In advance of reading this op-ed, I heard a much more unsettling, nationally-broadcast piece on NPR yesterday. It pushes the notion that regardless of the outcome of this trial, a completely different issue currently in SCOTUS threatens to render the whole thing moot.
I'm not sure that the reporter got their Apple facts straight, though...?
In some ways, I wonder why Apple Legal doesn't hire Daniel for these trials. He always comes up with more historical and pertinent information than we hear from court proceedings. Has anyone found a writer on Samsung's side who has anywhere near as much understanding and information as Daniel? Probably doesn't exist.
When did MS ever halt innovation? Let's look at just a few of the developments in software during the era of Windows.
-MIT created the first network-transparent windowing system in the form of the Unix X Server. It is only appropriate that the first operating system to treat local and remote resources as equals have the first display server that does the same thing.
-The birth of Apache, the first widely-available commercial-grade webserver. Apache servers powered by Linux would go on to power the internet. Linux/Unix-based platforms have dominated every sector besides the desktop computing market: web servers, mainframes, embedded devices, and high-performance computing (Linux powers over 90 percent of the Top500 supercomputers). Their success has been directly correlated with how technically informed their users are. For a long time, Linux/Unix-based systems were the obvious choice if you wanted a secure, high-performance, multiuser operating system.
-The development of GCC, the first widely-available C compiler. It has since been ported to dozens of architectures and is still the de facto compiler for many of them.
-Java. While not necessarily the best option for consumer-facing desktop applications, it has become an industry standard for web server applications. Any web app that you interact with has a good chance of being powered by Java.
-Windows finally catches up to Unix in terms of security with Vista in 2006.
A couple of these can be considered major innovations. Java started out on a good path but it's been hampered by too many security problems. Saying Windows caught up with unix in terms of security is still a joke and including Vista in the same sentence is a real joke. The vast majority or malware still targets Windows systems although Android is the target for mobile devices. Since we're talking about the Apple/Samsung trial, I'm surprised you didn't mention either company in your innovation statement. Everything you talked about, except the Windows blurb, is about unix/Linux so we know where your preference lies.
Well, they effectively murdered Netscape, who produced arguably the biggest software innovation of our lifetimes, the browser. Of course, they replaced Netscape's product with Internet Explorer, the fastest, most efficient, standards-compliant and secure browser on the planet.
Daniel's analysis is, perhaps a bit dramatic, and simplified, is I think quite correct. The repercussions of the jury's understanding and worth on innovation in software - it's value - will be interesting when we live in a world when software is expected to be free.
A couple of these can be considered major innovations. Java started out on a good path but it's been hampered by too many security problems. Saying Windows caught up with unix in terms of security is still a joke and including Vista in the same sentence is a real joke. The vast majority or malware still targets Windows systems although Android is the target for mobile devices. Since we're talking about the Apple/Samsung trial, I'm surprised you didn't mention either company in your innovation statement. Everything you talked about, except the Windows blurb, is about unix/Linux so we know where your preference lies.
Java never really belonged on the desktop. It was a solution in search of a problem. Given that users were overwhelmingly likely to be running Windows on an x86 machine, there was no demand for a virtual machine-based platform. But it continues to dominate on servers. For instance, Gmail uses Java for its backend.
I think its unix core is one of the greatest strengths of OS X. The main reason for the popularity of the Mac among scientists is that, being a unix system with a polished GUI, OS X can interface seamlessly with their back end compute equipment which are likely to be running some form of Linux or Unix.
Isn't it strange that member/s of the jury cab bring up the question of google role in this trial where as judge cote turn a blind eye to Amazon role in the ebook trial.
Option 6: Antimatter bomb: Samsung really really loses, in addition to all the above (fines, sales ban) they are ordered by the court to apologize in their website and its executives must writes "I will not copy Apple" 1 million times on a blackboard.
Option 7: Asteroid collision: Samsung really really really loses, the court orders their executives to confess the whole plot to DED in a worldwide exclusive interview. All infringing Samsung devices are sent irreversible self-destruct codes that cause them to detonate.
Option 8: Black hole: Samsung really really really really loses, a literal black hole is created at LHC, and the court orders Samsung executives and all infringing devices be bought back and thrown into the singularity, where it is irretrievably gone from this universe. DED gets to write a tell all book, and he becomes the youngest writer with a spelling disability to ever win the Pulitzer, and Fandroids everywhere are ordered by the court to write "I was trolling the whole time and I knew it" 1 million times on a blackboard, while DED watches.
Rooting for Apple to become the next Microsoft because "Apple deserves it" is not particularly convincing. Especially since the real reason why Microsoft became so dominant was not their copying Windows - that line ignores the fact that PCs running Microsoft DOS were dominating sales long before Microsoft introduced Windows - was because PCs and clones were much cheaper than Macs. Of course, the response is that the IBM PCs and especially the clones were junk, but it was junk that people could afford. A Chevy is not as good as a BMW, but it beats walking. The clones made personal computing grow and become a lot more accessible than it would have been had the market consisted of only Apple machines, or even only Apple and IBM PCs, which were also quite expensive. And like it or not, the growth of the computing market from business computing and people employed in the computer industry and academics/enthusiasts to a booming sector of casual/entertainment users drove the technology industry in a way that massively benefited Apple. No hundreds of millions of computer users means no commercialization of the Internet, no PC gaming or other broad based software industry, no large computer hardware market, etc. Basically everything that is driving Apple today is due to the fact that cheap computers running Microsoft software made computing so widely accessible that everyone owned them. A computer became just as basic a household item as a refrigerator, television, microwave, VCR etc. If that doesn't happen, where is the market for the I-Pad and the I-Phone? Even the I-Pod ... no market for it if millions of people had already not been listing to music on their computers for years.
Another thing: not only were the devices more accessible for consumers because they were cheaper, but they were more accessible to hardware and software developers too. While making your own hardware and software for Apple computers used to be a real pain in the 1990s, everyone knew enough about computers running DOS and Windows in the 1990s to make peripherals and software. I am not talking about companies or computer science students mind you, but regular guys in their basements and living rooms. Do you think that freeware/shareware (the predecessor to the open source movement) would have developed if Apple was all that there was? In the 1980s and 1990s, people were writing their own mods to improve DOS and Windows and sharing them over what there was of the Internet months or years before Microsoft came out with their own versions! Lots of companies were building their own custom hardware that would plug right into any PC port. That is what drove Microsoft in the 1980s and 1990s, not their stealing Windows from Apple.
That is why this talk of "openness and innovation" is hilarious. If the tech world was ruled by Apple, "openness and innovation" would be whatever Apple decided to provide and allow. That IS NOT what happened during the Wintel "monoculture" where there was plenty of openness and innovation, just not from Microsoft. It came from a large number of companies, academics and regular people who could far more easily afford and modify Wintel hardware and software than you ever could with Apple.
This isn't about "protecting copyrights so that people can innovate." Like Posner said, Apple is the most profitable company in the world. This is about wanting Apple to be the only company marketing smartphones and tablets. Even if you believe that Apple "earned" this right, it is nuts to think that a single platform that most of the world's population can't even afford is good for anyone but Apple's employees, stockholders and ardent consumers. Again, I-Pods, I-Pads and I-Phones are only so successful because Microsoft got the world into computing in the first place. I-Pads sell because they are better for checking your email and posting to Facebook than a bulky desktop, but without the hundreds of millions of consumers that Microsoft created by selling machines that people could actually afford, there would be no commercial web-based email and no Facebook.
So despite the pretensions otherwise, this isn't about Samsung but about Android, and Android accomplishing the same thing that Microsoft did, which was give people not only a choice, but in many cases a device that they can actually afford. One thing that Apple did learn from losing the last war is that it is as easy to develop applications for IOS as it is anything else (possibly easier). They also benefit from wireless and bluetooth standards making it as easy to make accessories for Apple hardware as it was for DOS back in the day. (Although it should be mentioned that Apple DID NOT INVENT THOSE THINGS, but instead those were part of the innovation that this writer claims did not happen during the Wintel hegemony.) Because of these, IOS and MacBooks are no longer the "locked boxes" that they used to be. Big deal.
