4 ms·

Remind us how snarky zealotry tells Apple to stop (ab)using the patent system. If that's the problem you have with them, I think the world would be improved if

by Firehed 14y ago

Remind us how snarky zealotry tells Apple to stop (ab)using the patent system. If that's the problem you have with them, I think the world would be improved if you directed your energy at patent reform. And comparing IP litigation to murder is just ridiculous, not that you didn't already know that. Among all the other problems, you can fix a bad call from a judge. Murder, not so much.

piyush_soni 14y ago
It's not ridiculous. I explained and it's not hard to understand why opposing bad things (any) is important. And it's always a good test to validate your logic with extreme cases. It helps - if a logic suddenly breaks by increasing the 'intensity' of the subject, then there's something wrong in it. Again, I don't think the patent law is getting 'reformed' overnight. I have written to state officials to improve it, have signed petitions, and have written to Apple as well. But on top of that, if more and more people stop using their products for this reason, they will understand it much more quickly.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  >>and it's always a good test to validate your logic with extreme cases Uh, no. Hyperbole weakens your argument. If you want to be taken seriously in discussions among adults, I suggest you avoid it.
- Firehed 14y ago
  > And it's always a good test to validate your logic with extreme cases. It helps - if a logic suddenly breaks by increasing the 'intensity' of the subject, then there's something wrong in it. I would suggest avoiding doing so publicly. People can come to the same conclusions if they want to apply theory of extremes, but when you jump to that kind of thing in your initial comparison (especially without a disclaimer) it just makes you come off as a crazy person. Doubly so since the extreme didn't hold up. It didn't help that some of the more rational points are easily countered (even if not wrong). Stating that my use of Apple harms you because of my "support" of their business and legal decisions may not be entirely false; however, it's a) unreasonable to expect consumers to know about the operational choices of every company they do business with and b) also helpful because it promotes competition in the market. Again, your points had merit, but so does the other side of the equation. The unfortunate reality of being a publicly-traded US company is that you are more or less legally required to try to litigate your competition out of existence if the numbers support it. This instance is unfortunate because Apple was granted some patents that they should not have been, and there was inept jury in deciding to uphold them (never mind the fact that it was a jury-based trial at all). The Apple/Samsung thing should have been a trademark case which I think actually had some merit, but patent litigation has a higher potential upside so the finances said that was the way to go.

by Firehed 14y ago

piyush_soni 14y ago

It's not ridiculous. I explained and it's not hard to understand why opposing bad things (any) is important. And it's always a good test to validate your logic with extreme cases. It helps - if a logic suddenly breaks by increasing the 'intensity' of the subject, then there's something wrong in it. Again, I don't think the patent law is getting 'reformed' overnight. I have written to state officials to improve it, have signed petitions, and have written to Apple as well. But on top of that, if more and more people stop using their products for this reason, they will understand it much more quickly.

enraged_camel 14y ago
>>and it's always a good test to validate your logic with extreme cases Uh, no. Hyperbole weakens your argument. If you want to be taken seriously in discussions among adults, I suggest you avoid it.
Firehed 14y ago
> And it's always a good test to validate your logic with extreme cases. It helps - if a logic suddenly breaks by increasing the 'intensity' of the subject, then there's something wrong in it. I would suggest avoiding doing so publicly. People can come to the same conclusions if they want to apply theory of extremes, but when you jump to that kind of thing in your initial comparison (especially without a disclaimer) it just makes you come off as a crazy person. Doubly so since the extreme didn't hold up. It didn't help that some of the more rational points are easily countered (even if not wrong). Stating that my use of Apple harms you because of my "support" of their business and legal decisions may not be entirely false; however, it's a) unreasonable to expect consumers to know about the operational choices of every company they do business with and b) also helpful because it promotes competition in the market. Again, your points had merit, but so does the other side of the equation. The unfortunate reality of being a publicly-traded US company is that you are more or less legally required to try to litigate your competition out of existence if the numbers support it. This instance is unfortunate because Apple was granted some patents that they should not have been, and there was inept jury in deciding to uphold them (never mind the fact that it was a jury-based trial at all). The Apple/Samsung thing should have been a trademark case which I think actually had some merit, but patent litigation has a higher potential upside so the finances said that was the way to go.