Reply to post: Re: at h4rmony

Re: at h4rmony

>>Why are you appealing to logic?

Because logic appeals to me?

As well as basing your argument on your belief in Google's "nobility" in a hypothetical timeline, you've also yet to make the case why subsidizing your competitors would be morally right in the first place, rather than, e.g. madness.

Given your evident hatred of Microsoft, I would think you especially would consider Google subsidizing them as not great behaviour.

>>"If you decide what logic is, yes indeed, my logic is lame, yours - brilliant."

See, the above doesn't actually address or refute my logic at all, it's just an attack and sarcasm. As are assertions that I'm like a lawyer or a "Microsoft advocate".

>>I never said that you are illogical or irrational

Perhaps because none of my arguments depend on a hypothesis that a company is "more noble".

Even when I briefly examined the moral state of a company (at your invitation) which I did with Samsung, I gave multiple examples and citations of things they had actually done. Whilst you build a case on what Google would do according to you in an alternate timeline.

>>"no, I didn't even bother answering it."

And I object to you "not even bothering". I've given numerous answers and evidence in response to your didactic questioning. You never concede, you just skip replies and move to something else.

>>"I am not a lawyer, I got a PhD in Math, that is why I reason illogically according to you."

No, it's because you based on argument on your faith that a company would act against its own self-interest for the benefit of its competitors. Faith-based argument is not logic-based argument. I didn't make some generic ad hominem that you were illogical, I gave a clear reason why your argument was.

>>"However, the quantity is not always necessarily turned into quality."

What do these sorts of personal attacks add? Nothing.

>>"No, it's: "if you think that your stupid patents are infringed on by us, think again, because you already infringe on ours!" Principle of reciprocity again, what is your problem with that, h4rmony?"

That's an argument entirely dependent on patents being "stupid". It assumes that they are worthless and that Google should be able to infringe on other people's patents. I do not consider that a supported assumption and you have not attempted to do so. If patents do have some worth, then the whole moral superiority of using other people's intellectual property without compensation falls apart. See my earlier example with Samsung, btw, of many people losing their jobs in large part because of Samsung's unlicenced use of Pioneer's patents. Patents are not inherently worthless, therefore your argument about "your stupid patents" is at best a circumstantially valid one, not even shown to apply in these circumstances.

>>"My entire argument is that Google have shown they are more noble than most other IT company in the same weight class, including your beloved Microsoft."

Beloved Microsoft? If it appears that way to you, it's most likely because you keep throwing flawed attacks at the company, provoking defence of it. I was originally trying to talk about Samsung. I also dispute the idea that Google are "more noble". They act out of self-interest, as pretty much all large companies do, and have done a lot to subvert the Open Source movement as I showed earlier.

>>"The flaw that is only seen by you might not be a flaw after all. An acquaintance of mine told me about aliens swarming around recently..."

Again, I give a reasoned argument why something is flawed. You don't tackle my reasoning, but make some disconnected statement accompanied by some weird suggestion I'm guessing is trying to imply I'm delusional.

>>"Since you didn't explain to me how would Google justify the difference between almost $12 and $2 billion dollars to the board, I tried to improvise and gave a few scenarios. You got insulted by that because MS Surface is a wonderful device and you're typing on it, can you scratch that off and get back with a few suggestions how to appease a would-be enraged board anyways?"

That's really hard to parse, but I already answered you about why the Motorolla debacle is different. You complain about the length of my posts and then ask me the same question three times! As to the Surface, I wasn't insulted. I just thought it bizarre to suddenly start throwing in attacks on its sales figures when they have nothing to do with the discussion; and I thought it was a shame to mock good technology for being unpopular. I prefer to value something based on technical merit.

Now, I've just re-read this response before posting it and there's pretty much nothing in it that is actually argument about Samsung or the contract. It's pretty much all about your specific post. And I realize that is because your post contains almost no factual discussion for me to actually respond to. Your post is nearly entirely a series of attacks on me or my writing, and next to nothing about the actual topic. This leads to a rather fruitless discussion. Please engage with my actual points if you see something wrong with them. Counter-arguments of "I got a PhD in Math" are a poor substitute for actual discussion.