Samsung v. Apple

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Is the US patent system that broken?

http://www.watoday.com.au/digital-li...109-2923f.html

Yes.



.

[PatNY]

I agree with those who say such basic design shouldn't be patentable. It's ludicrous.

Meanwhile, this is what happens to "sheeple" ...

Woman who bought iPad for $200 from Texas swindler finds out she was conned into buying a mirror

Wake up people!

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Meanwhile, this is what happens to "sheeple" ...

Actually this is what happens to people who think that it's a good idea to buy something at a fourth of the retail price in a parking lot.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Is the US patent system that broken?

http://www.watoday.com.au/digital-li...109-2923f.html

Well, the wheel was patented in Australia in 2001.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...australia.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Australia

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Actually this is what happens to people who think that it's a good idea to buy something at a fourth of the retail price in a parking lot.

QUOTE=PatNY;2300302]I agree with those who say such basic design shouldn't be patentable. It's ludicrous.

Meanwhile, this is what happens to "sheeple" ...



Wake up people! [/QUOTE]



In my younger days I saw many people (I worked in a bar) sell cheap jewellry, watches, clothing(seconds) that they had bought legitimately from a wholesaler and make a damn good living doing it. The sellers never said the goods were stolen although they may have implied that they were worth more by saying it was a good deal. Most people just assumed the goods were stolen and paid far more than the actual goods were worth.

I find it a tad hard to believe that even the most greedy would pay $200 for something without at least seeing the front. Or why the seller would go to the trouble of duct taping a broken mirror to the front.

And I must ask, why oh why, was the duct tape not visible from the back in the second photo. Even cutting it with an exacto knife it would have been visible and the seller was not using precision tools.

National inquirer stuff IMO although less believable

Helen

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Well, the wheel was patented in Australia in 2001.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...australia.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Australia

Someone had to do it

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Actually this is what happens to people who think that it's a good idea to buy something at a fourth of the retail price in a parking lot.

I was just gently ribbing Apple fans, aka "sheeple" to many including Samsung. Sheeple are more prone to being conned.

But seriously, I don't really believe the fruity folk are any more likely than the robot fans to be conned by this classic scam.

[Quexos]

I think I like Samsung better than I do Apple. Especially the latest televisions, Samsung has a few really nice ones.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I find it a tad hard to believe that even the most greedy would pay $200 for something without at least seeing the front. Or why the seller would go to the trouble of duct taping a broken mirror to the front.

And I must ask, why oh why, was the duct tape not visible from the back in the second photo. Even cutting it with an exacto knife it would have been visible and the seller was not using precision tools.

The entire fake item was basically just a mirror. The mirror wasn't duct-taped to anything. Rather a fake Best Buy ad/sticker was duct-taped to the front of the mirror. The mirror isn't broken. What you see in the picture is that Best Buy paper torn (probably by the woman). And not sure why you think the duct tape would have had to have been visible from the back.

As for why the seller would go to the trouble of making a poor mock-up of the real item, obviously there was no real reason to. So I think he was simply laughing at his victims. He was adding insult to injury.

National inquirer stuff IMO although less believable

So are you saying the woman made this story up and wasn't really a victim? That doesn't make sense. The story was widely reported and the Arlington PD even commented on the incident in one of the stories. And it's a crime to make a false police report. This scam is also as old as the hills. I've seen it myself on the streets of NY for a long time. This is not something new. There is a sucker born every minute!

--Pat

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I find it a tad hard to believe that even the most greedy would pay $200 for something without at least seeing the front. Or why the seller would go to the trouble of duct taping a broken mirror to the front.

And I must ask, why oh why, was the duct tape not visible from the back in the second photo. Even cutting it with an exacto knife it would have been visible and the seller was not using precision tools.

Usually these things happen because the seller is in a hurry and manages to convince the buyer that they don't have the time to waste around to show that the device is working. The duct tape wasn't visible from the back because the device was wrapped in protective plastic that, while transparent to some extent, manages to hide details. I doubt that the woman unwrapped it properly before the seller left with her $200.

Originally Posted by PatNY

I was just gently ribbing Apple fans, aka "sheeple" to many including Samsung. Sheeple are more prone to being conned.

But seriously, I don't really believe the fruity folk are any more likely than the robot fans to be conned by this classic scam.

I disagree. Fans are more likely to check to make sure that the screen doesn't have scratches.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I disagree. Fans are more likely to check to make sure that the screen doesn't have scratches.

You are making a distinction where I had not intended any. "Fruity folk" = Apple fans. So really, no distinction between the Apple and Android camps in terms of their susceptibility to this type of scam.

--Pat

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by PatNY

You are making a distinction where I had not intended any. "Fruity folk" = Apple fans. So really, no distinction between the Apple and Android camps in terms of their susceptibility to this type of scam.

I wasn't making the distinction between Apple fans and Android fans, I was making the distinction between fans and regular consumers. Fans of a product (whatever that product might be, and who might manufacture it) are going to pay more attention to the condition of the product that they are a fan of before purchase.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I wasn't making the distinction between Apple fans and Android fans, I was making the distinction between fans and regular consumers. Fans of a product (whatever that product might be, and who might manufacture it) are going to pay more attention to the condition of the product that they are a fan of before purchase.

I'm confused. Exactly what then in my original statement were you disagreeing with? It made no judgment about the susceptibility of "fans" -- in general -- to scams like this. Only in relation to other types of fans. I was comparing Apple fans vs. Android fans in my original statement -- and only that.

--Pat

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by PatNY

I'm confused. Exactly what then in my original statement were you disagreeing with? It made no judgment about the susceptibility of "fans" -- in general -- to scams like this. Only in relation to other types of fans. I was comparing Apple fans vs. Android fans in my original statement -- and only that.

Originally Posted by PatNY

I was just gently ribbing Apple fans, aka "sheeple" to many including Samsung. Sheeple are more prone to being conned.

But seriously, I don't really believe the fruity folk are any more likely than the robot fans to be conned by this classic scam.

When I initially read your post I took the first sentence to mean that previously you were making fun of Apple fans and were extending the derogatory name to fans of other brands, since there is nothing indicating that you are comparing Apple fans to other fans in that sentence. Then you said that "sheeple" are more prone to being conned, and since at this point I thought that you were using the term to describe fans in general, I took it to mean that fans are more likely to be conned than non-fans, considering that you were replying to my post where I was disagreeing with you about your previous statement that indicated that you thought that the buyer was an Apple fan making this a fan vs. non-fan comparison.

Since in your next sentence you said that you don't believe that Apple fans are more likely than Android fans to be conned, the logic seemed to hold.

I see now that you were comparing Apple fans to Android fans, But I still don't understand why you would say that Apple fans are more likely to be conned in one sentence and equally likely in the next, and also why this would come in reply to my post, where I didn't mention Android fans.

[afv011]

Samsung's done playing nice.

Samsung has reportedly increased the price of the mobile processors it manufactures for Apple’s iOS devices by 20 percent, according to South Korean daily newspaper Chosun Ilbo (via MarketWatch), which says it received the information with someone familiar with negotiations between the two firms. Apple apparently wanted to walk away rather than accept the new terms, according to the source, but had no replacement supplier to take over manufacturing.

Source