Libertarians essentially assert that we maximize freedom (the ultimate good) by minimizing the role of government to strictly national defense, which, for them, includes the defense of property rights by law enforcement. The major hole in the theory, whence come the contradictions, is that they specifically exclude defense of anything but property rights.
blah, blah, blah, blah
Once again, you clearly do not understand Libertarianism. The above isn't even close to what Libertarians believe.
Libertarians advocate minimization of government not as a cause, but as the effect. To a libertarian, the only thing that matters is personal rights. Everything else is an outcome from that belief.
Since personal rights are pre-eminant, enforcing personal rights (such as property rights) is a legitimate function of government. Since defense is NOT protection of personal property rights (at least not directly), it is not.
Do yourself a favor and learn about a topic before posting on it.
I wonder how much of this might be explained by a distorted worldview on the part of Samsung leadership. My impression is that Samsung is HUGE in Korea, and that Korea is the kind of place where the law applies differently to huge local corporations (that's at least a little true everywhere, but it's a matter of degree, and the degree matters).
It could be that the leadership at Samsung may not have realized that at least in the EU, the authorities are not quite as easily bought as they are in Korea.
One other thought -- I'm reading the Jobs biography and have reached the part where he became iCEO at Apple. Even at this early stage, it's obvious that he had learned a great deal during his time in the wilderness. And of course we all know how the story turns out -- the Apple of the last 15 years makes the Apple of the 80s and 90s look like amateur hour (because that's what it was).
Given all that Jobs clearly learned in every other aspect of the business, I think it's reasonable to infer that he also learned something about how to protect his intellectual property rights. And if that's right -- if Apple has become as good at defending its innovations as they are at everything else -- then Samsung, HTC, and Google are well and truly farked.
I'm not sure that the mobile unit is giving the executive the correct info, and if they haven't and the EU decides against Samsung, heads will roll. This will become a stare down, and I'm betting Samsung blinks first. The EU generally as a market for Samsung is not something they will want to risk losing.
Once again, you clearly do not understand Libertarianism. The above isn't even close to what Libertarians believe.
Libertarians advocate minimization of government not as a cause, but as the effect. To a libertarian, the only thing that matters is personal rights. Everything else is an outcome from that belief.
Since personal rights are pre-eminant, enforcing personal rights (such as property rights) is a legitimate function of government. Since defense is NOT protection of personal property rights (at least not directly), it is not.
Do yourself a favor and learn about a topic before posting on it.
Yeah, personal rights, right. Total nonsense. If Personal rights were important to Libertarians, they'd be strongly in favor of regulating industry. They aren't. It's total, self serving BS.
[QUOTE=Blastdoor;1981640] I wonder how much of this might be explained by a distorted worldview on the part of Samsung leadership. My impression is that Samsung is HUGE in Korea, and that Korea is the kind of place where the law applies differently to huge local corporations (that's at least a little true everywhere, but it's a matter of degree, and the degree matters).
You're right.
I could not understand Samsung using such frivolous and vexatious grounds as FRAN patents to try to obtain injunctions against Apple. But Samsung are almost a monopoly in Korea, used to pushing their weight around and bullying to get their own way. They appear to have naively embarked on a high risk strategy which has exploded in their face and they are now in serious trouble. They have deservedly brought a serious anti-trust investigation on their heads.
They also naively thought they could bully Apple into accepting the theft of their patents. Put Apple is an even bigger gorilla with huge cash resources, and far more clever and innovative that Samsung. They warned Samsung and all the others that they had a "thicket" of patents protecting the iPhone, but Google, with former Apple Director Schmidt, with Android headed by former Apple employee Andy Rubin and their band of OEM pirates naively thought they could get away with it.
But Oracle, Microsoft and Apple are pursuing them relentlessly across the globe. Microsoft has already reached settlement with large likening and royalties with half the OEMs. Oracle look likely to obtain an injunction in the US since Google has been unsuccessful from barring from the proceedings an incriminating email in which the senior Google executives recognised they were infringing Oracles IP, but decided to go ahead anyway. Because of this wilful breach Oracle will probably obtain the injunction and triple damages. Google will have to settle for billions or Android will be dead!
But Apple is not interested in licensing or royalties except for perhaps some low level patents. They quite rightly want to keep the competitive advantage from their innovation and R&D so they are looking to stop Android pirates from using their IP. The only solution for Google is to write work arounds, but the result will be to degrade the Android OS look and feel.
