And yet another major Android vendor will pay protection money to Microsoft. “Microsoft and LG Electronics have signed a patent agreement that provides broad coverage under Microsoft’s patent portfolio for LG’s tablets, mobile phones and other consumer devices running the Android or Chrome OS Platform. The contents of the agreement have not been disclosed.” You know your technology sector is terminally ill when this sort of bullshit is considered normal.
Microsoft, for spreading FUD, or LG, for swallowing it whole?
The legal mechanism which institutionalizes this kind of extortion but to fix that US Gov would have to so more than hollow lip-service towards patent reform.
Ultimately though, I’d like to see Google step up and provide umbrella protection for those who use it’s mobile OS. I’d be tickled as all get-out if they linked coverage to shipping stock Android instead of vendor/device specific child-fork distributions. In absense of either of those to things happening, I’d like to see the Android device vendors band together and fire back class-action style.
A frog’s gonna swim, a scorpion’s gonna sting and big business is going to exploit the patent system for lack of competitive product.
Edited 2012-01-12 17:58 UTC
As in who still has balls? Motorola and? Huawei? Anybody?
I’d also be interested in a list of companies shipping Android devices who have not simply leaned over the desk with checks spread.
Sadly, even Samsung gave in when Microsoft took her on a date and wouldn’t accept No.
What would you have Samsung do otherwise? Take a hit in their PC business? Or other businesses that heavily rely on Microsoft?
I do understand; it’s a business decision not a moral one. If the cost of paying a protection racket is less than the cost of fighting it legally then the racketeer get’s paid.
And this is part of the problem right here. Agressors banking on the fact that a targetted company is going to make a business decision to pay up since even unjustified claims will cost money to defend in court.
However, companies smaller than Samsung have told trolls to get stuffed. Barns and Noble doesn’t have the legal budget that Samsung does yet they refused the NDA and went public with the Microsoft’s demands.
What I would expect?
Samsung should mount a legal defense; Partner up with other defendents; Make microsoft demonstrate publicly that these patents are valid and are infringed on. Make Microsoft risk having patent invalidated. If valid, make Microsoft provide a flat licensing structure instead of whatever amount per unit they can rob the defendent for.
Really, Google should be getting in on this. Google’s ongoing absense from the party is shameful. Microsoft should actually be going after Google directly since they manufacture the OS called into question.
I understand why Samsung caved but it doesn’t validate the plantif’s claims or change the fact that they’ve given in to a blatant protection racket.
While I do agree, I hold out some hope that this is just a timing issue. It is not insignificant I think that Microsoft has not gone after Google directly. Once the Motorola purchase is finalized, Google will be a little stronger patent-wise.
In the meantime, Google seems to be mounting it’s own patent portfolio–even going so far as to acquire Motorola. That move makes little sense in any other context. I believe that Motorola has transferred patents to third-parties recently that would aid in their defense against Microsoft. If even one party is able to hold Microsoft off successfully, the whole shell game could collapse.
Of course, Google is pretty busy with the Oracle nonsense as well. They may want to know how that shakes out before committing to a strategy in defense of Android. From my very causal viewing chair, it seems like the Oracle/Google lawsuit is mostly going Google’s way.
Edited 2012-01-13 05:50 UTC
I missed a bit of your comment.
First, I’m not sure that it’s a one or the other situation. Apple took Samsung to court yet Samsung produces most of Apple’s display screens (as I understand).
Would Microsoft stop selling Windows licenses to Samsung’s PC business because the mobile business refused to give in? If Microsoft did, would that give Samsung grounds for it’s own litigation?
Or even better, the Android vendors band together and boycott Microsoft OS on there PCs until this patent madness is addressed? Will Microsoft’s shareholders accept the loss of sale that could potentially cause?
I find it absolutely shameful that Microsoft is making more money of a product it had no part in producing than they are making off there own products because of exploitation of the very much broken patent system. I’d happily give my money to an Android vendor who does not support Microsoft’s abysmal business practices.
