View Single Post
Old 08-29-2012, 09:06 AM   #10
fjtorres
Grand Sorcerer
fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,298
Karma: 57567617
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: PRS-T1, KT, PB701/IQ, K2, PB360, BeBook One, Axim51v, TC1000
FOSS?
Well, now.
It seems to me that one giant for-profit multinational ripping off another giant for-profit multinational to capture a major share of an expensive gadget market and make a zillion bucks in the process has very little to do with FOSS. And a whole lot to do with good old fashioned profit seeking.
No altruism involved here on either side.

Look, Samsung is going to fight the verdict to the end simply because the longer they fight the longer they can benefit from the existing loineup and the longer they have to develop non-infringing products. And because a couple hundred million in legal fees is cheaper than a couple billion in payments.
But even in the worst case scenario, the money they would pay is cheap compared to what they got; a massive share of the world smartphone business acquired using Apple's own designs and--even more important--the *time* they needed to develop original designs that could compete with Apple.
The reality here is simple: Samsung copied Apple to make money, not to advance any philosophy or principle.
Whether the copying is legal or not is actually irrelevant to *them*.
As their memos made clear they thought their products were non-competitive and it would take too long to develop ones that were so they chose to copy Apple and even after Google warned them they kept on copying. They did so because they wanted to keep Apple from running away with the market the way Amazon is running away with the ebook reader market in certain regions.
And what better way to keep Apple from running uncontested than to challenge them with their own products in drag?

It was cold, calculated, profit seeking, not philosophy.

Samsung certainly didn't champion FOSS at the trial or in their press releases.
Instead, they brought out *their* proprietary closed IP and claimed Apple was ripping *them* off. Instead of defending their actions by themselves, they sought to cancel out their violation with Apple's violation.

Doesn't sound to me like they believe in FOSS one bit.
I'm thinking FOSS supporters need to find a better poster-child than the biggest and most profitable electronics company in the world.
Now, if Samsung were copying iPhones and giving them away for free (or even below cost) to the poor ragged uncool hordes of the world, then they might be suitable champions for FOSS. But one greedy multinational ripping off another greedy multinational?
Feh!
A pox 'pon both their houses.
It's fun entertainment but about as meaningful as any other cheap soap opera.

Last edited by fjtorres; 08-29-2012 at 09:09 AM.
fjtorres is offline   Reply With Quote