Motorola Wins Injunction Against Apple's iCloud in Germany

[watcha]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]By that logic, can you prove the advertising that "Mac's don't get viruses" to be true if even the best anti-virus programs or industry experts can't? So your Apple advertising is false? Surprise!Here's one ad in question that claims all PCs have viruses and Macs don't. Plain and simple false advertising, and proof that you believe everything that Apple spews. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrpKTcaU8ncHave you gone to watch the NephilimFree video? The first few minutes talking about ol' Nephy are a perfect description of you.[/citation]

You're the one claiming it's false. I'm not claiming it's true. I simply said if it isn't true, Microsoft should object (or you should).

Since you're making the claim, you have to have the proof. Again, you're failing to follow simple conversation. I pity any of your family or friends, lol.

That advert you posted - the line in question doesn't necessarily specifically refer to viruses, she has listed a few things which she wants to avoid, and he has basically said 'any pc has those problems' - meaning any pc is vulnerable to those problems. It doesn't even claim Apple isn't vulnerable to them. Again, and really amusingly, your failure to understand context is surfacing.

Furthermore, if the advertising agency agreed with you that they were claiming all PC's 'have viruses' (not what the advert says at all), and they agree with you that not all pc's have viruses (debatable since every operating system arguably has them), then they would withdraw the advert - the youtube video not being one.

So in summary, you've made an un proved claim, failed to understand that I have never said it's all true, but simply told you the procedure to be followed if you have proof it isn't, and you've linked to a Youtube video believing it constitutes an advert.

Wrong on all 3 fronts.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]Why don't I address the things we argue about? Because they have all been addressed a thousand times over. You are too stupid to get it and there is no point in addressing the issues beyond the basics. If we get technical, you just claim you know everything and everyone else is wrong and stupid.[/citation]

This whole section contains no logical arguments at all, and still fails to actually present any logical arguments.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]Now you're a psychology expert as well! So you're a computer engineer, with a degree in Law, and an expert in marketing, advertising, programming, psychology and flipping burgers...I'm 100% on target comparing you to a religious fanatic. You're just too religiously fanatical to understand.[/citation]

I've never claimed to be an expert in marketing, advertising, or being a computer engineer. Nor have I claimed to be an expert in psychology or flipping burgers, or religious. To claim I'm fanatical is as vacuous a claim as your entire post - it simply makes no contention whatsoever.

That's all stuff you mistakenly read into the application of basic logic.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
You have never had a relevant or well constructed argument on Tom's to my knowledge. Everything you say is just spewing garbage. You change your arguments and make up facts to desperately defend yourself. It makes for great entertainment though! I can post short messages and you post massive walls of text filled with desperate drivel.[/citation]

Again, this contains no actual content at all, simply saying 'you are wrong'. I don't change my arguments at all, all that happens is you gradually realise what the original post meant, in this case, nearly 2 years after it was made. Journey back to my first post on the iPhone 4 antenna, re-read it, and realise how it's identical to what I say now, and still 100% true.

And once again, you respond to my criticism of not including any content whatsoever in your posts by writing another wall of irrelevant drivel, and accusations of religious fanaticism. The shame, lol.

 

[beayn]

hahaha And you wonder why I don't "address the facts" with you. Even when you are presented with solid evidence (an Apple advertisement that claims all PCs get viruses) you deny and twist it desperately to defend yourself.

In our original iphone argument, you said "All advertising is always true or the advertising standards agency wouldn't allow it". Now you're changing your argument around with the line: "You're the one claiming it's false. I'm not claiming it's true."

"Again, this contains no actual content at all, "

But it does, since this is all you ever do, as proven above.