But the bottom line is that Apple is still fighting the last war, and the battleground exists because of Apple's pricing strategy. It results in huge profits for Apple, but it still leaves a gigantic market open for companies willing to accept a lower margin, because for them the choice is between making devices at a lower margin or not being in business at all. Yes, Apple is still around while a lot of the PC clone makers aren't. Big deal: those clone makers were in business for 20-30 years, made a lot of money and had good runs. The same is true of Samsung right now. They are making 1/4 of the profits on phones and tablets that Apple is right now, but 1/4 of what Apple is making is still a lot of money. Remove Samsung from the picture and Acer, Asus, Lenovo, HP, Toshiba etc. would be glad to step in and fill the gap, making products that lots of consumers want (and in today's economy in a lot of cases need) at prices that they can actually afford.
That is why the thermonuclear option that Apple and its advocates want (and again, despite claims otherwise, the true target is not Samsung but Android) is not going to happen. It is not in the interests of the economy or the consumer for Apple to be the only viable manufacturer of smartphones and tablets, no more than it would be if Mercedes was the only car maker. What Apple wants is not good for everybody else, and what Apple does not want still leaves Apple in an outstanding position. That was what Posner decided, and it is going to be what every other court or jury decides also. They may award some financial damages to a blatant infringer - though nowhere near enough to bankrupt them - but they are not going to eliminate competition for Apple so that Apple is the only viable competitor in a lucrative, valuable sector. If that is going to happen, it is going to be by virtue of the marketplace, as what happened with the I-Pod, not the courts.
It doesn't mean that "IP is meaningless" as this propaganda piece asserts. It only means that IP can't be used for what Apple wants it to, which is a legal snow shovel to clear the marketplace of meaningful competition. And to pretend as if this competition is not having an impact is ridiculous. If it wasn't, Apple would not be on the verge of offering phablets (to compete with Samsung) or finally updating Apple TV (to compete with Android-forked Fire TV).
Has anyone found a writer on Samsung's side who has anywhere near as much understanding and information as Daniel? Probably doesn't exist.
It doesn't take much skill to throw up a smokescreen of confusion and misdirection. In both trials, Samsung's attorneys arguments incredibly mirrored the kind of nonsense you hear from forum trolls. It made me wonder if spin doctoring was their entire legal strategy.
This isn't about "protecting copyrights so that people can innovate." This is about wanting Apple to be the only company marketing smartphones and tablets.
For everyone who doesn’t want to read all this nonsense, here’s the summary. Remember, the little red flag at the bottom left of each post is there for a reason!
Rooting for Apple to become the next Microsoft because "Apple deserves it" is not particularly convincing. Especially since the real reason why Microsoft became so dominant was not their copying Windows - that line ignores the fact that PCs running Microsoft DOS were dominating sales long before Microsoft introduced Windows - was because PCs and clones were much cheaper than Macs. Of course, the response is that the IBM PCs and especially the clones were junk, but it was junk that people could afford. A Chevy is not as good as a BMW, but it beats walking. The clones made personal computing grow and become a lot more accessible than it would have been had the market consisted of only Apple machines, or even only Apple and IBM PCs, which were also quite expensive. And like it or not, the growth of the computing market from business computing and people employed in the computer industry and academics/enthusiasts to a booming sector of casual/entertainment users drove the technology industry in a way that massively benefited Apple. No hundreds of millions of computer users means no commercialization of the Internet, no PC gaming or other broad based software industry, no large computer hardware market, etc. Basically everything that is driving Apple today is due to the fact that cheap computers running Microsoft software made computing so widely accessible that everyone owned them. A computer became just as basic a household item as a refrigerator, television, microwave, VCR etc. If that doesn't happen, where is the market for the I-Pad and the I-Phone? Even the I-Pod ... no market for it if millions of people had already not been listing to music on their computers for years.
Another thing: not only were the devices more accessible for consumers because they were cheaper, but they were more accessible to hardware and software developers too. While making your own hardware and software for Apple computers used to be a real pain in the 1990s, everyone knew enough about computers running DOS and Windows in the 1990s to make peripherals and software. I am not talking about companies or computer science students mind you, but regular guys in their basements and living rooms. Do you think that freeware/shareware (the predecessor to the open source movement) would have developed if Apple was all that there was? In the 1980s and 1990s, people were writing their own mods to improve DOS and Windows and sharing them over what there was of the Internet months or years before Microsoft came out with their own versions! Lots of companies were building their own custom hardware that would plug right into any PC port. That is what drove Microsoft in the 1980s and 1990s, not their stealing Windows from Apple.
That is why this talk of "openness and innovation" is hilarious. If the tech world was ruled by Apple, "openness and innovation" would be whatever Apple decided to provide and allow. That IS NOT what happened during the Wintel "monoculture" where there was plenty of openness and innovation, just not from Microsoft. It came from a large number of companies, academics and regular people who could far more easily afford and modify Wintel hardware and software than you ever could with Apple.
This isn't about "protecting copyrights so that people can innovate." Like Posner said, Apple is the most profitable company in the world. This is about wanting Apple to be the only company marketing smartphones and tablets. Even if you believe that Apple "earned" this right, it is nuts to think that a single platform that most of the world's population can't even afford is good for anyone but Apple's employees, stockholders and ardent consumers. Again, I-Pods, I-Pads and I-Phones are only so successful because Microsoft got the world into computing in the first place. I-Pads sell because they are better for checking your email and posting to Facebook than a bulky desktop, but without the hundreds of millions of consumers that Microsoft created by selling machines that people could actually afford, there would be no commercial web-based email and no Facebook.
So despite the pretensions otherwise, this isn't about Samsung but about Android, and Android accomplishing the same thing that Microsoft did, which was give people not only a choice, but in many cases a device that they can actually afford. One thing that Apple did learn from losing the last war is that it is as easy to develop applications for IOS as it is anything else (possibly easier). They also benefit from wireless and bluetooth standards making it as easy to make accessories for Apple hardware as it was for DOS back in the day. (Although it should be mentioned that Apple DID NOT INVENT THOSE THINGS, but instead those were part of the innovation that this writer claims did not happen during the Wintel hegemony.) Because of these, IOS and MacBooks are no longer the "locked boxes" that they used to be. Big deal.
But the bottom line is that Apple is still fighting the last war, and the battleground exists because of Apple's pricing strategy. It results in huge profits for Apple, but it still leaves a gigantic market open for companies willing to accept a lower margin, because for them the choice is between making devices at a lower margin or not being in business at all. Yes, Apple is still around while a lot of the PC clone makers aren't. Big deal: those clone makers were in business for 20-30 years, made a lot of money and had good runs. The same is true of Samsung right now. They are making 1/4 of the profits on phones and tablets that Apple is right now, but 1/4 of what Apple is making is still a lot of money. Remove Samsung from the picture and Acer, Asus, Lenovo, HP, Toshiba etc. would be glad to step in and fill the gap, making products that lots of consumers want (and in today's economy in a lot of cases need) at prices that they can actually afford.
That is why the thermonuclear option that Apple and its advocates want (and again, despite claims otherwise, the true target is not Samsung but Android) is not going to happen. It is not in the interests of the economy or the consumer for Apple to be the only viable manufacturer of smartphones and tablets, no more than it would be if Mercedes was the only car maker. What Apple wants is not good for everybody else, and what Apple does not want still leaves Apple in an outstanding position. That was what Posner decided, and it is going to be what every other court or jury decides also. They may award some financial damages to a blatant infringer - though nowhere near enough to bankrupt them - but they are not going to eliminate competition for Apple so that Apple is the only viable competitor in a lucrative, valuable sector. If that is going to happen, it is going to be by virtue of the marketplace, as what happened with the I-Pod, not the courts.
