If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Samsung sues Apple for patent infringement, claiming giving iPhone 4 Viagra was their idea   (bbc.com) divider line 35
    More: Interesting, iPhone, Samsung, Northern District of California, software patents, 4G LTE, system software, drug therapies, Richard Posner  
•       •       •

2300 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Oct 2012 at 10:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



35 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-02 10:39:25 AM
I'm sure all of the people who were supposedly anti-Apple for suing Samsung will be in here expressing their anti-Samsung statements, any day now.

/no, of course not. It'll be all "ha, Apple's getting a taste of its own medicine!"
 
2012-10-02 10:42:44 AM

Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who were supposedly anti-Apple for suing Samsung will be in here expressing their anti-Samsung statements, any day now.

/no, of course not. It'll be all "ha, Apple's getting a taste of its own medicine!"


I think this lawsuit is every bit as much bullshiat as the one Apple initiated. 4 minutes good enough?
 
2012-10-02 10:43:36 AM

Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who were supposedly anti-Apple for suing Samsung will be in here expressing their anti-Samsung statements, any day now.

/no, of course not. It'll be all "ha, Apple's getting a taste of its own medicine!"


Hey now! The thread shall not only be that, it will also contain:

1) Anecdotes from friends who are engineers being told to patent a hatrack
2) posts that quote liberally from patent titles/abstracts to support arguments but that ignore actual claims/specifications
3) fanboy-ery of every stripe
4) mistaking patent for trademark for copyright
5) no actual substantive discussions regarding anti-commons, patent thickets, the possibility of government mandated patent pools as happened for airplanes and cars, the new paradigm of post-KSR obviousness, the AIA and its potential effects moving forward, or pictures of boobs

i mostly am sad that there will be no boobs
 
2012-10-02 10:48:42 AM

Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who were supposedly anti-Apple for suing Samsung will be in here expressing their anti-Samsung statements, any day now.

/no, of course not. It'll be all "ha, Apple's getting a taste of its own medicine!"

Hey now! The thread shall not only be that, it will also contain:

1) Anecdotes from friends who are engineers being told to patent a hatrack
2) posts that quote liberally from patent titles/abstracts to support arguments but that ignore actual claims/specifications
3) fanboy-ery of every stripe
4) mistaking patent for trademark for copyright
5) no actual substantive discussions regarding anti-commons, patent thickets, the possibility of government mandated patent pools as happened for airplanes and cars, the new paradigm of post-KSR obviousness, the AIA and its potential effects moving forward, or pictures of boobs

i mostly am sad that there will be no boobs


There will be plenty of boobs, but no pictures.
 
2012-10-02 10:50:14 AM

Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who were supposedly anti-Apple for suing Samsung will be in here expressing their anti-Samsung statements, any day now.

/no, of course not. It'll be all "ha, Apple's getting a taste of its own medicine!"


This is every bit as justified as suing Samsung over rounded corners and a list of icons was.
 
2012-10-02 10:55:18 AM

LordJiro: Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who were supposedly anti-Apple for suing Samsung will be in here expressing their anti-Samsung statements, any day now.

/no, of course not. It'll be all "ha, Apple's getting a taste of its own medicine!"

This is every bit as justified as suing Samsung over rounded corners and a list of icons was.


That's such an odd statement. First, this is justified for significantly different reasons and doesn't involve design patents at all, and second, Apple didn't sue over "rounded corners and a list of icons". In combination, the two clauses are a total non-sequitur.
 
2012-10-02 10:59:36 AM

emocomputerjock: Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who were supposedly anti-Apple for suing Samsung will be in here expressing their anti-Samsung statements, any day now.

/no, of course not. It'll be all "ha, Apple's getting a taste of its own medicine!"

I think this lawsuit is every bit as much bullshiat as the one Apple initiated. 4 minutes good enough?


But Apple was awarded $1 billion for that bullshiat. If this tells anyone anything, it's that we're all working in the wrong field and we should become patent lawyers.
 
2012-10-02 11:07:51 AM

Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who were supposedly anti-Apple for suing Samsung will be in here expressing their anti-Samsung statements, any day now.

/no, of course not. It'll be all "ha, Apple's getting a taste of its own medicine!"

Hey now! The thread shall not only be that, it will also contain:

1) Anecdotes from friends who are engineers being told to patent a hatrack
2) posts that quote liberally from patent titles/abstracts to support arguments but that ignore actual claims/specifications
3) fanboy-ery of every stripe
4) mistaking patent for trademark for copyright
5) no actual substantive discussions regarding anti-commons, patent thickets, the possibility of government mandated patent pools as happened for airplanes and cars, the new paradigm of post-KSR obviousness, the AIA and its potential effects moving forward, or pictures of boobs

i mostly am sad that there will be no boobs


Hi There

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-02 11:11:56 AM
boobies and viagra on the same thread? staying focused will not be a problem, I am sure.
 
2012-10-02 11:39:38 AM
www.timemachinego.com 

/just stop with the shenanigans already you two.
 
2012-10-02 11:54:24 AM

Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who were supposedly anti-Apple for suing Samsung will be in here expressing their anti-Samsung statements, any day now.

/no, of course not. It'll be all "ha, Apple's getting a taste of its own medicine!"


Sorry, but when a company that stole a tech and then sues someone else for using it can go bite Bender's shiny metal ass for all I care. I am rooting for Samsung on this one.
 
2012-10-02 12:17:17 PM
Turn about is fair play... I hope they destroy each other.
 
2012-10-02 12:54:36 PM
Oh-look-a-patent-lawsuit.

The sun must have risen.

IP lawyers have joined personal injury attorneys as the second biggest hell-bound scumbags (right after Nazis and reality TV stars).
 
2012-10-02 12:55:30 PM

PsyLord: [www.timemachinego.com image 300x220] 

/just stop with the shenanigans already you two.


...and HTC, and Motorola, and Microsoft, and...
 
2012-10-02 12:59:02 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: IP lawyers have joined personal injury attorneys as the second biggest hell-bound scumbags (right after Nazis and reality TV stars).


And people shilling for big tech companies against patent lawsuits have joined people shilling for big insurance companies against personal injury suits as the first biggest hell-bound scumbags (right in there with the Nazis and reality TV stars, since you apparently don't mind having a tie for first place).
 
2012-10-02 01:00:09 PM

Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who were supposedly anti-Apple for suing Samsung will be in here expressing their anti-Samsung statements, any day now.

/no, of course not. It'll be all "ha, Apple's getting a taste of its own medicine!"


There is pleasure to be had in Apple, a company built upon stealing ideas that then turned around and became patent whores (involving some particularly truly absurd patents, mind you), gets their comeuppance.

That said, no, it's still annoying. All of these companies need to quit it. The only loser is every small company/entrepreneur that can't afford to patent every single goddamned idea that they fart out by putting random technical concepts in a hat and pulling them out raffle-style.

So, no, you're wrong. This blows.
 
2012-10-02 01:02:53 PM

Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: IP lawyers have joined personal injury attorneys as the second biggest hell-bound scumbags (right after Nazis and reality TV stars).

And people shilling for big tech companies against patent lawsuits have joined people shilling for big insurance companies against personal injury suits as the first biggest hell-bound scumbags (right in there with the Nazis and reality TV stars, since you apparently don't mind having a tie for first place).


Your comment is absurd. Big companies are FOR patent lawsuits, clearly.

And yeah, no problem with a tie. It was hard, but I really do think Nazis are right there with reality celebrities. I know I know, "lay off the Nazis, SacriliciousBeerSwiller, they weren't THAT bad..."
 
2012-10-02 01:17:17 PM
My mostly anti-apple view on the situation with the assumption that technology patents are bullshiat because they are.

Apple actually believes that it is their, and theirs only, god given right to produce anything that looks, feels, and acts like a smartphone. They believe they are actually going to get the 1 billion from Samsung and anyone else they are suing and that the end result of this litigation is the iphone being the only available smart phone on the market.

Samsung is just flinging a bunch of litigation out there in hopes that eventually Apple will agree to disagree and just drop all litigation to end this bullshiat. They do not actually think they will get any financial damages or the iphone pulled from the market.
 
2012-10-02 01:18:04 PM

Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who were supposedly anti-Apple for suing Samsung will be in here expressing their anti-Samsung statements, any day now.

/no, of course not. It'll be all "ha, Apple's getting a taste of its own medicine!"


Apple is getting a taste of its own medicine. They wanted a patent fight and now they have one. They brought this onto themselves.
 
2012-10-02 01:19:42 PM
I still don't understand how they can patent a shape. If so, clothing manufacturers would be filing suit against each other all the time. Same with the auto industry.
 
2012-10-02 01:21:18 PM
Ladies, ladies, you both pertty.
 
2012-10-02 01:26:19 PM

PsyLord: I still don't understand how they can patent a shape. If so, clothing manufacturers would be filing suit against each other all the time.


Lululemon v. Calvin Klein

Same with the auto industry.

Ford v. aftermarket manufacturers
 
2012-10-02 01:27:51 PM
WSJ grabbed my link. But anyway, Lululemon is suing Calvin Klein over their patented yoga pants.
 
2012-10-02 02:31:43 PM

Theaetetus: LordJiro: Theaetetus: I'm sure all of the people who were supposedly anti-Apple for suing Samsung will be in here expressing their anti-Samsung statements, any day now.

/no, of course not. It'll be all "ha, Apple's getting a taste of its own medicine!"

This is every bit as justified as suing Samsung over rounded corners and a list of icons was.

That's such an odd statement. First, this is justified for significantly different reasons and doesn't involve design patents at all, and second, Apple didn't sue over "rounded corners and a list of icons". In combination, the two clauses are a total non-sequitur.


Yet the rounded corners and icons was part of apple's arguments in court (at least in euope). I believe they were also an item in the overall ruling against samsung in the US.

Now I feel these scorched earth tactics are stupid and castrate consumer options.

I also think it was more about the temp injunctions against sales in regions against competing products while apple's products are available. With many people impatient, it gives you a good chance for market penetration.

I blame both sides yet I see why samsung is doing this. If they can get an injunction against apple, they can trade bans on sales for eachother.

Frankly, I think patents and trademarks should be treatied like government treaties. Once in place, announced by the holder publically so it cannot be used after something has on the market and making $$$, then ambush somone with it.

Apple makes a good product. I will not deny this. However it is not for me. Apple sends the message they hold me in contempt for this because they are not getting my money.

/incoherent ramble off
 
2012-10-02 02:34:11 PM

PsyLord: I still don't understand how they can patent a shape. If so, clothing manufacturers would be filing suit against each other all the time. Same with the auto industry.


In that particular case, it isn't a patent but a trade-dress. Trade-dresses are different than patents in that their intent isn't to spur innovation by giving temporary exclusivity -- what patents are. Trade-dresses are things such as the Kool-aid guy or Intel's jingle; they're meant to avoid consumer confusion by having things look too similar. In essense, it's there to prevent knock-offs so that someone won't accidentally buy a Kia instead of a Toyota because they look too much alike (with a Toyota logo and everything).

That being said, the ruling on this particular trade-dress is nonsensical seeing as nobody in their right mind would buy a Galaxy Tab 10 thinking that it was an iPad. There's this gigantic logo with "Samsung" on it in the back and when you turn it on, you don't see iOS.

Basing the ruling on people squinting from across the room saying that two screens that are turned off look similar shows just how bad our IP courts are.
 
2012-10-02 02:44:35 PM

DORMAMU: Yet the rounded corners and icons was part of apple's arguments in court (at least in euope). I believe they were also an item in the overall ruling against samsung in the US.


That's like saying "Samsung used the word 'the' in their arguments in court, so therefore Samsung tried to patent the word 'the'." It's simply not true.

I also think it was more about the temp injunctions against sales in regions against competing products while apple's products are available. With many people impatient, it gives you a good chance for market penetration.

Absolutely.

I blame both sides yet I see why samsung is doing this. If they can get an injunction against apple, they can trade bans on sales for eachother.

Yep, leading to likely cross-licenses.

Frankly, I think patents and trademarks should be treatied like government treaties. Once in place, announced by the holder publically so it cannot be used after something has on the market and making $$$, then ambush somone with it.

They're not only publicly announced, they're published every Tuesday.
 
2012-10-02 03:05:34 PM

Theaetetus: DORMAMU: Yet the rounded corners and icons was part of apple's arguments in court (at least in euope). I believe they were also an item in the overall ruling against samsung in the US.

