EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

03.15.12

Apple: When ‘Fans’ Are Simply Bribed, Too

Posted in Apple, Marketing, Novell, SLES/SLED at 6:42 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Another good example of paid-for Apple ‘fans’

THE CULT of Apple is not as organic as one might be led to believe. In the past we covered examples of Apple AstroTurfing and this new example shows us paid queue standers — people who are paid to hype up products:

Airtasker paying man to queue to buy the very first new iPad

STEPHEN Parkes is first in line for a new iPad at the Apple store in Sydney but it’s not because he actually wants one.

Instead jobs site Airtasker is keen to cash in on Apple’s cachet has paid the former truck driver $950 to wait there until Friday’s launch wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with its logo.

Airtasker.com is an online marketplace where people can bid for the right to earn cash for running day errands and completing everyday chores.

This is ridiculous. Sometimes celebrities are used like this too — a form of deceitful endorsement. Apple also gives the illusion/delusion of its products being the most wanted by providing ‘i’ Prizes in all sorts of competitions and raffles. It’s effective PR.

Now, consider the fact that Novell keeps losing its free (voluntary) fans despite pretending to be “open” and soon enough it’s realised that a lot of this is plain marketing for Microsoft-taxed GNU/Linux like this SP2, which oddly enough was picked for review:

SLES 11 SP2 adds a new kernel, support for Btrfs and LXC, and Snapper to manage snapshots and rollbacks. Koen Vervloesem explains all…

Was the author contacted by Novell/SUSE to write this review? We saw Novell doing this before and even offering gifts for it. This is a subject for another day.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

50 Comments

  1. Michael said,

    March 16, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Gravatar

    Apple products are heavily sought after. There will be lines.

    Another company is basing an advertising campaign on this… knowing this person will be seen by many, many people and likely shown on multiple media outlets.

    And then you whine because a Linux based distro is having people lose interest in it. Boo hoo… people are interested in a product you do not like. So what?

  2. walterbyrd said,

    March 17, 2012 at 10:18 am

    Gravatar

    I don’t this is all that sinister. But I do think it’s strange.

    It’s like Apple is being underhanded, even though they don’t have to be.

    People climb all over each other to buy Apple’s newest iPad, or iPhone. Apple can barely keep up with demand. So why all the nasty scams?

    The flood of scam lawsuits from Apple are equally unneeded. I doubt these lawsuits are causing Apple to sell many more idevices. In fact, they may be doing Apple more harm than good. I have met a few people like me, who used to like Apple, but now would not touch a new Apple product. Whatever respect I had for Apple, has now turned to disgust.

    It’s as if Steve Ballmer is running Apple, and Apple feels the need to be evil, just to be evil.

    Michael Reply:

    What scams? This story is about another company using the popularity of Apple to try to get some advertising.

    As far as the lawsuits from Apple – they are on both sides of that, both being sued and suing. But what do you suggest they do in the face of the plagiarism they face? Just ignore it? Act like Roy and pretend it does not exist? While I do not agree with all that Apple has done in these cases, for the most part they are defending themselves. How is such a defense “evil”? Roy has not been able to answer this question – he will not even say what he feels about plagiarism in general.

    Will you?

    walterbyrd Reply:

    As I have explained to you before, there is nothing illegal about “plagiarism.”

    If you mean copyright, then please use the term “copyright.” If you mean “patent” then please use the term “patent.” If you mean “trade dress” then please use the term “trade dress.”

    What about all of Apple’s copying of ideas? Practically nothing in the iPhone, or iPad, is a new idea. So when somebody creates a tablet with a flat surface, and rounded corners, are they really copying Apple’s invention?

    How can people be copying Apple’s invention, when Apple did not invent it?

    Henry Ford did not invent the automobile, or the assembly line. He may have been the first to put the two together. So did every subsequent car maker steal Henry Ford’s “invention?”

    Michael Reply:

    Nothing illegal about plagiarism… and that is why you will not give your opinion on it. That is a bit silly.

    In any case: I am glad to see you agree with me that the law handles plagiarism poorly. That is why there are so many legal actions which tend to look rather silly when seen in a vacuum… and then Roy likes to pick specific things from *those* and obsess over them and lie about them – the whole “Apple claiming to invent rounded corners” being a great example. Just a complete lie from him… and you reference it above.

    As far as Apple: if you can show where they are doing as, say, Samsung has done to them then, sure, Apple would be in the wrong. How could they not be? I do not share your double standards.

    Oh, and if you think someone stole from Ford, point to who and show evidence. I do not know of any examples of such theft (though it would not surprise me if some existed).

  3. walterbyrd said,

    March 18, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Gravatar

    Not surprisingly, you completely misunderstood me.

    IMO: you use the term “plagiarism” to be deliberately evasive. If you used a more specific – i.e. more correct term – your “arguments” could be more directly addressed, and you don’t want that.

    As to rounded corners, Apple did indeed specify that in it’s law suit, so Roy is correct.

    I do not say that anybody stole Ford’s idea. In fact, that was my point. Like Apple, all Ford did was combine existing ideas – ideas that Ford did not invent. Therefore copying Ford’s idea did not infringe on Ford. And, by the same reasoning, copying Apple’s ideas does not infringe on Apple.

    Apple has copied extensively from others. That has been proven many times. Apple even admits to it themselves. Actually Apple brags about it.

    So why is okay for Apple to so brazen copy the ideas from others, but it’s not okay for others to copy ideas from Apple?

    Among the many things which Apple did not invent: tablet computing, color icons, kinetic scrolling, wireless handheld devices, devices that are flat with rounded corners, touchscreens, gestures, and smart phones.

    Yet Apples iPads, and iPhones, use all those technologies and/or features. And Apple sues other companies for using technologies and/or features.

    Michael Reply:

    Not surprisingly, you completely misunderstood me.
    IMO: you use the term “plagiarism” to be deliberately evasive. If you used a more specific – i.e. more correct term – your “arguments” could be more directly addressed, and you don’t want that.

    I use the word because that is what I mean. You and Roy avoid answering the question on your view of plagiarism because you know there is no answer you can give that does not show your BS to be the BS it is.

    If you say you are against it, then the whole argument against Apple’s defending itself against the plagiarism committed by Samsung and others falls apart. It shows you do not really believe your own claims.
    If you admit you are not really concerned about plagiarism, which is clearly the case, it pushes you to advertise your views which most people would see as immoral.

    As to rounded corners, Apple did indeed specify that in it’s law suit, so Roy is correct.

    No. Roy is lying. He is making the idiot jump from the idea that because something is *mentioned* in a lawsuit this must mean that Apple is claiming they invented it – even though there is not only no evidence to back this absurd claim, I have shown Roy specific information showing how Steve Jobs made it very, very clear he wanted rounded corners on his devices because they were *already* common. Jobs made a point out of showing people he did *not* invent the rounded corner – went almost absurdly out of his way, walking people around public spaces to demonstrate this. And yet Roy takes this and completely twists it around to claim Jobs claimed to have invented the very thing Jobs went out of his way to note how he did not!
    And then you defend Roy on this. Roy is out and out lying. There is no doubt about this. Not just getting something wrong but turning it around completely… insisting Jobs claims to have invented something he went almost insanely out of his way to prove he did *not* invent.

    I do not say that anybody stole Ford’s idea. In fact, that was my point. Like Apple, all Ford did was combine existing ideas – ideas that Ford did not invent. Therefore copying Ford’s idea did not infringe on Ford. And, by the same reasoning, copying Apple’s ideas does not infringe on Apple.

    It is irrational to say that because you do not think Ford was infringed on this means that no matter what Samsung (and others) do to Apple this should not be seen as being wrong. Just loony and irrational "thinking" of you.

    Apple has copied extensively from others. That has been proven many times. Apple even admits to it themselves. Actually Apple brags about it.

