> 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.
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.