The company Apple would arguably have felt right at home in the East Berlin of the former DDR, i.e. East Germany, where during the Cold War days we once visited the rotating restaurant in the TV tower at Alexander Platz (then in East Berlin) -- see the image above -- and where we were presented with a food menu containing dozens of food selections, yet, no matter what we ordered to eat, the waitress said they did not have it.
In the end, the waitress admitted that they only had chicken, and that is what we would have to eat, if we wanted to eat anything. Apple seems to feel the same way about their iPhone and iPad -- NOT permitting the consumer A CHOICE appears to be their political philosophy. CHICKEN ONLY.
We have no use for such companies, which contradict our views of Western democracy, entrepreneurship and capitalism.
David Meyer in Communication Breakdown at ZDNet UK reports that Germany upholds Samsung Android tablet ban for now, writing:
"A Duesseldorf court has upheld a temporary injunction barring Samsung from selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Germany.The fact that we have two completely differing interpretations of a European Community "design" does not bide well for European Law. David Meyer writes:
On Thursday, a judge said the ban should remain in place for now, ahead of a full ruling on the matter on 9 September....
Separately on Wednesday, a Dutch court issued a temporary ban on the sale of Galaxy smartphones, in another case initiated by Apple. That judge, however, only issued the injunction of the basis of a single technical patent being violated, and did not consider Samsung to have violated Apple's 'Community' design with its Android tablet."
"The European Commission is keeping an eye on the situation, digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes said on Thursday. "We're following [the] Dutch and German cases closely," Kroes said in a Twitter post."We certainly hope so. And we hope that the European Commission is aware of what was written at TechCrunch.com, as posted at the Washington Post with Bloomberg:
"In any case, we’re the ones with the most to lose. Apple and Samsung will both survive this fight, albeit with a few bumps and bruises. But end-users are getting screwed out of fun new toys, and that’s what hurts the most. "All of these battles are carried out on the backs of the USERS, not the backs of companies, who write off the expenses from their taxes. Only when intellectual property law is viewed from the standpoint of CONSUMERS, does one get sane rules and regulations.
The present IP laws concentrate on the rights of monopolists, and that is exactly the wrong way to view intellectual property law, which is merely a special and limited right granted to authors and inventors, not a blanket permission to extort society at large.
It is quite amazing to us as a legal matter, for example, that a European-wide preliminary injunction against Samsung was initially and erroneously issued at the drop of the hat in Germany in a small local court that apparently has delusions of grandeur. Indeed, this "Kunststück" was performed after hearing only one side of the issue -- a barbarically antiquated legal procedure which we thought had been "banned" in modern jurisprudence.
And yet, the REVIEW of this quick legal shot from the hip by that same court now is lasting a month. Something is deeply wrong here in the discrepancy between those times. This suggests that preliminary injunctions are knee-jerk reactions in Germany, made without proper examination and review.
We think that preliminary injunctions, except in the most extreme cases of necessity, should be forbidden. Certainly they should not be permitted to keep competitors from introducing their products. If damage is done due to an intellectual property legal wrong, then it must be compensated by the payment of court-imposed royalties, but injunctions are totally at odds with a functioning social economy. They are TOTALLY unnecessary from any objective view.
This injunction business is not the way to do business in a Western competitively-oriented capitalist country. When judges decide what products can come onto the market or not, the end is near. No wonder the EU is in so much financial trouble. You have to let the market work, and not hinder normal and natural progress in product development, where a certain amount of imitation is always present as a NORMAL and healthy sign of the state-of-the-art!
As the judge wrote in the Netherlands in the Apple-Samsung confrontation, a company practicing "minimalist art" in its products can not make too many demands on its competitors who also choose to follow minimalist design strategies. There just is not that much "design" there. Most of it is hype and marketing. That's capitalism.