Could be worse though; could be Apple and madness like patenting rectangles with rounded corners.
Apple is switching to Toshiba screens.
No. But MS could make things very difficult such as not certifying hardware as Windows Compatible or withdrawing valuable co-marketing arrangements.
Suicidal for the PC vendors.
True.
True.
Sony it is then… Oh but they are a viscous conglomerate that has Sony MG that supports SOPA….
I’m fresh out of having had an argument with a creationist. And I must say, it astounds me that anyone who can read and has an Internet connection could doubt that we have a common ancestor with the Chimpanzees. The link is evident even in our language. Although I don’t think the Chimps have checks or desks.
Considering Motorola was found to infringe on a Microsoft Patent, I don’t think other less capable OEMs want to even run the risk.
Which one sounds better, an OEM who has to pay significant engineering costs to work around patent violations, deal with import bans, and court fees? Or an OEM which can sit back and relax as the other ones duke it out in court?
This entire thing is Google’s fault, and they’re doing absolutely nothing to remedy the situation.
Was the patent found valid based on engineering principals or based on case law. Remember, MS started with little guys they could strong arm a settlement out of to build up case law to support these actions.
If the patent is indeed novel and hardware based then fair enough. If it’s yet another general software patent for a solution obvious to any engineer solving the same problem then booo.
Sony is still free and is still not sued- I guess they have enough of their own patents. They are one of the few players on the field to have significant experience in software (good or bad, doesn’t matter).
Motorola doesn’t pay yet but is in litigation.
ZTE and Huawei too are free – we’ll see how long it will last as they are growing in market share and moving to higher-end devices.
This list isn’t complete – that is all I could think of.
Now one of them just needs to produce a Nexus device. Sony has a long history on it’s own of providing reasons to choose the competition though too.
I am deeply sickened by the behavior typified by both Apple and Microsoft with the patent trolling. It is quite sad that that neither company feels that innovation can be driven by fair competition. After all, the Macintosh would have never existed had it not been influenced by PARC. Windows would have never existed had it not been influenced by the Macintosh. So why are these companies behaving so badly today? May their execs all burn in Hell.
One single reason money. Google is also to blame here for doing absolute nothing and acting as if it wasn’t the company business to care about it.
Could google truly afford to indemnify all of the android manufacturers if they wanted to? It’s not a rhetorical question, I’m seriously asking whether they could afford it?
This chart shows just how weak google’s defensive mobile patent position is compared to those they’d be trying to help.
http://www.redmondpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/patent1.jpg
google’s share of mobile patent leverage is downright minuscule.
It really shouldn’t be a patent arms race though. The question is not “who holds more patents” but “does this implementation infring on this patent”.
jabbotts,
“It really shouldn’t be a patent arms race though. The question is not ‘who holds more patents’ but ‘does this implementation infring on this patent’.”
I know that, but our legal system is punishing companies that develop outside of the patent system. Unless an end to software patents is in sight, business may be forced to concede that they need software patents of their own to stay in business.
It’s possible that, if google had more patents of it’s own, it would have much more leverage to weigh in on the android patent assaults. It’s also possible that if google had a real arsenal, they would be on the offensive.
I know eliminating software patents is the real answer, but realistically what are the prospects of that happening? The US supreme confirmed that under current law, software patents are permissible. Congress, for it’s part, think the more “IP” the better. The Obama administration paid lip service essentially dismissing the issues.
Sounds like it’s time the voters make it clear to government that it is to represent them not big business and special interest influence peddlers.
I know.. it’s as likely to happen as meaningful patent reform. A geek can dream though.
Maybe they’re just not in a position to do much until the Moterola Mobility acquisition is finalized and they have the patents from that.
What can they do in this position? Sue for one company making agreements with another company? Microsoft have been vague enough, apart from highlighting patents, and Android, that Google would have little recourse^aEUR|
Apart from notifying the DoJ of anti^aEURtrust & anti^aEURcompetitive behaviour, but can you do that on just a rumour of large charges? You need evidence^aEUR|
Why do you guys always think that businesses should play fair? I don’t … I know that part of the equation of me doing a deal with them is that I get screwed a little bit, I just choose to get screwed less.
