[forfrosne]

I think there's two distinct cases here.

1) It is quite apparent that Samsung deliberately copied Apple. If you've spent any amount of time looking into this you'll realise how clear that much is. In an argument of "Did Samsung copy Apple?" the answer is "Yes"


2) The second thing which I feel is where the debate should be 'held' (so to speak) is "Did Apple copy others previously?" which would also be a "yes" in my opinion, but the argument in this legal case was not "Did Apple copy others first?" which is, in my opinion, why Samsung lost this case, because they were arguing a point of view nobody was questioning.

And, while I'm not quite sure how the thread managed to drift into a discussion in regulation vs deregulation, I think the ideal system is either complete regulation or complete deregulation. If you completely deregulate then you take away the safety net. In my opinion that is why the Wall Street Crash happened. True, they were deregulated, but the businesses are out to make a profit, so when you tell them they can take as many risks as they want and it doesn't matter because the government will just bail them out, of course they'll take loads of stupid risks. Guess what happened? They didn't pay off and they were bailed out. If they were completely deregulated then that would never have happened because the mindset is still the same "How can I make the maximum possible profit?" but without the safety net they'll take a more risk-averse approach, because if they don't pay off then they're definitely screwed.


Or you could just completely regulate them or nationalise them. That would probably do the same thing because you don't allow them the opportunity to practise immoral business practises or take risky bets. The downside is that you risk stagnation and a lack of innovation. Basically I think you just have to have one extreme or the other if you want to get the best results, but which one you pick is up to you because there are advantages and disadvantages to both.