Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Dev.SN ♥ developers

posted by janrinok on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:32PM   Printer-friendly
from the winner-will-win-wonga-in-the-form-of-won dept.

A Reuters story continues with news of the on-going litigation between Apple and Samsung:

Apple and Samsung return to federal court on Tuesday for opening statements in their latest patent battle, with the iPhone maker expected to present more detailed evidence in its attempt to win a U.S. ban on sales of several Samsung smartphones.

Apple Inc and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd have been litigating around the world for nearly three years. Jurors awarded the iPhone maker about $930 million after a 2012 trial in San Jose, California, but Apple failed to persuade U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to issue a permanent injunction against the sale of Samsung phones.A sales ban would be a far more serious threat to Samsung, which earned $7.7 billion in the quarter that ended in December. Samsung's mobile division, which includes smartphones, generated operating profit of 5.47 trillion won ($5.1 billion).

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:46PM

    by edIII (791) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:46PM (#24546)

    While I would love to see Apple lose hard on the IP front as it would be quite fitting karma, I don't think Samsung is any better.

    Once the USPTO went to a file-first arrangement, any pretense of patents and copyrights existing to foster innovation and protect small artists and inventors went right out the window.

    None of them play by any rules so AFAIC they can both go DIAF.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Fluffeh on Tuesday April 01 2014, @09:48PM

      by Fluffeh (954) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @09:48PM (#24559)

      I find it interesting how the Apple folks seem to be coveting and putting onto a golden pedestal this patent that they have called "Slide to unlock". I mean, seriously, given a screensaver/screen lock on a phone where the only real input IS THE SCREEN, how else is one supposed to unlock it? Even the android passwordy-slidey-gesturey-thing is sliding your finger around the screen to unlock it. Sort of makes more sense than sliding to open the screensaver and THEN putting in a password on a number pad - but it is still sliding to unlock.

      It's almost like everyone having doors, but apple claiming that they have a patent for a thing called a "doorlock" and anyone is free to install a "doorlock" but their patent gives them exclusive right to use a "key" to "unlock" this "doorlock".... Gah!

      It's all pathetic, given that phones these days are almost treated like accessories, they may as well adopt how fashion treats copyright and patents [youtube.com] and see how much good it will do consumers. Seriously though, watch that TED talk, it is really fantastic.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:13PM (#24570)

        I mean, seriously, given a screensaver/screen lock on a phone where the only real input IS THE SCREEN, how else is one supposed to unlock it?

        They'd be presented with a button on each corner of the screen and told to tap one then the other... just like the previous generation of phones did on the keypad. You know.. the most obvious way of doing it when you don't have several years of hindsight telling you slide-to-unlock is one true way.

        Well lookie at that, the patent system caused an innovation. Next thing you know people will start coming out of the woodwork claiming that there's a bazillion different unlock screens in the Google Play store that are 'better than slide-to-unlock'.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by NullPtr on Wednesday April 02 2014, @03:53AM

        by NullPtr (3786) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @03:53AM (#24654)

        I slide to unlock my front door. How much innovation went into "do an electronic version of it"? Sounds like 2 seconds work. Was the recycle bin also covered? Does the developer of the first chess game own chess? I can understand a new, computer-only game (doom, manic miner, whatever) being worthy of protection in some way for an amount of time, but slide to unlock? How was that not laughed out of court?

        • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Wednesday April 02 2014, @11:26AM

          by BasilBrush (3994) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @11:26AM (#24901)

          There were a decade of smartphones before the iPhone. And at least 5 years of touch screen smartphones. If it was so obvious why did none of them do it before Apple?

          And why since Apple did is has it suddenly become so irreplaceable for the copiers like Google and Samsung?

          It's easy to claim obviousness after someone's already demonstrated it. It's rather more difficult to be the first to actually do it.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Foobar Bazbot on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:33PM

      by Foobar Bazbot (37) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:33PM (#24574)
      1. It's first-to-file, not file-first.
      2. How would the United States Patent and Trademark Office implementing a rule change pertaining to patents possibly affect the pretense that copyrights exist for ... whatever phony excuse?
      3. In what way does reducing the record-keeping burden required to win what amounts to a tie hurt "small ,,, inventors"?

