Apple are guilty of this too of course, but do you want to know the difference? They have the confidence to enter fledgling markets where it's in no way obvious to anybody that there is a golden opportunity to be had and then they bet big. They bet way big, ramping up production, tying up components in mega deals.
Sony on the other hand cherry pick by copying business opportunities that are already successful. That doesn't take balls, it just takes a fucking massive company who can produce a facsimile of a competitors product (maybe sometimes better) and ramp up their machine on a massive scale.
Whoops I picked a bad time to "cheerlead" apple, expect me to be modded down in 3...2...
0 flame bait
As for shipping iturds, apple could get away with that shit exactly once. Never seems to occur to some people that a brand becomes respected because it's repeatedly associated with good products. Out of all the willful blind spots nurtured here on slashdot I find this one frankly... weird. Totally fucking moronic. Prove me wrong though by citing another brand that thrives despite shit products and customer contempt. And I don't mean one that makes money, I mean an iconic brand that attracts a lot of customer loyalty.
Yes and no. [Nuclear Missiles] are a weapon. Depending on who wields the weapon, it can be disastrous. Legally, [Nuclear Missiles] can be used defensively or offensively. I'd say the offensive users are worse than the defensive users. Overall the system is broken, but how "bad" it is that some company got a [Nuclear Missile] -- well, that time will tell.
I'm not judging you btw, I just thought this is an interesting analogy that might be worth thinking about. In other words it's moral for the world to stock up on nuclear missiles as long as nobody uses them.
However you seem to be beating round the bush and are trying to say Apple are the bad guys because they used them first vs Samsung?? The court case (and inevitable appeal) may give credence to Samsung acting first with their "copycat" weapon, time will tell.
I hate Scientology and all other religious cults (i.e. "religions") as much as the next rational person, but
It's ironic that you have to make slashdots equivalent of the sign of the cross so that you aren't modded down as a heretic for your subsequent words. Slashdot canon if you will.
We are all members of one cult or another as we can't escape indoctrination - except maybe for those dumped in a forest at the age of four and raised by wolves. I know this because most of us slip into the cogs of western society like those that went before us. There is a place in the machine for everyone.
That you proclaim yourself as rational makes me skeptical of you but I could be wrong, maybe I should have taken a chance and read the rest of your post, but I couldn't get past slashdots bigoted received wisdom on this occasion.
I often hear Android fans say that they refuse to buy Apple as a sign of disapproval, so how about not clicking on these stories for the same reason?
Besides that wasn't event the point I was making: which is that it's just possible that Samsung's invocation of the law has no element of retribution to it, i.e. its just yet more dickish behavior from another mega-cap. I'm making that point because there is a lot of cheerleading of Samsung on slashdot over this action (because it's directed at Apple) when maybe we should be condemning them for going down the same path as Apple.
You see another theory would be that Samsung are just acting dickishly in the name of their own shareholders regardless of earlier dickish behavior from Apple.
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman