decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Chinese Copyright is Better Than Apple Would Have Us Believe! | 111 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Chinese Copyright is Better Than Apple Would Have Us Believe!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 13 2012 @ 02:26 AM EDT
What's justice here in America is; the party with the most money
and biggest fattest mouth invariably Wins!

But it's not the laws or the judicial system that's bad here. It's
that the biggest thieves and criminals are the ones most likely to
have the money and cry the loudest about the good guys stealing
from them!

In China they've had "First to File" laws on the books for some
time. It's a precept companies like Apple are banking on to help
them get a leg up on all their competition. Only they didn't
consider Quick Witted Chinese to be quicker than them. While all
of those who present the greatest threat to their dominant power,
have always played rope a dope to keep from stepping on Apple's
toes.

In China there's one thing they have more of than we have and
that's a vital and free open market. That encourages entrepreneurship,
competition in a vibrant mom n pop marketplace.
That treats even the other small business owners as equals and the
same as they do the biggest Global Conglomerates. They instead
have learned to not over regulate to such a degree that it kills
the economy ether.

Frankly... I don't think this company would sue Apple. But by law,
they have every right to. They're going to be first to market on
their device and it's been designed with quality, like few clones
could ever boast before. With it's Tegra 3 processor, 1 gig DDR3
ram, multi-band 3G radios, MicroSD, 8gig & 16gig memory,
bluetooth, Dual band wifi, DLNA, HDMI and running Android Jelly
Bean, it can't help but succeed. Miezu is another clone like
device, but it's now viewed in China as being as good as an
iPhone! ....even though it's Samsung that supplies much of the
parts, they don't fear it, like Apple does naturally!

This clone company's iPhone 5 won't be cheap. But neither is it's
Samsung SGIII clone cousin either. Still.... they're a a whole lot
cheaper than anything from Apple or Samsung in he high end market!

People that can't afford these real phones in China will buy these
and be quite happy. So what did SAMUNG have to say about them
cloning their GSIII phone? They complimented them on the design
told them what they could change to make it better. While
secretely just being happy they're still the #1 Smartphone Seller
in China in spite of having a clone (in fact still growing). What
did this company do in response to Samsung? Prominently displayed
their Bee Logo on both the device and packaging of their GSIII
Clone, so as not to confuse buyers. That's how you handle the
Chinese!

You do what SAMSUNG does all over the World including here. You
invest in giving jobs (Samsung investing 7 Billion in most
advanced 10nm 14nm memory fabrication plant opening next year) to
the people who can then afford to buy your products and you then
only need to let your products stand on their own merits!

So... by contrast Apple tried to defraud a Respected Chinese Brand
out of their Trademark for pennies on the dollar. Knowing they
were in financial trouble in an attempt to burn them. The people
responded to this underdog story by declaring a silent boycott of
Apple products. Starting in March after Apple's appeal against
Proview and Apple's failed attempt to bring iPhone 4s to China,
Apple's sales in China hit the floor. That's the drop that had
Apple losing market share in a month they should have been gaining
in. People wonder why they only had 26 million Smartphone sales
last quarter? China!

When the suicides and Apple Media attempts to glorify themselves
earlier this year, Apple made some big mistakes by disrespecting
the Chinese People. By also trivializing the deaths and working
conditions the Chinese workers face in making Apple's products for
people like YOU. While also treating Proview with total disrespect
as just flea on their back or fly annoyance.

The Chinese People for the first time saw Apple for who they
really are. An arrogant greedy Corporate thug out of control!
....they are the only phone seller out of the top 5 phone makers
to have the bottom fall out of their market in China. Where it is
now the largest smartphone market in the World. Is it the clones?
....NO! ....but it's more than likely who got some of their
business along with SAMSUNG, Lenovo and other phone makers there!

NOW THAT'S JUSTICE SERVED CHINESE STYLE..... to Apple's War CHEST
n NUTS in Sun Tsu's (Art of War) Greatest Tactical Traditions!!!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )