago you were all like, to paraphrase, "We don't know how those logos got there," and now when a couple of people say that copyright infringement happens all the time in Europe, you're presenting it as proof that a) Smasung didn't do it, and b) that even if they did it's ok.

But, by your original standard, which was absolute proof, these comments don't support your argument at all. It's funny to watch you squirm and wriggle and twist logic, facts and your position all day, but that doesn't mean you actually ever make a valid point.

There's always that one. . .

Good morning Anonymouse. Is it still morning where you are

it's been all but confirmed that the wall display belongs to Euronics and not Samsung and it is part of the store decor.


there are a billion other reasons to call Samsung a copier....this isn't one of them...you'll live...go fellate the charger thread, or any thread involving touchwhiz on phones.

Meh. I'd still hit it, if she looked like that.

Hahahahahaha. Whatever works.

So the best bet would be to let a judge decide.

I've read all posts on these first six pages. Summary: pic shows a typical European store view. Icon wall is obviously outside Samsung's booth - I hadn't noticed that at first.

My gravest concern is for you, after reading your first sentence.

Where have you deleted them??

"South Korean Samsung executives..." is, in of itself, racist. To say that they are "...Samsung executives..." would not be.

Don't agree with me? Try substituting in other ethnicities that might be attacked here in the U.S. and you'll see that this usage of "South Korean" is implicitly perjorative against South Koreans.

For example, "You'll never know what those ----- Jewish Samsung executives are capable of" or "You'll never know what those ----- black Samsung executives are capable of." Or, Russian, Islamic, Polish, etc...

Or maybe to make it even clearer, try the sentence again with "Samsung executives" taken out:

"You'll never know what those South Koreans are capable of."

Thank you for deleting whatever the "-----" was, it's nice that you cleared out some foul language.

And if somebody wants to attack Samsung executives, by all means let them. I'm not sure who's going to take offense at that.

But you also should delete the "South Korean" if you actually want to eliminate the explicit. racist connotation.

Where the dashes are


"South Korean" isn't a race, it's a nation. People don't generally care about being "nationalist".

If anything, removing the blatant racism but leaving the rest of the sentence untouched just makes the statement more precise, not racist. There are U.S. executives of Samsung, but they're not the ones making decisions.

FYI, jragosta, my comments aren't directed only at you or the posters that you quote, they're intended for everyone who love to speak authoritatively.

You see, there are explicit trolls who are easy to spot. And then there are the more insidious implicit trolls roaming the comments and dispensing their questionable wisdom...


The point that is being made is that nobody, not you, not me, not the original poster of that comment knows what the legal details are of the contracts between the landlord, the lessee, the store owner, the store operator, the displays contractor, Samsung, the graphic artists, the publicists, the owners of any and all marques that are displayed on the wall.

If you say "is" or "are" or "it means," then perhaps I'm wrong and you are privy to far more details of this situation than those who are simply making observations about the situation and raising questions about the specifics here (that none of us can answer without speculation). Otherwise, any and all assumptions are, well, assumptions. Anything presented as "fact" is, well, also an assumption.



What exactly is the difference? I'll be happy to learn from an authoritative source such as yourself.



Maybe. Maybe not. See the fact = assumption thing above. Unless perhaps you are a party to the contract or have a copy you'd like to share.

(*** The following are actual facts. Please note the difference between these and the rampant assumptions elsewhere that are authoritatively passed along as fact.)

The contracts involved may or may not include limitations of liability. They may or may not include liquidated damages. They may or may not conform to standard boilerplate contracts prepared by Samsung's corporate legal counsel and supplemented by in-country counsel. Samsung may or may not have specific, detailed policies, procedures, and controls designed to ensure that they hire competent management, staff, and third-party contractors, all of whom act in every reasonable manner to ensure that they comply with international and local laws, customs, regulations, and general business practices, as well as those promulgated from the home office.




Sorry, but in my opinion and based on my own corporate experience relating to similar matters, in similar situations we look at things very differently.

You both agree that re: CNN, McDonald's, and Skype that this is free promotion. OK. Maybe. But free for whom?

Just because CNN's logo is up on some shop's wall, does that mean that the CNN brand is getting value for being there? Perhaps if the place displaying the logo has a stronger or equal brand, then CNN's brand might get some incremental value.

More likely, however, is that whoever displays a very strong brand, such as CNN's, does so because they want to draw value from the CNN brand.

If they aren't getting permission, paying licensing (if required by the brand owner), etc. then they are effectively "stealing" that brand value.

Also, when I'm a brand owner and giving permission to another company to use my brand, if I'm smart (which I no doubt am if I'm the owner of such a strong brand), I'm going to have very specific rules about the usage and placement of my brand.