    I have seen Roy take a quote out of context to try to push the idea that Apple does to others what Samsung has done to them. Yeah, he lies. This has been covered. Here: http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/08/apple
    So, again, Roy lies and you back him.

    So why is okay for Apple to so brazen copy the ideas from others, but it’s not okay for others to copy ideas from Apple?

    You are arguing against a straw man. I hold no double standards here. If you can show Apple doing to others what Samsung and others do to them I would not approve. And there have been places where Apple has done wrong.

    Among the many things which Apple did not invent: tablet computing, color icons, kinetic scrolling, wireless handheld devices, devices that are flat with rounded corners, touchscreens, gestures, and smart phones.

    Have you found any evidence of anyone saying they did?

    Yet Apples iPads, and iPhones, use all those technologies and/or features. And Apple sues other companies for using technologies and/or features.

    Apple sues Samsung and others who clearly are plagiarizing them… hence why you and Roy will not speak out about your views on plagiarism and keep pushing lies and arguing against straw men.

  4. walterbyrd said,

    March 18, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    Gravatar

    For the third time, saying Apple should protect itself against “plagiarism” makes no sense. There is no legal recourse against plagiarism.

    From wikipedia.

    Though plagiarism in some contexts is considered theft or stealing, it does not exist in a legal sense. “Plagiarism” is not mentioned in any current statute, either criminal or civil.

    Again, if Apple did not want to claim any right to rounded corners, then why was it even mentioned in their lawsuit?

    Also, for the third time. I don’t think Ford’s idea was infringed on. That was my whole point. Ford was not infringed on, and neither was Apple, for the same reasons, which I have already explained.

    Yes, there is evidence of Apple filing lawsuits and claiming infringement on things that Apple did not even invent. For example, do you know that Apple actually patented the use of a gears icon to go to settings? Apple also patented the ideas of using voice commands to look up data in a database. And Apple has tried to defend those bogus patents. And yes the patents are bogus because of prior art. And there are many more examples.

    Michael Reply:

    For the third time, saying Apple should protect itself against “plagiarism” makes no sense. There is no legal recourse against plagiarism.

    I know that for you the idea of protecting oneself from plagiarism does not make sense. Right. You and Roy have no problem with others plagiarizing Apple… and this at least offers suggestions as to how Roy may have earned his degree. Not good suggestions, either. Plagiarism is wrong, and for anyone with an advanced degree to not have at some point learned how it is morally wrong is, in my view, sad.
    By the way, I have repeatedly noted how the law does not handle the concept of plagiarism well. Below you offer support for my point. Thanks!

    From wikipedia.
    Though plagiarism in some contexts is considered theft or stealing, it does not exist in a legal sense. “Plagiarism” is not mentioned in any current statute, either criminal or civil.
    Again, if Apple did not want to claim any right to rounded corners, then why was it even mentioned in their lawsuit?

    They were noting many areas where Samsung’s products resembled their own. They were not saying, in isolation, that nobody should be able to do any of those things. Wow. Amazing how you missed that!

    Also, for the third time. I don’t think Ford’s idea was infringed on.

    You sure do repeat yourself a lot. Why not just make a point and then move on? As you keep repeating yourself I admit I respond by showing you the same problems with your comments… but then you are not able to move forward. Even you, it is clear, realize you have no place "forward" to go. You just make the same claims over and over and over even though they have no merit or support or evidence.

    That was my whole point. Ford was not infringed on, and neither was Apple, for the same reasons, which I have already explained.

    You have not shown that Apple was not infringed upon. And given how the evidence shows they were, how could you show something that is not true? That does not even make sense!

    http://i.imgur.com/TmUj2.jpg
    http://goo.gl/S2AJR
    http://goo.gl/bWDs6
    http://goo.gl/NjrfV

    Just because you have no reasoned response to the evidence against Samsung, that does not excuse their actions! Oh, and (for your rather bizarre side issue you obsess over) according to Wikipedia, Henry Ford held 161 U.S. patents. I did not do any research to see if he sued anyone based on infringement – I am just not that interested in your off topic focus on him and his patents.

    Yes, there is evidence of Apple filing lawsuits and claiming infringement on things that Apple did not even invent. For example, do you know that Apple actually patented the use of a gears icon to go to settings? Apple also patented the ideas of using voice commands to look up data in a database. And Apple has tried to defend those bogus patents. And yes the patents are bogus because of prior art. And there are many more examples.

    Cite? While I do not deny Apple may have done wrong, also keep in mind that patent law is done poorly and there may be a lot of context-issues you are missing in your reading of these things. I do not claim to be an expert in the area, either!
    Curious: in your reply are you going to speak of Ford and how you think he was not wronged again? You seem somewhat stuck on that off-topic issue. Maybe you have this conversation confused with anther?

  5. walterbyrd said,

    March 18, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Gravatar

    Cite? Are you kidding? Look up Apple’s numerous cases on PACER. Read the entire transcripts.

    I know that for you the idea of protecting oneself from plagiarism does not make sense. Right. You and Roy have no problem with others plagiarizing Apple

    Cute. Okay, you want to play that game? Then, as the saying goes, put up, or shut up. Please be specific, very very specific. Tell us exactly where Apple was infringed upon, and how.

    Here is a hint to get you started. It has nothing to with plagiarism. Even Apple does not claim plagiarism.

    If you cannot tell us how apple was infringed, then it didn’t happen.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    The word plagiarism is used nowhere, except when someone is trying to provoke.

    Michael Reply:

    LOL!

    As noted: Roy will not speak of his views of plagiarism because his comments are very pro-plagiarism. His primary complaint against Apple is they fight against those who plagiarize… and for Roy to admit that plagiarism is wrong destroys almost all of his complaints against Apple.

    Again, Roy, I do not wish to make any accusations I cannot support – and thus I will not claim you plagiarized as you earned your degrees. But when someone with an advanced degree has not learned along the way that plagiarism is a bad thing; that it is immoral; then it does put your degree and your education into *question*. Again: no direct evidence you plagiarized anything in any way as you worked toward any degree. But you have shown you would have no moral compunction against doing so.

    And that is a sad statement about the state of education. Yours specifically.

    Me: I say plagiarism is wrong and a against it. I do not approve of Samsung doing so – nor Apple. I do not approve of Microsoft doing so nor Google. It is wrong.

    I also realize that there is a bit gray area as to where one is being inspired / educated by another and where one is plagiarizing. It is not always black and white and it is not something the law handles well (a point I keep stating and walterbyrd was kind enough to do some leg work to back for me).

    Given how the law does not handle this well, innovative companies which are often plagiarized, such as Apple, end up using the law *as it is* to do what they can to reduce the damage of the wrongs. This sometimes leads to rather silly legal actions… and opens them up to people pulling sections out of context and openly lying about the claims made in these legal actions as you and walterbyrd do when you say (or suggest) Apple claimed to have invented rounded corners.

    You are not honest about the issues and you know this. This, Roy, is why you avoid directly speaking with me about these issues and others – on your show or on any other format (I have offered to “host” and audio or video discussion between us). You know your claims are not strong and cannot be backed by evidence and logic and reason. You know this as do I, even though you will deny it. Your actions show this repeatedly. I do hope you realize how obvious it is… because it is.

    Michael Reply:

    No, I am not kidding about wanting you to rise to the level of backing your claims with citations and reason and logic and evidence. It is your lack of doing so which makes your discourse of little value.

    As far as plagiarism, I am not playing a game – I am noting how Roy (and you) refuse to discuss your views on it. You cannot even bring yourselves to say you think, as a general rule, it is wrong.

