The Macalope Daily: Against the law

The Loop’s Jim Dalrymple is in high dudgeon over the Apple/Samsung case. So outraged is Jim that he’s resorted to name-calling (otherwise known as “calling it like you see it”), referring to Samsung as “Sam[scum].”

Get it? See, he has replaced the end of yeah, you get it.

But Dalrymple hits on something the Macalope has noticed as well:

Of all the people that contacted me, of all the arguments Samsung made, the one thing nobody said is that they didn’t copy Apple. That just seems to be a given. The argument is whether stealing from Apple is legal or not.

Well said.

Now, with that under your belt, it’s time again to play “Willfully obtuse or genetically predisposed to obtuseness?”!

CNet’s Chris Matyszczyk asks the laughably easy-to-answer question “Did anyone really confuse Samsung products for Apple’s?”

He’s done it! He’s bypassed Betteridge’s Law of Headlines! Because the answer is a resounding “yes”!

It gnaws at me like the tags on an H&M shirt.

Is it a beaver?

It is this:

It’s not a beaver.

Is there any evidence that any real human being bought a Samsung Galaxy Tab rather than an iPad because they thought they were the same?

Two paragraphs later, Matyszczyk parenthetically answers the question himself.

(There were allegedly reports of some people returning Galaxy Tabs at Best Buy because they—somehow—thought they were iPads. Not that this was any obvious stampede of complaint.)

“Allegedly.” Follow the link and you’ll see that the “alleged” evidence is “reports Samsung got from retailer Best Buy that Samsung tablets were being returned because customers thought they were getting iPads.” This “alleged” evidence comes from Samsung itself, in documents they were forced to disclose as part of the trial.

Who does Matyszczyk think might have made this up? Best Buy? Why? It certainly wasn’t Samsung.

If that’s not enough to answer Matyszczyk’s headline, Samsung’s own lawyers couldn’t tell the iPad and the Galaxy Tab apart. How many more people have to confuse the two?

And yet, despite this alleged potential for confusion, Apple has 68 percent of the tablet market.

So, because Apple has more of the market it should just say “Oh, it’s cool, bro! Copy our stuff!”?

Apple’s large cut seems to be threatened more by cheaper devices such as the Kindle Fire than by Samsung’s alleged fine copies.

No one said they were fine. What they said was that they were ripoffs.

The poor, nine pressured humans on the jury need help from the fellow men and women, not from lawyers and employees of the two companies.

Right. The common sense of the good, hard-working folk of this nation is never wrong! We should just return to a system of natural justice, like what was practiced in the Old West!

Wait …

OK, the Macalope’s not a lawyer, so he’s not qualified to say if what appears to be Samsung’s outright copying of Apple is legal or not. But unless you’ve got a truly better idea about how to run our system of jurisprudence, please spare us the folksy bromides.

[Editors’ Note: In addition to being a mythical beast, the Macalope is not an employee of Macworld. As a result, the Macalope is always free to criticize any media organization. Even ours.]

Subscribe to the MacWeek Newsletter

Comments