Have you heard the expressions
“All is fair in love and war”?
and
“Don’t hate the player, hate the game”
Basically capitalism works very much like evolution, those that adapt quickest will survive, those that don’t will end up like Dinosaurs.
Google only care about their services getting used on these devices. They don’t care about the OS or the fact that Microsoft are using patents to demand royalties.
Also do you honestly think that none of the Microsoft Patents won’t stand up in court? These companies can afford to fight a legal case with Microsoft, the reason they don’t is that
1) it isn’t economically viable, when they are selling these devices for almost ^Alb500-600, $15 (^Alb9) is worth it.
2) Microsoft might actually have valid patents.
If you want to win you gotta play Dirty. Argentina won the 1986 world cup thanks to the “hand of god” (look it up).
Edited 2012-01-12 21:16 UTC
In a democracy the people decide. So we should all hold these businesses to our rules. A business should do all it can to make money within our rules.
That’s the moronic thing in the US: corporations ARE people. Literally. They’re classified as people.
Because, as we all know, the Founding Fathers were all for large corporations trampling all over the rights of the real [i.e., living and breathing] people.
The constitution of the USA were a good idea at the time, kind of like the “ten commandments” were a really good idea when Moses came back down from a mountain.
There is also the right to bare arms, the idea being that the civilians could defend themselves as a militia against a repressive Government Army … that was a good idea AT THE TIME, it is a dumb idea now. The USA has the most powerful military force in History … ever!
Civilians with guns (no matter how powerful), would not last long against a few trained men. Don’t believe me, watch a program called something like “SAS Heroes” on Discovery (it is repeated all the time on the free Discovery Channel “Quest”) … there was an operation in the middle east that made Rambo 2,3 & 4 look tame in comparison.
EDIT: I am not saying that screwing people over is a good idea but saying the original idea at the time of conception should be carried over un-altered is stupid.
It is like Jeet Kun Do students saying they will only learn the Jeet Kun Do that Bruce Lee taught … ideas have moved on and some of Bruce Lee’s stuff will survive as long as there martial arts but sticking to his mindset at the time is ridiculous.
Edited 2012-01-12 22:08 UTC
Sorry for the off-topic, but…
Bruce Lee’s whole point in Jeet Kun Do was that the mindset of all other martial arts are very rigid and there are Moves and Counter-Moves for everything, which means unfortunately that if you’re an expert in one style then fighting someone in a different style could be difficult. Jeet Kun Do’s purpose was to simply go with the flow.
Only the thin, well-proportioned have the right to bare arms.
No they are not. Corporations are entities under the law who have certain rights that people have but it’s hyperbolic in the extreme to suggest that the two are considered equivalent.
A friend of mine once worked as a driver for Coca Cola. It was for a rather short time, but his one comment to me about it was that “Corporations at one point get so large that they may as well be a living entity.”
And it is doing so. It is called “playing the game” and they are playing it better than you.
I must have been too subtle with my words. What I meant to say is that the current rules are against the people. This means that consumers and small businesses are treated unfairly. We the people should not allow big businesses to treat us unfairly and this decision should be ours.
So, don’t blame the governments or the businesses … blame your fellows. This shit happened because of general apathy.
Then don’t let them … oh wait people are still going to buy iPads because the vast majority of people don’t care about you or your business or your values, when you change fundamental human behaviour then we can talk.
So you agree with my original point. Pitty you have to hide it in such an aggressive and offensive comment.
You went from
To
And to make it clear that the world would be a better place if everybody were more like you:
Lucas, if you really think that way, my condolences. What a bleak and cold world to live in.
Boohoo!
Seriously, “man the fuck up” if you are a guy, and “get with it girl” if you are a woman.
I accept the reality of a situation and get on with it instead of having a cry.
Tech problems like this are “First World Problems” and tbh I am quite fed up of them being labelled “important” … compared to all the actual horrible things that go on in the world.
One large corporation, screwing another not so large but still large corporation … go and cry me a river.
Have you heard of the term “fractally wrong”?
Have you heard of the term called “arsehole”?
You may not of heard of it, it is where someone does lots of quotes to some psychology bullshit in an attempt to look clever and then say someone view on the world is wrong … which btw is a matter of opinion not fact.
Have you heard the term “bitchslapped”? Because that’s what happened to you.
Fergy may have been inaccurate but at least was clever and novel.
Your pathetic rejoinder was merely timeworn invective.
Do better next time; I shudder to think you might do worse.
What we are seeing here is the death of idealism, tear by tear. Anybody who wastes time gnashing their teeth over patent trolls is wasting his or her time. The big players in the market don’t like patents — when they’re used against them — but they aren’t going to lobby to get rid of them, either, since patents provide them some measure of protection against people who want to rip them off.
Edited 2012-01-12 22:53 UTC
The problem is that things similar to this (lack of morale) actually cause problems in the first world. So the problem is the same, even if I agree that the effects in developing countries are way worse.
Look up Nestle to see the food sector. Maybe watch “We feed the world”. Maybe research for yourself.
>> Why do you guys always think that businesses should play fair?
I disagree. In a civilized society ‘playing fair’ is the ultimate goal. Corruption and dictatorship in any community should never be encouraged or supported. Simply because some regressive aspect was culturally acceptable in our history is a very weak argument. There are reasons why we no longer view feudalism or slavery as a part of a modern society.
>> Basically capitalism works very much like evolution.
Well, sadly America’s new version of capitalism does work like evolution, and the result is becoming very obvious it cannot sustain itself longer than a handful of generations. However, true fair-market capitalism, what we falsely claimed to endorse is a very different economic model.
Look I will leave this.
“Don’t hate the player, hate the game” the game is never going to change.
The whole world my friend is about who has the biggest cock. Why do you think they keep on building higher skyscrapers? … it is a massive cock that is fucking up the sky (it is in the name).
Why do you think there are twats that drive around in shit cars, with massive exhausts … it is all to prove that they have massive cocks.
It has been going on since humanity has existed. Don’t believe me? There was a Stone Age set of humans that was found recently, when they had enough of you, The males would wiggled their penis at you.
Your words are crude, but you’re essentially correct. The game isn’t going to change. The players simply need to adapt and evolve.
lucas_maximus,
“‘Don’t hate the player, hate the game’ the game is never going to change.”
They are not truly independent though. Corporations have more influence in government than the people which those governments are supposedly representing. As such, they do deserve blame for their role in creating “the game”.
I’m a firm believer that corporations should have -zero- influence in government. If they want to push for change, then they’ll have to push it through their employees and neighborhoods first.
The rest of your comment is quite colorful, but I’m not going to respond to it.
The game is going to change every second.
In this game Bonano and Gambino are criminals, because extorts others businesses, MS is not. IRA are terrorists because want to bomb London, USA are not because want to bomb Teheran. Conservative muslims are fanatics and discriminate women, conservative jews are not fanatics and do not discriminate women (especially about N.Y. buses).
It’s going off-topic and too political for my taste, so I stop here.
lucas_maximus,
“Why do you guys always think that businesses should play fair? I don’t … I know that part of the equation of me doing a deal with them is that I get screwed a little bit, I just choose to get screwed less.”
Ethically the world probably would be better off if everyone always played fairly. But companies get greedy and see opportunity in playing unfairly, and so they take unfair advantages to get ahead and even become role models. Their ethical failures are justified in the name of capitalism.
“Basically capitalism works very much like evolution, those that adapt quickest will survive, those that don’t will end up like Dinosaurs.”
I would say that of a meritocracy, but not of capitalism. Under capitalism, money begets money, probably more than abilities do.
Look businesses work to make profit. They have found a way without actually doing f–k all. It is genius in my opinion.
BTW Sir Issac Newton also used to do similar shit.
You know Calculus … he created that and put it in a draw and thought nothing of it until another French Chap had the same idea … then Isaac reached into his draw and pulled out his proofs, dated several years earlier.
This sort of stuff isn’t modern … just on a larger scale
Edited 2012-01-12 22:50 UTC
IOW, they’ve found a way to prevent other companies from ripping them off. Which Google would certainly do — and does — when given the opportunity.
You have to be kidding. Only a handful of high end Android devices (eg Samsung Galaxy S2) are anywhere near $800-1000 to purchase outright. Most devices are well under $500. Many are only $100-200. Some of the Huawei models are under $100 (unlocked Huawei X1 = $70).
$15 represents the entire profit margin of virtually any low end models.
Or, put another way, it’s a shame that Google is using technology patented by Microsoft and Apple…
I’m fairly sure that OSAlert, as a site, probably violates AT LEAST 500 different software patents.
We can’t pay licences, and we don’t even have the resources to negotiate all those deals. We don’t have the means to perform a patent investigation, nor to develop around them. Should we just cease to exist?
Thom Holwerda,
“We can’t pay licences, and we don’t even have the resources to negotiate all those deals. We don’t have the means to perform a patent investigation, nor to develop around them. Should we just cease to exist?”
Patent holders will look the other way until you are worth suing over. I keep saying it, the only saving grace of the current patent system is that it’s so poorly enforced. Otherwise, every software developer would be so tied up by patent infringement lawsuits and patent avoidance work that no real work could get done.
To be fair to the patent system, it is true as a whole that if every law in a given country was suddenly enforced, everything would come to a grinding halt
Once legal systems become as convoluted and absurdly exhaustive as they are today, being guilty is not a question anymore. The question is who has the best lawyers…
This reminds me of something I was thinking about this morning. With the whole SOPA bullcrap flying around, couldn’t you essentially put a copyright notice on a web page, then any person who simply browses to your page could be sued?
Think about it. “This work is copyrighted.” Oops, your browser cached the files on your computer, you have made a copy of a copyrighted document. You are now in infringement.
This is how lame SOPA is, and Software Patents are right up there. The OSAlert copyright properly states that “Reproduction of OSAlert stories is permitted only with explicit authorization from OSAlert. Reproductions must be properly credited.” So this page specifically states that anyone browsing here is good to go, since they are giving permission explicitly from this site to copy their web contents. But how many other say such things?
But Google and LG do have the money
I truly hope Barnes and Noble will at least win injunction to disclose what patents are in question.
MS is deadly smart not to disclose them because the are fully aware the work to bypass it would start in OSS community and Google at this very moment. For the same reason MS will not try to approach Motorola.
The fact that even Samsung (having ways more patents than MS) succumbed gives a lot of credibility to MS claims, nevertheless we will never surely know what was actually signed and if the agreements are even comparable.
Anyway, looks like Google purchase of Motorola is not paying off as expected.
The irony is that patent details are supposed to be made public in such disputes so that others can choose to license or create alternative solutions. Hiding details and discussions behind NDA seems a pretty blatant attempt to stifle the creation of competitive solutions.
Another risk is having patents invalidated. Exposing them to a court battle can result in having them revoked do to being obvious to anyone trained in the discapline or similar. Again it would seem like a blatant intent to exploit the patent system by hiding known weak patents from being reviewed and revoked.
Ok, I don’t get this. How can you sue someone for infringing on something and then NOT disclose what it is. I mean, was this designed specifically to encourage abuse and fraud?
How do we know that it is not MS paying Sumsung rather than the other way round, rather like MS with Novell and Linux except even more hidden. MS says to Samsung you pay us $x for for our patents that “cover Android” and we will pay you $(x+y) for protection from all your patents. Samsung gets money from MS.
Now MS goes to smaller Android phone producing companies and says look “Samsung is paying us $x for our patent coverage of Android, you better pay up or else”. Samsung gets it’s Android phones subsidized by MS and can compete more effectively against the other Android manufacturers. MS gets leverage to extract protection money from these very same other manufacturers. Samsung and MS are laughing all the way to the bank.
I think such a scenario is perfectly possible given the history of these companies.
Isn’t that a criminal act? Last time I checked patents were legal. I guess they still are. And even if companies believe that the patents Microsoft allegedly holds aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, most of them still pay. Because it’s beneficial to them. More beneficial than a long legal drama.
Fact check: patents are legal; companies aren’t forced to pay Microsoft, as they could go to court.
Therefore you can’t use the word “extortion” here. As simple as that.
You can call it however you want. It still remains a protection racket scheme in essence. If some broken laws make such racket “legal” – it’s the problem of the laws in the first place.
Edited 2012-01-12 19:47 UTC
“This is a nice shop and that’s a nice product you got there. Sure be a shame if you had to go bankrupt over legal fees. Can you really afford a drawn out legal battle against our litigation budget? Sure be a shame.. Best just to pay my associate here when he comes round weekly to collect isn’t it?”
Classic protection racket. Lucky for them that the US has a legal system not a justice system.
Facts (at least, to me, so it seems):
– Copyright system on USA has been abused, and it is getting worse;
– Patent system should never be used the way it is for software and design. Actually, it should not be used at all. We have passed the ridiculous point a long ago and, unbelievable, it is also getting worse;
– Both systems may influence the money big corporations and, as a side effect, legislators and government, can make (bribe should not be discounted too). Yeah, a bad synergy ring of doom, specially if you are a “came late, want to be in” underdog “want to be big”;
– USA is the biggest market now, if you happen to be from other country, would you pass the opportunity to sell there? Yeah, I guessed so;
– Big corporations, and the countries where they originated, specially on USA, have ammassed a huge stock of this BS. It has a cost of course. Do you think they would do it and not go aggressively to make money from this? Do that give them the power to exploit, err, daunt, hum, I mean, look for fair compensation for all the hard work they did, even if it was not that hard, or was kind of obvious, or even was independently developed? Yeesss!
– Can big countries influence (and threaten and/or bribe) international trade organisms and, even more so, local leaders? You bet;
– Are most of us selfish, specially against a non-local competing groups? Would we develop, tune and use the weapons we have to require submission and ask for compensation to all trouble they created?
Seriously, the only way this mess can be reduced is through a more balanced distribution of power between nations and people. I guess it is happening now, with the advances on education, specially on the emerging economies, and the flow of information the new technologies made readily available. That is why the powerful “human gods” are so afraid and so keen to “put the cats back in the bag”, they do not want to lose their “edge”.
Until a better balance be achieved, big countries and corporations will threaten everyone else to settle and we will have big, fat cows flying over our heads.
Novell’s. The whole SCO fiasco, then led to Novell signing patent agreements with Microsoft, now somehow these software patents are in Linux, so they must be in Android, right?
I think the reason Google hasn’t jumped in and tried to help is because these manufacturer’s are the ones who are distributing the phones along with Android OS, Google only distributes the software to the OEMs. So they really aren’t even remotely breaking any patents themselves anyhow. Google doesn’t provide anything but source code, since most of these software patents are simply ideas, source code itself doesn’t infringe, because after all, source code isn’t really functional by itself.
Once it’s modified, compiled and shipped out to users, that’s the level it’s ‘infringing’ at. Let’s face it, the whole situation is bullshit and a racket, anyway you look at it.
Every time I hear anything about Patents though, I have to think about Apple’s patent to create a charging cable that stores passwords… why the hell would you even want that???
Patent protection as covered by the US Constitution was created to protect individual inventions which are only hardware as software did not exist when the founding documents were created. Since software patents were never considered, they cannot exist as that would require a change in the Constitution to include any subjects that did not exist when written. The lawyers like to ignore that bit of inconvenient common law theory.
I’m fairly certain the Founding Fathers also didn’t consider the inalienable right to own assault rifles and concealable automatic pistols.
When IP is respected everyone wins.
Hussein,
“When IP is respected everyone wins.”
…said the academic student.
I cannot tell if that was sarcasm, but you have to ask who’s “IP” should be respected? Most inventions are co-developed independently with no knowledge of the other developers. When a bunch of developers are tasked with solving the same problems, they’ll naturally come up with overlapping solutions. Even when each puts in the necessary research, patents grant a monopoly to one developer at the expense of the others who now need to buy a license to utilize and sell their own work.
Most software developers are happier just to ignore the patent system even exists because it represents a net loss to our industry, the main beneficiaries being the lawyers of course.
Edited 2012-01-13 13:50 UTC
It’s interesting how people completely ignore the fact that there’s nothing illegal going on, and certainly not extortion. Why is FUD like this even being posted? I suppose because people’s person dislikes for certain companies is more important that actual facts. Typical media outlet I suppose.
Just because something is not illegal, does not make it ethically okay or acceptable. Some of us have the ability to think for themselves, instead of just accepting what we’re being spoonfed.
Then again, you’re one of our resident Apple fanboys – so I’m not entirely sure you grasp that concept.
Ethics and morality is based on personal opinion and preference, nothing more. The ‘ethical’ argument will never be right or wrong.
You looking at something from your own idea of an ethical standpoint certainly does not automagically make you a ‘thinker’. Considering things from a pure legal standpoint doesn’t automagically make a person a ‘non-thinker’ or ‘spoonfed’. It’s laughable you claim to be a ‘thinker’, yet it’s still necessary to point even basic things out to you.
At the end of the day it’s the law that matters, not your personal opinion. There’s nothing wrong with debating opinion, just make sure you keep things in perspective next time rather than make blatantly false claims & accusations. You only hurt your own credibility with that silly shit.
Are you really this stupid? I’m not a ‘fanboy’ for anything except maybe vacationing in nice weather. Unlike you, I don’t emotionally attach myself to any brands, companies, or products. I’ve noticed your typical reaction to people who disagree with your views is to point & cry ‘fanboy’. The funny thing is, the only person you’re describing is yourself.
Be smarter. Be better. At least try.
ilovebeer,
“Ethics and morality is based on personal opinion and preference, nothing more. The ‘ethical’ argument will never be right or wrong.”
Ethics is almost entirely dedicated to the study of right and wrong. It is subjective and far from an exact science, but in general terms doing public harm is wrong even when it’s legal. I certainly hope for the sake of humanity that you don’t disagree with this in principal.
“At the end of the day it’s the law that matters, not your personal opinion.”
This attitude can only make the world worse. Trying to live by a personal code of ethics is crucially important if we want to make the world a better place. (Though clearly greed is more important to some.)
“Be smarter. Be better. At least try.”
Your criticism of Thom is unwarranted, it’s a good thing to try to live by high ethical standards even when they’re not written in law.
You admit yourself that ethics is subjective. Therefore, you concede my point.
First, understand that individual behavior and a company acting, legally, to protect its interests are not the same thing. Second, the law is the law whether you like it or not. Your buddy Thom is falsely accusing Microsoft of extortion. In the real world, the law decides whether or not that’s true, not his blatant bias personal dislike & opinion. And so far the law does not agree with Thommy boy so in this context, yes, the law it what matters.
My criticism of Thom is just as ‘justified’ and appropriate and your criticism of my response to his false claims and FUD. Also, I hope you’re not implying that Thom holds himself to a high ethical standard. He is, after all, the one making false accusations (again) and known for quickly pointing his finger and crying ‘fanboy’ to those who disagree with his views. Hardly the behavior of a person subscribed to the act of being highly ethical.
Btw, it’s not as if I’m saying anything new here. I’m just one of many who have observed this type of behavior from Thom.
ilovebeer,
“You admit yourself that ethics is subjective. Therefore, you concede my point.”
Just because ethics are subjective, it doesn’t mean that it’s ok to do things you know are wrong. Are you really disagreeing with me on this? If so…sad.
“First, understand that individual behavior and a company acting, legally, to protect its interests are not the same thing.”
Bad deeds are not ethically nullified simply because they’re committed under a corporate umbrella.
“Also, I hope you’re not implying that Thom holds himself to a high ethical standard.”
I dare say he’s holding himself to a higher ethical standard than you for having an ethical standard at all. There’s more to being a good corporate or human citizen than merely following the law. If more people recognized that, then the world would be a much better place.
The discussion is not a debate on whether or not anything is right or wrong, it’s if Microsoft is acting within its legal right — which they are.
You admit ethics are a matter of opinion, yet you persist on acting as if your opinion is the authority on the matter. Rather than pretending you decide what’s right/wrong, how about you preface these comments with, “It’s my opinion that….”
You have no clue what my ethical views are as I’ve not commented on them, so for you to suggest I have none is blatantly ignorant to say the least. You really need to work on your comprehesion. I shouldn’t have to tell you that stating law is nothing more than that.
Further, the fact that you praise a person who knowingly publishes false information and disregards/name-calls those with alternate views and beliefs only shows how shallow you are. In addition to that, you have the nerve to talk about making the world being a better place when you yourself are guilty of spreading FUD.
It’s probably time to get out of the sandbox and try on a pair of big boy pants for a change…
“The discussion is not a debate on whether or not anything is right or wrong, it’s if Microsoft is acting within its legal right — which they are.”
You kind of missed my point, which is that having an ethical standard means you follow ethical principals that go beyond mere laws. Anyone having an ethical standard *should* recognize that.
You still don’t get that your personal opinion of what’s ethical behavior and what isn’t holds absolutely no water in the real world? Wow… Try to file legal action against Microsoft on the grounds they’re violating your opinion of ethics — see how far you get with that.
You do realize that I have not once said that ethical behavior is a bad thing, right? No, obviously not. I’ve already stated I’m talking about whether or not Microsoft is acting within the law or not. What do I need to do for you to understand that simple concept? Write it in crayon?
ilovebeer,
Please re-read my original statement more carefully with emphasis added:
“Just because ethics are subjective, it doesn’t mean that it’s ok to do things *you* know are wrong. Are you really disagreeing with me on this? If so…sad. “
Refer to my previous post.
Give up. I’m not even sure that this fellow passes the Turing test
Neolander,
No I guess not, haha.
Edit: Unethical machines come up now and then in scifi, but I wonder if we, as computer scientists, could program a machine to make ethical decisions? Hard coded rules would have the same types of shortcomings as public laws, in that it’s impossible to explicitly codify every moral circumstance, leaving loopholes. It’d be a fascinating thesis to consider whether adaptive ethical judgment can be made from a turing complete machine.
Edited 2012-01-16 08:38 UTC
Oh the irony from the kid who is about as sharp as a stick of warm butter… You may not good for insightful conversation or debate, but at least you’re entertaining.
Thom, OSAlert is not your personal blog.
Just when I thought I chose the right phone manufacturer by getting an LG Optimus V. I’ve only had it for maybe 3 months. And now they pull this shit…
Edited 2012-01-14 19:56 UTC
I would be tempted to say that buying stuff from LG is never a good idea, but that would be speaking from anecdotal evidence.
Every LG phone I have ever bought or used was at best badly designed and at worst barely usable. Maybe their high-end is better though.
at least people aren’t using iPhones. I have an HTC EVO 4G not an iPhone only because Adobe is coming out with Edge for Android first and I want to use it sooner rather than later. I may be stupid but does MS make phones? never looked into it, sorry if I’m naive if they do. this whole thing just boggles my mind. I’m a sr citizen and all this new tech crap gets to me. I’m trying though. just ignore this..