    And as far as showing where Apple was infringed, look at the links I provided you. Massive evidence you have no reasoned response to. Here the links are again:

    http://i.imgur.com/TmUj2.jpg
    http://goo.gl/S2AJR
    http://goo.gl/bWDs6
    http://goo.gl/NjrfV

    Now I am not claiming that is the entirety of the evidence, but you have shown you have no reasoned response to it. You know what Samsung did was wrong – if you did not you would not have gone on about Ford and patents and whatever other BS you could toss into the discussion but you would have noted that, yeah, plagiarism is wrong and those examples I offer are unimpeachable. Or maybe you would have seen the evidence differently and tried to defend Samsung, perhaps noting flaws in the evidence I have shown you (say showing a pro-iPhone Samsung phone that shows the second link to be biased)… but you did not. You did not because you cannot. You know it and I know it… and I am letting you know I know you know it. It is not as if you are hiding your disbelief in your own claims. You are here to back what you wish was true, not what you actually believe. That is what the evidence shows.

    walterbyrd Reply:

    “Plagiarism” is not relevant to this discussion.

    I commented on Apple’s scam lawsuits. The lawsuits have nothing to do with “plagiarism.” But all you keep doing, over and over and over, is going off on how Apple has to protect itself from “plagiarism.” You are not making sense.

    Noting that plagiarism is not at issue is not endorsing plagiarism at all. But, nice attempt at a straw man.

    Michael Reply:

    Samsung and others have been plagiarizing Apple’s innovative work. You have been shown the evidence of this and have no reasoned response (even though I helped you by noting what some reasoned responses would be, if they were true).

    Apple has responded to this plagiarism using the legal tools available to them, even though these tools do not handle the question of plagiarism well (as I have noted and you kindly supported). In Apple’s doing so, some of their cases, when viewed outside of this context, have seemed silly (and some actually might have been silly – I certainly am not saying they have done no wrong!). In other cases, you and Roy have taken snippets of their legal comments completely out of context and lied about them – perhaps with the best example being the clearly dishonest claim that Apple / Jobs claimed to have invented rounded rectangles when it is well known Jobs went to absurd lengths to show how rounded rectangles not only existed but were common before he or his company added them to any product. Just an out and out lie from you and Roy.

    When faced with this issue of plagiarism, Apple response, and the lies from your “camp”, you absurdly deny plagiarism is important to the issue. It is clearly irrational to deny that plagiarism is important to the issue of Apple being plagiarized and their reactions to it.

    So you are being irrational. This is simple logic. And it is just more evidence to back my view that by now you know you have no case to make and are just backing Roy. You will not admit you are wrong – so it shall be interesting to see what new tactics you take to avoid talking about the issue of Apple being plagiarized and their reactions to it. Clearly you will not be honest – but I can still enjoy reading your rather desperate attempts to side-step the issue to please Roy and other followers of Stallman.

  6. walterbyrd said,

    March 18, 2012 at 10:16 pm

    Gravatar

    Apple has responded to this plagiarism using the legal tools available to them,

    For the – I don’t know – tenth time? That makes no sense. Apple has no recourse against plagiarism. Nobody does, it’s not protected under the law.

    I did not say that plagiarism was not important, I said it was irrelevant to this case.

    And you acting like a complete fool to keep bringing it up, over and over and over. When this has already been explained to so many times.

    Now, if you want to discuss legal concepts, like copyright, trade dress, or patents, that would be different.

    Michael Reply:

    Apple has responded to this plagiarism using the legal tools available to them,

    For the – I don’t know – tenth time? That makes no sense.

    As noted: you repeat yourself a lot. Wow. A whole lot. Yes, I know: the whole topic is over your head or, given your complete lack of defense for your claimed views, you want to pretend that. Either way, you are not going to admit that you understand the topic.
    So given your admitted lack of understanding – a direct admission that the very topic "makes no sense" to you, it is clear you have nothing of value to add. And below you prove that:

    Apple has no recourse against plagiarism. Nobody does, it’s not protected under the law.

    Ah, so you are not aware of their legal actions now. Before you were. It is funny to see you flip flop like that.

    I did not say that plagiarism was not important, I said it was irrelevant to this case.

    The reason for the case is very relevant to the case. How funny for you to deny that!

    And you acting like a complete fool to keep bringing it up, over and over and over. When this has already been explained to so many times.
    Now, if you want to discuss legal concepts, like copyright, trade dress, or patents, that would be different.

    I am letting you know the reason for the legal actions. But, as you admit, the very concept "makes no sense" to you. I commend you for the admission – many people are loath to admit when they do not understand something. You have repeatedly come right out and admitted you do not understand this topic. Thank you.

  7. walterbyrd said,

    March 19, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Gravatar

    As noted: you repeat yourself a lot. Wow. A whole lot.

    Annoys you that I am not letting you get away with your BS doesn’t it?

    Why do you suppose I keep repeating myself? Seems there are some people who refuse to acknowlage a verifiably accurate fact, no matter how many times they are told.

    You know any people like that?

    I am letting you know the reason for the legal actions. But, as you admit, the very concept “makes no sense” to you. I commend you for the admission

    Admission? How is correcting your lies an admission on my part? I said the very concept of Apple suing over “plagiarism” makes no sense. Which means that all you repeated posts make no sense. Which means that you make no sense.

    I am calling you a senseless liar. And I have good reason to do so. You keep repeating “plagiarism” over and over and over, in spite of the fact that you are making no sense, and I have proved as much.

    The reason for the case is very relevant to the case. How funny for you to deny that!

    Except that “plagiarism” is *not* the reason for the case, and is therefore not relevant to the case. Even Apple is not claiming “plagiarism” in court.

    Why does this have to be explained to you so many times?

    So given your admitted lack of understanding – a direct admission that the very topic “makes no sense” to you,

    I never said that. Please stop lying. I said that it does not make sense to call the case plagiarism, because it’s not about plagiarism.

    It has already been proved that this case is not about plagiarism. And that has been explained to you many, many, times. Yet you keep insisting that the case is about plagiarism.

    That makes you a filthy liar, and a troll, now doesn’t it?

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    @walterbyrd: It’s worse than a troll. It libels me with innuendo. Best to ignore that nutcase.

    Michael Reply:

    I note facts you do not like.

    So, Roy, what is your view on plagiarism. Prove me wrong and speak about your views on it… say you think it is wrong and that those who do plagiarize should face punitive repercussions.

    But you will not – because if you agree with that it rips your primary whining about Apple to shreds and if you do not then it pushes you to display your lack or morals (and puts your educational credentials into question – though, again, nobody is saying there is direct evidence you plagiarized anything as you worked toward your degrees).

    You backed yourself into a corner – and now you respond by calling me names and making accusations about me. This is simply the best you can do. A shame… but explains very clearly why you fear “facing” me on your show again. You know in such a format you cannot so easily run.

    I, on the other hand, have full confidence in my views because I have reason and logic and morality to back my views. This is why I have no fear of such a discussion with you. I welcome it.

  8. Michael said,

    March 19, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    Gravatar

    The facts here are clear:

    1) Samsung and others have been plagiarizing Apple’s work – you have been shown evidence of this and have offered no counter to it.

    2) The law does handle the direct question of plagiarism well – a point I made and you kindly backed. On a slight side issue, but an important one, neither you nor Roy will even state your views on plagiarism… to acknowledge it as bad / wrong rips your BS apart but to admit you have no problem with it (as is clearly the case) puts you in a position to directly admit your lack of morals. This is why you claim plagiarism, the key point of the whole discussion, is not relevant.

    3) Apple is this using the legal system as it *is* to fight against this plagiarism, which sometimes leads to some rather silly cases (and they may very well also have made some mistakes along the well – nobody has claimed they are perfect). Still, they have had some significant successes in terms of delaying products which have plagiarized their work and caused other challenges for those who have wronged them.

    4) Roy and you and others in the Stallman-cult insist Apple is wrong – in the case of you and Roy you even make clearly dishonest claims about Apple having claimed to have invented rounded corners, even though Jobs personally went to almost insane levels of showing how rounded corners were common in the world and that is why he wanted them in Apple products.

