No, it won't be. Bad things must be criticized (or boycotted), to force them to become good. Your use of Apple is affecting my life badly - it's just like passive smoking. No one promoted the culture of ridiculous patent law exploitation as much as Apple did. They are not just doing their own work, but indulging in UGLY competition killing tactics(like they don't want anyone to make rectangular phone with rounded corners).
To give you some insight of your own logic, if everyone "not killing someone" will just not kill people as they like it, and didn't say a word to the 'opposite party' - who kill (as they like it as well), according to your logic the world would be WAY better. Jihad is a bad word, but I'll fight against the injustice to my world of technology that Apple is doing.
Remind us how snarky zealotry tells Apple to stop (ab)using the patent system. If that's the problem you have with them, I think the world would be improved if you directed your energy at patent reform.
And comparing IP litigation to murder is just ridiculous, not that you didn't already know that. Among all the other problems, you can fix a bad call from a judge. Murder, not so much.
It's not ridiculous. I explained and it's not hard to understand why opposing bad things (any) is important. And it's always a good test to validate your logic with extreme cases. It helps - if a logic suddenly breaks by increasing the 'intensity' of the subject, then there's something wrong in it.
Again, I don't think the patent law is getting 'reformed' overnight. I have written to state officials to improve it, have signed petitions, and have written to Apple as well. But on top of that, if more and more people stop using their products for this reason, they will understand it much more quickly.
> And it's always a good test to validate your logic with extreme cases. It helps - if a logic suddenly breaks by increasing the 'intensity' of the subject, then there's something wrong in it.
I would suggest avoiding doing so publicly. People can come to the same conclusions if they want to apply theory of extremes, but when you jump to that kind of thing in your initial comparison (especially without a disclaimer) it just makes you come off as a crazy person. Doubly so since the extreme didn't hold up.
It didn't help that some of the more rational points are easily countered (even if not wrong). Stating that my use of Apple harms you because of my "support" of their business and legal decisions may not be entirely false; however, it's a) unreasonable to expect consumers to know about the operational choices of every company they do business with and b) also helpful because it promotes competition in the market. Again, your points had merit, but so does the other side of the equation.
The unfortunate reality of being a publicly-traded US company is that you are more or less legally required to try to litigate your competition out of existence if the numbers support it. This instance is unfortunate because Apple was granted some patents that they should not have been, and there was inept jury in deciding to uphold them (never mind the fact that it was a jury-based trial at all). The Apple/Samsung thing should have been a trademark case which I think actually had some merit, but patent litigation has a higher potential upside so the finances said that was the way to go.
Patent law exploitation? They are going after people who take their products, sit down with a drawing board, and copy them feature by feature, logo by logo, and interaction by interaction. It's exactly what the patent system is designed to make legally actionable.
This isn't a case of Amazon suing every online shopping cart with a "click to buy" button.
(Fifthly, why does a game of multi-hundred-billion-dollar corporate chicken impact your life at all? They aren't going after a kid on the street corner -- they are going after themselves dressed in different clothing. This does not change anything in your world except an extreme branching narrative in your mind which you think the world cares about.)
You have to be pretty naive to think it's not affecting my small world, OR to believe that Apple is only litigating against those who "copy them feature by feature". You probably didn't even read my full message. Now any company I prefer can't make phones without fearing about how to save themselves from a useless litigation of rounded rectangles.
And in my small world, I might have wanted to open that coffee shop whose logo is just a plain old red apple fruit made by nature, with a child's head in that. But it seems I can't do that now.
I used the word Jihad as it best reflects how personal it becomes to some people. It's not a matter of taste, but a matter of "being".
My main point, which clearly wasn't well articulated, was STEP YELLING AT ME. I can't change it. Nor do I care.
Yell at Apple, or Google, or whoever can act on it. Boycott them all you want. Just don't vilify me simply because I happen to like the platform you happen to hate.
You do that, and I promise to not yell at you for the platform you like that I happen to hate (as an example, I honestly could give two shits about Apple or Android .... it's a god damn phone).
