Usually (but not always) you can't prove they're paid to post. At least I've not been able to and I'm not aware of anyone else claiming regular success. For the most part IP inspection reveals inference indicators and not definitive proof.
That was my point. TS claimed that he had proof that there were paid shills here since he had IP addresses. The IP addresses do not, in general prove that someone was paid.
… Anyone who knows the IP address. There are plenty of IP lookup sites.
Originally Posted by jragosta
That was my point. TS claimed that he had proof that there were paid shills here since he had IP addresses. The IP addresses do not, in general prove that someone was paid.
What if it was, say, from the corporate offices of Adobe, posting about how Apple was wrong for excluding Flash from the iPhone?
… Anyone who knows the IP address. There are plenty of IP lookup sites.
What if it was, say, from the corporate offices of Adobe, posting about how Apple was wrong for excluding Flash from the iPhone?
So? That still wouldn't prove that someone was paid to do it. Wouldn't you expect that an Adobe employee (perhaps someone who worked with Flash) would like it enough to criticize Apple on their own - without being paid to post?
Similarly, I would fully expect that Samsung employees (even if you had IP addresses originating within Samsung's facility) would prefer Samsung products to Apple products and might post FUD - even without getting paid to do so.
So, once again, where is your evidence that people posting here were paid to do so?
So? That still wouldn't prove that someone was paid to do it. Wouldn't you expect that an Adobe employee (perhaps someone who worked with Flash) would like it enough to criticize Apple on their own - without being paid to post?
Similarly, I would fully expect that Samsung employees (even if you had IP addresses originating within Samsung's facility) would prefer Samsung products to Apple products and might post FUD - even without getting paid to do so.
So, once again, where is your evidence that people posting here were paid to do so?
How many companies do you know lets its workers post on message boards criticizing its competitors from the office during working hours? They may not be paid per post, but they are using company time.
How many companies do you know lets its workers post on message boards criticizing its competitors from the office during working hours? They may not be paid per post, but they are using company time.
Virtually every company I know lets employees have some freedom during their work hours. Unless you're working at the Foxconn assembly line where a supervisor is looking over your shoulders constantly, management rarely micromanages at the level you're suggesting.
Virtually every company I know lets employees have some freedom during their work hours. Unless you're working at the Foxconn assembly line where a supervisor is looking over your shoulders constantly, management rarely micromanages at the level you're suggesting.
I do know that Garmin is one of those companies that discourages (maybe bans, can't remember for certain) it's employees from commenting in forum/blog discussions of Garmin or competing products in anything but an official capacity. TomTom has the same rules IIRC. Even official comments don't happen often. I don't personally think it's particularly rare for that kind of policy in larger companies with consumer products but it's just a guess on my part.
Virtually every company I know lets employees have some freedom during their work hours. Unless you're working at the Foxconn assembly line where a supervisor is looking over your shoulders constantly, management rarely micromanages at the level you're suggesting.
Free time is different. Almost all companies have an end user tech agreement. By agreeing to employment, you will follow said agreement. Many companies block YouTube, Facebook, porn, etc. In addition since you are on the company's network, activity from your PC will be associated with the company.
Managers don't have to micromanage users, but every web address is logged somewhere for easy retrieval.
"Samsung said it has as yet to receive a notice from Taiwan's FTC on the investigation. But the "unfortunate incident" did occur, the company admitted."
"Samsung Electronics remains committed to engaging in transparent and honest communications with consumers as outlined in the company's Online Communications Credo. We have encouraged all Samsung Electronics employees worldwide to remain faithful to our Credo.
The recent incident was unfortunate, and occurred due to insufficient understanding of these fundamental principles.
Samsung Electronics Taiwan (SET) has ceased all marketing activities that involve the posting of anonymous comments, and will ensure that all SET online marketing activities will be fully compliant with the company's Online Communications Credo.
We regret any inconvenience this incident may have caused. We will continue to reinforce education and training for our employees to prevent any future recurrence."
I do know that Garmin is one of those companies that discourages (maybe bans, can't remember for certain) it's employees from commenting in forum/blog discussions of Garmin or competing products in anything but an official capacity. TomTom has the same rules IIRC. Even official comments don't happen often. I don't personally think it's particularly rare for that kind of policy in larger companies with consumer products but it's just a guess on my part.
I see. So the fact that some companies might block some types of online activity or discourage some types of online activity now constitutes proof that people posting here are being paid to do so?
Their comment would be nonsense only if Apple had not tried to use rounded rectangular design patents.
In this case, though, Apple used designs from real products... unlike that generic rounded rectangular EU registered design that they used to put in lawsuits.
The first one ('757) was dismissed quickly, as no Samsung product looks exactly like it.
The second one ('678) ... for a rounded rectangular faceplate with rounded rectangular speaker slot and a rectangular screen cutout, took longer to determine as not infringed.
What Darling is attempting to claim is that Samsung doesn't copy Apple...
"What GTR is attempting to claim is that Apple invented rounded rectangles."
See, anyone can lazily create a strawman by putting words in someone else's mouth.
If you want to know what some else thinks, ask. Don't make it up on your own.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">--</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">My post contained pictures of the two design patents, and why/when the ITC found that they were not infringed. </span>
(It's up to each reader to form their own opinion as to whether they were right nor not.)
Your post had nothing to do with the ITC ban or thread.
"What GTR is attempting to claim is that Apple invented rounded rectangles."
See, anyone can lazily create a strawman by putting words in someone else's mouth.
If you want to know what some else thinks, ask. Don't make it up on your own.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">--</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">My post contained pictures of the two design patents, and why/when the ITC found that they were not infringed. </span>
(It's up to each reader to form their own opinion as to whether they were right nor not.)
Your post had nothing to do with the ITC ban or thread.
If the design patents had nothing to do with the ban, why did Sammy mention it in its response. Scummy Sammy
Comments
That was my point. TS claimed that he had proof that there were paid shills here since he had IP addresses. The IP addresses do not, in general prove that someone was paid.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That makes sense but, who can do such tracing?
… Anyone who knows the IP address. There are plenty of IP lookup sites.
Originally Posted by jragosta
That was my point. TS claimed that he had proof that there were paid shills here since he had IP addresses. The IP addresses do not, in general prove that someone was paid.
What if it was, say, from the corporate offices of Adobe, posting about how Apple was wrong for excluding Flash from the iPhone?
Didn't know that, thanks. I've just never been inclined to look up anyone's IP address.
So? That still wouldn't prove that someone was paid to do it. Wouldn't you expect that an Adobe employee (perhaps someone who worked with Flash) would like it enough to criticize Apple on their own - without being paid to post?
Similarly, I would fully expect that Samsung employees (even if you had IP addresses originating within Samsung's facility) would prefer Samsung products to Apple products and might post FUD - even without getting paid to do so.
So, once again, where is your evidence that people posting here were paid to do so?
While it's certainly hard to have definitive proof, I think it's safe to say that Samsung has "viral marketers" on their payroll.
I don't doubt that they do.
I was just objecting to TS' continued habit of making claims about things that he as absolutely no evidence for.
Originally Posted by jragosta
…absolutely no…
Hilarious.
How many companies do you know lets its workers post on message boards criticizing its competitors from the office during working hours? They may not be paid per post, but they are using company time.
Virtually every company I know lets employees have some freedom during their work hours. Unless you're working at the Foxconn assembly line where a supervisor is looking over your shoulders constantly, management rarely micromanages at the level you're suggesting.
Yes, the fact that you think that's a substantive response is pretty funny.
But, then, since no one takes you seriously, anyway, it's not a big deal.
I do know that Garmin is one of those companies that discourages (maybe bans, can't remember for certain) it's employees from commenting in forum/blog discussions of Garmin or competing products in anything but an official capacity. TomTom has the same rules IIRC. Even official comments don't happen often. I don't personally think it's particularly rare for that kind of policy in larger companies with consumer products but it's just a guess on my part.
Free time is different. Almost all companies have an end user tech agreement. By agreeing to employment, you will follow said agreement. Many companies block YouTube, Facebook, porn, etc. In addition since you are on the company's network, activity from your PC will be associated with the company.
Managers don't have to micromanage users, but every web address is logged somewhere for easy retrieval.
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/tech-industry/3442252/taiwans-ftc-investigating-samsung-for-defaming-htc-on-local-online-forums/
Official Samsung Statement:
"Samsung Electronics remains committed to engaging in transparent and honest communications with consumers as outlined in the company's Online Communications Credo.
We have encouraged all Samsung Electronics employees worldwide to remain faithful to our Credo.
The recent incident was unfortunate, and occurred due to insufficient understanding of these fundamental principles.
Samsung Electronics Taiwan (SET) has ceased all marketing activities that involve the posting of anonymous comments, and will ensure that all SET online marketing activities will be fully compliant with the company's Online Communications Credo.
We regret any inconvenience this incident may have caused. We will continue to reinforce education and training for our employees to prevent any future recurrence."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/18/samsung-fake-reviews_n_3106930.html
(Please nobody tell me that they limited this practice to this one time and place)
I see. So the fact that some companies might block some types of online activity or discourage some types of online activity now constitutes proof that people posting here are being paid to do so?
Strange 'logic'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Their comment would be nonsense only if Apple had not tried to use rounded rectangular design patents.
In this case, though, Apple used designs from real products... unlike that generic rounded rectangular EU registered design that they used to put in lawsuits.
The first one ('757) was dismissed quickly, as no Samsung product looks exactly like it.
The second one ('678) ... for a rounded rectangular faceplate with rounded rectangular speaker slot and a rectangular screen cutout, took longer to determine as not infringed.
What Darling is attempting to claim is that Samsung doesn't copy Apple...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
What Darling is attempting to claim is that Samsung doesn't copy Apple...
"What GTR is attempting to claim is that Apple invented rounded rectangles."
See, anyone can lazily create a strawman by putting words in someone else's mouth.
If you want to know what some else thinks, ask. Don't make it up on your own.
--
My post contained pictures of the two design patents, and why/when the ITC found that they were not infringed.
(It's up to each reader to form their own opinion as to whether they were right nor not.)
Your post had nothing to do with the ITC ban or thread.
If the design patents had nothing to do with the ban, why did Sammy mention it in its response. Scummy Sammy
Apple wanted them re-instated and applicable to the ban.