      Now there are other provisions of the "america invents" act which do skew things in favor of big business, but first-to-file itself seems like a good deal to me. If you weren't under the delusion that it changes patentability rules, but had some other objection to first-to-file, I'd be interested to hear it.

      I keep seeing this FUD about first-to-file, and honestly I wonder if there's not big-money shills pumping misinformation to keep it alive. You didn't say it, but your hatred of first-to-file only seems reasonable if one believes the following, which many others have stated: "first-to-file changes prior-art/novelty rules". If this were true, I'd agree with you. (Well, about patents. Copyrights were made an obvious sham long ago...)

      But in reality, first-to-file doesn't change the rules for novelty -- if you can show an embodiment of a claimed invention in the prior art, the patent's invalid. The only time first-to-file as such makes any difference is when two inventors file patent applications near-simultaneously for the same invention. (This can arise from legitimate independent work, or from one party stealing the other party's invention.) If it's a case of invention theft, first-to-invent is worse: not only does it mean more record-keeping for you, the real inventor, so you can prove you invented it when you say you did -- there's also nothing stopping the thief from backdating their invention (they've already committed perjury in applying for a patent on something they didn't invent, why not about the date, too?) and winning. In the case of true independent invention, it really doesn't matter who gets the patent -- the fact that two people invented it is (and should be, but isn't, considered as such by the USPTO and the courts) substantial evidence it's obvious to a reasonably skilled practitioner, so awarding either party the patent is bullshit.

      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday April 02 2014, @05:22PM

        by edIII (791) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @05:22PM (#25171)

        I think it's a little pedantic to say first-to-file instead of file-first as you understood what I meant.

        I'm not under any delusion either, or a shill.

        I do believe that it changes the game vastly in the favor of large monied interests. While I believe you are correct about prior art and the invalidation of a patent, that's not where the issue lies. Invalidation of a patent is important in the whole patent ecosystem in that it allows a solid defense against patent trolls and patents that quite frankly are of substandard quality and should not be issued in the first place.

        As for the "phony excuse" you are looking for, the original purpose of the USPTO was to protect small time inventors from large monied interests that would take their hard work from them. Fundamentally, it exists to provide incentive for as much technology to be created as possible and funneled into the Public Domain. Changing those rules does effectively change the game and ceases to serve their original purpose: protection for the inventors.

        With "first-to-file" it's bad if you have a small time inventor who does create something novel. It can take tens of thousands of dollars to hire a patent lawyer, have all the prior art research done, create the documents, file the documents, etc. It's an unreasonable burden and a barrier to entry to whatever market you are operating in.

        Without "first-to-file" the small time inventor always has the ability to prove that they in fact created the invention and not large MegaCorp. It either invalidates the patent, or perhaps can assign it to the inventor. I'm admittedly not sure what happens when it's proven that MegaCorp didn't invent something, but it does exist as a product, and it was created by somebody else.

        With "first-to-file" you have large MegaCorps that can file patents on top of small time inventors and effectively steal all the profits of their hard work. It's completely legal by definition, since the patent only needed to be valid and filed first with the USPTO. Prior art has no meaning in that interaction.

        So right now while you may be correct it reduces the record-keeping burden, it creates the very real situation where large corps that have all the money can piss away 50k like it's nothing and patent your technology for themselves.

        I think that's sad, pathetic, and wholly corrupt when a small time inventor can invent something, start to sell it slowly, and then a big MegaCorp like Apple can just patent right over him and then deliver the "good news" via the lawyerpult instructing him to cease and desist all manufacturing, sales, and marketing of "their" technology.

        It makes a much bigger difference in technology sectors where time-to-market is everything . You simply can't wait a year to go through a round of funding, pay 50k to a reputable law firm, file the application, and then find out a dozen competitors beat you to the punch with slightly different technology for a new consumer demand. If they do happen to be using your technology, which you can only really find out by suing them in some cases, you are left with expensive litigation and unhappy people everywhere.

        The USPTO needs to become an order of magnitude faster at least for these sectors, and preserve the requirement that you are actually the one who invented it, not just filed it.

        If I am under a delusion as you claim, then so be it. I see it as incredibly unfair and another example where those that have the money make their actions correct, even when they are clearly not.