For example, one of the major global consultancies that I worked for had very specific requirements about the usage of our brand. The color, size, font, and background; the spacing around it; the juxtaposition or overlay of other brands or text (neither being permitted); the context (such as not using it within a sentence); substituting other fonts, colors, etc. even if similar; the usage with respect to what it's being used to promote; and so on...

If my brand is used in any way that I don't control or that I consider to damage the brand value, then it's not really free, is it?

Sorry, no. "South Korea" is a nation. "South Korean" is a race. South Koreans come from South Korea. Maybe we should actually just agree up front that Koreans are a race or people and come from both South and North Korea. But nonetheless... In fact, your own point about "no more racist comments" and having deleted a profanity before a nationality means that you're just arguing against yourself anyway with respect to questioning the relevance of "South Korean" in the context of the racism of the statement.

"Where the dashes are" -- that's clever sarcasm but misses the point.

You no doubt removed an insult. Like "stupid," for example. But probably a lot more offensive than that.

However, you kept the racism intact. I thought I already tried to spell out Racism 101 because I thought there might be those who wouldn't understand it the first time.

Let's try this sentence and see if you can spot the racism:

There are American and South Korean executives of Samsung. You have no idea what the South Korean ones might be capable of.

That is a clear and obvious slur against South Koreans.

Compare that to: "There are Samsung executives from many countries and you have no idea what any of them might be capable of."

That's part of the difficulty in eradicating racism and discrimination: people don't always recognize which parts of what they say are actually racist.

Is it necessary to highlight that the relevant people are "executives from Samsung" in order to make the point? Yes, no doubt.

Is it necessary to state they are "South Korean" to make the point? No, it's not.

It would only be necessary to mention that they are the South Korean Samsung executives if the point being made was that of all Samsung executives, it's the South Koreans that we need to watch out for.

Hey, this store is in Italy. What about the local Italian executives of Samsung's Italian operations? Why don't we question what the Italian executives of Samsung are capable of?
Even better, since the store seems to be located in Sicily -- based on its name -- what about the Sicilians, themselves? We've all seen the Godfather. So who knows what the Sicilian executives of Samsung are capable of.

I'm sorry if you still don't understand the racism embedded in the sentence, even post your edits. I'm hopeful that you'll understand the point after this second explanation. I unfortunately won't be surprised if you respond again to defend your previous statements.

I'm not gonna say if or if not I believe racism was used but South Korean is most definitely not a race. Is American a race? English?

This is obviously important to you, but just by way of questioning your basic assumption about race v. nationality, is American a race? You can be American, but of any ethnic or racial descent. I think the argument is that the same is presumably true of South Korean as a nationality. The slurs that Mel removed were probably racial or ethnic caricatures or similar, rather than just references to nationality. That said, I agree that the nationality of the executives is largely irrelevant to the argument.

EDIT: I see that AbsoluteDesignz just made the same point.

I like that haughty attitude. It makes you all the more wrong.

What American soldiers are popularly depicted as calling their enemies in WWII were not racist. They were slurs, to be sure, but not racist.

You don't seem to understand that a country isn't a race.

I can say, "white trash" and mean anyone of white skin from any country. That's not an entire race.

After my last response of a few minutes ago, I decided to look up racism on wikipedia (the Bears - Packers game doesn't start for another hour and a half so I've got a little time to kill)

The wikipedia article linked to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that was ratified by the United Nations in 1969. Hopefully more authoritative than some guy in an AI thread. The link where I read this is http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm

You don't have to read very far at all to get to the point. Article I, Part 1, number 1 says it all:

1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Anyway, I've made my point. Let's turn our attention back to those ***** from Samsung who aren't even original with their lack of originality.

To be clear: Samsung is not copying Apple.

After all, Microsoft holds the patent on blindly copying Apple.

Samsung is just blindly copying Microsoft's techniques for blindly copying Apple...

Isn't it obvious that Microsoft is the true victim here...

Yeah, and when you say "white trash," I hope you realize that's offensive to a whole lot of uneducated, illiterate, poor, dirty, drunken, meth-addicted, mean, unemployed losers out there. Who's going to stand up for them?

I agree that Korean is not a race. It's an ethnicity or people, which is what I intended by saying "race or people." In fact, I freely admit that I'm not entirely sure what constitutes a race, per se. From what I've read, DNA/genomic analysis of ethnic Koreans shows a lot of homogeneity in the genetic makeup of the people in that group. I don't have any clue at what point the official definition of race is reached.

This is definitely a detractor from the real issue, which is racism. And rather than referring to racism and ethnicism and nationalism (the perjorative usage) and so on, racism seems to most often be the collective umbrella under which the others are gathered. Take a look at the quick excerpt from the UN resolution that I posted a few minutes ago and they way they define the collective parameters of "racial discrimination."

If we agree with the UN (on this point anyway), then it's hard to argue with finding that there is racism in the original statement.

Racism and racial discrimination are not the same thing. And note that the definition of racial discrimination that you quote is from the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which appears to have gone for the broadest possible definition of racial discrimination, and stated that it is for the purpose of the convention, rather than a general definition.

