The popular vote was like 62.5 million to 59 million, 3.5 million, a 5% increase over Romney (59 * 1.05 ~= 62.5). Obama got 61% more electoral votes! 206 * 1.61 ~= 332. That means the people voted 51.4% Obama 48.6% Romney (not quite: 50.61% and 47.76%) and the Electorate went 61.7% Obama and 31.3% Romney. Obama should have won by a more narrow margin. 257 Romney and 272 Obama, 5 for Gary Johnson.
...which tells us that GUI usability is all that matters. OK, together with app availability, but whenever the latter is in balance for two competitors, GUI usability stands out as the only thing that matters.
Desktop Linux should learn from Android. What Android got right:
- Nice app names, mostly.
In Gnome, menus are arranged by function (Application, Games, Internet, System). They're descriptive as well ("Firefox Web Browser" etc). Gnome-Shell does away with this: everything's had keywords for years, and if I punch in "DVD" it shows me Thoggen, a DVD authoring software that I installed (they can't all be named "DVD Creator"). In KDE it's more direct: you get one big Programs menu with entries like "Web Browser (Epiphany)", "Web Browser (Konqueror)", "Web Browser (Chromium)", "E-Mail (Thunderbird)", "E-Mail (KMail)", "Music Player (Amarok)", etc.
- Excellent, easy to use GUI.
Have you used Gnome-Shell? One flaw: turn off mouse integration in VirtualBox, because the pointer rests at the top left and so it keeps swapping in and out of the expanded view. In Gnome-Shell, you tap the top left and you get an expanded view of the desktop, running program windows shown, extra desktops on the right, program icons on the left, and if you click the last icon on the left you get to browse Applicaitons. If you start typing, it starts searching through Applications in real-time by name, keyword, executable name, etc. You can drag windows onto other desktops, or between desktops to create a new desktop and insert the window there. Empty desktops are eliminated. There's always one desktop at the bottom that's blank. The only thing you can't do is wholesale reorder desktops; and Gnome-Shell doesn't support 2D desktops (i.e. you can go up/down, not left/right; it's completely linearly); and I don't like the alt-tab implementation (by program, rather than by window and grouped by desktop).
- No Command line shit required to do stuff.
Easy enough in Ubuntu for daily use. For things like LVM management (snapshots etc.), configuring of servers like Apache and ssh, and some other advanced stuff, command line. SFTP in Gnome-Shell can be done through the UI so you browse it like a folder, using ssh to transfer files. Oh, and in Ubuntu, if you're on the command line and punch in a command, it suggests a package to install if you don't have that command, or suggests similar commands and packages to install for those (for typos and similar programs that do the same thing). Ubuntu Software Center approximates a middle ground between this and the same thing Gnome-Shell does when searching for applications, except it also searches uninstalled (but available) apps.
- Great fonts
Not addressing this. The fonts are fine.
- Easy customization.
This is a bag of worms. Can switch around Gnome-Shell/KDE/Unity/etc, can make Gnome-Shell look like a lot of things, Unity behaves like MacOSX. Change colorful themes, window decorations, applets, which control boxes show (max, min, close) and where (right or left side) and in what order in Gnome-Shell with gnome-tweak-tool, and so on.
How exactly? Google is supplying an SDK to develop for Android and attaching terms to it; you can develop for Android in some other way. In any case Google doesn't want you writing apps that make various phones work differently enough that an Android app isn't an Android app anymore.
First, colors cannot be "trademarked" in the conventional meaning of the word. UPS does not own a trademark over the color brown, nor does John Deere own the color green. UPS cannot prevent trucks, or even delivery trucks from being painted brown, nor can John Deere stop farm equipment from being painted green, so long as a reasonable person would not be confused by the origin of the product. What these companies do have, however, are trade dress restrictions which are also governed by the Lanham Act. Trade dress describes your product's overall appearance and packaging of a product or service.
Which is what I said:
Thing is UPS only has a trademark on using the color brown as a major marketing identifier for a shipping company: you cannot make a brown DHL, it has to be yellow or something. If FedEx reimaged to primarily earth tones, UPS would have a valid suit against them. If Chicago Suits took up the color brown as their major marketing factor--brown slacks, brown shoes, brown jackets, business and business casual wear--UPS has absolutely no standing to sue them because they're not a god damn shipping company and the trademark on Brown doesn't apply.
QED.
Second, there is an inherent difference between trademarks like "Apple" and "Google," "Photoshop," and that of "Memory." "Apple" and "Google" would fall under the "arbitrary" or "fanciful" categories (respectively) since "Google" is a made up word with no other meaning, and "Apple" is the use of a generic word in a completely unrelated context (computers). Continuing in order of protection, "Photoshop" would be "suggestive," since it is a unique combination of words that suggests the nature of the product [i.e. a digital workshop in which you can retouch photos]. Blu-Ray is a good example.
Do you know how the Googleplex got its name? A Googolplex is a googol of googol. A googol is 1.0 x 10^100. A googolplex is 1.0 x 10^(10^100). It's a big number. The transformation is unique; Apple Ford and Apple Electric are not related to Apple Computer, but a Google Electric would attract legal attention rather than Googol Electric. It's still not a made-up word; it's a transformation.
Memory, on the other hand, is a descriptive mark, which is the least protected and only one step above an unprotectable generic word. "Memory" is directly related to the meaning of the board game in which you must "remember" the location of the cards to match them. The only way that descriptive marks gain protection is if they have developed some secondary meaning in the marketplace. As such, Ravensburger has a much higher standard to prove that they are considered to be the source of the "Memory" game than any other "memory" game on the market. Their continued ownership of the trademark seems to evidence that they have done so.
But you are absolutely right in that Ravensburger has the trademark, and any maker of a "Memory" game is infringing on that trademark.
Yes and people are annoyed that you can't make a Memory game called Memory, or a Tetris game called Tetris, or a Scrabble game at all (especially one called Scrabble, which people have tried online a few times). The sadly non-unique case of The Tetris Company is something I cannot defend on moral grounds; however the only injustice there is that they gained control of something they didn't create (without consulting or contracting with its creator, even--they stole the whole thing); but the mechanism of action--the fact that they continue to defend their (stolen) intellectual property at all, and the specific details (the name "Tetris," mainly; the mechanics of the game, as a secondary) is something that people only fight against because Tetris is so familiar they think they're entitled to it and anyone is entitled to make a Tetris-alike.
In this case it's the same deal, Memory is familiar (hell, it was in bloody Super Mario Bros. 3) and people want to make a Mem
And then you sue the original claimant for actual damages, illustrating that the first suit was about an injunction and damages done accumulating and this new suit is about your inability to conduct further business because of damaged reputation and business viability loss as a direct result of their actions.
"It's harder for me to commit a crime so I don't like it" is the argument here. What's happening is there's a trademark claim, and people are being made to comply. It's no different than if you marketed an app called "Photoshop Pro" and Adobe shit all over your party, except people are so used to the concept of Tetris and, in this case, Memory that they find it bizarre and offensive that somebody actually owns these things. Somebody invented it, but all people see is that they can't remember when it was novel, so it must be free.
Trademark law is really strange. If you don't protect your trademark, you lose it. If Ravensberger makes an iOS app for the game of Memory, everyone searching for it will get all these clones, superior or inferior, by the same name. They'll play those and ignore Ravensberger's Memory. The market is then unmarketable. Thus Ravensberger has a strong desire to protect their trademark to Memory, since if they lose it and another market opens up and they want to capitalize on it then they can't because they can't defend their trademark because it has become generic. Thus they must petition to stop these things from using their trademark.
This is the same reason that Adobe doesn't like when someone claims they "used GIMP to photoshop" something: you did NOT photoshop that, Photoshop was not involved, stop saying these untrue things, you are creating brand confusion. It's fair game to say something is "like Photoshop," but not that it IS Photoshop or has been adjusted via Photoshop if Photoshop was not involved.
But all people want to see is, "Hey, how can you do that?" and they use weird arguments like "You' can't just trademark a generic word!" UPS has a trademark on the color Brown; both American Express and IBM have trademarks on the color Blue. Thing is UPS only has a trademark on using the color brown as a major marketing identifier for a shipping company: you cannot make a brown DHL, it has to be yellow or something. If FedEx reimaged to primarily earth tones, UPS would have a valid suit against them. If Chicago Suits took up the color brown as their major marketing factor--brown slacks, brown shoes, brown jackets, business and business casual wear--UPS has absolutely no standing to sue them because they're not a god damn shipping company and the trademark on Brown doesn't apply. Ravenberger has a trademark on a board game called Memory, and if you make a Memory toothbrush that doesn't reference the board game in any way then you're not infringing on their trade.
