So who are abusing standards essential based patents in an attempt to ban products from sale?
It's good to know that you condone this, it shows the type of person you are.
Well,
dismissing Droids commitment to Apple as blah blah blah because Droid is eloquent enough to make his mind about the way Apple does business lately also shows the type of person you are, doesn't it?
dismissing Droids commitment to Apple as blah blah blah because Droid is eloquent enough to make his mind about the way Apple does business lately…
See, when you ignore what Apple is doing in reality, just make crap up to meet your perceptions, and make a decision based on that, does it really count as "making up your mind about the way Apple does business lately"?
dismissing Droids commitment to Apple as blah blah blah because Droid is eloquent enough to make his mind about the way Apple does business lately also shows the type of person you are, doesn't it?
If you're going to be so boneheaded you could at least post your own email as well?!
If quoting a post, please snip out the problematic content. It doesn't make sense to object to posting a figure's email while quoting the email as well.
But you're right, we shouldn't make it any easier to harass people than it already is.
I dont have hate for Apple. I own Apple shares. I'm a part owner of the company.
My contribution to this site and others is the instigate Apple to be better company by exposing or discussing its faults so that they will become a better one in the future. Anything wrong with that? Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions before knowing the full picture, hm?
What a crock of shit, Galbi.
You're a contrarian, plain and simple.
Your posts on this site are a desperate attempt for attention and the equivalent of you parading before us with your pants pulled down around your ankles and your thumb stuck in your mouth.
If you were to present a more balanced opinion then our respect for you would probably leap an astounding amount, but that's never going to happen, is it?
And thanks for 'making Apple a better company' with your comments, Batman.
Galbi, I have it on good authority that you, in fact, are not a part-owner.
I quote YOU yesterday at 1:12PM:
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">"Dont worry. Apple's share price will dip into the $400 sooner than expected. I've already sold mine. "</span>
If quoting a post, please snip out the problematic content. It doesn't make sense to object to posting a figure's email while quoting the email as well.
But you're right, we shouldn't make it any easier to harass people than it already is.
How is letting a PUBLIC figure—who openly criticizes the actions of others in a negative light— know how you feel about his very PUBLIC court ruling the same as harassing a private or public citizen? This is the equivalent of posting a senator or other political figure's mailing or email address. Hopefully, with enough public outcry, he will think twice before allowing his ego to damage the reputation of a fine company. In fact, he seems to welcome it, given it is published on a PUBLIC link:
Moderator or not, JeffDM, you're simply impeding progress and standing on your own moral high ground. Seems that uncommon sense doesn't always prevail with some moderators. Our voices need to be heard if this vindictive judge is ever expected to clean up his act. If you agree with his decision, by all means, email him and let him know you support him.
How is letting a PUBLIC figure—who openly criticizes the actions of others in a negative light— know how you feel about his very PUBLIC court ruling the same as harassing a private or public citizen? This is the equivalent of posting a senator or other political figure's mailing or email address. Hopefully, with enough public outcry, he will think twice before allowing his ego to damage the reputation of a fine company. In fact, he seems to welcome it, given it is published on a PUBLIC link:
If anyone wants to "harass" me, a private citizen, my email is [email protected]
Moderator or not, JeffDM, you're simply impeding progress and standing on your own moral high ground. Seems that uncommon sense doesn't always prevail with some moderators. Our voices need to be heard if this vindictive judge is ever expected to clean up his act. If you agree with his decision, by all means, email him and let him know you support him.
As long as you have a well-reasoned argument as to why you believe he was incorrect in his publication requirement I don't see any harm. If instead it's simply a temper tantrum based on no facts whatsoever I don't see it reflecting well on Apple supporters, or the judge paying the least bit of attention to it. That's simple harassment as JeffDM expects it might amount to.
So what do you see as the flaw in the judge's published reasoning or that of the Appeals Court statements supporting it for the most part? You have read the rulings I assume.
How is letting a PUBLIC figure—who openly criticizes the actions of others in a negative light— know how you feel about his very PUBLIC court ruling the same as harassing a private or public citizen? This is the equivalent of posting a senator or other political figure's mailing or email address. Hopefully, with enough public outcry, he will think twice before allowing his ego to damage the reputation of a fine company. In fact, he seems to welcome it, given it is published on a PUBLIC link:
Moderator or not, JeffDM, you're simply impeding progress and standing on your own moral high ground. Seems that uncommon sense doesn't always prevail with some moderators. Our voices need to be heard if this vindictive judge is ever expected to clean up his act. If you agree with his decision, by all means, email him and let him know you support him.
Yes, and any kind of vigilante justice is a solution.
I'm all for impeding progress if there is a notable risk of that progress being brought about by some kind of mob action.
And now you have an irrational hatred for Apple, see a pattern?...
thus Exactly how did you Lose respect for Apple ?.
Apple keeps surprising me that they are continually state-of-the-art... at the start they were SOTA in the design of their products... and then with their products proper using a: mouse, icon desktop, usb, firewire.
then products ...harddrives in a Portable player, Flash memory in a portable player, The smallest music player, The first touchscreen music player, The first truly useful touchscreen phone, The first Affordable tablet computer,
The first retina display iPhone, iPad, and iPod... and The list goes on if you want to get into the specific instances.
It's not irrational when there are solid reasons for it. With Microsoft in the 80-90's it was clear they were copying Apple & they were also locking users into their non-removable browser, in attempts to stifle competition. Their browser didn't follow web standards and did harm to the web. Microsoft were successful despite Apple's easier to use interface because they were willing to break competition laws, to sue competitors out of existence and do back room deals with the companies that sold hardware with their OS with extra crapware. The world was a worse place for computer users because of it. Although it did lead up to the creation of Linux which is a good thing.
Apple are repeating MS's bad behaviour with iOS - locking users in with the default browser (that is non-removable). Browser competitors cannot use alternative render engines on iOS or access the faster javascript processor that Apple keeps to it's own apps. Podcasts.app does things other competitors cannot do like iTunes integration, and Apple still make a mess of the app. How come Podcasts app ranks highest in App Store searches even though Instacast & Downcast have more ratings & more stars?
Apple replaced functioning apps with an inferior one because Steve Jobs wanted to 'go thermonuclear against Google' at the expense of users. Apple ditched MobileMe & made iCloud the only option, but it doesn't work on older devices even with a lesser level of integration. It does however work on ancient Windows versions.
Now Apple are being petty in this court case. They lost the case & lost the appeal, shouldn't they just concede defeat, it's pretty clear that the verdict does no actual damage to Apple, just put up the notification and try to do it with some decorum.
Their recent earnings report showed they decreased the tax paid in the UK to less than last years 2% by using dubious accounting procedures. Tax avoidance is something any company with a social conscience shouldn't be doing.
Users have no control over undoing Apple's changes to iOS, you can't revert once upgraded. Why can't I use Google Voice search across the OS, even though Apple won't provide Siri for my iPhone. How about allowing me to remove Twitter and Facebook support and letting me insert another service into the system wide share links - nope not allowed.
I almost agree with you about the devices, Apples designs are great but they didn't create them in a vacuum or release without seeing other variations from competitors.
Apple didn't 'invent smallest music player'. There were Diamond Rio & Archos devices that were smaller, worse quality, worse capacity & had touch screens before the iPod & iPod Touch was released.
Aside from Retina displays they were not even close to being first to market with the devices you state, Apples success comes from making the products better & easier to use for average users. Apple takes ideas from other manufacturers just as much as Samsung & Microsoft have.
Is it not clear that I love these products (and own many of them), can't you even concede that Apple may not be the most decent company in the world.
As long as you have a well-reasoned argument as to why you believe he was incorrect in his publication requirement I don't see any harm. If instead it's simply a temper tantrum based on no facts whatsoever I don't see it reflecting well on Apple supporters, or the judge paying the least bit of attention to it. That's simple harassment as JeffDM expects it might amount to.
So what do you see as the flaw in the judge's published reasoning or that of the Appeals Court statements supporting it for the most part? You have read the rulings I assume.
My logic is pretty simple:
Ala Crucible, The, I don't think it is fair for any man or entity to be forced to put lies into writing to appease any government body. Further, I think that Apple's original text did comply; it simply showed how ignorant and uncouth the less-than-honorable Birss' original comments were, and was more truthful than the ruling itself. As it is, these judges have been sucking up the media attention, so a little bit of criticism from citizens certainly shouldn't hurt them. Controversial figures should have a thick skin, if you ask me.