I think that you are over-reaching now. Referring to a person's nationality, except directly in the context of argumentum ad hominem, in which it could then be an implied pejorative, is not necessarily racism. Once the other slurs were removed, the description ceased to carry that connotation. Nor is it racial discrimination, since the poster has no power (that we are aware of) to discriminate against the subjects in question.

I like your perserverance in continuing on despite being so obviously wrong

When and how can an ethnic slur possibly not be racism?

The UN is hardly a good source to turn to when attempting to define what racism is, as the UN is one of the biggest sources of racism on the planet today. The KKK is a bunch of boy scouts compared to the UN's racism. The UN's Durban III conference which was recently held was a huge flop. I am anti anti-racists, as they are some of the biggest racists around.

I also know what the hidden phrase said before it was removed, because I happened to read it. You can be glad that it's gone.

When a country isn't a race.

I like your "argumentum ad hominem" and will counter with a "mens rea."

I believe it is obvious that a prima facie reading of the sentence would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the specific and willful intent is to specifically disparage the Samsung executives based upon their collective ethnicity as South Koreans.

You are correct that discrimination correctly refers to specifically treating a particular class in a unique way simply based upon being a member of that class, whatever the definition of that class might be. By contrast racism is a demonstration, among other things, of prejudice.

Colloquially however, I think there is ample evidence that the layman equates racism and racial discrimination to collectively refer to all manner of demonstrating prejudice based upon race, ethnicity, country of origin, etc. A sub-distinction then being made where racial discrimination is applied in situations where it equates to an action such as denying a person a job based on ethnicity, for example.

Given the linkage in common parlance between racism and racial discrimination, I think it's reasonable to look at the UN's language re: a defintion of racial discrimination to provide additional defintion to the term racism, as well.

I'm not sure how one could find that making a specific distinction with respect to the sub-category of South Koreans among all of the executives at Samsung in the context of making a negative aspersion with respect to their ethics is not at all done in the context of racism (or ethnicism. if you prefer)

Different rules apply in war situations. There is nothing wrong with demonizing one's enemies and it is actually a useful tool in the propaganda war.

Well, there is something wrong with it in that it shouldn't be done at all, but it's certainly not racism. That's my only point.

I agree with almost all your comments, and I have no doubt the original poster was taking a racist position.

However, I think that you may have lost sight of the original point that I was trying to make, which was that once Mel removed the obvious slurs, the sentence, as it remained, was not necessarily racist, and so criticizing him for not removing the nationality was not necessary.

Lindsay Lohan.

LOL

Hello Dr. Strangelove.

I'm glad that you agree with nearly all my comments but won't be satisfied until we get to 100%

In fact, despite all the dissembling and pedantry re: parsing the defintions and connotations of racism, the relevance of UN's definition of racial discrimination vis-Ã*-vis racism, and so on, I think I'm the only one who's remained on point.

All along I've contended that anyone being satisfied that racism, prejudice, ethnicism, or anything else that quacks like the proverbial duck was completely eradicated by the redaction of a slur or profanity is missing the most insidious form of racism.

Making an unecessary reference to an ethnicity in the context of a sentence where a negative assertion is being made can only be interpreted as ignorance or a willful display of prejudice.



Defending the propaganda and unifying benefits of ethnic slurs in times of war could be quickly extended down the slippery slope of defending Nazi Germany's Final Solution because it created a unifying "us vs. them" rallying point among the German people. Reductio ad absurdum at its finest.

The US concentration camps to hold American Japanese citizens in World War II must also be a defensible demonization of one's enemies then?

Dehumanizing (and demonizing) your enemy is the easiest way to allow atrocities to be committed.

And to commit atrocities yourself...

I believe that internment camps is a more appropriate word to use instead of concentration camps. I haven't studied that particular topic in depth yet, and because of that, I do not have a definite opinion on it. I am leaning towards it being not acceptable, though it may have been defensible in certain instances. I do support racial, ethnic and religious profiling in the current WOT, as I am a big believer in math and science.

Has anyone used a Hitler comparison yet in this thread? Because, you know, that's where this discussion is rapidly headed.

I'm sure you realize that just by saying that you're bound to attract one of those damn Hitler vids where he's trying order an IPhone 4 or whatever...

/thread

I believe there's an internet law whereby any and all arguments will eventually involve a comparison to Hitler or the Nazi party (appropriately or not)

If that isn't an established e-law you may all refer to it as "Tristan's Law" named after me.

It's Godwin's Law. . .

Lol I knew it had a name. Thought I was mentally meshing Poe's law with the Nazi thing.

I cannot think of too many circumstances where a company would allow and sanction another company's icons and marketing materials mix with their own in a customer facing kiosk.

I cannot remark for Europe but in the US these types of things are taken very seriously.