Yeah, personal rights, right. Total nonsense. If Personal rights were important to Libertarians, they'd be strongly in favor of regulating industry. They aren't. It's total, self serving BS.
Once again, do yourself (and everyone else) a favor and learn something about a topic before spouting off about it.
Once again, do yourself (and everyone else) a favor and learn something about a topic before spouting off about it.
Libertarianism is nothing but a rationale for protecting property rights and justifying the ability of the rich and powerful to get away with whatever they want. All the pretty talk around it is just that.
How about you guys take the Libertarian discussion over to the Apple Outsider forum, and let this thread return to it's regularly scheduled topic?
Please. So, can we now discuss the 95% of my post since the 5% has been hashed over for 2 days?
But really, so many times I see people defending Samsung, Google, Microsoft, HTC, and the rest of the 'infringers' because they believe through some contorted thought process that stealing, copying, or 'borrowing' leads to innovation. Is this true? Assuming for a moment that it is true, does it make it any less annoying or lame?
The problem I see with our current creative paradigm, both domestically (in the US) and globally, is that we value production more than we value creativity. So, it's acceptable to steal (or copy, if the term is too strong for you) so long as you are trying to produce some product or service. Unfortunately, with this mindset one loses sight of the immense value they can derive from thinking for themself.
Apple radically re-imagined what a phone could be. They radically re-imagined the retail store experience. They radically re-thought what a computer is ? multiple times. These radical departures from what was once considered the status quo aren't even close to the ONLY way success could be defined, but rather one creative strategy out of many (possibly thousands or more).
But you wouldn't know this by looking at the marketplace. Everyone is so stuck in a rut lazily thinking Apple's way was the only way to find success. Subsequently they convince themselves that the only way THEY can succeed is through imitation, counterfeit, or forgery.
So, in the end, Apple is thinking differently, sparking huge waves of innovation, and improving the landscape for everyone from the customer to the competitor. The competitors, on the other hand, are freeloading off of Apple's intelligence instead of accepting the challenge and stepping up the game through creative innovations of their own.
Comments
Libertarians essentially assert that we maximize freedom (the ultimate good) by minimizing the role of government to strictly national defense, which, for them, includes the defense of property rights by law enforcement. The major hole in the theory, whence come the contradictions, is that they specifically exclude defense of anything but property rights.
blah, blah, blah, blah
Once again, you clearly do not understand Libertarianism. The above isn't even close to what Libertarians believe.
Libertarians advocate minimization of government not as a cause, but as the effect. To a libertarian, the only thing that matters is personal rights. Everything else is an outcome from that belief.
Since personal rights are pre-eminant, enforcing personal rights (such as property rights) is a legitimate function of government. Since defense is NOT protection of personal property rights (at least not directly), it is not.
Do yourself a favor and learn about a topic before posting on it.
here's the link, feel free to use it:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24
You know that the EU would not sit still and let anyone misuse F/RAND since they came up with the pooling concept to begin with.
I wonder how much of this might be explained by a distorted worldview on the part of Samsung leadership. My impression is that Samsung is HUGE in Korea, and that Korea is the kind of place where the law applies differently to huge local corporations (that's at least a little true everywhere, but it's a matter of degree, and the degree matters).
It could be that the leadership at Samsung may not have realized that at least in the EU, the authorities are not quite as easily bought as they are in Korea.
One other thought -- I'm reading the Jobs biography and have reached the part where he became iCEO at Apple. Even at this early stage, it's obvious that he had learned a great deal during his time in the wilderness. And of course we all know how the story turns out -- the Apple of the last 15 years makes the Apple of the 80s and 90s look like amateur hour (because that's what it was).
Given all that Jobs clearly learned in every other aspect of the business, I think it's reasonable to infer that he also learned something about how to protect his intellectual property rights. And if that's right -- if Apple has become as good at defending its innovations as they are at everything else -- then Samsung, HTC, and Google are well and truly farked.
I'm not sure that the mobile unit is giving the executive the correct info, and if they haven't and the EU decides against Samsung, heads will roll. This will become a stare down, and I'm betting Samsung blinks first. The EU generally as a market for Samsung is not something they will want to risk losing.
Once again, you clearly do not understand Libertarianism. The above isn't even close to what Libertarians believe.
Libertarians advocate minimization of government not as a cause, but as the effect. To a libertarian, the only thing that matters is personal rights. Everything else is an outcome from that belief.
Since personal rights are pre-eminant, enforcing personal rights (such as property rights) is a legitimate function of government. Since defense is NOT protection of personal property rights (at least not directly), it is not.
Do yourself a favor and learn about a topic before posting on it.
Yeah, personal rights, right. Total nonsense. If Personal rights were important to Libertarians, they'd be strongly in favor of regulating industry. They aren't. It's total, self serving BS.
You're right.
I could not understand Samsung using such frivolous and vexatious grounds as FRAN patents to try to obtain injunctions against Apple. But Samsung are almost a monopoly in Korea, used to pushing their weight around and bullying to get their own way. They appear to have naively embarked on a high risk strategy which has exploded in their face and they are now in serious trouble. They have deservedly brought a serious anti-trust investigation on their heads.
They also naively thought they could bully Apple into accepting the theft of their patents. Put Apple is an even bigger gorilla with huge cash resources, and far more clever and innovative that Samsung. They warned Samsung and all the others that they had a "thicket" of patents protecting the iPhone, but Google, with former Apple Director Schmidt, with Android headed by former Apple employee Andy Rubin and their band of OEM pirates naively thought they could get away with it.
But Oracle, Microsoft and Apple are pursuing them relentlessly across the globe. Microsoft has already reached settlement with large likening and royalties with half the OEMs. Oracle look likely to obtain an injunction in the US since Google has been unsuccessful from barring from the proceedings an incriminating email in which the senior Google executives recognised they were infringing Oracles IP, but decided to go ahead anyway. Because of this wilful breach Oracle will probably obtain the injunction and triple damages. Google will have to settle for billions or Android will be dead!
But Apple is not interested in licensing or royalties except for perhaps some low level patents. They quite rightly want to keep the competitive advantage from their innovation and R&D so they are looking to stop Android pirates from using their IP. The only solution for Google is to write work arounds, but the result will be to degrade the Android OS look and feel.
Yeah, personal rights, right. Total nonsense. If Personal rights were important to Libertarians, they'd be strongly in favor of regulating industry. They aren't. It's total, self serving BS.
Once again, do yourself (and everyone else) a favor and learn something about a topic before spouting off about it.
Once again, do yourself (and everyone else) a favor and learn something about a topic before spouting off about it.
Libertarianism is nothing but a rationale for protecting property rights and justifying the ability of the rich and powerful to get away with whatever they want. All the pretty talk around it is just that.
last post
Doesn't matter if I agree with you, doesn't matter if I disagree with you.
This is PoliticalOutsider talk and it needs to be kept there.
How about you guys take the Libertarian discussion over to the Apple Outsider forum, and let this thread return to it's regularly scheduled topic?
Please. So, can we now discuss the 95% of my post since the 5% has been hashed over for 2 days?
But really, so many times I see people defending Samsung, Google, Microsoft, HTC, and the rest of the 'infringers' because they believe through some contorted thought process that stealing, copying, or 'borrowing' leads to innovation. Is this true? Assuming for a moment that it is true, does it make it any less annoying or lame?
The problem I see with our current creative paradigm, both domestically (in the US) and globally, is that we value production more than we value creativity. So, it's acceptable to steal (or copy, if the term is too strong for you) so long as you are trying to produce some product or service. Unfortunately, with this mindset one loses sight of the immense value they can derive from thinking for themself.
Apple radically re-imagined what a phone could be. They radically re-imagined the retail store experience. They radically re-thought what a computer is ? multiple times. These radical departures from what was once considered the status quo aren't even close to the ONLY way success could be defined, but rather one creative strategy out of many (possibly thousands or more).
But you wouldn't know this by looking at the marketplace. Everyone is so stuck in a rut lazily thinking Apple's way was the only way to find success. Subsequently they convince themselves that the only way THEY can succeed is through imitation, counterfeit, or forgery.
So, in the end, Apple is thinking differently, sparking huge waves of innovation, and improving the landscape for everyone from the customer to the competitor. The competitors, on the other hand, are freeloading off of Apple's intelligence instead of accepting the challenge and stepping up the game through creative innovations of their own.
Like I said, it's pretty lazy, if not criminal.