    5) Having no honest response for the above, you (and elsewhere Roy) have engaged in ad hominem attacks, made absurd accusations against me, tried to change the topic repeatedly, etc. It is not as if you have a counter argument to any of the above… hence why you engage in such poor behavior. Please note, however, that I simply stick to the observable and supportable facts and have not sunk to your level. Nor shall I.

  9. walterbyrd said,

    March 20, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Gravatar

    Nice trolling Micheal. Unforturnately for you, every point you made is invalid.

    According to wikipedia:

    Though plagiarism in some contexts is considered theft or stealing, it does not exist in a legal sense. “Plagiarism” is not mentioned in any current statute, either criminal or civil

    I am repeating myself because you still don’t get it.

    Michael Reply:

    Just pathetic: you claim my points are invalid as you show *support* for my claims (about how the law does not deal well with the question of plagiarism, at least not directly).

    A suggestion for you: if you are going to push your claim that my points are invalid, then show evidence *counter* to my claims, not evidence that is *supportive* of my claims (specifically you supported my claims in “Point 2″, above). Just a little tip on basic logic and reasoning for you. Completely free advice.

    See above for the 5 points which you cannot refute. That is what this is really all about. You and Roy show, with your actions, you know you are wrong. You know you have no *rational* backing for your claims. None. So you just spew ad hominem attacks and then insist all evidence which shows you to be wrong is “invalid”, even as you show evidence to back it. In the end: you have proved yourself to have no real

  10. walterbyrd said,

    March 20, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Gravatar

    Sorry, as I have already explained, you have not shown any *valid* support for your claims. Again: ‘“Plagiarism” is not mentioned in any current statute, either criminal or civil. Therefore, none of your claims make any sense.’

    You have absolutely no sense of logic, as you refuse to acknowlede verifiable facts. Therefore you have not used logic, reasoning, or evidence to back up any of your claims.

    I have supported all of my assertions, re-read my posts.

  11. Michael said,

    March 20, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    Gravatar

    http://techrights.org/2012/03/15/airtasker-fake-queue/#comment-132641
    Those are the facts you have no reasoned response to. You repeatedly support item 2 as you note I am correct about the law not handling the problem of plagiarism well… and we now seem to be in agreement that the problem of plagiarism is one you neither understand nor find to be important.
    You are now accusing me of not acknowledging verifiable facts – but you cannot actually find any examples of this. Of course not, you made that up to obfuscate the issues listed above. And neither you nor Roy have any counter to those points. None. Just name calling, accusations, insults, ad hominem attacks… in effect, waving of your white flag; acknowledging I am correct you have no reasoned response.

  12. walterbyrd said,

    March 20, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    Gravatar

    1) We are not in agreement at all.

    2) I fully understand what plagiarism means. You refuse to acknowledge that plagiarism has nothing to do with the legalities of this case. I have proved this many times over.

    3) Whether plagiarism is “important” may be debatable. But the fact that plagiarism has nothing what-so-ever to do with the legalities of this case is beyond debate.

  13. Michael said,

    March 20, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    Gravatar

    1) You claimed to be in agreement that the problem of plagiarism is one you neither understand nor find to be important (in terms of the question of how Apple has responded to Samsung and others’ plagiarizing them). If you lied about that so be it. You also now claim to know what plagiarism is, but fail to explain your view of what it is nor state if you are for or against it. I have detailed why you will not do so, above. As far as “proving” that plagiarism has nothing to do with how Apple is responding to the to Samsung and others’ plagiarizing them, that does not even make sense. How can the issue itself be “proved” to not be important to the issue? Really, just more white flag waving from you.

    2 & 3 ) Responded to here: http://techrights.org/2012/03/15/airtasker-fake-queue/#comment-132641 Notice your complete lack of reasoned response to those five points.

    You are waving your white flag so much it is getting tattered.

  14. walterbyrd said,

    March 20, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    Gravatar

    Please stop lying. I never said any of that, and my reponses have been perfectly well reasoned.

    Michael Reply:

    Responded to here: http://techrights.org/2012/03/15/airtasker-fake-queue/#comment-132641 Notice your complete lack of reasoned response to those five points.

  15. walterbyrd said,

    March 20, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    Gravatar

    I did respond to all of points. They are all invalid.

    Plagiarism means nothing in a court of law.

    Michael Reply:

    Roy is not whining about doing something illegal – he whines that Apple is being *immoral*. So the fact the law does not deal with the morality of plagiarism in a more direct way is not something anyone is questioning… but you are using it as a way to avoid the fact you have no defense for the attacks against Apple made by Roy or Samung or others.

    Apple is responding to others doing things *morally* wrong: plagiarizing their work… or at least that is their claim. When faced with this you have no response to the moral side of the question so you focus on the legal terminology … as if the law gets to decide what is and is not moral or that if the law does not use a term that the term cannot refer to some immoral activity.

    Complete dodging on your part… just like Roy. You have no moral backing for you claims… none. If you did would have long ago shown why Apple is wrong in their claims of the *moral* wrongs being committed against them…. and thus you have no reason to complain about their reactions to these *moral* wrongs.

    Your white flag is very, very tattered these days.

  16. walterbyrd said,

    March 20, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    Gravatar

    The iPhone was just a rip-off of the LG Prada. With a few other ripped-off ideas.

    Therefore, if anything, people are plagiarizing LG, not Apple.

    Apple steals practically of their ideas. Apple even admits to it. Apple even brags about it. Great artists steal, right?

    How is Apple any more moral than any of Apple competitors?

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    In the eyes of Apple fans, Apple invented everything.

    Michael Reply:

    You, Roy, are the one who claims someone has said Apple invented all sorts of things such as rounded corners.

    I am the one who proved you were lying and showed how Jobs went out of his way – almost absurdly so – to show they had *not* invented the concept.

    In other words: your claim is not just wrong, is has been shown that when you get specific with such claims you are out and out lying. Are you willing to admit, yet, you were wrong about Apple (or any Apple fans) saying Apple invented rounded rectangles? I mean, really, this is a place where you are just easily demonstrably wrong (as I have proved elsewhere and would be happy to repeat).

    But you cannot and will not admit you were wrong about your claims of Apple taking credit for inventing rounded rectangles. This is 100% predictable. You simply have no interest in being honest. None. You lie to attack your made up “duopoly” of Microsoft and Apple – for the reason you have admitted to: your envy.

    Michael Reply:

    walterbyrd: As far as the iPhone being a ripoff of LG Prada – interesting idea… do you have any significant support? If you have support I would love for you to show it.

    And with the “Great artists steal” quote – beaten to death. Yeah, Roy likes to take that out of context and lie about it. Over and over and over. http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/08/apple

    Just another lie by Roy that you are repeating (sort of like the claim that Apple invented rounded corners).

    Roy: Can you find any example of anyone claiming what you are saying?

    Bottom line: http://techrights.org/2012/03/15/airtasker-fake-queue/#comment-132641 My points there are valid, rational, and – so far – completely unrefuted by you and your crew.

    You have no moral basis for the attacks against Apple. Apple has expressed its views of how it has been wrong and, at least in the case of Samsung, the evidence is overwhelmingly strong. When faced with this, you and Roy run.

    But, hey, why doesn’t Roy have you and I on his show. Both of you can defend your view with me standing alone. Two against one. See if the two of you together can actually “win” a debate.

    But this will never happen: neither you nor Roy have any faith in your claims – hence your ad hominem attacks, lies about me, etc. You just wave your white flags until they are completely tattered. Just sad to see you two fall apart like this. Heck, I even have given you hints as to *reasoned* ways to try to refute my views. Neither of you are up to it – as neither of you can find significant flaws with my views.

    And I just sit back and laugh as you two stroke each other and slap each other’s back for such lovely “trolling” of me. Oh well.

  17. walterbyrd said,

    March 20, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    Gravatar

    Sharp JPN 1241638
    I am not certain exactly what device this is, or when it came out. But, I think Europe eventually ruled that the iPhone is a knock-off copy of the Sharp JPN 1241638 and that Apple’s D’087 patent violated Sharp’s ’638 patent. That covered a flat black surface, maybe even rounded corners, and retangle shape.

