Home > Regular Features > Monday Message Board

Monday Message Board

August 27th, 2012

Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language. Lengthy side discussions to the sandpits, please.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Ikonoclast
    August 27th, 2012 at 08:57 | #1

    I am no expert on Intellectual Property law. However, the ruling in favour of Apple over Samsung looks concerning at a number of levels.

    I quote from Chris Davies on Slashgear. -

    “The validity of the jury decision in the Apple vs. Samsung patent trial has come under renewed scrutiny, with concerns that the speedy ruling could mean fundamental aspects of the process have been overlooked. Many were surprised that the jury in the San Jose case reached its $1bn decision against Samsung in just three days, despite the complexity of the suit;…”

    My questions would be;

    1. Is it fair or valid for a court of US jurors to award the verdict (and$1 billion) to a US company Apple over a foreign company. Don’t the jurors have a conflict of interest?

    2. Are not many of the things Apple is claiming IP for so basic and generic in a design (and fashion) sense that it’s a bit like an auto company trying to patent the steering wheel and leather seats?

  2. Tom
    August 27th, 2012 at 09:38 | #2

    @Ikonoclast

    Some people don’t believe conflict of interest is a problem when it suits themselves. One do not need to go further than looking at people who advocates privatisation of water, energy and public transport etc.

  3. Freelander
    August 27th, 2012 at 17:08 | #3

    @Ikonoclast

    In the US it would have been traitorous if the decision had gone the other, the non American way. When will the rest of the West get sick of these regular shakedowns by the self announced “only superpower (left) in the village”. There exorbitant privilege is not only their cruddy currency being used as the global reserve but the way they grossly tilt the “level” playing field in their favour, obey on those laws they wish to obey, and seem to be succeeding in enforcing there own domestic laws civil and criminal as those they are international law, and adas though US jurisdiction is without bound. The rest of us in the west were safer when the Soviet empires existence seem to put some constraint on American behaviour, and decency was not unknown. What a disappointment Obama must have been (my own expectation had not been high). If I was black I would feel compelled to call him a marshmallow. But he constitutes simply the latest in an unbroken series of war criminals who have occupied that office since the Submariner lost.

  4. Katz
    August 27th, 2012 at 17:22 | #4

    Question: What relevance does the decision of a California jury have with the putative status of the US as a superpower?

    Answer: None at all.

  5. Freelander
    August 27th, 2012 at 17:31 | #5

    “Conflict of interest” I do imagine Samsung would have fared better with a South Korean “jury of their peers”!

  6. Freelander
    August 27th, 2012 at 17:36 | #6

    @Katz

    Sometimes I wish I was really really dumb. Life for the naturally unaware must be often so stress free. Albeit punctuated with clamiteous surprises.

  7. Freelander
    August 27th, 2012 at 17:40 | #7

    Answer: … those who can’t answer that correctly, themselves, wouldn’t “handle the answer” so … why bother.

  8. Freelander
    August 27th, 2012 at 17:45 | #8

    IP claims too often remind of the fencing off of the Commons. No creation, just alienating historical owners from their jointly held property.

  9. Katz
    August 27th, 2012 at 18:12 | #9

    Gratuitous insult deleted. Please, nothing more like this from anyone

  10. Freelander
    August 30th, 2012 at 14:41 | #10

    Apparently a book has just been released outlining the inside scoop on the murder of bin Laden (and desecration of his remains, no doubt).

    What might make it worth a read is that apparently it is not an identica story to the prime time “wag the dog” version.

  11. pablo
    August 30th, 2012 at 18:01 | #11

    Monday 27th follows the Friday meeting of all state and territory ministers responsible for the passage of container deposit legislation, or how the rest of Australia can catch up with SA and the NT governments. These meetings seem to always be held on a Friday somewhere and you really need to search the news media for a result in the following week.
    Media comment leading up to the Friday talkfest was predictably negative with plenty of suggestions that ‘ministers will kick the can down the road’ rather than make a decision that the container packaging people won’t like.
    Sure enough, the very brief mentions this week are that the decision is delayed another year as ‘more information’ is sought by a committee of underlings charged with this heavy responsibility.
    Media cynicism was on the money. The ministers all flew off into the Friday sunset… job done for another year.

  12. Freelander
    August 30th, 2012 at 22:50 | #12

    As Monbiot notes in his guardian column, some brave souls are providing cash rewards for any other brave soul who attempts to address the highly mobile war criminal (albeit sadly yet to be convicted) Tony Blair. Too bad there is no antithesis of the Koch brothers to finance the attempted arrest of the complete set. Maybe they could comeout with their pictures playing cards along with crimes and prices on their heads. I wonder if an Ossama style “arrest” of Blair would elicit a bonus. With that type of vigorous arrest, the state saved a bundle on the (always risky) trial stage.

  13. Freelander
    August 30th, 2012 at 22:52 | #13

    Arrest, grr not address.

  14. Fran Barlow
    September 1st, 2012 at 17:08 | #14

    Much has been made of the shambolic Clint Eastwood presentation at the RNC at Tampa. @invisibleobam (whose avatar is an empty chair) now has 61,870 followers. For those with too much time on your hands right now, the author has a sense of humour.

    The more telling thing about the Clint Eastwood matter is how the RNC let him overshadow Romney (and allow Christie and Rubio effectively to make application speeches for the 2016 nomination.)

    Eastwood’s footage — clearly off teleprompter — was what led the news at 10 — rather than what Romney’s campaign — and they in practice ought to have been in charge of his coronation — and yet they let him ramble on for 12 or so minutes, during which

    a) he patronised the sitting POTUS (pun intended) and at one point told him to shut up.
    b) implied that Obama should go f&ck himself
    c) made a throat cutting gesture in relation to getting rid of someone who doesn’t do his job (by implication the invisible POTUS in the chair. )
    d) implied that going into Afghanistan was a stupid idea and that Romney wanted to leave Afghanistan ASAP

    Romney is boasting about his competence to run America as a business — and indeed, Eastwood referred to to the need to put a businessman “a stellar businessman” rather than an attorney. Yet Romney somehow managed to utterly screw up the biggest media pay day he was ever getting. By today, Ann Romney was doing damage control. On the day after his she had said “this man will not fail” — it was clear that he had indeed failed — spectacularly.

    He was doing jokes about climate change, and dragging Neil Armstrong into his remarks noted that when you wanted something big done — you needed an American. It was a clear wink at the birthers.

    I can’t wait for the debates. He is going to be humiliated — well he ought to be anyway.

  15. Nick
  16. Freelander
    September 3rd, 2012 at 03:46 | #16

    Clint is a surprisingly better actor than many had imagined back in the day when he was asking others to make his, and as a director has also made some surprisingly subtle and nuanced films.

    His Romney Ryan support routine might be his most surprising role yet. Certainly created a spectacle with commentators seemly split on how palatable or helpful.

    A problem with having such a star support act is the risk of overshadowing the main act, which numerous reports suggested happened.

  17. rog
    September 3rd, 2012 at 06:03 | #17

    You can file this under “cutting govt spending is only bad if it’s to the military/pharmas” dept.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/mitt-romney-weaponized-keynesian/

  18. Troy Prideaux
    September 3rd, 2012 at 08:37 | #18

    @rog
    It’s a disgrace, but at least they’re spending those defence dollars on their own white collar welfare defence programs. We also contribute significantly to *their* defence industry, but it’s dollars going out of our economy so we can assist in their disasterous wars whenever they request:(

  19. Katz
    September 3rd, 2012 at 09:34 | #19

    Romney needs to mobilise the base. Eastwood’s furniture colloquy speaks to the condition of the base. They see nothing unusual about muttering at inanimate objects.

  20. Ernestine Gross
    September 3rd, 2012 at 18:07 | #20

    Interesting interpretations of Clint Eastwood’s performance. There is essentially no limit on what people can read into this performance. All I could see is Clint Eastwood sometimes looking at an empty chair. Perhaps he was annoyed at the stage manager having left a chair on the stage – being upstaged, so to speak, by a simple chair may have been offensive to Eastwood. Who knows and who cares?

  21. Freelander
    September 3rd, 2012 at 19:19 | #21

    Clint is not a perfect human being. Still he is not ssome mindless wooden ham with a preposterously pretentious name like Chartlon Heston (a moniker sounding more like a place to avoid than something loving parents might inflict on a son). No, Clint, like Arnie (but not Jean Claude, and certainly not Chuck Norris), rightly belongs in that Pantheon of action thespians bringing death dealing and other fantasy mayhem to our otherwise mundane lives. So he’s made a few mistakes in his politics. I hope like me you forgive him. What I really wanted him to do while at the rostrum is refuse to give it up to the next speaker with a riff on his gun toting fellow Republicans favorite hairy chested words. To wit, in vain I waited for Clint to mouth “I’ll give up my microphone when you pry it from my old, wizened hands!”

  22. Katz
    September 3rd, 2012 at 19:52 | #22

    A distinction should be made between what Eastwood may have intended and how his speech was certainly interpreted.

    Quite clearly, spokespeople of powerful interests are keen to ensure that the speech is parsed in a favourable way.

  23. Fran Barlow
    September 3rd, 2012 at 20:06 | #23

    For mine, this was the most amusing response to the @invisibleobama / Eastwood matter

    Colbert Interviews teh Chair

  24. Freelander
    September 3rd, 2012 at 20:10 | #24

    Like Kremlinlogy, I see a new quasi-science (Clintology) under development. While that old science keep plenty employed while providing little if any insight, i wonder how Clintology will fare?

  25. Freelander
    September 4th, 2012 at 17:46 | #25

    The Economist magazine, that comic book for non-economists, where it’s best appreciated if you avoid the lack of thought bubbles has its typically perverted take on the Apple American shakedown of Samsung. There sentiment “iPhone uCopy uSue” .

    Fairer sentiment — iAmerican uNot iScrew!

  26. Freelander
    September 4th, 2012 at 17:47 | #26

    Oops iSue.

  27. Freelander
    September 4th, 2012 at 17:50 | #27

    @Fran Barlow

    Colbert (and Stewart) great as usual!

Comments are closed.