I'm pretty astonished that exercising our rights has become so frightening to the average American these days. I suppose that's why our own judicial and political system have grown as corrupt as they have. If this judge doesn't want to receive emails criticizing his behavior, perhaps he shouldn't publicly "harass" others as he has. Sorry, but you don't seem to know what that word means, though I suppose in our culture of euphemism and conformity, dissent does need to be squelched by the mob, when such matters arise. Maybe it's just more comfortable for some to be nannied than it is to call somebody out directly.
Yes, and any kind of vigilante justice is a solution.
I'm all for impeding progress if there is a notable risk of that progress being brought about by some kind of mob action.
Dramatic much? Using polysyllabic phrases only makes you sound smart.
You should consider editing your post, as the suppression of "mob" action to impede progress is one of the symptoms of tyranny. God help us if you ever become publicly influential.
Ala Crucible, The, I don't think it is fair for any man or entity to be forced to put lies into writing to appease any government body. Further, I think that Apple's original text did comply; it simply showed how ignorant and uncouth the less-than-honorable Birss' original comments were, and was more truthful than the ruling itself. As it is, these judges have been sucking up the media attention, so a little bit of criticism from citizens certainly shouldn't hurt them. Controversial figures should have a thick skin, if you ask me.
I'm pretty astonished that exercising our rights has become so frightening to the average American these days. I suppose that's why our own judicial and political system have grown as corrupt as they have. If this judge doesn't want to receive emails criticizing his behavior, perhaps he shouldn't publicly "harass" others as he has. Sorry, but you don't seem to know what that word means, though I suppose in our culture of euphemism and conformity, dissent does need to be squelched by the mob, when such matters arise. Maybe it's just more comfortable for some to be nannied than it is to call somebody out directly.
So you obviously did not read the rulings where the Apple misstatements were explained, which Apple's counsel apparently doesn't strongly disagree with. Your writing to them and saying "I don't like what you did, and you're an idiot" won't get you much.
If you can't be bothered with finding out the facts behind the rulings, why they found Apple's original publication did not meet with their approval and included inaccuracies, then support your own position with facts then what do you expect to be gained? I'm sure they already know that Apple supporters think they're idiots, but at the same time many can't be bothered to have a logical argument why.
You'll get more attention by being the exception and offering reasoned advice rather than serving up a communication meant only to harass. No doubt those go straight into the bin and never get read by His Honour.
Dramatic much? Using polysyllabic phrases only makes you sound smart.
You should consider editing your post, as the suppression of "mob" action to impede progress is one of the symptoms of tyranny. God help us if you ever become publicly influential.
I am very impressed that you're accusing me of being overly dramatic given your replies in this thread, including this one. I mean, tyranny. Sheesh.
I am very impressed that you're accusing me of being overly dramatic given your replies in this thread, including this one. I mean, tyranny. Sheesh.
You're the one that made the creepy remark. If you can't see how bad it sounded, or why I might have suggested that you edit it for your own personal benefit, then perhaps your foot fits snugly.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So who are abusing standards essential based patents in an attempt to ban products from sale?
It's good to know that you condone this, it shows the type of person you are.
Well,
dismissing Droids commitment to Apple as blah blah blah because Droid is eloquent enough to make his mind about the way Apple does business lately also shows the type of person you are, doesn't it?
C
Originally Posted by Blitz1
dismissing Droids commitment to Apple as blah blah blah because Droid is eloquent enough to make his mind about the way Apple does business lately…
See, when you ignore what Apple is doing in reality, just make crap up to meet your perceptions, and make a decision based on that, does it really count as "making up your mind about the way Apple does business lately"?
Oh? And what "type" of person is that, exactly?
If quoting a post, please snip out the problematic content. It doesn't make sense to object to posting a figure's email while quoting the email as well.
But you're right, we shouldn't make it any easier to harass people than it already is.
What a crock of shit, Galbi.
You're a contrarian, plain and simple.
Your posts on this site are a desperate attempt for attention and the equivalent of you parading before us with your pants pulled down around your ankles and your thumb stuck in your mouth.
If you were to present a more balanced opinion then our respect for you would probably leap an astounding amount, but that's never going to happen, is it?
And thanks for 'making Apple a better company' with your comments, Batman.
What a true super-hero you are. (>_<)
LOL!
Fucking OWNED.
And by himself too!
Too funny!
Like my mama's advice: Always tell the truth and you don't have to remember what you said.
How is letting a PUBLIC figure—who openly criticizes the actions of others in a negative light— know how you feel about his very PUBLIC court ruling the same as harassing a private or public citizen? This is the equivalent of posting a senator or other political figure's mailing or email address. Hopefully, with enough public outcry, he will think twice before allowing his ego to damage the reputation of a fine company. In fact, he seems to welcome it, given it is published on a PUBLIC link:
Moderator or not, JeffDM, you're simply impeding progress and standing on your own moral high ground. Seems that uncommon sense doesn't always prevail with some moderators. Our voices need to be heard if this vindictive judge is ever expected to clean up his act. If you agree with his decision, by all means, email him and let him know you support him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art
How is letting a PUBLIC figure—who openly criticizes the actions of others in a negative light— know how you feel about his very PUBLIC court ruling the same as harassing a private or public citizen? This is the equivalent of posting a senator or other political figure's mailing or email address. Hopefully, with enough public outcry, he will think twice before allowing his ego to damage the reputation of a fine company. In fact, he seems to welcome it, given it is published on a PUBLIC link:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/academics/profiles/index.shtml?jacob
If anyone wants to "harass" me, a private citizen, my email is [email protected]
Moderator or not, JeffDM, you're simply impeding progress and standing on your own moral high ground. Seems that uncommon sense doesn't always prevail with some moderators. Our voices need to be heard if this vindictive judge is ever expected to clean up his act. If you agree with his decision, by all means, email him and let him know you support him.
As long as you have a well-reasoned argument as to why you believe he was incorrect in his publication requirement I don't see any harm. If instead it's simply a temper tantrum based on no facts whatsoever I don't see it reflecting well on Apple supporters, or the judge paying the least bit of attention to it. That's simple harassment as JeffDM expects it might amount to.
So what do you see as the flaw in the judge's published reasoning or that of the Appeals Court statements supporting it for the most part? You have read the rulings I assume.
.
Yes, and any kind of vigilante justice is a solution.
I'm all for impeding progress if there is a notable risk of that progress being brought about by some kind of mob action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar
And now you have an irrational hatred for Apple, see a pattern?...
thus Exactly how did you Lose respect for Apple ?.
Apple keeps surprising me that they are continually state-of-the-art... at the start they were SOTA in the design of their products... and then with their products proper using a: mouse, icon desktop, usb, firewire.
then products ...harddrives in a Portable player, Flash memory in a portable player, The smallest music player, The first touchscreen music player, The first truly useful touchscreen phone, The first Affordable tablet computer,
The first retina display iPhone, iPad, and iPod... and The list goes on if you want to get into the specific instances.
It's not irrational when there are solid reasons for it. With Microsoft in the 80-90's it was clear they were copying Apple & they were also locking users into their non-removable browser, in attempts to stifle competition. Their browser didn't follow web standards and did harm to the web. Microsoft were successful despite Apple's easier to use interface because they were willing to break competition laws, to sue competitors out of existence and do back room deals with the companies that sold hardware with their OS with extra crapware. The world was a worse place for computer users because of it. Although it did lead up to the creation of Linux which is a good thing.
Apple are repeating MS's bad behaviour with iOS - locking users in with the default browser (that is non-removable). Browser competitors cannot use alternative render engines on iOS or access the faster javascript processor that Apple keeps to it's own apps. Podcasts.app does things other competitors cannot do like iTunes integration, and Apple still make a mess of the app. How come Podcasts app ranks highest in App Store searches even though Instacast & Downcast have more ratings & more stars?
Apple replaced functioning apps with an inferior one because Steve Jobs wanted to 'go thermonuclear against Google' at the expense of users. Apple ditched MobileMe & made iCloud the only option, but it doesn't work on older devices even with a lesser level of integration. It does however work on ancient Windows versions.
Now Apple are being petty in this court case. They lost the case & lost the appeal, shouldn't they just concede defeat, it's pretty clear that the verdict does no actual damage to Apple, just put up the notification and try to do it with some decorum.
Their recent earnings report showed they decreased the tax paid in the UK to less than last years 2% by using dubious accounting procedures. Tax avoidance is something any company with a social conscience shouldn't be doing.
Users have no control over undoing Apple's changes to iOS, you can't revert once upgraded. Why can't I use Google Voice search across the OS, even though Apple won't provide Siri for my iPhone. How about allowing me to remove Twitter and Facebook support and letting me insert another service into the system wide share links - nope not allowed.