    Samsung SGH-Z610 – February 2006
    - Gesture based multimedia touchscreen
    - app drawer
    - front and rear facing camera
    - rounded corners
    - 16 icons up on a desktop
    - a speaker above the 3.5″ touchscreen
    - physical round button w/ a play arrow icon below it

    Samsung GridPad 1989
    - seems that Samsung is not new to tablet devices
    http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/6565/GRidPad-1910/

    Samsung Origami Tablet PC 2006
    http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/08/hands-on-with-the-samsung-q1-origami/
    http://www.mblast.com/files/companies/126343/Logo/JPEG/61436.ny1.jpg

    Samsung SGH-F700 – 2007
    - Released after iPhone, but before Apple’s 358 page long iPhone patent which was filed on September 5th 2007

    Sony Ericsson 2002
    - green phone icon (for that matter, don’t phone booths use a phone icon?)
    - envelop mail icon
    http://admiralzing.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/sony-ericsson-t68i.jpg

    LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada 2006
    - phone icon
    - envelop mail icons
    - capicitve touch screen
    - what about that icon with the four dots? would that take you to a grid of icons?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada

    Packard Bell Navigator 3.5
    - reminds me of Apple iBooks patents – books on a shelf
    http://www.theverge.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/#fn1

    Neonode N1m – not sure about the year
    - slide to unlock
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonode_N1m#N1m

    Apple’s gears icon
    - Oreilley software WebSite had a yellow gear for settings
    - Atari ST in 1986 used a gears icon for the settings control panel
    - Windows 95 used Gears for settings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows-95-Start-Button.png

    The ‘134 patent – text in bubbles indicated by speaker
    - besides ignoring pretty much every comic book ever created, there’s a system called “Habitat” from the 1985 that pretty much like what Apple patented, in terms of the arrangement of text into bubbles, with the horizontal layout being dictated by the speaker.
    http://www.digitalspace.com/avatars/book/chtu/chtu1.htm#habitat

    The ‘915 patent – Multi-touch scrolling and scaling
    - 1994-1995 T3 – a GUI paradigm based on tabets, two-hands, and transparency
    - is this an API patent?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUwYCbhFj1U

    The ’891 patent – fading notifications without user intervention
    - filed in 2002
    - see the Windows 2000 MFC API, and notice that the uBalloonTimeout parameter. That fades out the notification without user interaction.
    http://www.codeproject.com/KB/shell/systemtray.aspx

    Tablet Newspaper (1994)
    - tablet, flat, rounded corners
    - audio and video
    - tap to zoom
    - send and receive emails
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI

    Pinch-to-zoom – 1991
    A breakthrough occurred in 1991, when Pierre Wellner published a paper on his multi-touch “Digital Desk”, which supported multi-finger and pinching motions
    http://www.answers.com/topic/multi-touch

    The Star7 PDA Prototype
    - color icons
    - kinetic scrolling
    The Star7 (*7) was a prototype for a SPARC based, handheld wireless PDA, with a 5″ color LCD with touchscreen input, a new 16 bit –5:6:5 color hardware double buffered NTSC framebuffer, 900MHz wireless networking, PCMCIA bus interfaces, multi-media audio codec, a new power supply/battery interface, radical industrial design and packaging/process technology, a version of Unix that runs in under a megabyte, including drivers for PCMCIA, radio networking, touchscreen, display, flash RAM file system, execute-in-place, split I/D cache, with cached framebuffer support, a new small, safe, secure, distributed, robust, interpreted, garbage collected, multi-threaded, architecture neutral, high performance, dynamic programming language, a new small, fast, true-color alpha channel compositing, sprite graphics library, a set of classes that implement a spatial user interface metaphor, a user interface methodology which uses animation, audio, spatial cues, gestures, agency, color, and fun, a set of applications which show all of the features of the *7 hardware and software combination, including a TV guide, a fully functioning television remote control, a ShowMe style distributed whiteboard which allows active objects to be transmitted over a wireless network, and an on-screen agent which makes the whole experience fun and engaging.
    All of this, in 1992! While the Star7 may have never entered commercial production, Oak, the language behind it all, became the very popular Java programming language.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg8OBYixL0

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Sorry it took me a while to find this in the moderation queue.

    Michael Reply:

    Lots of stats… but what is the point?

    Sounds like you are arguing against the strawman that someone is claiming Apple invented the gear icon and touch technology and the like.

    But let us assume Apple did plagiarize these companies… do you think that is wrong of them? If so, then surely you must agree that Apple has the right to go after those who plagiarize them. Why would they not?

    The more data you present the more you back my view and show Roy is wrong in his obsession of claiming Apple is wrong to go after those they believe have plagiarized their work.

  18. walterbyrd said,

    March 20, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    Gravatar

    Apple certainly did put “rounded corners” in their lawsuit.

    Go to wikipedia and look up the LG Prada.
    LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada 2006
    - phone icon
    - envelop mail icons
    - capicitve touch screen
    - what about that icon with the four dots? would that take you to a grid of icons?

    Samsung SGH-Z610 – February 2006
    - Gesture based multimedia touchscreen
    - app drawer
    - front and rear facing camera
    - rounded corners
    - 16 icons up on a desktop
    - a speaker above the 3.5″ touchscreen
    - physical round button w/ a play arrow icon below it

    Also:

    Sharp JPN 1241638
    I am not certain exactly what device this is, or when it came out. But, I think Europe eventually ruled that the iPhone is a knock-off copy of the Sharp JPN 1241638 and that Apple’s D’087 patent violated Sharp’s ’638 patent. That covered a flat black surface, maybe even rounded corners, and retangle shape.

    Samsung GridPad 1989
    - seems that Samsung is not new to tablet devices

    Samsung Origami Tablet PC 2006

    Samsung SGH-F700 – 2007
    - Released after iPhone, but before Apple’s 358 page long iPhone patent which was filed on September 5th 2007

    Sony Ericsson 2002
    - green phone icon (for that matter, don’t phone booths use a phone icon?)
    - envelop mail icon

    Packard Bell Navigator 3.5
    - reminds me of Apple iBooks patents – books on a shelf

    Apple’s gears icon
    - Oreilley software WebSite had a yellow gear for settings
    - Atari ST in 1986 used a gears icon for the settings control panel
    - Windows 95 used Gears for settings

    The ‘134 patent – text in bubbles indicated by speaker
    - besides ignoring pretty much every comic book ever created, there’s a system called “Habitat” from the 1985 that pretty much like what Apple patented, in terms of the arrangement of text into bubbles, with the horizontal layout being dictated by the speaker.

    The ‘915 patent – Multi-touch scrolling and scaling
    - 1994-1995 T3 – a GUI paradigm based on tabets, two-hands, and transparency
    - is this an API patent?

    The ’891 patent – fading notifications without user intervention
    - filed in 2002
    - see the Windows 2000 MFC API, and notice that the uBalloonTimeout parameter. That fades out the notification without user interaction.

    The ‘134 patent – text in bubbles indicated by speaker
    - besides ignoring pretty much every comic book ever created, there’s a system called “Habitat” from the 1985 that pretty much like what Apple patented, in terms of the arrangement of text into bubbles, with the horizontal layout being dictated by the speaker.

    The ‘915 patent – Multi-touch scrolling and scaling
    - 1994-1995 T3 – a GUI paradigm based on tabets, two-hands, and transparency
    - is this an API patent?

    Tablet Newspaper (1994)
    - tablet, flat, rounded corners
    - audio and video
    - tap to zoom
    - send and receive emails

    Pinch-to-zoom – 1991
    A breakthrough occurred in 1991, when Pierre Wellner published a paper on his multi-touch “Digital Desk”, which supported multi-finger and pinching motions

    The Star7 PDA Prototype (1992)
    - color icons
    - kinetic scrolling
    - handheld wireless device
    - touchscreen
    - audio
    - gestures
    - animation

    Michael Reply:

    Apple certainly did put “rounded corners” in their lawsuit.