Keep trying... I can see the veins popping out of your forehead.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]hahaha And you wonder why I don't "address the facts" with you. Even when you are presented with solid evidence (an Apple advertisement that claims all PCs get viruses) you deny and twist it desperately to defend yourself. In our original iphone argument, you said "All advertising is always true or the advertising standards agency wouldn't allow it". Now you're changing your argument around with the line: "You're the one claiming it's false. I'm not claiming it's true." "Again, this contains no actual content at all, "But it does, since this is all you ever do, as proven above.Keep trying... I can see the veins popping out of your forehead.[/citation]

1 - It isn't an advert. Hint - it's only an advert when it is published intentionally by Apple, typically in return for a fee to the television company.
2 - It never says all PC's have viruses.
3 - You still haven't proven that your pc's dont have viruses.

Three separate points which each, on their own, prove you wrong. None of which you addressed.

Typically you.

I haven't twisted anything, you simply failed to grasp the context of the conversation, the woman listed 3 problems, the man said all pc's are susceptible to those problems. Simple, and they are.

And what I said is that all advertising is true in the EYES OF THE ADVERTISING AGENCY, or they wouldn't allow it. This was also explained to you straight away, and is exactly in line with my continued explanation to you. If you can convince the advertising standards agency that the 'advert' (assuming it is airing on TV etc) is untrue, they can prevent it being used any more. Simple, obvious, and factual. In my actual opinion, this advert is true, and the issue is with you failing to understand it. The advertising agency (if it allowed the advert to air) clearly agrees with me, entirely consistent with my first point.

You've failed to prove any of your claims, still.

And accusing me of 'veins popping out' come on, that's even more desperate. When you have to convince yourself that you are in any way affecting my emotions, you've already failed.

 

[victorintelr]

Watcha, what's your point proving beayn, back_by_demand and others wrong. You won't change their minds whether they are right or wrong. This topic is way off the original Motorola Vs. Apple one. irish_adam is sided with Motorola and you are sided with Apple, and each one is trying to justify their views even with resources, which is one of the few times it actually happens in Tom's forums.
And the same goes to beayn and back_by_demand. You are not going to change Watcha's mind. It doesn't matter what did he studied or he has a PHD on flipping burgers (that made me laugh, though, is stupid but funny).
I like when in the comments and forums there are quotes with links to reinforce and justify the statemens kudos to Irish_adam and Watcha for that.
And to watcha, please don't take it wrong, just think about it. but what I notice (from my point of view) is that sometimes when you respond to someone's opinion, the way you talk about them and treat them is rude, and what happens? you get the same type of reactions, whether they have a point or not. and what is supposed to be just a comment becomes a comment fight and always ends up deviating from the original subject.
Also to everyone. Whether apple copies, or samsung copies, or (put the name of any business here) copies or is being copied, only they know about it and in court we will always see the truth and the lie win, depending on how much convinient it becomes to do it to win a case. corporations are just corporation and will behave only in their benefit, very few are the cases where they accept responsability on something, and it usually it has a second intention. Only apple knows who did they copy and what did they create, and will NEVER comment about it, that information is too sensitive to be on the loose. and the same applies to any big company, MS, Samsung, HTC, BB, you name it.

 

[beayn]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]1 - It isn't an advert. Hint - it's only an advert when it is published intentionally by Apple, typically in return for a fee to the television company.2 - It never says all PC's have viruses.3 - You still haven't proven that your pc's dont have viruses.Three separate points which each, on their own, prove you wrong. None of which you addressed.[/citation]

1) Apple's marketing team created the video. It is an advertisement. Now you're changing your argument trying to say it isn't an advert unless money exchanged hands? Let's just change the definition of an advertisement because watcha is desperate.

2) It does indeed say all PCs get viruses. Listen to it again, and again. Think about it. Hard.

3) I have proven my PCs don't have viruses. I told you they don't. Unlike you, I am a computer engineer with a job in the same field. Even if I did post screenshots of 20 different virus scanners showing zero infections with screenshots of every hook point, a dump of my MBR a list of windows files complete with verified CRC checks of every file showing no anomalies, you wouldn't believe it. You'd make something up and claim there could still be a virus, most likely be changing the definition of a virus to suite your needs. Typical of you.

When someone like NephilimFree aka watcha doesn't understand what they're talking about but is a fanatic, it's impossible to convince them otherwise.