I almost agree with you about the devices, Apples designs are great but they didn't create them in a vacuum or release without seeing other variations from competitors.
Apple didn't 'invent smallest music player'. There were Diamond Rio & Archos devices that were smaller, worse quality, worse capacity & had touch screens before the iPod & iPod Touch was released.
Aside from Retina displays they were not even close to being first to market with the devices you state, Apples success comes from making the products better & easier to use for average users. Apple takes ideas from other manufacturers just as much as Samsung & Microsoft have.
Is it not clear that I love these products (and own many of them), can't you even concede that Apple may not be the most decent company in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
As long as you have a well-reasoned argument as to why you believe he was incorrect in his publication requirement I don't see any harm. If instead it's simply a temper tantrum based on no facts whatsoever I don't see it reflecting well on Apple supporters, or the judge paying the least bit of attention to it. That's simple harassment as JeffDM expects it might amount to.
So what do you see as the flaw in the judge's published reasoning or that of the Appeals Court statements supporting it for the most part? You have read the rulings I assume.
My logic is pretty simple:
Ala Crucible, The, I don't think it is fair for any man or entity to be forced to put lies into writing to appease any government body. Further, I think that Apple's original text did comply; it simply showed how ignorant and uncouth the less-than-honorable Birss' original comments were, and was more truthful than the ruling itself. As it is, these judges have been sucking up the media attention, so a little bit of criticism from citizens certainly shouldn't hurt them. Controversial figures should have a thick skin, if you ask me.
I'm pretty astonished that exercising our rights has become so frightening to the average American these days. I suppose that's why our own judicial and political system have grown as corrupt as they have. If this judge doesn't want to receive emails criticizing his behavior, perhaps he shouldn't publicly "harass" others as he has. Sorry, but you don't seem to know what that word means, though I suppose in our culture of euphemism and conformity, dissent does need to be squelched by the mob, when such matters arise. Maybe it's just more comfortable for some to be nannied than it is to call somebody out directly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Yes, and any kind of vigilante justice is a solution.
I'm all for impeding progress if there is a notable risk of that progress being brought about by some kind of mob action.
Dramatic much? Using polysyllabic phrases only makes you sound smart.
You should consider editing your post, as the suppression of "mob" action to impede progress is one of the symptoms of tyranny. God help us if you ever become publicly influential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art
My logic is pretty simple:
Ala Crucible, The, I don't think it is fair for any man or entity to be forced to put lies into writing to appease any government body. Further, I think that Apple's original text did comply; it simply showed how ignorant and uncouth the less-than-honorable Birss' original comments were, and was more truthful than the ruling itself. As it is, these judges have been sucking up the media attention, so a little bit of criticism from citizens certainly shouldn't hurt them. Controversial figures should have a thick skin, if you ask me.
I'm pretty astonished that exercising our rights has become so frightening to the average American these days. I suppose that's why our own judicial and political system have grown as corrupt as they have. If this judge doesn't want to receive emails criticizing his behavior, perhaps he shouldn't publicly "harass" others as he has. Sorry, but you don't seem to know what that word means, though I suppose in our culture of euphemism and conformity, dissent does need to be squelched by the mob, when such matters arise. Maybe it's just more comfortable for some to be nannied than it is to call somebody out directly.
So you obviously did not read the rulings where the Apple misstatements were explained, which Apple's counsel apparently doesn't strongly disagree with. Your writing to them and saying "I don't like what you did, and you're an idiot" won't get you much.
If you can't be bothered with finding out the facts behind the rulings, why they found Apple's original publication did not meet with their approval and included inaccuracies, then support your own position with facts then what do you expect to be gained? I'm sure they already know that Apple supporters think they're idiots, but at the same time many can't be bothered to have a logical argument why.
You'll get more attention by being the exception and offering reasoned advice rather than serving up a communication meant only to harass. No doubt those go straight into the bin and never get read by His Honour.
I am very impressed that you're accusing me of being overly dramatic given your replies in this thread, including this one. I mean, tyranny. Sheesh.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I am very impressed that you're accusing me of being overly dramatic given your replies in this thread, including this one. I mean, tyranny. Sheesh.
You're the one that made the creepy remark. If you can't see how bad it sounded, or why I might have suggested that you edit it for your own personal benefit, then perhaps your foot fits snugly.
.