Suddenly you don't like tyranny? .
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm flabbergasted. > > The ruling was clear that Apple had abused Samsung's patents, and an import > ban was instituted on the iphone 4 and a few other models. > > Apple is wrong in this, they lost their appeals, they lost the case. The > decision should stand. > > Samsung offered to license the patents to Apple, and Apple consistently > refused to pay, preferring to try to defend the case, or rather to sell > millions of phones and make billions in profit while the wheels of the > courts and committees sloooowly turned. > > The case went to the ITC, and Apple lost. And now the US Government has > swooped in and vetoed the ruling, so Apple gets a free pass and is able to > continue doing business as usual. > > What effect is this having on capitalism and the "free" market in general? > If Apple takes a hit on these handsets then it would allow other > manufacturers and developers to step in and fill the void. But this way, > Apple maintains its position and nothing changes. A position that it got to > in part by ignoring patents. > > If this would be "disruptive" to the US economy, what about the disruption > that has already taken place because Apple was allowed to ignore these > patents? > > Basically, Samsung is supposed to pursue Apple and obtain some sort of > payout from Apple for their breach. The real value in this would have been > taking the products off the market. > > Many small companies have been forced to close or been acquired because of > patent disputes and challenges brought against them. Where was the Veto on > their behalf when challenged by Patent troll lawyers or massive > corporations? > > Why should ANY government now choose to hold its companies liable to the > ITC, or any other standards committee if it goes against that company's > best interests? If the US can simply move to protect it's own businesses > and vetoes such rulings, then why should these standards bodies even exist? > > It seems that they exist only to benefit the United States against other > foreign companies and countries in the world. Once rulings go against the > US and appear to have a major effect, it either ignores it (WTO ruling on > internet gambling, US vs Antigua) or the president can Veto it. > > It simply doesn't make much sense, and is little comfort, to state that the > ruling was correct, but they just aren't going to go along with it. > > http://mashable.com/2013/08/03/apple-samsung-ban/ > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:366262 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
