Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

#BoycottApple trending on Google plus due to Galaxy Nexus ban

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–374 of 374 posts

Re: #BoycottApple trending on Google plus due to Galaxy Nexus ban

#371

Post by jclulow »

flyinRyan wrote: post #346
jclulow wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think suggesting that nobody is hurt by ridiculous injunctions like this is a bit disingenuous. Firstly, consumers are denied the chance to purchase a product that exists; it's been made! It's ready to ship! Sure, you might not want one, but it's certainly possible that other people do. Something else an injuction does is robs a manufacturer of any time-to-market advantage that they may have had releasing the produ…

>Firstly, consumers are denied the chance to purchase a product that exists; it's been made! It's ready to ship! Sure, you might not want one, but it's certainly possible that other people do. What kind of ridiculous justification is this? "But I had the car! It was ready to sell! I had someone who wanted to buy it ! It's not right to stop me just because the car didn't actually belong to me, the guy I stole it from…

Firstly, the (at this stage surely still alleged) infringement on another's intellectual property is not equivalent to the theft of a car, or the selling of a bridge that you don't own, or whatever.

Secondly, I was simply saying that injunctions can disadvantage some people or organisations, and that they don't even have to be people directly involved in the injunction.

Re: #BoycottApple trending on Google plus due to Galaxy Nexus ban

#372

Post by flyinRyan »

jclulow wrote: post #371
flyinRyan wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Firstly, consumers are denied the chance to purchase a product that exists; it's been made! It's ready to ship! Sure, you might not want one, but it's certainly possible that other people do. What kind of ridiculous justification is this? "But I had the car! It was ready to sell! I had someone who wanted to buy it ! It's not right to stop me just because the car didn't actually belong to me, the guy I stole it from…

Firstly, the (at this stage surely still alleged ) infringement on another's intellectual property is not equivalent to the theft of a car, or the selling of a bridge that you don't own, or whatever. Secondly, I was simply saying that injunctions can disadvantage some people or organisations, and that they don't even have to be people directly involved in the injunction.

I was using a more extreme example to make it more obvious how ridiculous what you were saying was.

Let's try again: imagine there were a truck load of Android pads going somewhere but the truck got stolen. The thief quickly gets the pads to his story and sends out advertisement everywhere that he has the new Android pad for $1! People are lined up outside the store ready to buy but before he can open the police show up, shut the store down and recover the pads. The people only lost out on a sale that never should have existed. It's not the fault of the police for stopping the sale, nor the person who reported the crime. It's the fault of the thief.

Likewise, if this product infringes patent(s) then it should not exist. Any disappointment to the customers if the fault of the company that made the illegal product, not the ones who stop sale (the judge) nor the people who reported the infringement (Apple).

Re: #BoycottApple trending on Google plus due to Galaxy Nexus ban

#374

Post by KirinDave »

0xABADC0DA wrote: post #370
KirinDave wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't even... what do you expect Apple Legal to innovate? Apple Engineering creates great products. Apple Legal pays private security firms and complicit local officials to storm journalist's houses. Apple Engineering is trying to create a reputation as a great place to work, Apple Legal is scaring away engineers left and right. Apple Legal plays dirty, Apple Engineering and Design talk about the nobility of grea…

I'm not sure how Apple hasn't been rewarded for their efforts. What more, exactly, do they need ... We've had years of Apple sitting on an epic pile of money What you are doing is looking at the success story and saying 'they already made 100x on their investment that should be enough!' but neglecting to consider the chance of failure. We don't have patents so that Apple can make 150x times their investment instead o…

> What you are doing is looking at the success story and saying 'they already made 100x on their investment that should be enough!' but neglecting to consider the chance of failure.

Incorrect. I'm saying that they have a big advantage and they have failed to capitalize on it.

> Absolutely Apple should continue to get advantages over non-innovating competitors even though Apple already has gobs of money.

The asinine accusation of non-innovation bured in this is worth pointing out, but not worth replying to otherwise. For shame, sir. For shame.

But hey, nice try at astroturfing.

Post reply on HN