Subscribe / Unsubscribe Enewsletters | Login | Register

Pencil Banner

The Macalope Weekly: The sincerest form of jerkery

The Macalope | Sept. 3, 2012
The Apple v. Samsung verdict came in too late for the Macalope to talk about it last week, but that just means we have a whole week’s worth of crazy coverage to discuss

See how that works?

It's all very understandable and completely natural.

So please, Apple dorks, spare us your cries of "Copycat!" because they only show how little you understand both nature and evolution.

Saturday Special: The man knows lame

Well, as long as we're at it, let's scrape the bottom of the barrel by hopping on over to Business Insider to see what Henry Blodget vomited up onto the Internet about the case.

"Let's Be Honest-Apple's Patent Lawsuit Was Totally Lame" (no link for Blodget because of his many atrocities against good taste, but tip o' the antlers to Wes Kroesbergen).

Totally. I mean, did you see what juror number five was wearing on her feet? Toe shoes! So lame!

So, why does Blodget think it was ♫ Lame! A shame! No one else to blame buuut Apple! [clap-clap, clap] Apple! [clap-clap, clap] ♫

It's bad for consumers.

Terrific. The guy who committed securities fraud is lecturing Apple on what's good for consumers.

Because to the extent that Apple persists in pursuing this lame-o...

"Lame-o." He wrote that. A grown man.

...(and totally un-Apple-like) competitive strategy, it will result in consumers having fewer excellent non-Apple smartphone choices.

Right. Because the only way to make excellent smartphones is to copy Apple. Sucks to be you, Apple!

Actually, the Macalope doesn't buy this for a minute. You don't have to look any farther than Windows Phone 7 to see that you don't have to slavishly copy Apple to make a nice smartphone. Is it as nice as the iPhone? No, the Macalope doesn't think so, but he doesn't think Samsung's pizza box-sized phones are that great, either.

The richest and most powerful company in the world-a company that generates more cash in a day than most companies generate in a year-is suing a competitor for imitating some cool features, features that, arguably, shouldn't have been patentable in the first place.

What are these features?

And now, as with Dvorak, we've reached the reductionist part of the argument where Blodget will pretend the case was about less than it was really about. Blodget lists four items, reducing them to trivialities, and calls it a day.

You get the idea.

We do. You're a tremendous jerkweed.

Sorry, but even filing for patents on these features, let alone enforcing them, is beyond lame

♫ Lame! A shame! No one else to blame buuut Apple! [clap-clap, clap] Apple! [clap-clap, clap] ♫

...especially for a company that is already so rich and powerful.

So, only weak companies should get patents? And, hey, whatever the Korean word for "newsflash" is: Samsung is a huge company in its own right. So spare the Macalope your tears for bad ol' Apple beating up on the poor lil' chaebol. Samsung has a weapons division for crying out loud.

 

Previous Page  1  2  3  4  Next Page 

Sign up for CIO Asia eNewsletters.