    This is not in contention… as has been mentioned. What is in contention is Roy’s completely dishonest claim that Apple claimed to invent rounded corners when the *facts*, as I have shown you, prove Jobs went absurdly out of his way to point to examples of rounded corners that pre-existed in order to convince his engineers to add them to Apple products (and, of note, you show your bias by ignoring the fact that Roy repeatedly lies about this… and you even repeat his lies or reference them as if they had some merit!)

    Go to wikipedia and look up the LG Prada.

    Your claim: you provide the links. I am not your research assistant. In any case, you miss much of the point of the idea of what others have done that is wrong: it is not that they have used an idea here or there, but that they clearly sought to create a knock-off device which is all but indistinguishable from the original. The Harry Potter series uses a lot of the same themes as many, many other books – but it remixes the themes and ideas in a creative way. I have no problem with that. Now if Apple did plagiarize LG or someone else then they were wrong to do so. Again: I am speaking in terms of the morality – they simply would be wrong. Would they lose a court case about it… who knows, the laws handle plagiarism poorly.
    But what we do know is that Samsung clearly was working very hard to copy Apple. Very hard as shown by the evidence I have repeatedly provided.
    http://i.imgur.com/TmUj2.jpg
    http://goo.gl/S2AJR
    http://goo.gl/bWDs6
    http://goo.gl/NjrfV
    And even after many posts you have shown you have no counter.
    So we are left with the evidence that Samsung *clearly* did wrong – they plagiarized Apple, and with your accusation that Apple plagiarized LG. Again, if your accusation is correct then I hold Apple no less accountable for their actions than I do Samsung for theirs. You evidence, of course, is simply not as clear cut… but that does not mean it is wrong.
    And I commend you for finally knocking off your running from the idea of morality: in this case plagiarism. Took you a while – you were so obsessed with the legal side you could not figure out that it was the morality that was being discussed.

    Apple’s gears icon
    – Oreilley software WebSite had a yellow gear for settings
    – Atari ST in 1986 used a gears icon for the settings control panel
    – Windows 95 used Gears for settings

    Did Apple even claim to be the first to use this icon for that purpose? If so, where? I think you are making things up, or at least trying to insinuate things where there is no basis in fact. You do that a lot when you back yourself into a corner.

    In any case, now that you have refocused yourself on the morality side of the question (the part that matters, being that Roy’s claim is that Apple is doing something immoral, not that Apple is doing something illegal), can you *finally* respond to the points I make here: http://techrights.org/2012/03/15/airtasker-fake-queue/#comment-132641
    I mean, after all, if does look like you are at least trying to put that tattered white flag of yours down. I truly and sincerely commend you for that… maybe you can get Roy to join you in that (though it is unlikely – he prefers ad hominem attacks and the like to any reasonable discourse… he simply has no faith in his claims).

  19. walterbyrd said,

    March 21, 2012 at 9:43 am

    Gravatar

    Apple has a patent on a gears icon, and apple has included that in, at least one, of apple’s many, many, lawsuits. Apple has also patented a phone icon, and sued over that. Apple has many, many, other patents, all based on prior art, that is suing over.

    If apple did not invent rounded corners, then why is apple suing over it? Where did apple “plagiarise” the idea?

    And for that matter what about many, many, ideas that apple has themselves “plagiarised?” If such such “plagiarism” is terribly immoral, that would mean there is no way for apple to have any products. Virtually nothing in the iPad, or iPhone, is an origal idea.

    And how can you accuse Samsung of “plagiarising” apple, when – for all you know – samsung may have “plagiarized” LG, or Sony?

    And how can you say that apple did not “plagiarize” samsung? I remind you, samsung had tablet devices long before apple, even before the apple newton.

    Double standard much?

    Michael Reply:

    Apple has a patent on a gears icon, and apple has included that in, at least one, of apple’s many, many, lawsuits.

    This is not in contention. What I do not know is the details – and certainly not the law behind it all. I have no real opinion as to if Apple has a valid case there or not.

    Apple has also patented a phone icon, and sued over that. Apple has many, many, other patents, all based on prior art, that is suing over.

    I understand that it is your view it is prior art, but have the courts decided? That is based on legal issues and I do not pretend to understand those well. I also have made it very clear I do not agree with all Apple has done.

    If apple did not invent rounded corners, then why is apple suing over it? Where did apple “plagiarise” the idea?

    First, what makes you think Apple plagiarized the idea? Before you said you understood what plagiarism is, but now you show you do not. In any case, Apple included the rounded corners as *one* item of many in which Samsung was copying them. One. Item. Of. Many. It was part of the evidence that showed Samsung was copying Apple.

    This, of course, has been discussed before. And keep in mind that when faced with the proof of Samsung doing so you ran away waving your white flag. It is not as if there is any reason to think you *actually* disagree with the facts here – you just will not admit to them. Here, *again*:

    http://i.imgur.com/TmUj2.jpg
    http://goo.gl/S2AJR
    http://goo.gl/bWDs6
    http://goo.gl/NjrfV

    When faced with the facts all you can do is run. I get that… and frankly it amuses me. :)

    And for that matter what about many, many, ideas that apple has themselves “plagiarised?” If such such “plagiarism” is terribly immoral, that would mean there is no way for apple to have any products. Virtually nothing in the iPad, or iPhone, is an origal idea.

    Where did you get that idea? Look up lists of the most innovative companies for pretty much any year in the last 10-15. Apple will likely be in the top 5 of the list. From any source. If you need help finding these things just ask – unlike you I am happy to back my claims. I just give you a chance to do so in order to prevent the idea that maybe I have a list of uncommon ones. You look. Yeah, you might find a small percentage where Apple is not listed as one of the most innovative companies of the year, but you will find far more where they are listed. Apple is an amazingly innovative company and has completely turned around the computer industry, the music industry, the cell phone industry, the cell phone handset, the tablet, etc. What other modern company has has such a large effect on so many different industries… not just entering or even being successful in such industries, but in altering them so much? Your view of Apple as being anything other than very innovative is not supportable. It is just silly.

    And how can you accuse Samsung of “plagiarising” apple, when – for all you know – samsung may have “plagiarized” LG, or Sony?

    See the links, above. If you have contrary evidence by all means show it.

    And how can you say that apple did not “plagiarize” samsung? I remind you, samsung had tablet devices long before apple, even before the apple newton.

    How is that relevant? And is anyone denying it? You are just working to spew irrelevancies now in hopes to avoid the facts: http://techrights.org/2012/03/15/airtasker-fake-queue/#comment-132641

    Remember: you still have no reasoned response to any of those points. You have also yet to admit that the claim of Apple having invented rounded corners is a fantasy Roy repeats over and over and you slurp up. You have been shown the proof the claim Roy makes is a lie. But you will not call Roy a liar.

    Double standard much?

    You do. Clearly. Look at how you refuse to call Roy on his obvious lie about Apple and rounded corners and then try to nit-pick my comments and work to obfuscate them by pointing to irrelevancies.

  20. walterbyrd said,

    March 22, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    Gravatar

    But let us assume Apple did plagiarize these companies… do you think that is wrong of them?

    I just don’t understand why you think there should be one standard for appled, and another standard for apple’s competitors.

    If samsung is “immoral” to “plagiarise” apple; then why isn’t apple immoral for plagiarising samsung? Samsung had tablet devices long before apple. Samsung also a camera on it’s device before apple had a camera on the iPad.

    If it is proper for samsung to not be allowed to sell devices based on ideas “plagiarised” from apple, then why is it okay for apple to sell devices based on dozens of “plagiarized” ideas?

    Why do you so aggressively defend apple, when by your own standards, apple is, at least, as guilty as any of apple’s competitiors?

