You know, I'm generally a huge fan of Fry's, but this article left much to be desired. He was simply factually wrong on a great many points.
"If different companies are making the firmware, software, chips, screens, operating system, radios and cases the results will always be far less coherent and usable devices."
I hope he's just being sloppy with his language (unlikely for Fry) and not actually suggesting that Apple makes all of these components. The latter would suggest an insufficient level of familiarity with the products he extols to be taken seriously. He sounds very much like the ignorant "fanboi" he laments that some will call him.
"The frustratingly silly patent wars that are raging around the world between Google, Samsung, Apple and dozens of other companies would be a sad obsequy to Jobs’s colossal achievements, but with such gigantic sums of money in so huge a market at stake it is little wonder that others will do all they can to “crack” Apple."
What? He seems to think that Apple is the defensive party in the patent mess? Again, a disconnect from reality that is disappointing from someone I hold in such high regard.
I usually quite enjoy Fry's writing, but this piece was sloppy and poorly-researched, if indeed it was researched at all. Disappointing.
As I understood it, he is saying the fact that Apple is the offensive party in the patent mess is a sad obsequy to Jobs’s otherwise colossal achievements.
With regard to your suggestion that Apple is the offensive party in patent disputes, it's important to remember that the roles of offense and defense are reversed when you enter a court. This is because of the presumption of innocence.
When a murderer enters a courtroom, he's the defendant because he is presumed innocent. If the jury returns a guilty verdict, he becomes an offender, and the roles switch back. Following the verdict, it would be justified to view the prosecution as having defended society against the murderer who committed the offense. Prior to the verdict, the jury agrees to see things the other way around.
Likewise, Apple brings suit because, in its view, its patents should defend their innovations against copying. Again, because of the presumption of innocence, Samsung (or whoever) plays the role of defendant until a verdict is returned. Should Apple win their suit, then (under law) Samsung will be viewed as the offender, and Apple will have successfully defended itself against unlawful copying.
Which is a long way of saying that, if you believe that Samsung has unlawfully copied Apple's innovations, then it's entirely correct to view Apple as the defensive party in this patent mess.
I don't know how it is in the States, but here in Germany a patent holder suing in court is always presumed right until the defendant can prove his innocence (if he can). There is no presumption of innocence in patent cases. It's called "reversed burden of proof" or something. The allegation of the patent holder is enough to make a party guilty until proven otherwise. I'm sure it must be similar in the US.
I think that in the first part Fry is being very sloppy with his language, if not actually wrong, although I think I understand what he meant with it. I think what he means is more in the sense of PC open computing, like, you throw in whatever parts there are in marketplace and the thing is meant to work; like in, Google makes Android but don't know what specific hardware it will work on.
"If different companies are making the firmware, software, chips, screens, operating system, radios and cases the results will always be far less coherent and usable devices."
I hope he's just being sloppy with his language (unlikely for Fry) and not actually suggesting that Apple makes all of these components. The latter would suggest an insufficient level of familiarity with the products he extols to be taken seriously. He sounds very much like the ignorant "fanboi" he laments that some will call him.
"The frustratingly silly patent wars that are raging around the world between Google, Samsung, Apple and dozens of other companies would be a sad obsequy to Jobs’s colossal achievements, but with such gigantic sums of money in so huge a market at stake it is little wonder that others will do all they can to “crack” Apple."
What? He seems to think that Apple is the defensive party in the patent mess? Again, a disconnect from reality that is disappointing from someone I hold in such high regard.
I usually quite enjoy Fry's writing, but this piece was sloppy and poorly-researched, if indeed it was researched at all. Disappointing.