Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Apple v Samsung Verdict is in

<< < (8/24) > >>

TaoPhoenix:

Slashdot nailed the headline for the followup:
"Apple v. Samsung Jurors Speak, Skipped Prior Art For "Bogging Us Down""
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/08/26/146230/apple-v-samsung-jurors-speak-skipped-prior-art-for-bogging-us-down

"Bleh, you mean we have to look at that pesky prior art stuff when we already know we're going to vote for Apple?"

rxantos:
My intermediate thought was:
"Of that billion, How much was the judge paid?" There are MANY ways in which you can buy a judge. Some with money, some without. Some indirect, some direct.

Then I remembered: "Never blame evil that with stupidity can explain."

So instead of thinking that the judge was corrupt, I ended up thinking that the judge was just a useful moron.

TaoPhoenix:
My intermediate thought was:
"Of that billion, How much was the judge paid?" There are MANY ways in which you can buy a judge. Some with money, some without. Some indirect, some direct.

Then I remembered: "Never blame evil that with stupidity can explain."

So instead of thinking that the judge was corrupt, I ended up thinking that the judge was just a useful moron.
-rxantos (August 26, 2012, 09:59 PM)
--- End quote ---

Lately, I've been reversing that axiom. Even if a judge is not totally bought, *someone* is playing an evil angle. "How much was the judge paid" is a fun sarcasm-venting question, but nothing is ever innocent mistakes anymore, not in the age of the net. So maybe the judge thought she was "doing right" but what is "doing right"? "Maintaining the primacy of intellectual property"?

Much more sinister is the whole "Nah we don't need an impartial jury, that's for mere murder cases. Let's hold this on Apple's Back Lawn after the picnic that the entire state was invited to. Okay Jury, so tell me more about the part where you "didn't bother with prior art because that would have bogged down sending those evil foreigners a message?!! Go USA!"

app103:
The irony in all of this is that Apple sued one of their major component suppliers for iPhones and iPads, then made this statement as their final rebuttal in court:

“No one is trying to stop them from selling smartphones,” he said. “All we’re saying is: make your own. Make your own designs, make your own phones, and compete on your own innovations.”-http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/08/22/apple-v-samsung-closing-arguments-make-phones-v-apple-trying-mislead-you/?awesm=tnw.to_b3lw
--- End quote ---

Maybe Apple should do the same and start making their own iPhones and iPads from their own parts? Apple considers themselves both a software company and a hardware company, but they don't make any of their own hardware...their competitors do.

So guess who will pay for this lawsuit in the end? Apple's customers, of course. The natural course will result in the cost of goods produced by Samsung rising to cover the costs of this lawsuit and verdict, and Apple paying more for parts, and passing that on to their customers. Already, 26% of the cost of an iPhone or iPad goes right to Samsung to cover the costs of parts supplied by them.

So basically, Samsung has 2 years to suck as much money as it can from Apple, a company that is doing $11 billion in business with them this year alone, to cover the costs of this whole drama...which won't be difficult, considering the deals Apple is making with them, for all of Samsung's innovative new products that will end up in future iPhone, iPad, and Macbook models.

cranioscopical:
did he mean the corner on the circle :-\  (but that was rounded, so now I'm confussed...)
-tomos (August 26, 2012, 06:45 AM)
--- End quote ---
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED~! ;D
-Renegade (August 26, 2012, 07:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
That's what I call teamwork! :Thmbsup:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page