    Even apple themselves admit that they steal ideas.

    Apple will admit that they did not have the first smart phone, and certainly apple did have the first tablet device – by over a decade. So why should apple even be allowed to sell such devices, when apple plagiarized those ideas?

    Double standard much?

    Michael Reply:

    I have never suggested there should be different standards for different companies. You made that up. If it were true, you would be able to show it – but you cannot.

    My view is any company that plagiarizes another is wrong. How is that a double standard. The evidence against Samsung is overwhelming… your evidence against Apple is not even in the same ball park. Nobody is saying Samsung did not have tablets before Apple. Nobody. Heck, I pointed you to evidence of this and then you act like it is some grand revelation. Same with others having smart phones and the like? But how is that plagiarism? Before you claimed to understand the word but your “examples” show you have no idea what you are talking about.

    In other words: you are back to waving your white flag, showing you have given up trying to be rational and on topic, and are just making things up to back Roy and his cult-like BS.

    As far as Apple using ideas that have been used before – is anyone saying it is wrong for any company to use ideas that have been used by others as a general statement? No. Again, you are arguing against straw men. As far as Apple “admitting” they “steal” ideas – you have been shown the context and so you know that claim of yours (borrowed from Roy) is a lie.

    You are lying and running. You are waving your white flag.

    But, hey, let’s have a nice, friendly audio chat where we can discuss this in more detail where neither of us can run. If you want, include Roy. Even with “2 against 1″ you know your claims have no merit.

    I know my claims do. And that is why I am able to use data and evidence and logic to back my ideas… and you are just screaming “plagiarism!” without showing anywhere near the same level of evidence.

    walterbyrd Reply:

    Um, how many links did I post? A dozen? More?

    How many speciific examples of Apple’s “plagiarism” did I present?

    How many ideas did apple plagiarise? Tablet device, touchscreen, color icons, kinetic scrolling, wireless device, gestures, smart phone, audio, animation, even the books on a shelf idea. Not to mention a retangular device with a flat surface, and rounded corners.

    Seems to me that apple hardly invented anything, yet you seem to think that apple invented everything.

    After all, how could samsung had “plagiarised” apple, if those were not apple inventions to begin with?

    Michael Reply:

    Um, how many links did I post? A dozen? More?

    Posting links, even a lot, is not synonymous with making a point, no less supporting it.

    What you are doing, mostly, is showing you do not understand the concepts being discussed. Look at the Harry Potter series: lots of ideas from previous works – older bearded wizard helping young naive "newbie" to fight the big bad and many, many more elements from many older stories. This does not make the work a form of plagiarism. But your argument, mostly, is that since Apple did not invent things nobody claimed they did, and that others had smart phones and tablets and the like that somehow – though you do not say how or why – Apple "plagiarized" them.

    Now in a couple of cases you have shown where Apple has lost legal cases dealing with these issues, and I grant you that this does at least somewhat support the idea of Apple doing wrong (not that I think the legal system is the final or best arbiter of morality, still, it is support for your case). So it is not as if you offer no support – you have offered some. I think the Prada device was perhaps your best evidence, and if Apple did copy from them then they did wrong. Nobody has said otherwise – but as you claim Apple did wrong in that area you still refuse to say Apple was wronged by others doing worse to them.

    But more than that you are ignoring the fact that the evidence I have shown you against Samsung is far, far more powerful – showing direct images of their products before and after the Apple ones where the "after" ones are clearly designed to copy the Apple ones very, very closely. This was so extreme that Samsung’s own lawyer could not tell the products apart from a few paces away. Just absurd.

    And you ignore the fact that Roy just out and out lied about anyone claiming Apple invented rounded corners – even though the evidence shows Jobs went almost obsessively in the direction of noting how Apple did *not* invent that. You even repeat this lie of Roy’s. I mean, really, if you cannot admit to that then you are just advertising how much you are in his pocket.

    So your claims are based on a lack of understanding of what is being spoken about (the copying of a product, not just individual features), has little support (though, as I grant above, you finally offered some), and you show your extreme bias by not acknowledging even the most extreme errors such as the BS about Apple having claimed to invent the rounded corner. I mean, that is just absurd… but you cannot bring yourself to admit to being wrong.

    How many speciific examples of Apple’s “plagiarism” did I present?

    See above for the discussion on that. You showed you did not understand what was being discussed. It is like saying the Harry Potter books are plagiarized because they use the same alphabet and even the same words as have been used in other books… or perhaps even some of the same general concepts (which they do). But that does not mean they are plagiarized. You completely miss the point of looking at a device as a system and focus on the individual components. What Apple did was build a system – a unique and innovative system. That does not mean they invented each of the components… just as the Harry Potter books invented a world …. this does not mean that Rowling invented the concepts of old bearded wizards, good vs. evil, young apprentices, or whatever.

    Sadly you show no ability to understand the difference in these concepts. None. You just keep repeating yourself as if this strengthens your argument – when what it really does is shows off your ignorance.

    How many ideas did apple plagiarise? Tablet device, touchscreen, color icons, kinetic scrolling, wireless device, gestures, smart phone, audio, animation, even the books on a shelf idea. Not to mention a retangular device with a flat surface, and rounded corners.

    Again: you are pushing the straw man that someone said Apple invented: tablet devices, color icons, wireless devices, smart phones, etc. But that is a lie on your part. Nobody has said Apple invented those things. Nobody. You made it up.

    Seems to me that apple hardly invented anything, yet you seem to think that apple invented everything.

    I am the one telling you Apple did not invent the things you say people are attributing to them – and you turn around and say (out and out lie) and claim I have shown any believe that Apple invented everything. Again: you are making claims completely contrary to what you are being told – making up opinions and attributing them to me. Lying. When you show your argument rests on you sucking up to Roy’s lies and pushing other lies of your own, how seriously do you think you should be taken?

    After all, how could samsung had “plagiarised” apple, if those were not apple inventions to begin with?

    Who said that the Apple inventions were not their inventions? Again, you simply cannot show any understanding of the issue. None.

  21. walterbyrd said,

    March 22, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Gravatar

    You just conveniently call samsung’s alleged copying “plagiarism” and refuse to hold apple to the same standard.

    Apple has “plagiarised” 100 times worse than all of apple’s competitors put together. And I have proved that. You just conveniently refuse to accept the proof.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Apple has not “plagiarised” anything; it “stole”. “Shamelessly”.

    Michael Reply:

    Your comment is a dodge. Do you have a reply to what I wrote… or shall you just wave your white flag.

    Same with Roy.

    But, hey, if I am so wrong then let’s do an audio show where it is harder to run. That would be great! I am all for it.

    And you and Roy run. Scared. It is not as if either of you believe your claims. And why should you – as I discuss above, you both make claims which are clearly contrary to reality.

  22. Michael said,

    March 22, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    Gravatar

    On and on you go… just completely missing the point. OK, one more attempt to explain it to you (and Roy). Now let us be clear, you have both demonstrated that you have no interest in the truth – you want Apple to be your bogeyman… your cult needs and “evil” to fight against. That is a key reason you attack Apple as you do, so no amount of logic or reasoning will prevent you. What this post will do, however, is demonstrate to others who read this, if there are any, how fast you run from facts.

    There is no problem with companies being inspired by other companies and for them to make competing devices. None. There is no problem with authors being inspired by other authors. Look at the zombie craze right now – while some might go to far in copying others, overall different people are giving their take on the concept of a post-apocalypse zombie world. In the same way, different companies are giving their take on smart phones or tablets or desktop systems. And these groups all learn from each other. I have no problem with this.

    So when some company first uses, say, a touch screen on their device, I have no problem with that even if they were not the first to do so. I have no problem with companies making devices with rounded corners. I have no problem with companies using colored icons in a grid. When companies do so this does not indicate, alone, that they are plagiarizing others. Your straw man (or one of them) is to say that this is the case – that the use of such technology is some form of plagiarism or to claim that I should believe it is. Yet it is not something based on anything I have said or suggested – in fact I have made it clear that is *not* my view.

