But of course what really happened is rather inconvenient for Apple fans' theory that the Galaxy Tab's design must be a ripoff of the iPad, instead of taking its design cues from another Samsung product [engadget.com]. So that last sentence gets cut out from their retelling of the story, thus creating an alternate reality which better fits their predetermined view.
Why do Samsung fans never show a picture of that photo frame from the side, or from the back? Because the photo from from any other angle does look nothing like an iPad, and if Samsung used the design of their photo frame for their tablet, Apple's lawyer's wouldn't sue, but they would die laughing.
This injunction is only a bargaining chip that will be used in the settlement conference [macworld.co.uk] that Samsung and Apple have agreed to. If Samsung thought they were going to lose Apple's business over this lawsuit, the Galaxy Tab would become the next TouchPad.
There isn't just one Samsung. If the VP responsible for Galaxy asked the VP responsible for selling electronic parts to stop selling to Apple, the answer would be "fuck off".
No, they created a device that looks like an iPad because anything that does the same job will look pretty much they same. Hammers, for example, tend to have a heavy end that hits and a handle end that you hold.
"Pretty much the same" isn't the same as "the same". Look at the Samsung Galaxy 3. It looks totally different from the iPhone 4. Nobody would ever think you have an iPhone when you have a Galaxy 3.
Heck, even Samsung thought of it before the iPad [engadget.com]. They just didn't think of patenting it.
You are literally only showing one side of the picture. Turn that photo frame by any angle, and you see that it looks nothing like an iPad. And may I suggest that if there was similarity that withstands examination in court (for example, if Apple showed the judge a photo showing it from the side), wouldn't Samsung have brought this up in court? Maybe they missed it, but I'd say that if Samsungs lawyers are more stupid than the average slashdot poster than they deserve to lose.
Geeeee boss... didn't know apple users were so stupid! But then, you only confirm my hypothesis...
It seems the stupid one is you. What a lack of logical thinking. The people in questions are _not_ Apple users. They are prospective buyers of iPads, so they are _not_ Apple users. The clever ones turn into Apple users, and the stupid ones turn into Samsung users.
What's particularly innovative about the ipad design? Like what's so innovative that it deserves a patent? (i personally believe the ipad to be an innovative device, i just don't see what's so special about its design)
Ask Samsung. They knew that Apple had a design patent, they knew they would be sued, and still they didnt' use a different design. Why is that? If there is nothing special about the design, why is Samsung copying it? Are they incapable of any design? Are they incapabable of making any good looking design?
Just saying: For design patents, any branding is explicitely excluded. That means, if there are two tablets that are identical except for an "Apple" or a "Samsung" logo, even if it is absolutely impossible to miss for a half blind person, are considered identical by the law.
There are a lot of what-ifs that you have, and it's quite simple: If there is enough difference for the judge to say that the Samsung tablet doesn't infringe on Apple's design tablet, then Apple doesn't have a case. On the other hand, people wouldn't think it's an iPad, or like an iPad, which is most likely what Samsung tried to achieve.
And anyway, not everyone knows that iPads are made by Apple and by Apple only. Samsung is a well known name, so seeing a product that looks like an iPad and has "Samsung" written on it, many people might think it is an iPad made by Samsung.
Let's be honest, does Apple make a better product? No
I'll correct that: In your totally unqualified opinion, does Apple make a better product? No.
Take the new Retina MacBook Pro as an example: It is expensive. Compared to an Alienware laptop with the same processor / SSD, but a bigger display with a lot fewer pixels, with weight and battery life that Dell doesn't dare to tell you, or compared to a nice Sony laptop with the same processor / SSD and a screen with much less good resolution, the Retina MBP is cheaper.
It's not enough to "hear" it. They need proof. Documentation. Passports. Air tickets as evidence. You think that kind of "proof" would hold up in a court of law?
Here's how it works: A store _must_ of course refuse to sell goods if selling them would be illegal. A store _can_ refuse to sell goods if there is a good reason. And believing that selling _might_ be illegal is a good reason not to sell an item. Evidence that needs to hold up in court would be needed if a police officer accused the customer of actually committing a crime. That hasn't happened here. All that the store needs is a good reason. In this case, the store had to decide between upsetting a customer and losing a sale, or potentially being involved in a serious crime with potentially very, very serious consequences.
"Sabet says she later called Apple's corporate customer relations, where an employee reportedly apologized and told her she could buy an iPad online."
Obviously we do not know exactly what she said when she called customer relations. Did she say "he refused to sell me an iPad because I am Farsi"? In that case I would expect that they apologize, that this shouldn't have happened, and if she wants an iPad but doesn't want to go to the same store (which would be understandably), she could buy on online. If she said "I want to buy an iPad to send to my cousin in Iran and they refused to sell it", then she would have got a different answer.
Again, I will ask what I asked twice in this story already and have yet to receive: show me another company doing this in a comparable way (ie, people in an American store being denied a sale because they might send the item to Iran), and I'll maybe buy it.
Show me another store where you could get any TV crew to report it if it happened.
According to Forbes, items that can be purchased at retail do not require an export license.
Except the guy who wrote that article doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. You don't need an export license to buy the items as million of Apple customers found out who bought iPads without an export license. Unlike buying missiles where I'm quite sure you need some sort of license. That doesn't change the fact that there is a total trade embargo covering all trades from the USA to Iran, exporting to Iran is illegal, and as soon as you know about it, selling the item is illegal as well.
Actually Apple has broken the law by not selling by discriminating against the customer. Apple would not have broken any law by selling to the customer regardless what she planed on doing with it. If she did sell it or give it away, she would have been in trouble with the law, not Apple. The problem is some over zealous asshole is taking a standard legal policy, thinking he's smart as a lawyer, and poorly applies it so people will be impressed at how smart he is.
Apart from the fact that there are laws in place, and precedent, that show it would have been illegal to sell the iPad if the sales person heard her saying she wanted to export is: A store can refuse to sell to any customer for any good reason. Nationality, gender, and so on, of the customer is not a good reason. However, believing that selling to them would be or might be a crime, whether that believe is correct or not, is a good reason.
A completely different example: When you try to pay, the sales person spots that you carry credit cards in four different names with you. There may be a perfectly good explanation for that, but it looks dodgy, and there is an above average probability that the store ends up with no money if they sell to you. So they will refuse a sale. No matter what the nationality etc. of the buyer is.
Across the pond, in the UK, businesses are explicitly forbidden by the 2010 Equality Act from omission, refusal or failure to do trade based on age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religious or belief-related reasons, sex or sexual orientation. In this context, race is (again explicitly) defined as (a) colour, (b) nationality, or (c) ethnic or national origins.
On the other hand, an off license in the UK will get into deep trouble selling alcohol to a minor, independent of their age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religious or belief-related reasons, sex or sexual orientation.
In the situation here, where it is claimed that the woman said in Farsi that she wanted to send an iPad to Iran, and the sales person understood her, there is a trade embargo in place that makes it illegal to sell the iPad to her. And she actually admitted that it was her intend to go against this trade embargo, which carries a penalty of up to 20 years in jail.
So we have two claims: One that he refused a sale for illegal reasons which he should have refused for legal reasons, had he known the facts. Two that he refused a sale for legal reasons.
So this is like a pregnant disabled muslim woman refused to buy alcohol for her underage children, claiming she was refused because she was pregnant, disabled, and muslim, while the shop assistant says she was refused because the alcohol was meant for her children - which she admitted.
don't get it. Which part of the sensitive technology iPad contains you deny to Iranians in Apple Stores that they cannot get from communist China where the iPad is manufactured?
There is a trade embargo. It doesn't have anything to do with any secrets or with any sensitive technology. You can't export anything at all from the USA to Iran. You _might_ get a license to export food for humanitarian reasons, and that's about it.
Why not just have in the purchase agreement a clause stating that the product is not allowed to be exported to those countries. Wouldn't that disclaim responsibility (in situations that are ambiguous) for Apple without having to ask their ethnicity?
Apple didn't ask anything. She said (or so is claimed) "I am buying this for a relative in Iran". If she hadn't said that, she could have bought the iPad.
Stuff like this _is_ a clause in the purchase agreement. I'm quite sure it needs to be there to cover Apple if you export an item illegally without Apple knowing. The girl might have bought the iPad for a relative in Iran, then read the 80 pages purchase agreement, and then she would have realised she can't send the iPad to a relative, and could have returned it to the store or used it herself.
If Apple knows or has good reason to assume that you intend an illegal export, they can't sell it, and a clause in the purchase agreement won't protect them.
Say you go to the gun store and say "I need a gun to shoot my bloody neighbour". The clerk says "here is the gun, but you need to sign that you understand that you mustn't use this gun to murder anyone". Won't work.
Because he is the one who has to prove his case. The burden of evidence is on him. Innocent until...etc etc. Moreover, this is not the only incident.
He is accused of acting out of racist motives. Innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. He doesn't have to prove a thing. If you accuse him, the burden of evidence is on you.
I sincerely doubt that an $11.00 an hour clerk at an Apple store has the knowledge and judgement to interpret and apply complex trade sanctions.
That's a rather stupid assumption, because it is quite possible that the $11.00 an hour clerk at the Apple store is a student of international trade law, close to getting his degree, who is making some money while going to university. I knew plenty of people who worked regularly at McDonald's while going to university. Apart from that, that knowledge isn't really needed. All that's needed is listening on his training where he is told "you mustn't sell anything if you know that it will end up in Iran, Cuba or North Korea".
Er, does apple use the GPS chip to determine where the iPad is, and prevents it use within borders of countries with trade embargoes?
Why would they? As long as everybody obeys the law, there can't be any iPads exported to Iran. Even if there is one, the EULA says that you are not allowed to use it if exported illegally. And iPads that are in the country legally (probably a few in a number of embassies) shouldn't be interered with.
The real reason it is a sad day is this discussion. I am appalled that slashdot can harbor this much racism and ignorance simply because Apple is involved. No one has yet provided any proof of this being legally required by anything, just empty claims that that is the case. Yet there has been a lot of censoring of people who say this is wrong and upmodding of ones making false claims in defense of Apple, and it doesn't take long to figure out who has been doing that.
You are completely of your rocker with your crazy accusations. I haven't found anything in this whole discussion that was in any way racist (except one post that I didn't quite understand that seemed to be about Iranians and homosexuality). What this discussion was about was whether a sale of an iPad was refused out of racist motives, or in order to act according to existing laws, and in the second case whether the refusal was correct or in error.
There was with the exception mentioned earlier no post that claimed it was in any way correct to refuse anyone a sale because of their nationality or origin. The opposite is of course true as well; if there is a good reason to refuse a sale then a sale should be refused, again without regard of the nationality or origin of the buyer.
The US law could be construed to mean that selling things to Iranians for use in Iran is illegal.
It couldn't be construed to mean that, it actually means it. To clarify, it's even illegal if it is not used - exporting an iPad to show in an art exhibition would be illegal, because the exporting is the illegal part. And it is not explicitly "selling things to Iranians", selling to Americans (as was the case here), Germans, French, for use in Iran, would be just as illegal.
There may be situations like selling to an Iranian tourist, or selling to an Iranian student whose visa runs out in three months time, where the nationality makes it more likely that the item would be exported to Iran, and where the seller might have to check. In the case at hand, I don't think the seller would be required to make any checks. Of course, any seller of an item might ask "is this for yourself, or should I wrap it as a gift", and if you then answer "it's a gift for my cousin in Iran", that's tough. No sale.
The store employee didn't know she was going to give it to anyone in Iran: "Sabet told WSBTV that the iPad was intended as a gift to her cousin in Iran, but said she didn't mention that to the clerk."
So no excuse on that front.
She intended to break a law that carries a penalty up to 20 years in jail. She is stupid enough to make it public knowledge that she intended to break this law. And you believe what she says?
Try to think about this logically: What reason would Apple have to refuse selling to someone because of their nationality? None. It doesn't make sense. Next, what would you do if you were refused to purchase because of your national origin? You would call some other sales person, or talk to the manager. In what situation would you _not_ do that? You wouldn't if you realised that you said something you shouldn't have said, and if you knew that the sale isn't refused because of your origin, but because you talked about breaking the law, not knowing that you would run into one of the few sales people who would have understood you.
"Sabet told WSBTV that the iPad was intended as a gift to her cousin in Iran, but said she didn't mention that to the clerk"
Wait a second - she told WSBTV that she intented to commit a criminal offense that carries a penalty of up to 20 years in jail? Shouldn't she be thanking the store clerk who prevented her from doing so?
Selling an item is not the same as exporting it. If I buy an item from Target, and then ship it overseas, did Target really help me export it?
Selling an item is not the same as exporting it, that is right. But selling an item when you just heard that the buyer wants to export it _is_ helping to export it. Would you bet a dollar against me being right? If the answer is yes, would you bet a chance of going to jail against me being right?