That's like saying "Samsung used the word 'the' in their arguments in court, so therefore Samsung tried to patent the word 'the'." It's simply not true.

I also think it was more about the temp injunctions against sales in regions against competing products while apple's products are available. With many people impatient, it gives you a good chance for market penetration.

Absolutely.

I blame both sides yet I see why samsung is doing this. If they can get an injunction against apple, they can trade bans on sales for eachother.

Yep, leading to likely cross-licenses.

Frankly, I think patents and trademarks should be treatied like government treaties. Once in place, announced by the holder publically so it cannot be used after something has on the market and making $$$, then ambush somone with it.

They're not only publicly announced, they're published every Tuesday.


what about the sales of said patents. Part of the payent troll mo is ambush with a patent nobody knew they had.

As far as the arguments part go, apple specifically cited the rounded corners as an issue that contributed to the overall violation in europe. They were also part of the massive (hundreds?) number of items the jury in cali fed court ruled in favor of apple after a couple days of deliberation.

I know, in lawsuit you throw as much shiat as you possibly conceive and see what sticks & what leaves.a stain....
 
2012-10-02 03:17:31 PM

DORMAMU: what about the sales of said patents. Part of the payent troll mo is ambush with a patent nobody knew they had.


Not so much... If you do a freedom to operate search, you find that the patent exists. Maybe you didn't know that Joe Schmoe sold it to Trolls R Us, but you contact Joe Schmoe and he'll tell you.
No, the bigger issue that people don't to freedom to operate searches. They're incredibly expensive. Usually, it's better to wait for the troll to contact you, and offer to buy a license. That's all they really want - no troll actually wants to go to court.

As far as the arguments part go, apple specifically cited the rounded corners as an issue that contributed to the overall violation in europe. They were also part of the massive (hundreds?) number of items the jury in cali fed court ruled in favor of apple after a couple days of deliberation.

They also used the word 'the' as part of their argument, so are you claiming that word contributed to the overall violation?
Look, if my patent claims "A+B+C+D+E", the fact that you did "A" contributed to the overall violation, but if you only did "A" - or even if you did "A+B+D+E" but not "C" - then you didn't infringe. There's no way to call that a patent on "A", unless you're trying to misrepresent the issues. It'd be like saying someone's guilty of DUI because they drove a car, so isn't the DUI law unreasonable? It kinda leaves out all the other bits of the law.

I know, in lawsuit you throw as much shiat as you possibly conceive and see what sticks & what leaves.a stain....

No, this is propaganda. It's Samsung saying "look at how unreasonable it is that Apple got to patent a rounded rectangle! Isn't that insane?! Everyone should feel sorry for us, because patents on rounded rectangles are invalid."
Well, yeah, they are. And that's not what they got sued over, because Apple doesn't have a patent on a rounded rectangle. If Samsung made a rounded rectangle with no other features, they couldn't possibly have infringed. This doesn't violate the patent:
www.pha.jhu.edu
 
2012-10-02 03:27:57 PM

Theaetetus: DORMAMU: what about the sales of said patents. Part of the payent troll mo is ambush with a patent nobody knew they had.

Not so much... If you do a freedom to operate search, you find that the patent exists. Maybe you didn't know that Joe Schmoe sold it to Trolls R Us, but you contact Joe Schmoe and he'll tell you.
No, the bigger issue that people don't to freedom to operate searches. They're incredibly expensive. Usually, it's better to wait for the troll to contact you, and offer to buy a license. That's all they really want - no troll actually wants to go to court.

As far as the arguments part go, apple specifically cited the rounded corners as an issue that contributed to the overall violation in europe. They were also part of the massive (hundreds?) number of items the jury in cali fed court ruled in favor of apple after a couple days of deliberation.

They also used the word 'the' as part of their argument, so are you claiming that word contributed to the overall violation?
Look, if my patent claims "A+B+C+D+E", the fact that you did "A" contributed to the overall violation, but if you only did "A" - or even if you did "A+B+D+E" but not "C" - then you didn't infringe. There's no way to call that a patent on "A", unless you're trying to misrepresent the issues. It'd be like saying someone's guilty of DUI because they drove a car, so isn't the DUI law unreasonable? It kinda leaves out all the other bits of the law.

I know, in lawsuit you throw as much shiat as you possibly conceive and see what sticks & what leaves.a stain....

No, this is propaganda. It's Samsung saying "look at how unreasonable it is that Apple got to patent a rounded rectangle! Isn't that insane?! Everyone should feel sorry for us, because patents on rounded rectangles are invalid."
Well, yeah, they are. And that's not what they got sued over, because Apple doesn't have a patent on a rounded rectangle. If Samsung made a rounded rectangle with no other features, they couldn't possibly have infringed. This doesn't violate the patent:


I see where you ate coming from, and I think you see my view as well. Different shades of sunglasses at different angles?

Regardless, this is going to get much worse before it gets better. The patent wars havent gone full nuclear, yet.

While the "apple suits" have brought this into mainstream, I dont think they are dumb enough to fire the first nuke, cause that could bite them hard.
 
2012-10-02 04:58:04 PM

PsyLord: I still don't understand how they can patent a shape. If so, clothing manufacturers would be filing suit against each other all the time. Same with the auto industry.


The Apple patent was a Design Patent, which covers the ornamental design of a product. Other examples would be louboutin shoes, who have a design patent on a particular shade of red soled shoes and IIRC tiffanies jewelry who have a design patent on a particular shade of blue jewelry boxes. Normally they are intended to prevent counterfeiting, AFAIK Apple is taking the enforcement of design patents away from their conventional use, as nobody is going to buy a Samsung thinking they're getting an Apple product.

According to wikipedia (I admit I'm not an expert) a design patent can be invalidated if the shape or form also provides utility. In my humble opinion the tablet and iphone design has a level of utility to it, although apparently the last court to rule on this issue disagrees.
 
2012-10-02 07:20:37 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: The Apple patent was a Design Patent, which covers the ornamental design of a product. Other examples would be louboutin shoes, who have a design patent on a particular shade of red soled shoes and IIRC tiffanies jewelry who have a design patent on a particular shade of blue jewelry boxes.


Close, but not quite... Louboutin has a registered trademark (really trade dress) on the distinctive red sole and Tiffany has registered trade dress on their blue color. Neither could actually get a design patent, however, because the colors red and blue are not novel and nonobvious, which are still requirements in design patents.
Trade dress and design patents are very, very similar, but that's the biggest distinction: design patents are still patents, and must be new and nonobvious. They also expire after 14 years. Trade dress lasts literally forever, provided you remain distinctive and consumers recognize that design (or color) as associated with you.

Normally they are intended to prevent counterfeiting, AFAIK Apple is taking the enforcement of design patents away from their conventional use, as nobody is going to buy a Samsung thinking they're getting an Apple product.

Not really - there was actually testimony in the Appsung (Sample?) case that consumers had bought Galaxy Tabs and returned them because they thought they were iPads and were disappointed. There was also Samsung's lawyers admitting they couldn't tell the iPad and Tab apart. And finally, there was the letter from Google to Samsung saying "hey, your tablets look too close to iPads... change them," and Samsung's directors deciding not to pass that letter on to the design team.
It actually kinda was a counterfeiting case, albeit more of a knock-off or look-alike case, in the same way that a Bolex watch or a Shrap calculator aren't counterfeits per se, but they're certainly intended to confuse customers and jump on the bandwagon of the popular brand.

According to wikipedia (I admit I'm not an expert) a design patent can be invalidated if the shape or form also provides utility. In my humble opinion the tablet and iphone design has a level of utility to it, although apparently the last court to rule on this issue disagrees.

It can, but it's not just whether it provides utility, but whether the design itself is functional. For example, Lululemon has a design patent on their yoga pants (they have this three-color overlapping fabric section at the top that kinda makes it look like the pants are rolled down at the top). You could argue that they're functional because they're pants, and pants have the function of keeping your crotch covered, but that applies to all pants and not the design. You could also argue that this specific design is functional, because it makes it look like the pants have been rolled down at the top, which makes them sexier... but that's actually an aesthetic function, rather than a utilitarian function.

Basically, for a feature to be functional from a utilitarian standpoint, removal of it has to impair the working function of the product, or removal of it must result in higher manufacturing costs or increased inefficiencies. While rounded corners generally are functional, in that they keep people from getting scratched, the specific corner radius is pretty variable. Other aspects of the design, such as bevel symmetry, color, button placement, logo placement, etc. are highly variable - for example, HP and Motorola both have tablets that look nothing like an iPad, so it's clear that the iPad's design isn't the only possible way to design a tablet.
 
2012-10-02 08:59:04 PM

Theaetetus: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: The Apple patent was a Design Patent, which covers the ornamental design of a product. Other examples would be louboutin shoes, who have a design patent on a particular shade of red soled shoes and IIRC tiffanies jewelry who have a design patent on a particular shade of blue jewelry boxes.

Close, but not quite... Louboutin has a registered trademark (really trade dress) on the distinctive red sole and Tiffany has registered trade dress on their blue color. Neither could actually get a design patent, however, because the colors red and blue are not novel and nonobvious, which are still requirements in design patents.
Trade dress and design patents are very, very similar, but that's the biggest distinction: design patents are still patents, and must be new and nonobvious. They also expire after 14 years. Trade dress lasts literally forever, provided you remain distinctive and consumers recognize that design (or color) as associated with you.

Normally they are intended to prevent counterfeiting, AFAIK Apple is taking the enforcement of design patents away from their conventional use, as nobody is going to buy a Samsung thinking they're getting an Apple product.

Not really - there was actually testimony in the Appsung (Sample?) case that consumers had bought Galaxy Tabs and returned them because they thought they were iPads and were disappointed. There was also Samsung's lawyers admitting they couldn't tell the iPad and Tab apart. And finally, there was the letter from Google to Samsung saying "hey, your tablets look too close to iPads... change them," and Samsung's directors deciding not to pass that letter on to the design team.
It actually kinda was a counterfeiting case, albeit more of a knock-off or look-alike case, in the same way that a Bolex watch or a Shrap calculator aren't counterfeits per se, but they're certainly intended to confuse customers and jump on the bandwagon of the popular brand.

According to wikipedia ...


Don't you ever get tired of white knighting for Apple? I couldn't help but notice that you didn't show your face in the camera thread.
 
2012-10-02 11:05:37 PM

change1211: Don't you ever get tired of white knighting for Apple intellectual property law?


Nope. What's neat is that I started doing it when I was a humble radio engineer, not involved with any of these companies, long before I ever thought of going to law school. No, I recognized how much IP protection is crucial to a functioning information-age society, and I wanted to do my part, like the patriot I am.

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't show your face in the camera thread.

I'm sorry for your difficulties. I realize that only through technology may we enable impaired people such as yourself to be able to interact with society, including reading posts such as mine at 11:11:50. The best of luck to you, Sir.
 
2012-10-04 03:33:48 PM
So why exactly is anyone (who is not an employee) actually for or against either of these companies? Aren't these patent wars generally bad for the consumer?

As someone has already pointed out, it's highly unlikely anyone would mistakenly buy a Samsung product thinking it was by Apple (and vice versa). The few who could almost certainly wouldn't notice the difference in functionality anyway. So what's the problem?
The more similar products on the market, the better for the consumer as it means companies have to innovate that bit more to retain interest. I'm not a fan of Apple- far from it- but if they produced a product/service which actually interested me more so than the competition, I would gladly spin on a farking dime and snap it right up.

Sorry, I'm not really getting into the spirit of things...

/Durr I had Samsungs mom.
//Hurr Apple sux donkey-dong.
 
2012-10-04 11:34:34 PM

Theaetetus: change1211: Don't you ever get tired of white knighting for Apple intellectual property law?

Nope. What's neat is that I started doing it when I was a humble radio engineer, not involved with any of these companies, long before I ever thought of going to law school. No, I recognized how much IP protection is crucial to a functioning information-age society, and I wanted to do my part, like the patriot I am.

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't show your face in the camera thread.

I'm sorry for your difficulties. I realize that only through technology may we enable impaired people such as yourself to be able to interact with society, including reading posts such as mine at 11:11:50. The best of luck to you, Sir.


Crap. You're nothing but an Apple troll.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report