Victorintelr said it well. Your responses are rude and condescending. Naturally you will invoke those types arguments. Myself, I am done arguing with you. I'm just here for the entertainment.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]1) Apple's marketing team created the video. It is an advertisement. Now you're changing your argument trying to say it isn't an advert unless money exchanged hands? Let's just change the definition of an advertisement because watcha is desperate.2) It does indeed say all PCs get viruses. Listen to it again, and again. Think about it. Hard.3) I have proven my PCs don't have viruses. I told you they don't. Unlike you, I am a computer engineer with a job in the same field. Even if I did post screenshots of 20 different virus scanners showing zero infections with screenshots of every hook point, a dump of my MBR a list of windows files complete with verified CRC checks of every file showing no anomalies, you wouldn't believe it. You'd make something up and claim there could still be a virus, most likely be changing the definition of a virus to suite your needs. Typical of you.When someone like NephilimFree aka watcha doesn't understand what they're talking about but is a fanatic, it's impossible to convince them otherwise. Victorintelr said it well. Your responses are rude and condescending. Naturally you will invoke those types arguments. Myself, I am done arguing with you. I'm just here for the entertainment.[/citation]

1 - Incorrect. It is only an advertisement when it's being used as one. A Youtube video is NOT, I repeat, NOT an advertisement. It's important that you recognise this because the advertising standards agency that I have mentioned controls which ADVERTISING can be used or not, and that doesn't include youtube video. Adverts which have been banned and cannot therefore be used as adverts can still appear on Youtube, but they are not advertising - they are their own entertainment in that context.

And yes, advertising has to be deliberately published on the content which you are watching it to be advertising. Apple didn't deliberately publish this on Youtube.

2 - It doesn't say that all PC's get viruses. It says that all pc's suffer from 'those problems' referring to a list of 3 things which the girl says. Furthermore, even if the comment was in response PURELY to viruses (which it clearly wasn't), the root problem of viruses in terms of a computer is SUSCEPTIBILITY to those viruses, so arguably all pc's do suffer from that problem. Note that the other issues include reliability, and 'tons of problems' , and therefore the discussion is at no point specific to viruses.

3 - You telling me your PC doesn't have viruses shows more ignorance than it does convincing anybody. Any proper engineer would know that nobody can ever be 100% sure their PC doesn't have viruses, as I said, even the top level engineers who work for anti-virus companies wouldn't make such a claim. And you saying that isn't proof anyway, you're clearly biased. All of the evidence you said you could provide (and haven't provided) would not prove you have no viruses either, since no anti-virus is 100% effective. As it happens, I actually do believe that SOME pc's do not have viruses. I have no proof, and you certainly haven't proven it, but I do believe it. But to prove the 'advert' was lying, you WOULD need proof. And points 1 & 2 explain why even if you did prove that, it wouldn't make the advert a lie.

I don't mind being condescending. I am never condescending to logical people, it's a sign of how highly I regard you, and it doesn't affect whether I am wrong or right.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]victorintelr[/nom]Watcha, what's your point proving beayn, back_by_demand and others wrong. You won't change their minds whether they are right or wrong. This topic is way off the original Motorola Vs. Apple one. irish_adam is sided with Motorola and you are sided with Apple, and each one is trying to justify their views even with resources, which is one of the few times it actually happens in Tom's forums.And the same goes to beayn and back_by_demand. You are not going to change Watcha's mind. It doesn't matter what did he studied or he has a PHD on flipping burgers (that made me laugh, though, is stupid but funny).I like when in the comments and forums there are quotes with links to reinforce and justify the statemens kudos to Irish_adam and Watcha for that. And to watcha, please don't take it wrong, just think about it. but what I notice (from my point of view) is that sometimes when you respond to someone's opinion, the way you talk about them and treat them is rude, and what happens? you get the same type of reactions, whether they have a point or not. and what is supposed to be just a comment becomes a comment fight and always ends up deviating from the original subject.Also to everyone. Whether apple copies, or samsung copies, or (put the name of any business here) copies or is being copied, only they know about it and in court we will always see the truth and the lie win, depending on how much convinient it becomes to do it to win a case. corporations are just corporation and will behave only in their benefit, very few are the cases where they accept responsability on something, and it usually it has a second intention. Only apple knows who did they copy and what did they create, and will NEVER comment about it, that information is too sensitive to be on the loose. and the same applies to any big company, MS, Samsung, HTC, BB, you name it.[/citation]