        Regardless, I, like many others, have absolutely no faith in the USPTO anymore.

        If you want to be protected, and be truly protected, you need trade secret methods and processes at this point. If that's not possible, then you need to create some unique barrier to entry for a competitor to get around.

        Basically anything other than finding yourself in a courtroom in Texas. If you find yourself there, it's the biggest player with the deepest pockets that will ultimately win.

        • (Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Wednesday April 02 2014, @08:37PM

          by Foobar Bazbot (37) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @08:37PM (#25270)

          I think it's a little pedantic to say first-to-file instead of file-first as you understood what I meant.

          I think inability to keep basic terminology about a topic straight suggests you may not have given it much thought.

          the original purpose of the USPTO was to protect small time inventors from large monied interests that would take their hard work from them.

          That's one justification. (It's wrong, BTW.)

          Fundamentally, it exists to provide incentive for as much technology to be created as possible and funneled into the Public Domain.

          And that's a completely different (and correct) justification. That you can recite one after the other, seemingly without noticing the inherent contradiction, is more evidence that you haven't thought this through as much as you think. Not to get all "wake up, sheeple", but this is what I was talking about re: shills. I don't think you're a shill, and didn't mean to suggest that; rather I suspect shills are spreading misinformation and using people like you as amplifiers. I think you're letting others do your thinking for you, and regurgitating it as fact without sufficiently thinking about or understanding it.

          To explain the contradiction: To claim that the patent system exists "to protect ... inventors from ... interests that would take their hard work from them" (no matter how large or small either party might be) is to claim that by inventing something, an inventor deserves an inherent right to forbid others from using their idea; that this national or global monopoly is their due for the "hard work" of invention.* If that is the case, and patent law exists to protect this right of inventors, then we have no business altering it to optimize total technology created; to shorten the term, or restrict what patents will be issued is a failure to protect some inventors' rights, while to lengthen the term, or broaden the granting conditions is to infringe future inventors' rights to build inventions upon these inventions, and receive the profits from these enhancements.

          *It may be interesting to consider a second inventor who invests precisely the same hard work, while ignorant that his counterpart elsewhere has already done the same, and explain why for the same work, the first deserves a monopoly and whatever profit he can extract from it, but the other deserves a fine for constructing his prototype in ignorance of the patent. But my present point is to show the contradiction, not to show that the former is wrong -- once you see the contradiction, a simple reading of the constitution will make it clear which one is right.

          With "first-to-file" it's bad if you have a small time inventor who does create something novel. It can take tens of thousands of dollars to hire a patent lawyer, have all the prior art research done, create the documents, file the documents, etc. It's an unreasonable burden and a barrier to entry to whatever market you are operating in.

          Yes, being the little guy sucks. But since the exact same costs apply under first-to-file or first-to-invent, that's hardly a valid criticism of first-to-file.

          There's also the record-keeping burden to prove date-of-invention, which arguably is more onerous for the little guy, but you need that under the first-to-invent system for defense even if you don't plan to patent (as reactively filing your own patent is a good way to force an immediate showdown with somebody who patents your stuff), and you're talking about the burden associated with filing for a patent, so it doesn't really count.

          Without "first-to-file" the small time inventor always has the ability to prove that they in fact created the invention and not large MegaCorp. It either invalidates the patent, or perhaps can assign it to the inventor.

          This really has a little vagueness due to the sloppiness of English, and could cover several scenarios, depending whether the small inventor plans to eventually file for a patent, and on whether "didn't invent" means MegaCorp is stealing it, or merely means MegaCorp independently discovered it, but was not first to do so.

          (As I said before, if MegaCorp independently invents it about the same time, this almost always means neither should have the patent -- the most likely explanation for such a coincidence of timing is that the "invention" suddenly became obvious, either because of newly available tech that at least two (and likely more, who didn't bother filing) "inventors" used in an obvious way, or because of a newly posed problem, which two (likely more) "inventors" solved in the obvious way. So for that case, I consider "neither gets the patent" the best outcome, and both cases where a patent issues to one party to be nearly equally bad outcomes.)

          1. MegaCorp independently discovers, small inventor doesn't aim to patent: Same outcome either way. Small inventor makes the invention public early, and MegaCorp theoretically can't get the patent. In practice, our patent-examination system sucks, and MegaCorp is likely to get a patent under either first-to-file or first-to-invent, but it can be defeated in court. As long as small inventor doesn't sit on it like a moron, but publicizes it (whether by publishing a paper on it, selling widgets implementing it, or distributing software implementing it), it's not validly patentable, and we get the right outcome.
          2. MegaCorp steals, small inventor doesn't aim to patent: In either case, MegaCorp is willing to perjure themselves and falsify documentation that they've invented it. In first-to-file, early publication stops them. In first-to-invent, as I said before, MegaCorp just falsifies a little more documentation to prove they invented it before small inventor actually invented it, swears to the documentation's authenticity, and wins! (If you beat them in court, great, the patent's invalidated! But they still don't get a conviction for perjury, because USPTO shut down their enforcement department, which prosecuted such cases, decades ago!)
          3. MegaCorp independently discovers, small inventor plans to patent: In this case (assuming MegaCorp invents second, but files first), yes, first-to-file does change the outcome, and does make it better for MegaCorp, worse for small inventor. As I said, I consider these nearly equal, and proper patent reform, i.e. giving the "non-obvious" requirement teeth, renders it moot.
          4. MegaCorp steals, small inventor plans to patent: You are so screwed! If you're keeping it "secret" pending patent filing, and they are good enough at industrial espionage (and interested enough in you) to steal it with enough time to beat you to the patent office, you've really got problems. If they claim to have invented it first, and they file first, either system gives them the patent. But again, first-to-invent is worse, as it lets them win even if you beat them to the patent filing by claiming prior invention, whereas first-to-file gives you the patent if you file first.

          So of the four cases, first-to-file doesn't change one, makes two of them better, and makes one worse. If that one was the one you're concerned with, well, I guess we just disagree, because I can't get excited about which party gets a patent that shouldn't be issued at all.

          With "first-to-file" you have large MegaCorps that can file patents on top of small time inventors and effectively steal all the profits of their hard work. It's completely legal by definition, since the patent only needed to be valid and filed first with the USPTO. Prior art has no meaning in that interaction.

          What nonsense is this? Prior art has everything to do with this, since a patent is not valid if the claimed invention is shown in the prior art (making it non-novel), or if the prior art shows all elements in separate combinations such that a person of reasonable skill in the art would combine them (making it obvious). Further, your use of the word "steal" suggests you're discussing a case where MegaCorp copied the invention rather than independently inventing it, and in that case, the patent's also not valid, because it contains the claim (under penalty of perjury that MegaCorp did invent it. This could in theory, but not in practice (again, the responsible division was shut down), see MegaCorp convicted of perjury. If a patent is issued in such a case, it's because of problems with the USPTO that have nothing to do with first-to-file/first-to-invent.

          I think that's sad, pathetic, and wholly corrupt when a small time inventor can invent something, start to sell it slowly, and then a big MegaCorp like Apple can just patent right over him and then deliver the "good news" via the lawyerpult instructing him to cease and desist all manufacturing, sales, and marketing of "their" technology.

          That is all those things, but it's nothing to do with first-to-file. If you've started selling it, it's already published, and nobody can legally patent it. That our patent-examination process is a joke, and that rectifying it in court is both insanely costly and an uphill battle* even if you can afford it, are both horrible tragedies, but they have nothing to do with first-to-file.

          *The USPTO has practically given up and said, rubberstamp everything and let the courts sort it out. Judges largely refuse to see this, and persist in treating the existence of a patent as strong evidence that the patented invention is validly patentable (novel, nonobvious, etc.), because why would the USPTO issue it if not? Not to cry conspiracy, but it stretches credibility to ascribe the resulting combination of easy to get bad patents issued, and hard to get them overturned, as due to incompetence.

          It makes a much bigger difference in technology sectors where time-to-market is everything . You simply can't wait a year to go through a round of funding, pay 50k to a reputable law firm, file the application, and then find out a dozen competitors beat you to the punch with slightly different technology for a new consumer demand.

          If time-to-market is everything, and you can't afford to patent it, be first-to-market and don't patent it. If you don't file for a patent, first-to-file changes nothing, because it only affects the resolution of two people patenting the same invention. Publish it (which includes selling products embodying the invention).

          The USPTO needs to become an order of magnitude faster at least for these sectors,

          Being faster in general obviously has little to do with first-to-file/first-to-invent; the absence of battles to prove who invented it when makes certain cases move faster under first-to-file, but those are relatively rare.

          and preserve the requirement that you are actually the one who invented it, not just filed it.

          Again, that requirement is there, in theory, under first-to-file, just as it was there, in theory, under first-to-invent. It is not practically enforced, just as it has not been enforced for many years under first-to-invent.

          If I am under a delusion as you claim, then so be it. I see it as incredibly unfair and another example where those that have the money make their actions correct, even when they are clearly not.

          You are under a delusion. The current system is incredibly unfair, no argument from me. The delusion is the belief that first-to-file is the root of the problem, when it has nothing to do with almost every aspect of it. And seeing how widespread this delusion still is, years later, I can't help suspecting certain interests are paying shills to propagate that delusion, so people like you who are (rightly) angry about the joke our patent system is will strike out against first-to-file, instead of pushing for reform to the real problems.

          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday April 02 2014, @09:45PM

            by edIII (791) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @09:45PM (#25286)

            I think inability to keep basic terminology about a topic straight suggests you may not have given it much thought.

            You are being more than a little bit insulting. It's not terminology, but jargon instead.

            The difference between first-to-file and file-first is purely aesthetic (feel free to tear that apart). Both terms impart the information or concepts I was attempting to convey, while the former is a correct term for that industry or group.

            You then conflate an issue about correct terminology (which is a weak position given that I still conveyed the proper concept) with the assertion that I have not thought it through. Even though I have considered issues regarding IP and the Public Domain for decades.

            That's one justification. (It's wrong, BTW.) .... And that's a completely different (and correct) justification. That you can recite one after the other, seemingly without noticing the inherent contradiction, is more evidence that you haven't thought this through as much as you think. Not to get all "wake up, sheeple", but this is what I was talking about re: shills. I don't think you're a shill, and didn't mean to suggest that; rather I suspect shills are spreading misinformation and using people like you as amplifiers. I think you're letting others do your thinking for you, and regurgitating it as fact without sufficiently thinking about or understanding it.

            Again with the insults. It's not a different justification at all, and the statements do not contradict each other. Once again, through your misreading of what I said you assume a position that I must simply be ignorant.

            To explain the contradiction: To claim that the patent system exists "to protect ... inventors from ... interests that would take their hard work from them" (no matter how large or small either party might be) is to claim that by inventing something, an inventor deserves an inherent right to forbid others from using their idea; that this national or global monopoly is their due for the "hard work" of invention.* If that is the case, and patent law exists to protect this right of inventors, then we have no business altering it to optimize total technology created; to shorten the term, or restrict what patents will be issued is a failure to protect some inventors' rights, while to lengthen the term, or broaden the granting conditions is to infringe future inventors' rights to build inventions upon these inventions, and receive the profits from these enhancements.

            No, that's something you incorrectly inferred. To a horrible extent if I may so as well.

            I specifically mentioned Public Domain when speaking about the fundamental reason for the existence of IP in the first place. Not once did I explicitly mention the truly abhorrent idea that a person could control knowledge in some way as an inherent right.

            For me to speak about the Public Domain and how IP is designed to foster innovation and transfer said innovation to the Public Domain creates a mind boggling situation where you can infer that I think the right to control it is inherent.

            We grant a set of well defined temporary legal entitlements with the sole purpose of fostering innovation. The fact that the legal entitlements allow you to control (forbid seems like hyperbole) who can utilize your technology within reason. The overall purpose of that is money which brings us right back to incentives to keep the Public Domain flush with new technologies and ideas.

            This really has a little vagueness due to the sloppiness of English

            I stopped reading right there. Obviously I am not an English major. However, you have harped on me now several times and made assumptions about whether I "think for myself" solely based on my command of the English language even though I properly conveyed my ideas nonetheless.

            If you wish to disagree with me or attack my ideas, feel free to do so. I consider that part and parcel of intelligent discourse.

            However, resorting to attacking my language skills and continuing to insult me is not intelligent discourse and it does not make your positions correct, well thought out, or inherently better conveyed to those reading your posts.

            You only add to that with your rather puzzling misreading of my initial statements to construct a position that I have wholly and consistently refuted my entire life.

            So if the only way to have intelligent discourse with you is to prepare a scientific dissertation each time that has been vetted, spell checked, reviewed, passed through several fires, forgotten in a hole in the backyard, and then sent to you later... I respectfully decline your invitation.

            Have a gud day, I have doody in my pants and must gonow

            • (Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Wednesday April 02 2014, @11:37PM

              by Foobar Bazbot (37) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @11:37PM (#25320)

              To bystanders: Since edIII can't be bothered to clarify it, and is no longer interested in this conversation, I'd welcome anyone who's better than I at comprehending his post to explain what possible meaning " the original purpose of the USPTO was to protect small time inventors from large monied interests that would take their hard work from them." can have which does not imply the small time inventors' hard work has invested them with some inherent right? Whether this conversation goes any farther or not, I'd much rather understand another's opinion than not. (Which is why you'll never see me post "I quit reading there" -- to me, if it's worth a response at all. it's worth reading the whole thing).

              edIII:
              Did you notice where you misunderstood me as suggesting you were a paid shill, and my response was not to flutter about in horror at the magnitude of your misunderstanding, but to explain in detail what I did mean? That's what normal people do when they're interested in intelligent discourse.

              I specifically mentioned Public Domain when speaking about the fundamental reason for the existence of IP in the first place. Not once did I explicitly mention the truly abhorrent idea that a person could control knowledge in some way as an inherent right.

              Not explicitly, but it was implicit in what I understood of your first justification. If I misunderstood it, an explanation would be welcome.

              For me to speak about the Public Domain and how IP is designed to foster innovation and transfer said innovation to the Public Domain creates a mind boggling situation where you can infer that I think the right to control it is inherent.

              Yes, it's a mind-boggling contradiction -- yet I'm still not hearing an explanation of what you are "protecting" that comes from "hard work", if it's not an inherent right.

              We grant a set of well defined temporary legal entitlements with the sole purpose of fostering innovation. The fact that the legal entitlements allow you to control (forbid seems like hyperbole) who can utilize your technology within reason. The overall purpose of that is money which brings us right back to incentives to keep the Public Domain flush with new technologies and ideas.

              Well, I can't tell what it seems like to you, but "forbid" isn't hyperbole, because not only is that sometimes exactly how patents are employed (deny it to your competition so you have a competitive advantage), but the alternative, licensing it to others, is based on the idea that anyone who doesn't receive permission (whether in exchange for royalties, for permission to use some other patent, or any other arrangement) is forbidden from using it (with a few exceptions) -- while other regimes that grant control without the absolute power to forbid are possible (e.g. mandatory licensing), the US system does give a patent holder the right to refuse any licensing arrangement at any cost (again with a few exceptions).

              But either way, "forbid" or "control", this is correct. But as you just said, "we grant a set of ... entitlements with the sole purpose of fostering innovation." -- they have nothing to do with hard work, nor with "protecting" any entity from any other entity.

              This really has a little vagueness due to the sloppiness of English

              I stopped reading right there. Obviously I am not an English major. However, you have harped on me now several times and made assumptions about whether I "think for myself" solely based on my command of the English language even though I properly conveyed my ideas nonetheless.

              If you can't or won't understand the difference between "the sloppiness of English" (suggesting that there is a problem with the language) and "the sloppiness of your English" (suggesting there's a problem with your language skills), it's no wonder we're having trouble communicating.

              (See how, while criticizing you for misunderstanding, I was able to squeeze in an explanation of what I did mean? I know it's a waste of time, considering you've already written this discussion off, but habits are like that...)

              So if the only way to have intelligent discourse with you is to prepare a scientific dissertation each time that has been vetted, spell checked, reviewed, passed through several fires, forgotten in a hole in the backyard, and then sent to you later... I respectfully decline your invitation.

              From the guy who criticized my correct use of forbid as seeming like hyperbole, that's a bit rich.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday April 01 2014, @09:55PM

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @09:55PM (#24561) Journal

    The joke "Win" Samsung's "Won" is a joke in poor taste, much like Colbert's recent and tasteless Ching-Chong Ding-Dong [newyorker.com] Foundation, and it is highly offensive to us privileged White people living in gated communities. You're off to a bad start, with one of your recent messages proudly proclaiming that,

    " This page was generated by a team of hot midgets for Ethanol-fueled"

    That is highly offensive because the word "midget" is a slur. Anybody who has tried to solicit a midget on Craigslist for use in a threesome knows that the proper politically-correct terminology is "little person" or the plural "little people."

    • (Score: 1) by clone141166 on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:21AM

      by clone141166 (59) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:21AM (#24611)

      Hot midgets? I am more concerned about why we are cooking these so-called little people rather than what we call them. I guess that's how SoylentNews is made though. So possibly it is something to do with little people having less volume and thus heating faster.

      • (Score: 1) by clone141166 on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:23AM

        by clone141166 (59) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:23AM (#24613)
        Damn, I probably missed some sort of joke to do with using Ethanol to fuel the cooking fire too.
    • (Score: 1) by gishzida on Wednesday April 02 2014, @08:00AM

      by gishzida (2870) on Wednesday April 02 2014, @08:00AM (#24703) Journal

      I'll have you know that, as a fellow citizen of Mr. Colbert, of the Great Southern State of Infested Decay which is in most parallel dimensional spaces is called South Carolina, that they take the obligation to live in gated communities down here seriously... which is why they won't allow me to live in won.

      As for whether the original title is in poor taste, why do you assume it is the poor victim, i.e. the editor, who is responsible for such an atrocity? Nay, Nay, it was not some Russki [He's a very polite and friendly Russki I'll have you know... nothing like that Stalin fellow they used to talk about...] that was the true culprit for said title is the Idjit whom had the failure to have submitted it... which is to say *me*-- for after all I am not but a poor, underedjerkated who lives on the borders of the upscale neighborhood of designer homes [or is that Holmes?] called in these parts Da Hood.

      To wax poetic for a moment about Southern living-- Da Hood is far away from the proper people that live South of Broad [which is why we call them S.O.B.s]. No, we're way up North King, passed Romney Street [which has a private crack alley named Athens Court -- that's a whole different ball of... stuff] No, We're past where the Islamic Center is located... I live on a street that King George II [the Texas one] wished he had been but wasn't-- which is to say he wanted to be Poplar but ended up being a Maple [one street to the north] which is to say he was a sap for all his Papa's old buddies. Isn't that always the case- The Poplar wons run parallel to the Maple [sappy] wons?

      You can at least be thankful that the title I provided with the story wasn't Samsung's marketing goal as a movie title: "How the West was Won." or "Your Steal the Won" or "Fruit says thanks for the memories but wants to kill Seoul Survivor" or "Apple wants to wok Samsung" or "Apple wins won"... or "Apple dings Samsung's dong" or "Won Won tingles Bottom line-- Apple scores at last". As a consolation prize you have won... a promise for Article Titles which are more like bad Newspaper titles.

      Now in regards to your complaint about flaming midgets [you did not specify an exact temperature, so I have had to assume the maximum caloric value of heat output-- which is to say "flaming"]... I am not responsible for those. At least you can be thanked it wasn't a circus of leaping Don Juans... or a Matched Team of Hauling Honky Donkeys... [which given the fact that I most resemble one of those donkeys your thankfulness should be trebled and tripled]

      [this all brings back heart warming memories of USENET...]

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Covalent on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:17PM

    by Covalent (43) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:17PM (#24572) Journal

    The old saying: Grammar is the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit.

    Apple want to win, Samsung's won.

    Without the comma it just sounds like Apple wants to win some noun that Samsung possesses.

    http://www.grammarbook.com/ [grammarbook.com]

    --
    You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Foobar Bazbot on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:41PM

      by Foobar Bazbot (37) on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:41PM (#24578)

      Without the comma it just sounds like Apple wants to win some noun that Samsung possesses.

      Some noun like this [wikipedia.org]?

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:34PM (#24592)

      The Won (₩) they're talking about is South Korea's unit of currency. The summary says that Samsung earned 5.47 trillion won...