View Single Post
Old 12-12-2011, 01:33 PM   #80
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,726
Karma: 19728152
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Note 4, Kobo One
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phogg View Post
You personally assert that patenting simple geometric shapes is within the rules.

Amazing.
a) No, that is hyperbole, but proceeding anyway
b) Submitting an application is within the rules.
If the patent officials examined it fairly, according to the processes set out for them, and decided to award it, then yes it was within the rules. Certainly not corrupt.
If the officials made an honest mistake, or failed to follow their rules for some innocent reason, then they have made an error, but absent something further, are not corrupt.
If Apple had paid or otherwise influenced the officials to change their opinion, or in some unlawful way influenced which officials it would be assigned to, that would be corrupt.

To me, corruption means providing payment (whether in money, goods, favours, etc...) to obtain a benefit (again, money, goods, favours, etc... ) that you would not otherwise be entitled to. You have influenced someone to act for their own benefit, rather than the benefit of the organisation they work for.
How are you defining it?

Last edited by murraypaul; 12-12-2011 at 01:36 PM.
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote