Ok so I'd like to start off by saying thank you for expanding your views. I enjoy debating with people who are willing to provide reasoning for their views. I didn't really like your original comment, but your response was much better.

>That was hardly true until Apple started requesting product-bans world wide. They broke the truce. They started the avalaunch. They get the bad karma. That's how it works.

I'd like to argue that those types of lawsuits weren't widely publicized until Apple's whole situation since everything Apple does is high-profile. I think to an extent they were right in wanting to ban blantantly similar looking devices, as they take their original designs very seriously, design is at the core of Apple. Samsung has a history of blatantly ripping off Apple design, and as such deserved the outcome of the lawsuits. You might accuse me of being an Apple fanboy, but the one thing that tipped me in Apple's favor is this Samsung cable connector: (http://johncblandii.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/samsung30...). Now be honest, does it not piss you off that a company would be so committed to copying another company's design to the extent that they would rip of a completely proprietary connector that Apple have been using for 10 years (since the OG iPod)?

>Trying to hijack the entire future of mobile computing by exploiting bad laws and preventing everyone else from entering market still makes you an asshole, a wanne-be monopolist and generally shows off your true identity.

I think hijack is a strong word that should be reserved for Microsoft and IE6. I agree that they were very aggressive and certainly not very "open" as a company, and maybe you don't like that, which I can completely understand. But this is the way Apple has always been. They were never about being open. They had their entire proprietary stack of hardware and software and that's what makes Apple..Apple and consumers seem to love that ecosystem, as well as developers. Not defending them at all here, but just saying that they never claimed to be a company committed to "openness". Also, to be fair, the iPhone and iPad completely revolutionized the future of mobile computing. Android is certainly pushing the boundaries today, I agree (Google is a software powerhouse), but you may forget that back in 2007, the iPhone was an absolute revolution and magical in every sense of the word. The iPad wasn't nearly as magical when it came out, but it's widespread adoption set the tone for the tablet market as we know it today. I don't think you'll disagree with me here. Does this give them the excuse to be so aggressive? Maybe not, but that's the way they've been, and you should give credit where credit is due, regardless.

>You want everyone locked in to your solutions with no way out. In fact you dont want there to be any other ways at all.
Which by no means is illegal. It just means that you are showing off values which are completely orthogonal to everything I believe in: freedom.You believe in zero freedom. You want to take mine away. I am free to hate you for that. Deal.

I don't know how Apple is taking away your freedoms. Can you explain a little more on how you think they're contributing to that? You're free not to buy into Apple's proprietary stack, just like you're free not to buy into Facebook's proprietary stack, or Google's increasingly proprietary stack (killing off Reader and CalDAV was for a reason), or Microsoft's proprietary technologies. Apple is kinda known for being extremely proprietary but lets not forget the other elephants in the room either. How do you think these companies are taking away your freedoms? What freedoms did you have before that you miss now because of what Apple did?

>Yes. They are using their rounded corners and want everyone else in the mobile industry to create devices made out of spikes. Cry me a river. Design and trivial UI implementation details should not be patentable. Apple has bad karma for exploiting these laws.

I really hate the "rounded corners" argument. I know the patent may say "rounded corners" but if you read deeper into such patents you being to realize that its a much more specific patent than the phrases suggest. Patents are usually given to a very specific implementation. You can't judge a patent based on it's name or one little excerpt that you read. Now, we both agree that patents needs reform. How that reform plays out and how it will deal with such patents remains to be seen.

Let's ASSUME that Apple did have a patent for just "rounded corners" and it really was as straightforward as that. Why the hell was Apple awarded a patent for rounded corners? Who the hell was in charge of giving Apple that patent? That's the real issue. If I was a company and I had tons of money laying around, I would for-sure try to enforce any patents I had (again, remember I'd be a business). The problem would be giving me patents like "rounded corners" which gives me more ammunition against my competitors. But remember, this is all assuming that "rounded corners" is really as simple as the phrase suggests, which I can assure you isn't. However this doesn't mean there is an excuse for Apple being allowed to hold such a patent either.

>Not agreed. I can hate both the player and the game. Gues what? I do. In Apple's case they have shown that they are willing to take the game anywhere their products are facing competition.

This is your opinion and I gladly respect it. I don't think you're wrong for holding this opinion as its completely valid. I can understand your hatred of companies that are aggressive and use such tactics.

My point was that many many companies use such tactics and you shouldn't single out Apple just because the media loves to single them out for page-hits. You should take a look at the lawsuits Amazon have started for their one-click patent (which I'm sure we can both agree sounds just as frivolous as "rounded corners"), or any of the other numerous patents. We can take the argument one step further and criticize Twitter and Facebook for heavily regulating their API (which we can draw parallels with patents since both are proprietary), but at the end of the day I still like the technology that they build and I can respect their business decisions even though I may not agree with them. Twitter needs to make money, as does Facebook and they're trying to stop the commoditization of their data in exchange for perhaps a less free and open API. Does this mean they're hijacking the future? I wouldn't say so, but you might feel different and like I said, I can respect that.