Apple iPad, iPhone ban lifted

cerebus said:
There's not a pro-Apple bias in the US court system as bevonk is saying; although there could be argued to be a pro-Samsung bias. But it's all very speculative;
Click to expand...

Clearly this show which side of the fence you are on. You definitively say that there is no pro apple bias, despite an intervention by the office of the president, but then speculate that there could be a pro samsung bias, without providing any source.

The government should have not put their finger in this, unless they are willing to put in their whole arm and review the entire system.
 
And I am not really in favour of Amazon either, IMO their electronic books are also overpriced, after all, there are virtually zero printing and distribution costs.

And where e-books are usually read by just one person, printed books can, and are, read by many people.

In my view many books should be sold for USD4.99 on the Kindle store, rather than the USD9.99 that they are usually sold at.
 
imranpanji said:
Clearly this show which side of the fence you are on. You definitively say that there is no pro apple bias, despite an intervention by the office of the president, but then speculate that there could be a pro samsung bias, without providing any source.
Click to expand...

I didn't even suggest that there is a pro-Samsung bias. Actually, clearly there isn't one as they've ruled against Samsung here. If any bias can be argued, it's 1) Pro-US (2 rulings in favour of Apple and Amazon) and then 2) Pro-Amazon (1 ruling for Amazon and against Apple). But overall I don't think there is a specific bias other than the US liking to be courted.

You say that after the veto by Obama ???
Click to expand...
In a few months Apple (and no other US company) were flat-out accused of tax evasion, which turned out to be fruitless; and then successfully litigated against by the government for price-fixing. So 2 against, 1 for: hence, no pro-Apple bias.
 
Last edited:
cerebus said:
In a few months Apple (and no other US company) were flat-out accused of tax evasion, which turned out to be fruitless; and then successfully litigated against by the government for price-fixing. So 2 against, 1 for: hence, no pro-Apple bias.
Click to expand...

All those examples are internal American cases,a case of I'll fight with my brother but if you as an outsider fights with my brother I'd automatically take my brothers side.Because lets face it they are looking after their own interests first and foremost.No point looking after Apple if the government and economy don't benefit from it.
 
falcon786 said:
All those examples are internal American cases,a case of I'll fight with my brother but if you as an outsider fights with my brother I'd automatically take my brothers side.Because lets face it they are looking after their own interests first and foremost.No point looking after Apple if the government and economy don't benefit from it.
Click to expand...

And they couldn't have made a case for Samsung evading taxes; or any other non-US company? I get what you're saying but it's really stretching to suggest that there's some clearly demonstrated bias happening here at all. Apple gets roasted by the US government in lawsuits.
 
cerebus said:
And they couldn't have made a case for Samsung evading taxes; or any other non-US company? I get what you're saying but it's really stretching to suggest that there's some clearly demonstrated bias happening here at all. Apple gets roasted by the US government in lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Probably because Samsung isn't even trying to evade taxes in the USA.They obviously had reason to believe Apple was avoiding taxes.

They only get roasted when it affects American interests otherwise they become the American interests.How can you not see that even though you are the one that pointed it out.
 
falcon786 said:
Probably because Samsung isn't even trying to evade taxes in the USA.They obviously had reason to believe Apple was avoiding taxes.

They only get roasted when it affects American interests otherwise they become the American interests.How can you not see that even though you are the one that pointed it out.
Click to expand...
It was the ITC, a US-governed international trade body, who first instigated the ban on older iPhones. Nobody suggested at the time that there was some anti-Apple thing happening. Now the US government repealed it and it's 'protectionism'? Apple wins a lawsuit and it's pro-Apple. Apple loses a lawsuit and it's 'home turf'. You're just trying to create some narrative that really isn't there at all. There's no systematisation to it.
 
cerebus said:
It was the ITC, a US-governed international trade body, who first instigated the ban on older iPhones. Nobody suggested at the time that there was some anti-Apple thing happening. Now the US government repealed it and it's 'protectionism'? Apple wins a lawsuit and it's pro-Apple. Apple loses a lawsuit and it's 'home turf'. You're just trying to create some narrative that really isn't there at all. There's no systematisation to it.
Click to expand...

It seems many other people here can see it besides you.Not surprising though based on my past discussions with you concerning Apple.
 
falcon786 said:
It seems many other people here can see it besides you.Not surprising though based on my past discussions with you concerning Apple.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see some anti-Apple bias in the US government. It would fit an 'everyone's against Apple' story very well especially given the ebook ruling going so disastrously against them. But I don't believe it's there. Or if it is, it'll take more than a couple of cases to see a clear pattern. You, on the other hand, are determined to find patterns where none really exist. So good luck with that.
 
cerebus said:
I'd love to see some anti-Apple bias in the US government. It would fit an 'everyone's against Apple' story very well especially given the ebook ruling going so disastrously against them. But I don't believe it's there. Or if it is, it'll take more than a couple of cases to see a clear pattern. You, on the other hand, are determined to find patterns where none really exist. So good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Lol me and many others here,only you are right cerebus.:)
 
cerebus said:
Argumentum ad populum? What's your point exactly? Everyone agrees with me and personally I think you're a tosspot so whatever you say cerb?
Click to expand...

But thats not whats happening in this case is it,even the South Korean government have noted this and go have a look at the latest articles they have expressed concern about this ruling.

A big ally of the USA would not open its mouth unless it felt there was more to this.Especially since North Korea is knocking at their front door.

But you're so stubborn that you still wont admit it because it paints your precious Apple in a bad light.:D
 
So when the US does it it's blatant protectionism but when Korea protests it's what..... legitimate concern?
 
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/

That the only time Samsung made such an offer — in oral discussions in December 2012 — it came with strings attached to which Apple could not agree.

What those strings were are blacked out in the document, but Pinkert adds in the next sentence: “it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumberd patents as a condition for licensing its patent” (emphasis his).
Click to expand...
 
cerebus said:
So when the US does it it's blatant protectionism but when Korea protests it's what..... legitimate concern?
Click to expand...

I'm not korea.I'm a neutral party that actually uses and enjoys Apple products.

And yes korea can see that their interests and justice are being blatantly ignored by the USA in favour of USA interests aka Apple.
 
Last edited:
falcon786 said:
I'm not korea.I'm a neutral party that actually uses and enjoys Apple products.

And yes korea can see that their interests and justice are being blatantly ignored by the USA in favour of USA interests aka Apple.
Click to expand...

Read the article and quit whining k.
 
cerebus said:
Read the article and quit whining k.
Click to expand...

Its not just this one instance Cerebus we've been saying it since Apple won that farce lawsuit against Samsung.:whistle:

I guess its not point arguing with you,you're a die hard Apple defender,but I'll admit if Samsung indeed had those clauses attached to it then it was wrong,lets see what comes of the case itself.Something like signed agreements are not as subjective as design copying those blacked out parts are either there or not and if Samsung is guilty of it then they deserve this ruling.
 
but I'll admit if Samsung indeed had those clauses attached to it then it was wrong,lets see what comes of the case itself.Something like signed agreements are not as subjective as design copying those blacked out parts are either there or not and if Samsung is guilty of it then they deserve this ruling.
Click to expand...
Fina-bloody-lly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X