Samsung Vs. Apple Tit-For-Tat Down Under
New submitter GumphMaster writes "In the latest edition of the Apple vs. Samsung patent fight, the ABC is reporting that Samsung has filed in Australian and Japanese courts seeking an injunction to halt sales of the iPhone 4S for alleged 3G patent violations. It remains to be seen whether Samsung has any better luck with the retaliatory strike in Australian and Japanese courts than it did with courts in the Netherlands. Unfortunately, I expect that Samsung will fail partly because of overseas precedent, but mostly because their patents are sane, technical and narrow in scope (unlike the patent-a-rectangle nature of the opposition). If this stupidity ever stops, then millions of dollars, euro, or Won that are being spent on lawyers might actually go into the innovation that patents are meant to promote. Who knows where that might lead?"
Please read this article. It's not very long.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_gladwell
Apple asked Xerox politely if it could have its lunch money and Xerox handed it over willingly in exchange for lunch... futures.
Look, I don't know about making this a metaphor. Point is that the "Apple stole from Xerox" thing is basically a myth. It was all above board. Xerox may seriously regret giving away the idea of the century in exchange for basically nothing but that doesn't change what happened.
Someone already did make an antitroll image
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."