    I have also made it clear it is not my view that Apple invented “everything” or even the mass of the items you listed (touch screens, smart phones, or tablets for example). With the example of rounded corners, not only did Apple not invent those, as has been noted, Jobs went to pretty much insane levels to show how they existed in the world already – he did this to show why he felt they were valuable for Apple products. But you and Roy repeatedly make the false claim I am saying or suggesting in some way Apple invented things I never said they did. You are, in short, lying. Same idea with the quote Roy takes out of context where Jobs is talking about using ideas from many disciplines to build innovative products that serve people well. Roy lies about that quote – as do you – and pretends Jobs was defending the idea of plagiarism. He simply was not… and again, you have both been shown this. There is no middle ground here: you are both lying.

    So where does the plagiarism come into play? So far I have said it is fine to be inspired by competitors and to learn from them. It is dandy to take a pre-existing idea put your own spin on it… even if your own spin has elements of other’s work. Without this freedom there is a huge limitation to innovation.

    This is true for Apple, Samsung, authors, etc. There is no double standard (another claim you keep making even though you have no support for it… none at all).

    Where the plagiarism comes in is when one company make a product that not only has elements of another product, but is clearly designed to be very, very much like that product – a copy as much as possible with maybe trivial changes such as the logo or slight texturing of a surface or the like. This is what Samsung was shown doing – I used pictorial proof of this (their products before and after the iPhone) and even showed you that a lawyer defending Samsung could not distinguish the products from a few paces away. The idea that Samsung had crossed the line and had done more than be inspired by a competitor is not something that can reasonably be denied.

    Your responses mostly tied into the comments I make above about using *elements* that are pre-existing, as if that is all Samsung did. But that is contrary to the evidence. Samsung did more than that – much more.

    You did point to a phone that had some elements of the iPhone that, apparently, pre-dated the iPhone. This was your best effort – the only one, really, that has any merit at all. And if you can support it well then you can show that Apple did wrong. I have not denied that possibility and I have made it clear I do not agree with all of Apple’s actions. But you and Roy ignore that and pretend I have some double standard and am insisting Apple is right no matter what.

    Another trick you tried to play is when Roy whined about Apple doing things morally wrong, and I spoke in terms of those morals and how Apple at least seems to legitimately believe they are reacting to wrongs that have been done to them, you ran to legal cases and left the moral question behind. You also claim Apple did wrong to “plagiarize”, but then refuse to say Samsung did wrong to plagiarize even though the evidence against Samsung is far, far more powerful and damning.

    When faced with this you do all you and Roy do is change the topic, make ad hominem attacks, argue against straw men, and run. Neither of you, for example, will acknowledge that the claims you both made of Apple claiming to have invented rounded corners is beyond just wrong it is in powerful contrast to the evidence. You both just run from that. Neither of you will back down from the claim where you say I think Apple invented all sorts of things I never said not suggested they did (and have noted they did not).

    And, of course, neither of you are willing to “face” me on a format where running from such BS is less easy – in an audio format. I have even offered to face you both, 2 against 1, because I know my claims are accurate and valid. Neither of you show any sign of actually believing the claims you make. You repeatedly make claims which are clearly contrary to the facts, and when faced with it you just obfuscate. You are not willing to admit to your errors nor acknowledge when you have been caught saying things which are clearly not true. This shows a strong lack of good faith from the two of you and gives every reason to believe even you know your claims are incorrect and biased.

    Unless you have something *new* to add to this discussion I think it is done. And unless you acknowledge the errors of yours and Roy’s, such as the claims about Apple claiming to have invented rounded corners or my thinking they invented the lists you have provided, you are merely showing off your inability to discuss the topic in good faith.

    So get the last word and have Roy pat you on your back for your fine trolling of me. It is not as if either of you really believe your claims – your actions indicate you do not. You merely are not willing to admit to your own bias, as obvious and strong as it is.

What Else is New


  1. More Microsoft Subsidies to Patent Troll Intellectual Ventures

    Microsoft hands money to Bill Gates' close friend who is the world's largest patent troll



  2. Aiding Microsoft Under the Disguise of 'Pro-FOSS'

    Not everything which is FOSS necessary becomes, by virtue of existence, a positive contribution, as we are constantly reminded by projects that help proprietary software and/or restrictions get a strong grip on FOSS



  3. Links 16/4/2014: Red Hat PR, Ubuntu LTS Imminent

    Links for the day



  4. Links 15/4/2014: Lots of PCLinuxOS Releases, Ukraine Updates

    Links for the day



  5. Apple and Microsoft Actively Lobbying Against Patent Reform in the US

    Apple and Microsoft are reportedly intervening/interfering with US law in order to ensure that the law is Free/libre software-hostile



  6. Lawsuit by Microsoft Shareholder Targets Fine for Crimes Rather Than the Crimes Themselves

    A new lawsuit by a Microsoft shareholder shows everything that's wrong with today's model of accountability, where those who are responsible for crimes are accused of not avoiding fines rather than committing the crimes



  7. Public Institutions Must Dump PRISM-Associated Software

    Another reminder that taxpayers-subsidised services should refuse, as a matter of principle, to pay anything for -- let alone deploy -- proprietary software with back doors



  8. GNU/Linux News: The Opportunities Amid XP EOL

    Links for the day



  9. Microsoft Gets Its Money's Worth From Xamarin: PlayStation 4 Now Polluted by Microsoft

    The Trojan horse of Microsoft, Xamarin, is pushing .NET into Microsoft's console competitor



  10. After Brendan Eich Comes Chris Beard

    Having removed Brendan Eich using bullying and blackmail tactics, his foes inside Mozilla achieved too little as we have yet another man (coming from inside Mozilla) acting as CEO



  11. Healthcare News: Free Software in Health, Humanitarian Causes

    Links for the day



  12. Links 14/4/2014: MakuluLinux, Many Games, More Privacy News and Pulitzer Prize for NSA Revelations

    Links for the day



  13. TechBytes Episode 87: Catching up With Surveillance (NSA, GCHQ et al.)

    The first audio episode in a very long time covers some of the latest happenings when it comes to privacy and, contrariwise, mass surveillance



  14. Server News: KVM, ElasticHosts, Other GNU/Linux Items, and Open Network Linux

    Links for the day



  15. Hardware News: Freedom, Modding, Hackability on the Rise

    Links for the day



  16. Distributions News: GNU/Linux Distros

    Links for the day



  17. GNOME News: Financial Issues, Mutter-Wayland, West Coast Summit, Community Participation

    Links for the day



  18. KDE News: Kubuntu at the Centre Again KDE Applications Updated

    Links for the day



  19. Techrights Rising

    Effective immediately, Techrights will do what it takes to bring back old volume and pace of publishing



  20. Links: Surveillance, Intervention, Torture and Drones

    Links for the day



  21. Mobile Linux Not Just Android: Jolla, WebOS, and Firefox OS News

    Links for the day



  22. Google's Linux Revolution: New Gains for Android, Chrome OS (GNU/Linux)

    Links for the day



  23. Free/Libre Databases News: MongoDB, NoSQL, and MySQL Branches/Forks

    Links for the day



  24. Open Access on the Rise: Textbooks, Journals, Etc.

    Links for the day



  25. Finance Watch (Watching What's Not Being Watched): Economic Warfare/Class Injustice

    Links for the day



  26. Climate and Ecology Watch: News About a World Being Destroyed

    Links for the day



  27. Copyright News: DRM, Censorship, Megaupload, Hypocrisy, and Impact on the Internet

    Links for the day



  28. Sharing Works: Latest News Stories About Crowd-sourcing, Sharing, Transparency

    Links for the day



  29. Links 12/4/2014: Games

    Links for the day



  30. Links 12/4/2014: Applications

    Links for the day


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts