Apple's helpful guidelines for competitors to avoid patent infringement

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

As you said:

The Dusseldorf court didn't act in the interests of those that it is meant to serve.

They aren't acting in their own interests, they have simply made a choice you don't agree with.
If a politician votes for/against a bill you don't/do agree with, does that make them corrupt?
Only if they have been influenced to do so by some improper means.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

They aren't acting in their own interests, they have simply made a choice you don't agree with.
If a politician votes for/against a bill you don't/do agree with, does that make them corrupt?
Only if they have been influenced to do so by some improper means.

You said that corruption also occurs when B is acting in A's interests:

Originally Posted by murraypaul

In my mind corruption involves A corrupting B.
It involves B acting in his own interests (or A's interests), rather than the interests he is meant to serve.

Did you change your mind?

[kacir]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Now this I can make real easy for you. Name 5 innovative products DESIGNED in China by Chinese?

Gunpowder
Compass
Rocket
Fireworks
Iron plow
Boat Rudder
Porcelain
Paper
Toilet paper
Printing with movable type
Harness for horse
Paper money
... and a few other things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

[kacir]

I have a few helpful guidelines for Apple:

Who Sows Wind Will Harvest Storm.

He Who Lives In a Glass House Shouldn't Throw Stones.

[HappyMartin]

If you think Apple are corrupt then charge them in a court of law with corruption. Good luck and let me know how it goes. Personally I think that such charges would be as silly as Apples guidelines but hey, give it a go.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You said that corruption also occurs when B is acting in A's interests:

Did you change your mind?

I don't think they were acting in Apple's interests, I think they applied the law as they saw it. I think they acted in the interests they were meant to serve.
They might have mistakenly applied the law incorrectly.
The law might be 'wrong'.
Neither of those situations are corrupt.
If they acted in Apple's interests, that is they made a decision they did not believe was right in order to benefit Apple, then that would be corruption.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

If you think Apple are corrupt then charge them in a court of law with corruption. Good luck and let me know how it goes. Personally I think that such charges would be as silly as Apples guidelines but hey, give it a go.

Are you so bereft of intellect, and feeble of vocabulary as to think every level of corruption must be actionable, or that the courts dictate reality?

What a twisted world you weave.

If an employee takes a new pen home from the supply cabinet at the office every day and hoards them, and likewise if a patron calls out the management at restaurants to make false complaints about the wait staff to try to.get people fired... Both of those sorts of people are corrupt. Neither are worth the time of the courts, however.

Except I guess in the twisted bizarro world some of the posters here mentally inhabit.

Apple is in a court of law, and just got the snot slapped out of it (thats kind of the topic of the iOs thread, unless you have little voices in your head telling you something else) so it looks like a judge did detirmine their level of corruption was actionable.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Apple is in a court of law, and just got the snot slapped out of it (thats kind of the topic of the iOs thread, unless you have little voices in your head telling you something else) so it looks like a judge did detirmine their level of corruption was actionable.

???
How does losing a court case equal proof of corruption?
What about the cases Apple won, does that mean that their opposition was corrupt?
You seem to be using the word simply to describe actions you think are objectionable.

[afa]

Originally Posted by kartu

Using these to "companies advantage" is not justifiable by neither capitalism, nor comunism or ninja turtles.

Raphael's gonna kick your ass for saying that...

[HappyMartin]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Are you so bereft of intellect, and feeble of vocabulary as to think every level of corruption must be actionable, or that the courts dictate reality?

What a twisted world you weave.

If an employee takes a new pen home from the supply cabinet at the office every day and hoards them, and likewise if a patron calls out the management at restaurants to make false complaints about the wait staff to try to.get people fired... Both of those sorts of people are corrupt. Neither are worth the time of the courts, however.

Except I guess in the twisted bizarro world some of the posters here mentally inhabit.

Apple is in a court of law, and just got the snot slapped out of it (thats kind of the topic of the iOs thread, unless you have little voices in your head telling you something else) so it looks like a judge did detirmine their level of corruption was actionable.

I have never in all the time I have posted here found it necessary to pour scorn on a persons intellect or vocabulary merely because I disagreed with them. Yet you seem to feel it is OK to do that with me while simultaneously using an analogy of a waitron being falsly accused of questionable behavior in order to get them fired and determining this to be corrupt behavior. Very amusing.

To put in plainly. I believe my intellect is at least up to the task of disagreeing with you and I believe my vocabulary perfectly adequate for the task of general communication. Because I disagree with you does not make me stupid nor does it demonstrate a poor vocabulary. It merely points to a difference of opinion.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

I have never in all the time I have posted here found it necessary to pour scorn on a persons intellect or vocabulary merely because I disagreed with them. Yet you seem to feel it is OK to do that with me while simultaneously using an analogy of a waitron being falsly accused of questionable behavior in order to get them fired and determining this to be corrupt behavior. Very amusing.

To put in plainly. I believe my intellect is at least up to the task of disagreeing with you and I believe my vocabulary perfectly adequate for the task of general communication. Because I disagree with you does not make me stupid nor does it demonstrate a poor vocabulary. It merely points to a difference of opinion.

You expounded upon a position that something is not corrupt unless it is addressed by the courts.

That position requires a defficiency in either intellect or vocabulary, and furthermore you made that ludicrous assertion to attempt to negate a point I had made. I needent post the deffinition of corruption again, that has been done and it makes your point look less than adequate.

If you dish it oit Martin, it might behoove you to learn to take a riposte, and if you escelate the exchange expect the same in return. You can embrace an anything goes mentality in your private and business life as much as you wish. You can not however, defend such attitudes unopposed. Corruption exists from the moment morality is breached and does not just suddenly become such at the intervention of a court.

As many times as you try to promulgate that position, I will slap it down again. And Martin, you will never recieve nor deserve any more respect in such an exchange as that position merits. You have not been the recipient of a personal derision, rather, you have attatched yourself to a position that merits only ridicule, and that ridicule spills over on to you when you promulgate it.

Comtinue to rail against the deffinition of corruption and those who dare to use that word in posting on a forum all you want.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Corruption exists from the moment morality is breached

That just isn't what the word means.
You can choose to use a word however you wish, but don't expect people to understand you when you do so. Corruption is not a synonym for immorality.
Noone has answered the questions I posed earlier, so I'll ask them again.
Is someone who cheats on their spouse corrupt?
Someone who cheats on a test?
Someone who lies to get elected?
All of these things are immoral.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I don't think they were acting in Apple's interests, I think they applied the law as they saw it. I think they acted in the interests they were meant to serve.

The iPad's design was around even in the 19th century:

The only explanation for a judge deciding to give Apple rights over this design is that they are corrupt.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The only explanation for a judge deciding to give Apple rights over this design is that they are corrupt.

This is the same logic that asserts that anyone who gives their favourite product a bad review must be being paid off by Microsoft/Apple/evil company of choice.
It is possible for reasonable people to differ without one of them having a nefarious purpose.

[Although it is a pleasant surprise that noone has yet accused me of being a paid Apple stooge, which is a usual next step in this sort of discussion]

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

This is the same logic that asserts that anyone who gives their favourite product a bad review must be being paid off by Microsoft/Apple/evil company of choice.
It is possible for reasonable people to differ without one of them having a nefarious purpose.

This isn't a matter of opinion. The design has been around for more than 200 years.