Anyone using Google Android is being licensed for like $15 or something per device for the VFAT long file names capability in Linux. Google is applying the same pressure to Microsoft, by which Microsoft is at a disadvantage if their product gains traction, and simply a loser if their product doesn't gain traction--essentially Google is playing a Xanatos Gambit.
Sales/usage figures for iPhone you can get by looking at mobile networks usage on Sprint or AT&T. If they refuse to release that, check FaceBook about who's posting from their fucking iPhone for an approximation.
TLS doesn't take care of shit. It gets encrypted, goes to your ISP, gets decrypted, gets sent, gets encrypted, goes to you, gets decrypted. TLS doesn't encrypt messages with your secret key (like PGP) so that intermediate parties can't read it.
Once lost account settings in Netscape and re-entered everything, the ISP dumped 4 years of e-mail from POP3 back down. Stuff I didn't want my parents to see, I got in a lot of trouble.
No it isn't. It's just making sure that blacks stay in their proper place with a lowered education more suitable to plantation and, in contemporary society, McDonalds drive-thru work. They don't need high standardized test scores because they don't need to be all that smart to keep their place in society. Do you expect them to be kept to the standards of their betters of higher-class white men? Do you know how unfair that is? Why don't we make you get a Ph.D. in astrophysics for your white collar sales job with IBM and then maybe you'll see a little clearer how we shouldn't tax the inferior negro brain, hmm?
It's simpler than that. The state simply has to raise taxes and cease taking federal government money, cease supplying money to the federal government, and pass a law stating that no citizen of Texas shall pay federal taxes and that the national military of Texas (the state national guard) shall provide force for protection of its citizenry from prosecution for taxes not paid and for other encroachments of the US Government on the Sovereign State of Texas.
What are they going to do? March the US Military into Texas?
Does that mean Samsung will necessarily continue making Android tablets in the future, rather than focusing on their new line of stylus-included smart phones?
The only reason the iPhone 4S sales dropped was because of the extremely poorly kept secret that the iPhone5 was coming out in Oct.
That is still an opportunity. Consumers may become bored of the hype and anticipation and then become tolerant. A new shin then becomes more attractive. Protracted product release cycles are product-killers: something people have known about for the last 2 years just doesn't gather as much release-day camping as something people just heard about last week via an exciting marketing campaign.
It's fair to make a statistical assumption (i.e. high likelihood) that the popularity of the iPad is tied to the iPhone. That is to say: who the hell buys a Nexus 4 and says, "I want an iPad so I can get all these fancy Android apps on a bigger screen!" iPhone, iOS, iApps, iPad; Android phone, Android, Android apps, Android tablet. Eroding the iPhone market could erode the iPad market, which is better than double-dipping: even if Samsung doesn't make an Android tablet, once Android tablets gain popularity they're suddenly cool and people will match the phone to the tablet (which further weakens the market for the iPhone) in a feedback loop started by getting people off the phone so they'd match the tablet to the phone.
High stakes sure,but it's a good attack plan. As I said, Apple is weak--the Galaxy S3 is single-handedly outselling the iPhone--and so this is the time for Samsung to strike. There is also word on the wind that Apple may be trying to get away from Samsung in a vertical integration scheme (Apple is the next Carnegie Steel) fabbing their own chips, so perhaps Samsung has very little to lose.
The Galaxy S3 is a bigger seller than the iPhone. Your rational analysis falls on the deaf ears of all the fucks Samsung does not give; if they can wound Apple while they're weak, they might be able to keep their product in consumer hands by being inexpensive (the Galaxy Nexus was $350 and the LG Nexus 4 is $350, Samsung could sell their S3 or upcoming S4 etc. for $300-$400 while Apple hangs onto a $600+ price tag and exclusive network service...) as well as top-notch, and then it's just a matter of keeping the wide lead ever-widening. Make Apple the underdog and then try to not be the crap product being overtaken by the top-notch underdog.
Slashdot Mirror
She'll be assassinated soon by big movie.
The popular vote was like 62.5 million to 59 million, 3.5 million, a 5% increase over Romney (59 * 1.05 ~= 62.5). Obama got 61% more electoral votes! 206 * 1.61 ~= 332. That means the people voted 51.4% Obama 48.6% Romney (not quite: 50.61% and 47.76%) and the Electorate went 61.7% Obama and 31.3% Romney. Obama should have won by a more narrow margin. 257 Romney and 272 Obama, 5 for Gary Johnson.
...which tells us that GUI usability is all that matters. OK, together with app availability, but whenever the latter is in balance for two competitors, GUI usability stands out as the only thing that matters. Desktop Linux should learn from Android. What Android got right:
- Nice app names, mostly.
In Gnome, menus are arranged by function (Application, Games, Internet, System). They're descriptive as well ("Firefox Web Browser" etc). Gnome-Shell does away with this: everything's had keywords for years, and if I punch in "DVD" it shows me Thoggen, a DVD authoring software that I installed (they can't all be named "DVD Creator"). In KDE it's more direct: you get one big Programs menu with entries like "Web Browser (Epiphany)", "Web Browser (Konqueror)", "Web Browser (Chromium)", "E-Mail (Thunderbird)", "E-Mail (KMail)", "Music Player (Amarok)", etc.
- Excellent, easy to use GUI.
Have you used Gnome-Shell? One flaw: turn off mouse integration in VirtualBox, because the pointer rests at the top left and so it keeps swapping in and out of the expanded view. In Gnome-Shell, you tap the top left and you get an expanded view of the desktop, running program windows shown, extra desktops on the right, program icons on the left, and if you click the last icon on the left you get to browse Applicaitons. If you start typing, it starts searching through Applications in real-time by name, keyword, executable name, etc. You can drag windows onto other desktops, or between desktops to create a new desktop and insert the window there. Empty desktops are eliminated. There's always one desktop at the bottom that's blank. The only thing you can't do is wholesale reorder desktops; and Gnome-Shell doesn't support 2D desktops (i.e. you can go up/down, not left/right; it's completely linearly); and I don't like the alt-tab implementation (by program, rather than by window and grouped by desktop).
- No Command line shit required to do stuff.
Easy enough in Ubuntu for daily use. For things like LVM management (snapshots etc.), configuring of servers like Apache and ssh, and some other advanced stuff, command line. SFTP in Gnome-Shell can be done through the UI so you browse it like a folder, using ssh to transfer files. Oh, and in Ubuntu, if you're on the command line and punch in a command, it suggests a package to install if you don't have that command, or suggests similar commands and packages to install for those (for typos and similar programs that do the same thing). Ubuntu Software Center approximates a middle ground between this and the same thing Gnome-Shell does when searching for applications, except it also searches uninstalled (but available) apps.
- Great fonts
Not addressing this. The fonts are fine.
- Easy customization.
This is a bag of worms. Can switch around Gnome-Shell/KDE/Unity/etc, can make Gnome-Shell look like a lot of things, Unity behaves like MacOSX. Change colorful themes, window decorations, applets, which control boxes show (max, min, close) and where (right or left side) and in what order in Gnome-Shell with gnome-tweak-tool, and so on.
iPhone has more apps, we know this. Tens of thousands of fart apps.
llvm/clang
How exactly? Google is supplying an SDK to develop for Android and attaching terms to it; you can develop for Android in some other way. In any case Google doesn't want you writing apps that make various phones work differently enough that an Android app isn't an Android app anymore.
First, colors cannot be "trademarked" in the conventional meaning of the word. UPS does not own a trademark over the color brown, nor does John Deere own the color green. UPS cannot prevent trucks, or even delivery trucks from being painted brown, nor can John Deere stop farm equipment from being painted green, so long as a reasonable person would not be confused by the origin of the product. What these companies do have, however, are trade dress restrictions which are also governed by the Lanham Act. Trade dress describes your product's overall appearance and packaging of a product or service.
Which is what I said:
Thing is UPS only has a trademark on using the color brown as a major marketing identifier for a shipping company: you cannot make a brown DHL, it has to be yellow or something. If FedEx reimaged to primarily earth tones, UPS would have a valid suit against them. If Chicago Suits took up the color brown as their major marketing factor--brown slacks, brown shoes, brown jackets, business and business casual wear--UPS has absolutely no standing to sue them because they're not a god damn shipping company and the trademark on Brown doesn't apply.
QED.
Second, there is an inherent difference between trademarks like "Apple" and "Google," "Photoshop," and that of "Memory." "Apple" and "Google" would fall under the "arbitrary" or "fanciful" categories (respectively) since "Google" is a made up word with no other meaning, and "Apple" is the use of a generic word in a completely unrelated context (computers). Continuing in order of protection, "Photoshop" would be "suggestive," since it is a unique combination of words that suggests the nature of the product [i.e. a digital workshop in which you can retouch photos]. Blu-Ray is a good example.
Do you know how the Googleplex got its name? A Googolplex is a googol of googol. A googol is 1.0 x 10^100. A googolplex is 1.0 x 10^(10^100). It's a big number. The transformation is unique; Apple Ford and Apple Electric are not related to Apple Computer, but a Google Electric would attract legal attention rather than Googol Electric. It's still not a made-up word; it's a transformation.
Memory, on the other hand, is a descriptive mark, which is the least protected and only one step above an unprotectable generic word. "Memory" is directly related to the meaning of the board game in which you must "remember" the location of the cards to match them. The only way that descriptive marks gain protection is if they have developed some secondary meaning in the marketplace. As such, Ravensburger has a much higher standard to prove that they are considered to be the source of the "Memory" game than any other "memory" game on the market. Their continued ownership of the trademark seems to evidence that they have done so.
But you are absolutely right in that Ravensburger has the trademark, and any maker of a "Memory" game is infringing on that trademark.
Yes and people are annoyed that you can't make a Memory game called Memory, or a Tetris game called Tetris, or a Scrabble game at all (especially one called Scrabble, which people have tried online a few times). The sadly non-unique case of The Tetris Company is something I cannot defend on moral grounds; however the only injustice there is that they gained control of something they didn't create (without consulting or contracting with its creator, even--they stole the whole thing); but the mechanism of action--the fact that they continue to defend their (stolen) intellectual property at all, and the specific details (the name "Tetris," mainly; the mechanics of the game, as a secondary) is something that people only fight against because Tetris is so familiar they think they're entitled to it and anyone is entitled to make a Tetris-alike.
In this case it's the same deal, Memory is familiar (hell, it was in bloody Super Mario Bros. 3) and people want to make a Mem
I would have told them to chill the fuck out and go back to Wolfenstein 3D if it bothered them.
And then you sue the original claimant for actual damages, illustrating that the first suit was about an injunction and damages done accumulating and this new suit is about your inability to conduct further business because of damaged reputation and business viability loss as a direct result of their actions.
"It's harder for me to commit a crime so I don't like it" is the argument here. What's happening is there's a trademark claim, and people are being made to comply. It's no different than if you marketed an app called "Photoshop Pro" and Adobe shit all over your party, except people are so used to the concept of Tetris and, in this case, Memory that they find it bizarre and offensive that somebody actually owns these things. Somebody invented it, but all people see is that they can't remember when it was novel, so it must be free.
Trademark law is really strange. If you don't protect your trademark, you lose it. If Ravensberger makes an iOS app for the game of Memory, everyone searching for it will get all these clones, superior or inferior, by the same name. They'll play those and ignore Ravensberger's Memory. The market is then unmarketable. Thus Ravensberger has a strong desire to protect their trademark to Memory, since if they lose it and another market opens up and they want to capitalize on it then they can't because they can't defend their trademark because it has become generic. Thus they must petition to stop these things from using their trademark.
This is the same reason that Adobe doesn't like when someone claims they "used GIMP to photoshop" something: you did NOT photoshop that, Photoshop was not involved, stop saying these untrue things, you are creating brand confusion. It's fair game to say something is "like Photoshop," but not that it IS Photoshop or has been adjusted via Photoshop if Photoshop was not involved.
But all people want to see is, "Hey, how can you do that?" and they use weird arguments like "You' can't just trademark a generic word!" UPS has a trademark on the color Brown; both American Express and IBM have trademarks on the color Blue. Thing is UPS only has a trademark on using the color brown as a major marketing identifier for a shipping company: you cannot make a brown DHL, it has to be yellow or something. If FedEx reimaged to primarily earth tones, UPS would have a valid suit against them. If Chicago Suits took up the color brown as their major marketing factor--brown slacks, brown shoes, brown jackets, business and business casual wear--UPS has absolutely no standing to sue them because they're not a god damn shipping company and the trademark on Brown doesn't apply. Ravenberger has a trademark on a board game called Memory, and if you make a Memory toothbrush that doesn't reference the board game in any way then you're not infringing on their trade.
Cross-licensing causes the actual costs to be 0%. Microsoft has nothing of value to cross-license.
Anyone using Google Android is being licensed for like $15 or something per device for the VFAT long file names capability in Linux. Google is applying the same pressure to Microsoft, by which Microsoft is at a disadvantage if their product gains traction, and simply a loser if their product doesn't gain traction--essentially Google is playing a Xanatos Gambit.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Apple%AE+-+iPad%AE+2+with+Wi-Fi+-+16GB+-+Black/1945531.p?id=1218303031896&skuId=1945531&ref=06&loc=01&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=1945531&extensionType=pla:g&s_kwcid=PTC!pla!!!41801918959!g!!21144920839
Sales/usage figures for iPhone you can get by looking at mobile networks usage on Sprint or AT&T. If they refuse to release that, check FaceBook about who's posting from their fucking iPhone for an approximation.
And incoming mail comes back the same way? And it doesn't go through the recipient's ISP, where it's stored in their mailbox at Erols?
TLS doesn't take care of shit. It gets encrypted, goes to your ISP, gets decrypted, gets sent, gets encrypted, goes to you, gets decrypted. TLS doesn't encrypt messages with your secret key (like PGP) so that intermediate parties can't read it.
Once lost account settings in Netscape and re-entered everything, the ISP dumped 4 years of e-mail from POP3 back down. Stuff I didn't want my parents to see, I got in a lot of trouble.
No it isn't. It's just making sure that blacks stay in their proper place with a lowered education more suitable to plantation and, in contemporary society, McDonalds drive-thru work. They don't need high standardized test scores because they don't need to be all that smart to keep their place in society. Do you expect them to be kept to the standards of their betters of higher-class white men? Do you know how unfair that is? Why don't we make you get a Ph.D. in astrophysics for your white collar sales job with IBM and then maybe you'll see a little clearer how we shouldn't tax the inferior negro brain, hmm?
It's simpler than that. The state simply has to raise taxes and cease taking federal government money, cease supplying money to the federal government, and pass a law stating that no citizen of Texas shall pay federal taxes and that the national military of Texas (the state national guard) shall provide force for protection of its citizenry from prosecution for taxes not paid and for other encroachments of the US Government on the Sovereign State of Texas.
What are they going to do? March the US Military into Texas?
Obama should have won by a much thinner margin, if the numbers I'm seeing are correct.
The brain has this block:
try{ } catch e { what("the fuck?"); }
Most conversation is conversation by rote. How is this news?
Does that mean Samsung will necessarily continue making Android tablets in the future, rather than focusing on their new line of stylus-included smart phones?
The only reason the iPhone 4S sales dropped was because of the extremely poorly kept secret that the iPhone5 was coming out in Oct.
That is still an opportunity. Consumers may become bored of the hype and anticipation and then become tolerant. A new shin then becomes more attractive. Protracted product release cycles are product-killers: something people have known about for the last 2 years just doesn't gather as much release-day camping as something people just heard about last week via an exciting marketing campaign.
It's fair to make a statistical assumption (i.e. high likelihood) that the popularity of the iPad is tied to the iPhone. That is to say: who the hell buys a Nexus 4 and says, "I want an iPad so I can get all these fancy Android apps on a bigger screen!" iPhone, iOS, iApps, iPad; Android phone, Android, Android apps, Android tablet. Eroding the iPhone market could erode the iPad market, which is better than double-dipping: even if Samsung doesn't make an Android tablet, once Android tablets gain popularity they're suddenly cool and people will match the phone to the tablet (which further weakens the market for the iPhone) in a feedback loop started by getting people off the phone so they'd match the tablet to the phone.
High stakes sure,but it's a good attack plan. As I said, Apple is weak--the Galaxy S3 is single-handedly outselling the iPhone--and so this is the time for Samsung to strike. There is also word on the wind that Apple may be trying to get away from Samsung in a vertical integration scheme (Apple is the next Carnegie Steel) fabbing their own chips, so perhaps Samsung has very little to lose.
The Galaxy S3 is a bigger seller than the iPhone. Your rational analysis falls on the deaf ears of all the fucks Samsung does not give; if they can wound Apple while they're weak, they might be able to keep their product in consumer hands by being inexpensive (the Galaxy Nexus was $350 and the LG Nexus 4 is $350, Samsung could sell their S3 or upcoming S4 etc. for $300-$400 while Apple hangs onto a $600+ price tag and exclusive network service...) as well as top-notch, and then it's just a matter of keeping the wide lead ever-widening. Make Apple the underdog and then try to not be the crap product being overtaken by the top-notch underdog.