You didn't read my response in post 216 did you? If you did, you would see that I pre-blew up THIS response from you.

Here it is, because it just shits all over your entire position:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&page=#279880

>Apple defending technology that it patented is not bad
>business practice at all.

No, it's well within their rights. What Apple does is stretch the boundaries of common sense, both in the patent system (which is getting reformed by the USPTO) and the legal system (which was blown up by Judge Posner, when he PRESIDED over Apple vs Motorola).


> A lot of people have stock
>in Apple and bet against it so your statement proves nothing.

What does this even mean? I have a personal stake to see AAPL do well, so I rail when Apple Inc does not do well. I called out Apple's bad business practices with the very start of this thread, and everything happening in real life is bearing that out.

>More proof your trolling/blatant fanboyism is found in you not
>saying shit about Microsoft. It's clear between the previous
>fact/Apple's recent dealings with Android OEMs that don't rip
>off IP and your lack of silence that you're trolling.

And it's clear you didn't read post 216. So, to repeat myself, Apple's point in all this isn't licensing or cash (because they've got boatloads of it), it's INJUNCTIONS and SALES BANS. Microsoft is not pursuing SALES BANS, now are they? If they were (or if Samsung was) then I would be railing against that too.


>Why is any company that protects the IP it built a bad company
>that engages in horrible practices?

Because it's false IP to begin with. The UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE ruled that Apple's patents (yes, the ones used to get a $1 billion award) are INVALID. How much more clearer do I have to explain this? Do I need to use smaller words? Maybe I should record a youtube video with charts and diagrams so you can understand, because clearly you don't read (or understand) any of these links that I'm posting.


>I'm beyond rational. Seriously, go back and look a what you
>posted in this thread. You still haven't answered my question.
>How has Apple stifled innovation? You put it out there so
>explain it.

Are you rational? Are you really now? Please, provide evidence for your position that isn't just an uninformed and untimely opinion.

As for "how Apple has stifled innovation"? Seriously? I've answered this TWICE now in this thread, pointing you to a person who's FAR MORE QUALIFIED than either of us to speak on it. Honestly, it's amazing how stupid you are... this must be the fourth or fifth time I'm posting this link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/why-there-are-too-many-patents-in-america/259725/

I'm just going to copy paste what I posted in 216, because clearly you have difficulties reading:

"Here it is again... an article in the Atlantic written by Judge Richard Posner, who actually stepped down to a lower jurisdiction to PRESIDE over Apple vs Motorola. He's also widely considered the most influential US judge that does not currently sit on the Supreme Court. You want to tell me this is click bait?

He eloquently explains why patents make sense for SOME industries (like pharmaceuticals, where the cost of R&D is prohibitive) and explicitly states why it does not make sense for OTHER industries (like those involved with software), including why it would stifle innovation."

Try reading the article. Seriously. They're just words. If need be, you should have a tab of dictionary.com up to help you through, but when you finally get through it, it'll explain very clearly why Apple's tactics STIFLE innovation, not encourage it.


>I'm not supporting Apple as much as I am modulating the truth
>and defending a great company's name against a fanboy's
>attack. A lot of your sources aren't credible. You posted
>swipes from android blogs.

Please tell me which swipes are from Android blogs. I would love to see it. And I love how you you're saying the following sources aren't "credible":

The Atlantic
The Verge
Groklaw
Ars Technica
CNET
Engadget
IDC (International Data Corporation)

These are the sources I posted in #216... do any of them look like android blogs?


>>Here's a direct question for you: if the patents the awards
>>were based on are found invalid, and if Judge Koh herself
>>finds that Samsung did not willfully infringe, will that $1
>>billion award still stand? Serious question... I would love
>>to see your answer to this.
>
>You swiped something and skimmed through it. Apple's bid for
>extra damages were thrown out. That's it.

Um, no. You don't read shit. The jury awarded $1 billion based on WILLFUL infringement (ie, Samsung deliberately copied Apple). The judge ruled that Samsung's infringement was NOT willful (ie, Samsung may have infringed, but they did not do so deliberately). This is HUGE. Seriously. Try reading one of these article. Not to mention the fact that the UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE tentatively invalidated two of the patents Apple used to get that award. How many times do I have to repeat myself?


>Let me break this down for you:
>Samsung LOST
>Samsung still owes $1 billion
>Samsung is still partially guilty of trade-dress.
>
>The publically released evidence shits all over this post and
>your claims by the way.
>How come you didn't post that?

Please, PLEASE post evidence of this. You aren't going to find shit because all that stuff was either INVALIDATED or THROWN OUT (and no, posting articles from 5 months ago doesn't count).

>>Edit: Oh, and I noticed you still haven't addressed that
>post
>>I linked to up above.
>
>I addressed it earlier but you Cuban b'd my response.

You didn't address shit. You wanted some real world analysis on AAPL's stock drop and you went ghost when I provided it.