It doesn't mean that "IP is meaningless" as this propaganda piece asserts. It only means that IP can't be used for what Apple wants it to, which is a legal snow shovel to clear the marketplace of meaningful competition. And to pretend as if this competition is not having an impact is ridiculous. If it wasn't, Apple would not be on the verge of offering phablets (to compete with Samsung) or finally updating Apple TV (to compete with Android-forked Fire TV).
It's because of the lies spewed by the likes of you that man had to endure years of mediocrity in the world of computing. Thankfully, because Apple's ideology is diametrically opposed to yours, your dystopian nightmare has a good chance of never coming to pass.
Great work, Daniel. Clear and comprehensive, frosted with irony.
"... Judge Posner decided that ... Motorola would be left trying to sell Google's indisputably "inferior non-Apple technology" and it would be "catastrophic" if customers had only one source to obtain Apple technology."
Comments
In advance of reading this op-ed, I heard a much more unsettling, nationally-broadcast piece on NPR yesterday. It pushes the notion that regardless of the outcome of this trial, a completely different issue currently in SCOTUS threatens to render the whole thing moot.
I'm not sure that the reporter got their Apple facts straight, though...?
Excellent point.
In some ways, I wonder why Apple Legal doesn't hire Daniel for these trials. He always comes up with more historical and pertinent information than we hear from court proceedings. Has anyone found a writer on Samsung's side who has anywhere near as much understanding and information as Daniel? Probably doesn't exist.
I'll second that.
When did MS ever halt innovation? Let's look at just a few of the developments in software during the era of Windows.
-MIT created the first network-transparent windowing system in the form of the Unix X Server. It is only appropriate that the first operating system to treat local and remote resources as equals have the first display server that does the same thing.
-The birth of Apache, the first widely-available commercial-grade webserver. Apache servers powered by Linux would go on to power the internet. Linux/Unix-based platforms have dominated every sector besides the desktop computing market: web servers, mainframes, embedded devices, and high-performance computing (Linux powers over 90 percent of the Top500 supercomputers). Their success has been directly correlated with how technically informed their users are. For a long time, Linux/Unix-based systems were the obvious choice if you wanted a secure, high-performance, multiuser operating system.
-The development of GCC, the first widely-available C compiler. It has since been ported to dozens of architectures and is still the de facto compiler for many of them.
-Java. While not necessarily the best option for consumer-facing desktop applications, it has become an industry standard for web server applications. Any web app that you interact with has a good chance of being powered by Java.
-Windows finally catches up to Unix in terms of security with Vista in 2006.
A couple of these can be considered major innovations. Java started out on a good path but it's been hampered by too many security problems. Saying Windows caught up with unix in terms of security is still a joke and including Vista in the same sentence is a real joke. The vast majority or malware still targets Windows systems although Android is the target for mobile devices. Since we're talking about the Apple/Samsung trial, I'm surprised you didn't mention either company in your innovation statement. Everything you talked about, except the Windows blurb, is about unix/Linux so we know where your preference lies.
When did MS ever halt innovation?
Well, they effectively murdered Netscape, who produced arguably the biggest software innovation of our lifetimes, the browser. Of course, they replaced Netscape's product with Internet Explorer, the fastest, most efficient, standards-compliant and secure browser on the planet.
Oh, wait...
Hehe. Good one. Extra points for "flawgic."
This is a very thoughtful, well-written, and creative article. I am going to change the author's name to my own and put it into a book I'm publishing.
A couple of these can be considered major innovations. Java started out on a good path but it's been hampered by too many security problems. Saying Windows caught up with unix in terms of security is still a joke and including Vista in the same sentence is a real joke. The vast majority or malware still targets Windows systems although Android is the target for mobile devices. Since we're talking about the Apple/Samsung trial, I'm surprised you didn't mention either company in your innovation statement. Everything you talked about, except the Windows blurb, is about unix/Linux so we know where your preference lies.
Java never really belonged on the desktop. It was a solution in search of a problem. Given that users were overwhelmingly likely to be running Windows on an x86 machine, there was no demand for a virtual machine-based platform. But it continues to dominate on servers. For instance, Gmail uses Java for its backend.
I think its unix core is one of the greatest strengths of OS X. The main reason for the popularity of the Mac among scientists is that, being a unix system with a polished GUI, OS X can interface seamlessly with their back end compute equipment which are likely to be running some form of Linux or Unix.
Isn't it strange that member/s of the jury cab bring up the question of google role in this trial where as judge cote turn a blind eye to Amazon role in the ebook trial.
So is this jury smarter than judge cote?
Option 7: Asteroid collision: Samsung really really really loses, the court orders their executives to confess the whole plot to DED in a worldwide exclusive interview. All infringing Samsung devices are sent irreversible self-destruct codes that cause them to detonate.
Option 8: Black hole: Samsung really really really really loses, a literal black hole is created at LHC, and the court orders Samsung executives and all infringing devices be bought back and thrown into the singularity, where it is irretrievably gone from this universe. DED gets to write a tell all book, and he becomes the youngest writer with a spelling disability to ever win the Pulitzer, and Fandroids everywhere are ordered by the court to write "I was trolling the whole time and I knew it" 1 million times on a blackboard, while DED watches.
Option 9: The Big Bang...
Rooting for Apple to become the next Microsoft because "Apple deserves it" is not particularly convincing. Especially since the real reason why Microsoft became so dominant was not their copying Windows - that line ignores the fact that PCs running Microsoft DOS were dominating sales long before Microsoft introduced Windows - was because PCs and clones were much cheaper than Macs. Of course, the response is that the IBM PCs and especially the clones were junk, but it was junk that people could afford. A Chevy is not as good as a BMW, but it beats walking. The clones made personal computing grow and become a lot more accessible than it would have been had the market consisted of only Apple machines, or even only Apple and IBM PCs, which were also quite expensive. And like it or not, the growth of the computing market from business computing and people employed in the computer industry and academics/enthusiasts to a booming sector of casual/entertainment users drove the technology industry in a way that massively benefited Apple. No hundreds of millions of computer users means no commercialization of the Internet, no PC gaming or other broad based software industry, no large computer hardware market, etc. Basically everything that is driving Apple today is due to the fact that cheap computers running Microsoft software made computing so widely accessible that everyone owned them. A computer became just as basic a household item as a refrigerator, television, microwave, VCR etc. If that doesn't happen, where is the market for the I-Pad and the I-Phone? Even the I-Pod ... no market for it if millions of people had already not been listing to music on their computers for years.
Another thing: not only were the devices more accessible for consumers because they were cheaper, but they were more accessible to hardware and software developers too. While making your own hardware and software for Apple computers used to be a real pain in the 1990s, everyone knew enough about computers running DOS and Windows in the 1990s to make peripherals and software. I am not talking about companies or computer science students mind you, but regular guys in their basements and living rooms. Do you think that freeware/shareware (the predecessor to the open source movement) would have developed if Apple was all that there was? In the 1980s and 1990s, people were writing their own mods to improve DOS and Windows and sharing them over what there was of the Internet months or years before Microsoft came out with their own versions! Lots of companies were building their own custom hardware that would plug right into any PC port. That is what drove Microsoft in the 1980s and 1990s, not their stealing Windows from Apple.
That is why this talk of "openness and innovation" is hilarious. If the tech world was ruled by Apple, "openness and innovation" would be whatever Apple decided to provide and allow. That IS NOT what happened during the Wintel "monoculture" where there was plenty of openness and innovation, just not from Microsoft. It came from a large number of companies, academics and regular people who could far more easily afford and modify Wintel hardware and software than you ever could with Apple.
This isn't about "protecting copyrights so that people can innovate." Like Posner said, Apple is the most profitable company in the world. This is about wanting Apple to be the only company marketing smartphones and tablets. Even if you believe that Apple "earned" this right, it is nuts to think that a single platform that most of the world's population can't even afford is good for anyone but Apple's employees, stockholders and ardent consumers. Again, I-Pods, I-Pads and I-Phones are only so successful because Microsoft got the world into computing in the first place. I-Pads sell because they are better for checking your email and posting to Facebook than a bulky desktop, but without the hundreds of millions of consumers that Microsoft created by selling machines that people could actually afford, there would be no commercial web-based email and no Facebook.
So despite the pretensions otherwise, this isn't about Samsung but about Android, and Android accomplishing the same thing that Microsoft did, which was give people not only a choice, but in many cases a device that they can actually afford. One thing that Apple did learn from losing the last war is that it is as easy to develop applications for IOS as it is anything else (possibly easier). They also benefit from wireless and bluetooth standards making it as easy to make accessories for Apple hardware as it was for DOS back in the day. (Although it should be mentioned that Apple DID NOT INVENT THOSE THINGS, but instead those were part of the innovation that this writer claims did not happen during the Wintel hegemony.) Because of these, IOS and MacBooks are no longer the "locked boxes" that they used to be. Big deal.
But the bottom line is that Apple is still fighting the last war, and the battleground exists because of Apple's pricing strategy. It results in huge profits for Apple, but it still leaves a gigantic market open for companies willing to accept a lower margin, because for them the choice is between making devices at a lower margin or not being in business at all. Yes, Apple is still around while a lot of the PC clone makers aren't. Big deal: those clone makers were in business for 20-30 years, made a lot of money and had good runs. The same is true of Samsung right now. They are making 1/4 of the profits on phones and tablets that Apple is right now, but 1/4 of what Apple is making is still a lot of money. Remove Samsung from the picture and Acer, Asus, Lenovo, HP, Toshiba etc. would be glad to step in and fill the gap, making products that lots of consumers want (and in today's economy in a lot of cases need) at prices that they can actually afford.
That is why the thermonuclear option that Apple and its advocates want (and again, despite claims otherwise, the true target is not Samsung but Android) is not going to happen. It is not in the interests of the economy or the consumer for Apple to be the only viable manufacturer of smartphones and tablets, no more than it would be if Mercedes was the only car maker. What Apple wants is not good for everybody else, and what Apple does not want still leaves Apple in an outstanding position. That was what Posner decided, and it is going to be what every other court or jury decides also. They may award some financial damages to a blatant infringer - though nowhere near enough to bankrupt them - but they are not going to eliminate competition for Apple so that Apple is the only viable competitor in a lucrative, valuable sector. If that is going to happen, it is going to be by virtue of the marketplace, as what happened with the I-Pod, not the courts.
It doesn't mean that "IP is meaningless" as this propaganda piece asserts. It only means that IP can't be used for what Apple wants it to, which is a legal snow shovel to clear the marketplace of meaningful competition. And to pretend as if this competition is not having an impact is ridiculous. If it wasn't, Apple would not be on the verge of offering phablets (to compete with Samsung) or finally updating Apple TV (to compete with Android-forked Fire TV).
It doesn't take much skill to throw up a smokescreen of confusion and misdirection. In both trials, Samsung's attorneys arguments incredibly mirrored the kind of nonsense you hear from forum trolls. It made me wonder if spin doctoring was their entire legal strategy.
This isn't about "protecting copyrights so that people can innovate." This is about wanting Apple to be the only company marketing smartphones and tablets.
For everyone who doesn’t want to read all this nonsense, here’s the summary. Remember, the little red flag at the bottom left of each post is there for a reason!
I think they'll have a verdict today -- don't want the Cinco De Mayo weekend go to waste
Also, SOT, but today we have a birthday:
Happy Birthday BASIC.
[VIDEO]
It's because of the lies spewed by the likes of you that man had to endure years of mediocrity in the world of computing. Thankfully, because Apple's ideology is diametrically opposed to yours, your dystopian nightmare has a good chance of never coming to pass.
"... Judge Posner decided that ... Motorola would be left trying to sell Google's indisputably "inferior non-Apple technology" and it would be "catastrophic" if customers had only one source to obtain Apple technology."
Sweet.
Your fucking ignorance is fucking cosmic! "Propaganda piece" LMAO!