Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Tankwatch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sylvester80 who wrote (13948)	12/20/2011 10:07:44 PM
From: zax	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32692

Great article. Makes the point very clear.

To: sylvester80 who wrote (13948)	12/20/2011 10:12:32 PM
From: rnsmth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32692

If Apple wins, intellectual property wins. Google is opposed to intellectual property that they do not hold. They are outlaws and thieves.

To: sylvester80 who wrote (13948)	12/20/2011 10:29:15 PM
From: pyslent	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 32692

This is the crux of the matter-- Apple can and should should defend its innovations from theft. From the authors' own words: The iPhone was like nothing that came before. And Apple should be able to protect its innovations and intellectual property. Granted, the iPhone was a sea change. So was the iPad. And Apple ought to be able to protect the innovations and intellectual property that set those devices apart. If the author concedes these points, then how would he suggest protecting Apple's innovations? And what were these innovations that the author suggests "set these devices apart?" Apple will argue that every one of its 200 iPhone-related inventions contribute to the whole that makes the iPhone unique and innovative. And they will argue those points one-by-one. And if history is any guide, it will win some and lose some. What's wrong with that?

To: sylvester80 who wrote (13948)	12/20/2011 10:33:56 PM
From: yofal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32692

We all lose? I love how Google tied into the open source subculture to in turn Apple into "the man". But to think it's anything more than a grass roots marketing strategy is to miss the point. Apple's "think different" was one too. And to a certain extent, Apple has become "the establishment", a utility, an infrastructure. However the author seems unaware of a lot of details of history and makes many great leaps in logic that ignore significant developments. It makes his argument seem neat and tidy, when it really isn't. To then compare Apple to Wallace is just absurd. Why doesn't he just evoke Hitler and get it over with?