Journey back to the first post on this thread which was off-topic. Both 'back-by-demand' and 'beayn' both posted comments which had no relevance whatsoever to the ongoing discussion, brought up a whole series of insults and past arguments and started insulting. That sort of irrelevance and being off-topic is exactly why I am condescending to them. Note that I always stick to the topic and stick to the discussions instead of making childish unfounded insults like 'you work at McDonalds'...

I am very aware that I get the same response back when I am condescending, but when you reach a point where you are having to explain the difference to someone between saying something 'COULD' be the reason (ie software on the iPhone 4 bug) and saying that something 'IS' the reason, round and round in circles, you lose faith in their ability to have a logical discussion.

Thanks for your compliments on the good discussion though, I agree, myself and Irish_Adam were having an interesting discussion before the anti-apple crew arrived, and he made the same good points that I'm sure the Motorola lawyers made in the legal case.

 

[ericburnby]

Clearly there are more than a few people here who have too much time on their hands.

Gonna head out soon and watch the game, have a few brews and hang out with, you know, some real people.

 

[beayn]

Blah blah blah there goes watcha again. So you're saying the linked Youtube video (copy) of the Apple ad isn't good enough and I must provide the original ad. But if I went through the effort of contacting Apple for the original ad, providing a full list of air dates and channels (despite TV rapidly declining as the top advertising venue), you would still deny it by changing your argument or the meanings of words to suit your needs.

#2) Get a language expert to teach you the meaning of the lines exactly as quoted. Or you can go back to school. Either or.

For #3: You basically just said I have no argument without evidence, but then said any evidence I provide isn't enough anyway, AND keep insisting I provide the evidence... Do you hear yourself? haha You are just getting more and more entertaining the more you talk.

You have also provided no citations for the claims you have made. Please provide ORIGINAL documents for each and every argument or your argument is nullified. (copies don't count).

If I take this fresh hard drive right off the shelf, install Windows 7 from a retail disk on it and tell you there are no viruses, you'd tell me THERE COULD BE A VIRUS ZOMG U DONT KNOW. U R IGNORANT nobody wud make that claim.

victorintelr: watcha claims this argument was started by myself and back_by_demand, however we are just used to seeing him around these parts. He frequently attacks anyone who doesn't have his "Apple is perfect" opinion. Frequently gets condescending, rude and resorts to name calling when losing. All while twisting the facts (if any) and changing his argument multiple times (as he did above). I've never actually seen a good debate with this guy, despite attempting it myself a few times. We've all gone beyond actually trying to convince him of anything and just point out his stupidity while watching him fumble about in desperation.

Like just now, while desperately calling foul for having no proof, I got him to admit no amount of proof is enough, while he still demands said proof. His circular reasoning is unmistakable!
Next he will try to say "I never demanded proof" or "I never admitted that" or something along those lines, despite it being clearly typed by him above.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]http://www.dailytech.com/Article.a [...] d=y#747969[/citation]

Apple only considers it unfair because it would probably not allow them to profit as much.

If Apple would use Samsung, by that I mean use their CPUs then take a similar design and then dump and sue them, then why would they pay what the company who owns the patent says is fair?

Besides, do you think other companies didn't have to go through Motrola and get the patent? They certainly did.

Apple is just full of it.

 

[victorintelr]

I've been following this thread since the beggining, I always read the news articles and have been here long enough that I have identified the apple and android crew. I'll reserve my comments about that. I agree that beayn jumped in where the topic changed. watcha, look at it this way: you should be proud to have so many followers. every time you talk they are there for you! I'm not trying to raise you ego, though.
beayn look at it this way: if it was not for people like watchable and others whose names I don't remember right now, these forums and comments sections would be a little boring, besides due to the apple-android eternal discussion sometimes there are very funny comments that are created on both sides and I always have a laugh when I read them. thank you everyone for their time and laughs I have had with your comments. now I feel more educated to argue my point based on what I read and the research I do based from the points they make. if watcha and others were gone everyone else would start missing them eventually, against whom are they gonna fight?
And if you are curious about my side, I'm a windows fan, use android (writing from my toshiba thrive), but I recognize that Apple have some interesting products, and sometimes leads the pack, whether they copy or not. thank you again!

 

[victorintelr]

watcha sorry about calling u watchable, sometimes the autocorrect option catches me offguard.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]Blah blah blah there goes watcha again. So you're saying the linked Youtube video (copy) of the Apple ad isn't good enough and I must provide the original ad. But if I went through the effort of contacting Apple for the original ad, providing a full list of air dates and channels (despite TV rapidly declining as the top advertising venue), you would still deny it by changing your argument or the meanings of words to suit your needs.[/citation]

See, this is why arguing with you never ends. You just_don't_get what's being said.

I am saying that a Youtube video is NOT an advert. It isn't. It may well be the case, for all we know (based on what you've shown us) that this advert was never actually displayed on TV. The point being, I can post any video on Youtube which says whatever, even if it was created by a company in question - but if it's not used eventually to advertise, it's not an advert. It was an advert IDEA. Often, this happens, because if an advert is found to be misleading or factually incorrect, it gets banned from being used as advertising, but still appears on Youtube.

Thus, a Youtube clip doesn't prove that this advert actually aired... do you get it yet? That is just one strand of the 3 strand argument - that you haven't proved this was actually used as an advert yet. A claim you made, not me.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]

#2) Get a language expert to teach you the meaning of the lines exactly as quoted. Or you can go back to school. Either or.
[/citation]

LOL.... I think my English is very good, thank you.

Woman: 'I want one that just works, without thousands of viruses, and tons of headaches'
Man: 'Look, lady, any PC you get's gonna have those problems'

For any reasonable, well educated person, that doesn't read as 'PC = viruses infested' - you know, common sense dictates that. It reads as any pc can cause you problems and can get infected by viruses, and cause you headaches.

Simple, obvious, normal interpretation.

If you interpret it differently, then at WORST from my point of view, it's subjective. You think YOU get to decide how it should be interpreted? There is an agency called the advertising standards agency who review all adverts before approving them and ensure they are not factually incorrect or mis-representative. They decide whether an advert is misleading or not, and IF THIS ADVERT WAS EVER USED AS AN ADVERT (ie aired), then they will have watched it and agreed with me. And since neither of us gets to decide what the 'correct' interpretation is, but THEY DO, they prove my interpretation correct. Why is why the advert then becomes arguably factually correct - since who better to decide whether it's correct or not than an agency set up for precisely that purpose? So it either aired proving you wrong, or it didn't air, proving you wrong. Your call, big man.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
For #3: You basically just said I have no argument without evidence, but then said any evidence I provide isn't enough anyway, AND keep insisting I provide the evidence... Do you hear yourself? haha You are just getting more and more entertaining the more you talk.[/citation]

I love that you don't see that this is the whole point. Not only am I challenging the claim you make at every stage, since we've seen no evidence whatsoever yet that this clip was ever used as an advert, I also prove that even if it was an advert (I have never said it wasn't), it wouldn't matter, because it's not misleading and if it's aired it would have been adjudicated to not be misleading by the relevant authority. That is the beauty of logic, you see, Beayn. I cover every eventuality. I challenge you on multiple, independent grounds, each of which on their own prove you wrong. You often mistake proving one small element as correct as an overall 'win', which again is your failure to grasp my expert 3-pronged approach. 🙂

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
You have also provided no citations for the claims you have made. Please provide ORIGINAL documents for each and every argument or your argument is nullified. (copies don't count).[/citation]

Which claim?

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
If I take this fresh hard drive right off the shelf, install Windows 7 from a retail disk on it and tell you there are no viruses, you'd tell me THERE COULD BE A VIRUS ZOMG U DONT KNOW. U R IGNORANT nobody wud make that claim.[/citation]

Now you are trying to 'guess' what I would say? Please, lol. That's like a sheep trying to guess what chess move I make. I would tell you, as I did before, that you couldn't prove that it doesn't have a virus. An assertion I stand by. I have quite openly told you that I believe there are computers out there with viruses, but I have also showed why that opinion is irrelevant, and illustrated that it's very hard to prove. I would then illustrate to you that the advert doesn't claim that all PC's have viruses anyway, and that this is proven if the advert ever managed to be aired as the relevant authority must have therefore seen the ad and agreed with me. If, on the other hand, the advert didn't air, it's not an advert.

It's a beautiful circle of me being right at every tangent. And you're slowly realising that's why logic is such a great skill to have ;-)

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
victorintelr: watcha claims this argument was started by myself and back_by_demand, however we are just used to seeing him around these parts. He frequently attacks anyone who doesn't have his "Apple is perfect" opinion. Frequently gets condescending, rude and resorts to name calling when losing. All while twisting the facts (if any) and changing his argument multiple times (as he did above). [/citation]

Lets be honest, you both brought up 2 year old arguments. If that isn't proof that you're still reeling from someone actually educating you, I don't know what is. So ironic that you describe my logical assertions as 'attacking' and 'name calling', whilst telling me I work at McDonalds along with a strew of other angry desperate insults - anything to avoid actually staying on topic hey? And of course, not resorting to 'name calling' , not being 'rude'... and not being 'condescending'... I've not twisted any facts, I've not changed my argument at all - I invited you to journey back to my very first post in all cases, I'm absolutely clear at every step of the way - as I said, it's often a case of you just not understanding what is being said. Exactly like the software argument with iPhone, exactly with this argument debate. What's so funny is you started off this whole conversation by bringing up an off-topic, completely irrelevant debate, because deep down, you know what I've said cannot be argued with.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
I've never actually seen a good debate with this guy, despite attempting it myself a few times. We've all gone beyond actually trying to convince him of anything and just point out his stupidity while watching him fumble about in desperation.Like just now, while desperately calling foul for having no proof, I got him to admit no amount of proof is enough, while he still demands said proof. [/citation]

No actually, you came to the realisation that even if there WERE proof, it would be irrelevant. That's the beauty of you being wrong in more than one way.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
His circular reasoning is unmistakable!Next he will try to say "I never demanded proof" or "I never admitted that" or something along those lines, despite it being clearly typed by him above.[/citation]

Please, again, don't try to anticipate the comments of your superiors. As I said, I do demand proof, and I disprove you even if you find said proof. That's the beauty of logic. It's not circular reasoning, it's proving you wrong in every possible way, at every step along the way. First you have to prove the claim you make is true, and then I tell you why it's irrelevant.

The fact you describe that as 'circular argument' and believe it's a bad thing is why the guy before is right in that you would never be convinced of anything. Not because you aren't willing to change, but because you aren't capable of grasping a basic conversation.

And by the way, the debate was perfectly fine before you brought up 2 year old tears.

;-) x x

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]See, this is why arguing with you never ends. You just_don't_get what's being said.I am saying that a Youtube video is NOT an advert. It isn't. It may well be the case, for all we know (based on what you've shown us) that this advert was never actually displayed on TV. The point being, I can post any video on Youtube which says whatever, even if it was created by a company in question - but if it's not used eventually to advertise, it's not an advert. It was an advert IDEA. Often, this happens, because if an advert is found to be misleading or factually incorrect, it gets banned from being used as advertising, but still appears on Youtube. Thus, a Youtube clip doesn't prove that this advert actually aired... do you get it yet? That is just one strand of the 3 strand argument - that you haven't proved this was actually used as an advert yet. A claim you made, not me.LOL.... I think my English is very good, thank you.Woman: 'I want one that just works, without thousands of viruses, and tons of headaches'Man: 'Look, lady, any PC you get's gonna have those problems'For any reasonable, well educated person, that doesn't read as 'PC = viruses infested' - you know, common sense dictates that. It reads as any pc can cause you problems and can get infected by viruses, and cause you headaches.Simple, obvious, normal interpretation.If you interpret it differently, then at WORST from my point of view, it's subjective. You think YOU get to decide how it should be interpreted? There is an agency called the advertising standards agency who review all adverts before approving them and ensure they are not factually incorrect or mis-representative. They decide whether an advert is misleading or not, and IF THIS ADVERT WAS EVER USED AS AN ADVERT (ie aired), then they will have watched it and agreed with me. And since neither of us gets to decide what the 'correct' interpretation is, but THEY DO, they prove my interpretation correct. Why is why the advert then becomes arguably factually correct - since who better to decide whether it's correct or not than an agency set up for precisely that purpose? So it either aired proving you wrong, or it didn't air, proving you wrong. Your call, big man.I love that you don't see that this is the whole point. Not only am I challenging the claim you make at every stage, since we've seen no evidence whatsoever yet that this clip was ever used as an advert, I also prove that even if it was an advert (I have never said it wasn't), it wouldn't matter, because it's not misleading and if it's aired it would have been adjudicated to not be misleading by the relevant authority. That is the beauty of logic, you see, Beayn. I cover every eventuality. I challenge you on multiple, independent grounds, each of which on their own prove you wrong. You often mistake proving one small element as correct as an overall 'win', which again is your failure to grasp my expert 3-pronged approach. 🙂Which claim? Now you are trying to 'guess' what I would say? Please, lol. That's like a sheep trying to guess what chess move I make. I would tell you, as I did before, that you couldn't prove that it doesn't have a virus. An assertion I stand by. I have quite openly told you that I believe there are computers out there with viruses, but I have also showed why that opinion is irrelevant, and illustrated that it's very hard to prove. I would then illustrate to you that the advert doesn't claim that all PC's have viruses anyway, and that this is proven if the advert ever managed to be aired as the relevant authority must have therefore seen the ad and agreed with me. If, on the other hand, the advert didn't air, it's not an advert.It's a beautiful circle of me being right at every tangent. And you're slowly realising that's why logic is such a great skill to have ;-)Lets be honest, you both brought up 2 year old arguments. If that isn't proof that you're still reeling from someone actually educating you, I don't know what is. So ironic that you describe my logical assertions as 'attacking' and 'name calling', whilst telling me I work at McDonalds along with a strew of other angry desperate insults - anything to avoid actually staying on topic hey? And of course, not resorting to 'name calling' , not being 'rude'... and not being 'condescending'... I've not twisted any facts, I've not changed my argument at all - I invited you to journey back to my very first post in all cases, I'm absolutely clear at every step of the way - as I said, it's often a case of you just not understanding what is being said. Exactly like the software argument with iPhone, exactly with this argument debate. What's so funny is you started off this whole conversation by bringing up an off-topic, completely irrelevant debate, because deep down, you know what I've said cannot be argued with.No actually, you came to the realisation that even if there WERE proof, it would be irrelevant. That's the beauty of you being wrong in more than one way.Please, again, don't try to anticipate the comments of your superiors. As I said, I do demand proof, and I disprove you even if you find said proof. That's the beauty of logic. It's not circular reasoning, it's proving you wrong in every possible way, at every step along the way. First you have to prove the claim you make is true, and then I tell you why it's irrelevant. The fact you describe that as 'circular argument' and believe it's a bad thing is why the guy before is right in that you would never be convinced of anything. Not because you aren't willing to change, but because you aren't capable of grasping a basic conversation.And by the way, the debate was perfectly fine before you brought up 2 year old tears.;-) x x[/citation]

Are you paid per word? That is a lot of shit you just posted

 

[beayn]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Are you paid per word? That is a lot of shit you just posted[/citation]

I know right? I skimmed it over, same old drivel spouting out his ass.

watcha: The ONLY thing you've done here is entertain me. You illustrated nothing but being a moron and presented no challenges whatsoever.

All I had to do was mention the fact you believe everything advertised is true and you decided to delve right back into the old argument trying to desperately make the same old lame and tired points as before. You keep repeating yourself saying that I won't address the issues, yet you insist that I do, while claiming that I'm the one trying to argue the old issues. Circular reasoning at its best, Again.

I gave you some basics, which is all I'm inclined to do, and you make shit up like usual. "Youtube doesn't count!!!!11" lol

 

[beayn]

watcha: What claims? You made this one among many others:
"Any proper engineer would know that nobody can ever be 100% sure their PC doesn't have viruses, as I said, even the top level engineers who work for anti-virus companies wouldn't make such a claim."

Are you an engineer? Industry expert? Anti-virus expert? If not, provide full evidence of Antivirus experts claiming you can never be 100% sure. I will also want to see a full list of credentials for said engineer. He must have worked at an antivirus company for at least 20 years (to have the most experience), and speak for the entire company. It can't be his personal opinion, or else it doesn't count because it's just 1 person.

You must provide this evidence anyway or else I will argue that you haven't provided ANY evidence at all and thus everything you say is null and void!

After you're done finding said evidence (which probably doesn't exist) I won't accept it. I will deny your article has any relevance or credibility. Especially since you said "nobody can be 100% sure" which means everybody and an article showing just 1 engineer isn't everybody.

You're so predictable.

 

[face-plants]

[citation][nom]RogueKitsune[/nom]While I hate all this patent trolling/litigation crud that is going on around the world, it is nice to see one of the biggest Patent trolls to be on the receiving end every once in a while[/citation]

Amen to that

It seems to me however that Apple was able to benefit much more (at least immediately after) from it's ruling in the German courts that had the Samsung Galaxy products pulled from the shelves.

"If Motorola wishes to enforce the injunction now, it will be liable for damages incurred as a result of premature enforcement of an improperly-granted injunction."

That sure takes the sting out of a permanent injunction. They won a lawsuit but risk being sued back or having to pay damages if they actually take any action on it? WTF Apple, keep avoiding the karma coming your way and it'll only be sweeter when it catches you.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Are you paid per word? That is a lot of shit you just posted[/citation]

Directly proportional to the number of failings.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]I know right? I skimmed it over, same old drivel spouting out his ass.watcha: The ONLY thing you've done here is entertain me. You illustrated nothing but being a moron and presented no challenges whatsoever.[/citation]

= no content whatsoever

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]All I had to do was mention the fact you believe everything advertised is true and you decided to delve right back into the old argument trying to desperately make the same old lame and tired points as before.[/citation]

1 - You mentioning that, WAS you delving back into it.
2 - I never said anything about what I believe. As I've told you, the fact that YOU believe the advert is false, doesn't make it reality. When I said that the advertising is true, clearly then, I could not have been referring to myself, but to the advertising standards agency who actually gets to make that call. It remains the case that if they believed the advert was lying they would have banned it.
3 - Yes I am making the same, logical, and obvious points as before. Consistency is possible when you're right ;-) And you consistently fail to get it, so I guess consistent failure is an option too ;-)

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
You keep repeating yourself saying that I won't address the issues, yet you insist that I do, while claiming that I'm the one trying to argue the old issues. Circular reasoning at its best, Again[/citation]

Step 1 - You brought up a 2 year old topic, due to tears
Step 2 - I provide you with the same education that I did 2 years ago.
Step 3 - You realise again why you were wrong so resort to insults like working at McDonalds.
Step 4 - I tell you that that's what you're doing.

Nothing circular there at all, just a whole series of your failures.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]
.I gave you some basics, which is all I'm inclined to do, and you make shit up like usual. "Youtube doesn't count!!!!11" lol[/citation]

What I actually said was that just because a video is on Youtube, doesn't mean it's an advert.

That is, and will always be true. I don't even think you honestly don't get what I'm saying, you just know it's right and so are desperately trying to portray that I said something I didn't...

Notice how all of my post is relevant to the discussion? Learn. 🙂