Let's be more clear: Snot and hh are idiots

Verily I say unto thee that "-hh" spake thusly:
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

On Oct 18, 5:11 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

<http://goo.gl/QCvc4>

[...]

Images at the link.

How many in COLA are still defending Samsung and denying they are
doing massive amounts to copy Apple's products?

There might be the vague hand-waiving of "IP" and for patents, but
they need not apply: this is a clear case of copyright theft.

Well given the image in question is merely a Google Maps screenshot,
whose "IP" has been "stolen", exactly?

In fact, isn't the blogger who originally posted this image on Flickr,
Laura Scott, guilty of "stealing" /Google's/ "IP"?

Fair's fair, after all. I mean if we're going to properly attribute
"ownership", we should do it right, right?

Next we should examine things like who "owns" the GUI elements shown in
that Google Maps screenshot: Apple, or Xerox PARC, or maybe even Richard
Stallman (GNU Emacs had incremental search features all the way back in
the 1970s, for example).

And what exactly is "copyright theft" anyway, since AFAIK there is no
such law? Nowhere does the law define copyright infringement (if this
even qualifies) as "theft". Making a copy of something cannot possibly
qualify as theft, because the original article remains still fully in
the possession of its owner. That's why the law defines unauthorised
copying as an "infringement of rights" (or in reality, artificially
granted privileges), and not any sort of "theft". There is no automatic
assumption of loss, it's up to the complainant to prove demonstrable
loss, if any, arising from this alleged "infringement".

Here's an explanation even someone as moronic as you can understand. As
an Apple fanboy, I'm sure you'll appreciate this. After all, Apple is by
far the most prolific copier in the industry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

So what has Apple "lost" as a result of this /Google Maps/ screenshot?

Even the term "copyright theft" itself is utter nonsense. How does one
"steal a copyright"? Are you suggesting Samsung broke into the James
Madison Memorial Building, rifled through some filing cabinets, then ran
off clutching somebody else's copyright registration form?

Idiot.

Samsung has been "caught" doing lazy marketing. That's all. Period.

But I'm sure you and Snot would love it to be something far worse. After
all, Apple is being hammered in the smartphone market, and is about to
be annihilated in the tablet market too, and that will dash the dreams
of your dearly departed "hero" and megalomaniacal dictator, Steve Jobs,
who vowed with his dying breath to destroy everyone for "stealing" ideas
he stole first.

K. | "UNIX is basically a simple operating
http://slated.org | system, but you have to be a genius
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | to understand the simplicity"
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 152 days | ~ Dennis Ritchie