Slashdot Mirror
But of course what really happened is rather inconvenient for Apple fans' theory that the Galaxy Tab's design must be a ripoff of the iPad, instead of taking its design cues from another Samsung product [engadget.com]. So that last sentence gets cut out from their retelling of the story, thus creating an alternate reality which better fits their predetermined view.
Why do Samsung fans never show a picture of that photo frame from the side, or from the back? Because the photo from from any other angle does look nothing like an iPad, and if Samsung used the design of their photo frame for their tablet, Apple's lawyer's wouldn't sue, but they would die laughing.
This injunction is only a bargaining chip that will be used in the settlement conference [macworld.co.uk] that Samsung and Apple have agreed to. If Samsung thought they were going to lose Apple's business over this lawsuit, the Galaxy Tab would become the next TouchPad.
There isn't just one Samsung. If the VP responsible for Galaxy asked the VP responsible for selling electronic parts to stop selling to Apple, the answer would be "fuck off".
No, they created a device that looks like an iPad because anything that does the same job will look pretty much they same. Hammers, for example, tend to have a heavy end that hits and a handle end that you hold.
"Pretty much the same" isn't the same as "the same". Look at the Samsung Galaxy 3. It looks totally different from the iPhone 4. Nobody would ever think you have an iPhone when you have a Galaxy 3.
Heck, even Samsung thought of it before the iPad [engadget.com]. They just didn't think of patenting it.
You are literally only showing one side of the picture. Turn that photo frame by any angle, and you see that it looks nothing like an iPad. And may I suggest that if there was similarity that withstands examination in court (for example, if Apple showed the judge a photo showing it from the side), wouldn't Samsung have brought this up in court? Maybe they missed it, but I'd say that if Samsungs lawyers are more stupid than the average slashdot poster than they deserve to lose.
Geeeee boss... didn't know apple users were so stupid! But then, you only confirm my hypothesis...
It seems the stupid one is you. What a lack of logical thinking. The people in questions are _not_ Apple users. They are prospective buyers of iPads, so they are _not_ Apple users. The clever ones turn into Apple users, and the stupid ones turn into Samsung users.
What's particularly innovative about the ipad design? Like what's so innovative that it deserves a patent? (i personally believe the ipad to be an innovative device, i just don't see what's so special about its design)
Ask Samsung. They knew that Apple had a design patent, they knew they would be sued, and still they didnt' use a different design. Why is that? If there is nothing special about the design, why is Samsung copying it? Are they incapable of any design? Are they incapabable of making any good looking design?
Just saying: For design patents, any branding is explicitely excluded. That means, if there are two tablets that are identical except for an "Apple" or a "Samsung" logo, even if it is absolutely impossible to miss for a half blind person, are considered identical by the law.
There are a lot of what-ifs that you have, and it's quite simple: If there is enough difference for the judge to say that the Samsung tablet doesn't infringe on Apple's design tablet, then Apple doesn't have a case. On the other hand, people wouldn't think it's an iPad, or like an iPad, which is most likely what Samsung tried to achieve.
And anyway, not everyone knows that iPads are made by Apple and by Apple only. Samsung is a well known name, so seeing a product that looks like an iPad and has "Samsung" written on it, many people might think it is an iPad made by Samsung.
Let's be honest, does Apple make a better product? No
I'll correct that: In your totally unqualified opinion, does Apple make a better product? No.
Take the new Retina MacBook Pro as an example: It is expensive. Compared to an Alienware laptop with the same processor / SSD, but a bigger display with a lot fewer pixels, with weight and battery life that Dell doesn't dare to tell you, or compared to a nice Sony laptop with the same processor / SSD and a screen with much less good resolution, the Retina MBP is cheaper.
It's not enough to "hear" it. They need proof. Documentation. Passports. Air tickets as evidence. You think that kind of "proof" would hold up in a court of law?
Here's how it works: A store _must_ of course refuse to sell goods if selling them would be illegal. A store _can_ refuse to sell goods if there is a good reason. And believing that selling _might_ be illegal is a good reason not to sell an item. Evidence that needs to hold up in court would be needed if a police officer accused the customer of actually committing a crime. That hasn't happened here. All that the store needs is a good reason. In this case, the store had to decide between upsetting a customer and losing a sale, or potentially being involved in a serious crime with potentially very, very serious consequences.
"Sabet says she later called Apple's corporate customer relations, where an employee reportedly apologized and told her she could buy an iPad online."
Obviously we do not know exactly what she said when she called customer relations. Did she say "he refused to sell me an iPad because I am Farsi"? In that case I would expect that they apologize, that this shouldn't have happened, and if she wants an iPad but doesn't want to go to the same store (which would be understandably), she could buy on online. If she said "I want to buy an iPad to send to my cousin in Iran and they refused to sell it", then she would have got a different answer.
Again, I will ask what I asked twice in this story already and have yet to receive: show me another company doing this in a comparable way (ie, people in an American store being denied a sale because they might send the item to Iran), and I'll maybe buy it.
Show me another store where you could get any TV crew to report it if it happened.
According to Forbes, items that can be purchased at retail do not require an export license.
Except the guy who wrote that article doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. You don't need an export license to buy the items as million of Apple customers found out who bought iPads without an export license. Unlike buying missiles where I'm quite sure you need some sort of license. That doesn't change the fact that there is a total trade embargo covering all trades from the USA to Iran, exporting to Iran is illegal, and as soon as you know about it, selling the item is illegal as well.
Actually Apple has broken the law by not selling by discriminating against the customer. Apple would not have broken any law by selling to the customer regardless what she planed on doing with it. If she did sell it or give it away, she would have been in trouble with the law, not Apple. The problem is some over zealous asshole is taking a standard legal policy, thinking he's smart as a lawyer, and poorly applies it so people will be impressed at how smart he is.
Apart from the fact that there are laws in place, and precedent, that show it would have been illegal to sell the iPad if the sales person heard her saying she wanted to export is: A store can refuse to sell to any customer for any good reason. Nationality, gender, and so on, of the customer is not a good reason. However, believing that selling to them would be or might be a crime, whether that believe is correct or not, is a good reason.
A completely different example: When you try to pay, the sales person spots that you carry credit cards in four different names with you. There may be a perfectly good explanation for that, but it looks dodgy, and there is an above average probability that the store ends up with no money if they sell to you. So they will refuse a sale. No matter what the nationality etc. of the buyer is.
Across the pond, in the UK, businesses are explicitly forbidden by the 2010 Equality Act from omission, refusal or failure to do trade based on age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religious or belief-related reasons, sex or sexual orientation. In this context, race is (again explicitly) defined as (a) colour, (b) nationality, or (c) ethnic or national origins.
On the other hand, an off license in the UK will get into deep trouble selling alcohol to a minor, independent of their age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religious or belief-related reasons, sex or sexual orientation.
In the situation here, where it is claimed that the woman said in Farsi that she wanted to send an iPad to Iran, and the sales person understood her, there is a trade embargo in place that makes it illegal to sell the iPad to her. And she actually admitted that it was her intend to go against this trade embargo, which carries a penalty of up to 20 years in jail.
So we have two claims: One that he refused a sale for illegal reasons which he should have refused for legal reasons, had he known the facts. Two that he refused a sale for legal reasons.
So this is like a pregnant disabled muslim woman refused to buy alcohol for her underage children, claiming she was refused because she was pregnant, disabled, and muslim, while the shop assistant says she was refused because the alcohol was meant for her children - which she admitted.
don't get it. Which part of the sensitive technology iPad contains you deny to Iranians in Apple Stores that they cannot get from communist China where the iPad is manufactured?
There is a trade embargo. It doesn't have anything to do with any secrets or with any sensitive technology. You can't export anything at all from the USA to Iran. You _might_ get a license to export food for humanitarian reasons, and that's about it.
Why not just have in the purchase agreement a clause stating that the product is not allowed to be exported to those countries. Wouldn't that disclaim responsibility (in situations that are ambiguous) for Apple without having to ask their ethnicity?
Apple didn't ask anything. She said (or so is claimed) "I am buying this for a relative in Iran". If she hadn't said that, she could have bought the iPad.
Stuff like this _is_ a clause in the purchase agreement. I'm quite sure it needs to be there to cover Apple if you export an item illegally without Apple knowing. The girl might have bought the iPad for a relative in Iran, then read the 80 pages purchase agreement, and then she would have realised she can't send the iPad to a relative, and could have returned it to the store or used it herself.
If Apple knows or has good reason to assume that you intend an illegal export, they can't sell it, and a clause in the purchase agreement won't protect them.
Say you go to the gun store and say "I need a gun to shoot my bloody neighbour". The clerk says "here is the gun, but you need to sign that you understand that you mustn't use this gun to murder anyone". Won't work.
Because he is the one who has to prove his case. The burden of evidence is on him. Innocent until...etc etc. Moreover, this is not the only incident.
He is accused of acting out of racist motives. Innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. He doesn't have to prove a thing. If you accuse him, the burden of evidence is on you.
I sincerely doubt that an $11.00 an hour clerk at an Apple store has the knowledge and judgement to interpret and apply complex trade sanctions.
That's a rather stupid assumption, because it is quite possible that the $11.00 an hour clerk at the Apple store is a student of international trade law, close to getting his degree, who is making some money while going to university. I knew plenty of people who worked regularly at McDonald's while going to university. Apart from that, that knowledge isn't really needed. All that's needed is listening on his training where he is told "you mustn't sell anything if you know that it will end up in Iran, Cuba or North Korea".
Er, does apple use the GPS chip to determine where the iPad is, and prevents it use within borders of countries with trade embargoes?
Why would they? As long as everybody obeys the law, there can't be any iPads exported to Iran. Even if there is one, the EULA says that you are not allowed to use it if exported illegally. And iPads that are in the country legally (probably a few in a number of embassies) shouldn't be interered with.
The real reason it is a sad day is this discussion. I am appalled that slashdot can harbor this much racism and ignorance simply because Apple is involved. No one has yet provided any proof of this being legally required by anything, just empty claims that that is the case. Yet there has been a lot of censoring of people who say this is wrong and upmodding of ones making false claims in defense of Apple, and it doesn't take long to figure out who has been doing that.
Read it here: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/programs/pages/iran.aspx
You are completely of your rocker with your crazy accusations. I haven't found anything in this whole discussion that was in any way racist (except one post that I didn't quite understand that seemed to be about Iranians and homosexuality). What this discussion was about was whether a sale of an iPad was refused out of racist motives, or in order to act according to existing laws, and in the second case whether the refusal was correct or in error.
There was with the exception mentioned earlier no post that claimed it was in any way correct to refuse anyone a sale because of their nationality or origin. The opposite is of course true as well; if there is a good reason to refuse a sale then a sale should be refused, again without regard of the nationality or origin of the buyer.
The US law could be construed to mean that selling things to Iranians for use in Iran is illegal.
It couldn't be construed to mean that, it actually means it. To clarify, it's even illegal if it is not used - exporting an iPad to show in an art exhibition would be illegal, because the exporting is the illegal part. And it is not explicitly "selling things to Iranians", selling to Americans (as was the case here), Germans, French, for use in Iran, would be just as illegal.
There may be situations like selling to an Iranian tourist, or selling to an Iranian student whose visa runs out in three months time, where the nationality makes it more likely that the item would be exported to Iran, and where the seller might have to check. In the case at hand, I don't think the seller would be required to make any checks. Of course, any seller of an item might ask "is this for yourself, or should I wrap it as a gift", and if you then answer "it's a gift for my cousin in Iran", that's tough. No sale.
The store employee didn't know she was going to give it to anyone in Iran: "Sabet told WSBTV that the iPad was intended as a gift to her cousin in Iran, but said she didn't mention that to the clerk."
So no excuse on that front.
She intended to break a law that carries a penalty up to 20 years in jail. She is stupid enough to make it public knowledge that she intended to break this law. And you believe what she says?
Try to think about this logically: What reason would Apple have to refuse selling to someone because of their nationality? None. It doesn't make sense. Next, what would you do if you were refused to purchase because of your national origin? You would call some other sales person, or talk to the manager. In what situation would you _not_ do that? You wouldn't if you realised that you said something you shouldn't have said, and if you knew that the sale isn't refused because of your origin, but because you talked about breaking the law, not knowing that you would run into one of the few sales people who would have understood you.
"Sabet told WSBTV that the iPad was intended as a gift to her cousin in Iran, but said she didn't mention that to the clerk"
Wait a second - she told WSBTV that she intented to commit a criminal offense that carries a penalty of up to 20 years in jail? Shouldn't she be thanking the store clerk who prevented her from doing so?
Homosexuality is illegal in Iran, so it should be illegal for Iranians to buy iPads.
I don't get it. Could you explain this? Apparently this is supposed to be funny, but I can't think of any funny interpretation of your post.
Selling an item is not the same as exporting it. If I buy an item from Target, and then ship it overseas, did Target really help me export it?
Selling an item is not the same as exporting it, that is right. But selling an item when you just heard that the buyer wants to export it _is_ helping to export it. Would you bet a dollar against me being right? If the answer is yes, would you bet a chance of going to jail against me being right?