Leadership

Apple whines, court caves, Samsung stops sales

Another senseless patent. This time Apple blocks the U.S. sales of Samsung's Galaxy 10.1 tablet. Jack Wallen offers his take on this slippery slope that could tarnish the reputation of the Big A.

I don't get it. I really don't get it. Apple claims Samsung is infringing on an ornamental design patent and a US judge halts the U.S. sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets.

Let me say it again -- a patent over ornamental design. We're talking about a slim rectangle with a touch screen -- something every company in the world is trying to produce -- and Apple cries foul against one of the tablets that is probably its biggest rival...but only against the first release.

This is just sad.

IBM never came out and stomped its feet when other companies produced laptops. So how can a judge (on that level) cave to a bully of a company who wants to make sure their toys are the only ones on the playground?

Bad precedent. Bad judgement. Bad. Bad. Bad.

All of this because Apple doesn't want competition. Apple knows that Android is quickly becoming one of the most wide-spread platforms in the world and will do everything it can to stop it.

One. Tablet. At. A. Time.

One. Patent. At. A. Time.

There was a period when everyone joked that Microsoft was going to patent ones and zeroes. Thankfully, Microsoft pulled back on that behavior, because they knew that, although it might help them win in a court of law, it would certainly cause them to lose in the court of public opinion. And just which is more important to a company? From my perspective, it would be the court which would give the company the biggest boost in sales. Yes, it's good to have the law on your side to protect you, but when your reputation begins to flirt with disaster, your sales will be damaged. The consumer is a fickle beast, after all.

But even beyond the possible hurt this behavior can put on sales, this type of action simply makes Apple look afraid. Like the Microsoft of the 90s (and to some extent even now), Apple wants to be the only player on the field. Some call that a monopoly. Some say a monopoly is illegal. But of course we all know how those types of laws can be bent by the court of law to suit the big boys.

I get patents. I really do. I have a particular something I am hoping to patent and sell. But patent law is a very slippery slope. You claim you invented the rectangle and want everything of that shape to be banned for sale and your image might well be permanently tarnished.

Apple needs to wake up and understand that bullying didn't work well for Microsoft and it won't work well for them. And we all know how important reputation is to Apple. Besides, once all those hipsters stop being fanboys of the Big A, whatever will Apple do?

I would like to think that someone would step up for Samsung and block this insane injunction. Of course if that were to happen, that $2.6 million dollar bond Apple had to post (in the event the ban proves unnecessary -- you know, should someone wake up and realize shiny rectangles shouldn't be patent-able) hopefully will compensate Samsung for all the lost sales.

What do you think? Is this slippery slope bad business for Apple? Or is it just another hiccup in a timeline that few will ever notice (besides Samsung)?

About

Jack Wallen is an award-winning writer for TechRepublic and Linux.com. He’s an avid promoter of open source and the voice of The Android Expert. For more news about Jack Wallen, visit his website getjackd.net.

163 comments
mizison
mizison

Apple has revolutionized the way we listen to music, store files, and redefined portable. In each case competitors quickly went to the drawing board to create something similar. The design MUST be unique enough to be called your own work. Your post sounds like you believe just because apple has gained enough profits to your definition that suddenly they should be held to a different standard, allowing anyone to infringe and copy their noble ideas. This is a capitalistic driven country! If you made a successful invention would YOU want people to declare you've made enough so you should allow others to make money copying Your idea...? I say, enough of your whimpers! Go invent something revolutionizing on your own! I am exceedingly disappointed in tech republic in the way it has tried to paint a horrible agenda against Apple. I may be ready to unsubscribe from TR after reading this garbage. Sent from my iPhone~

rustys
rustys

While I am not a fan of Apple products and have had a lot of laughs at my trend setter friends and clients who will spend moonbeams to own something pretty and a lot more to actually get it to work - I will also say that Android tablets are just about as useless in the business environment as an iPad. If the devices did all that was needed I could perhaps find a way to find an argument in their behavior, but right now - not a chance. It always amazes me that Microsoft has been taken to task seriously by the European court, but Apple seems to get away with all sorts of behavior that should have seen them fined hundreds of millions Euro. Anyways, I digress. Trying to look at Apple over the past 10 years and comparing patterns and trends I am thinking this might just be the start of a slippery downhill slide which will be of catastrophic proportions. There is no Steve Jobs to drag them out of the mire and like the bully at school - eventually everyone gets upset and overwhelms with sheer force of numbers. One other comment. I will not own any product that makes me have iTunes and have customized both my phone and my tablet to remove as much Google tracking as I can. As soon as someone comes out with a system that does not intrude into my personal world I will be happy to purchase and run their offerings.

AudeKhatru
AudeKhatru

Mercedes is seeking a patent on the automobile, a vehicular transport with four wheels and a motor driving two or more of those wheels. As the first company to produce an automobile they feel that their patent should be granted. They intend to force BMW, Audi and Volkswagen to stop selling automobiles in Germany. They have mentioned plans to file lawsuits against Holden in Australia, Toyota in Japan, and Ford in the United States for violation of patent. This seems about as logical as a lawsuit over "slightly rounded corners."

desizemo
desizemo

Besides the fact that the tablet idea has been around since the early days of Star Trek-TOS, it is utterly ludicrous for Apple to go after a competitor for the rectangular shape of the product that included an ornamental quality! Does this mean that Apple could seek legal redress for toilet paper manufacturers who produce little rectangles of paper that have an ornamental quality about them. This really is a load of horse hockey!

sarai1313
sarai1313

thats who every one rip off.it was he who told the set desineers to make a hand held computer with tuch screen. not apple, not microsoft , and just because it was a set peace rather than a working computer .i can think of a shit load of things that came from him that were put down on paper. and looked just like the so call patants that are put in by apple and microsoft. so were are thease original ideas coming from not from thease companys .

cahalfinbarr
cahalfinbarr

Am I right in thinking Borland were wiped off the map by someone who had patented a common mathematical symbol. That they had blatantly stolen Borland's intellectual concept and its product design was of no interest to the judge. If you can patent the use of a symbol, surely you can patent a common mathematical shape. I used have a cigarette box of exactly the same shape and size. I am not a web designer but some time ago I experimented with developing a generic web navigating design tool. Having produced an outline of what I required, I spent some time thinking up a name. I hit on a brilliant name for it. I browsed to see was the term in use. It had been copywrited by M.S. As far as I could see no work had been done on the concept, however its description had been so well drafted that it was an exact description of what I was planning.It was vague enough to cover anything that could be done in this area and clever enough to do so exactly. It strikes me that M.S. must employ persons to sit all day dreaming up possible copywrite scenarios.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

1. The patents under discussion are US patents under the US law and will have NO effect outside of the US legal jurisdiction, thus they have a very limited effect in the first place. 2. The US patent system leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. As far as I know it's the only system in the world where you can patent naturally occurring material and items such as genes. I can understand a desire to patent a lab modified gene that is a great improvement on the original. But it should NOT be legal to patent a naturally occurring gene or a gene that is modified through natural actions such as cross breeding. Yet it's legal in the US patent system, well, until the time someone has the money and intent to fight it up through the expensive and convoluted US legal system to the point they may actual get someone with intelligence sitting on the full bench of the Supreme Court deciding it's not allowed. ......... By the time you add these two points with the current US corporate trend to try and stop their competition via expensive court cases (in the hopes they'll go broke first) instead of by producing a better or cheaper product, you have the current mess of everyone suing everyone else over frivolous patent issues on patents that should never have been issued in the first placed. I'm just waiting for someone like Microsoft, Oracle, Google, or Apple to lodge a patent on using the English language to write software code, and then suing the others for doing it.

bared
bared

Why didn't they go after the "prior art" angle? I mean, I'm not a patent lawyer, but from what I understand, all they have to do is find another tablet or tablets, (or actually, even a smartphone,) with the same features in aggregate, and say "We weren't copying apple, we were copying them!" Heck, if it's just the ornamental design, I would go after slate chalkboards as a design example... they were out in the 1950's at least. (And though Jobs was a visionary, I doubt he thought of patenting it back then... :-)

emenau
emenau

Maybe the Judge is an Apple fanboy?

rstdi
rstdi

a patent is a patent! apple does go thru a lot of work designing their products and that's 1 of the reasons people like them. i'm all for abiding by patents. Same goes for oracle vs. google. if google is infringing on an oracle patent, then they need to pay or stop using it. as for IBM's past with pc's: they should have patented many of their designs because once they came out with the pc, everybody started copying them and left IBM in the dust. it takes many $$$$ to have an R&D unit within the companies like Apple and IBM. if all you do is copy a product, you can build and sell the product much cheaper than what it would cost to design it and go thru all the steps to test the functionality out. as for your comment about a up and coming rival: any new tablet coming out will be a distant 2nd place that will pick up the scraps that apple doesn't get! the only reason android is gaining market share is because they are much cheaper (sometimes free) and apple isn't. if apple wanted to squash android, all they would have to do is lower their costs, which they don't have to do. if the galaxy or any other tablet would surface, i would like the news to film the store opening the day the tablet or even the new android phone gets released to see the HUGE lines of people wanting to get 1. to this date, apple still has HUGE lines at all their apple stores when people can actually buy their new iphone or ipad.

Komplex
Komplex

No, because all those companies didn't rip apple off.

abc123a
abc123a

Wow - this is a great content free article. What made you write it?

ps.techrep
ps.techrep

With its ornamental patent infringement suit, the iMLame producer should be nicknamed the Big A$$h0l3. Now, before the judgement is overturned, is a great opportunity to dump AAPL and buy SSNLF. If you look at the charts, since SSNLF's mid-May drop after the rumors of the suit started circulating, BOTH have been stagnant. Apple's stock will drop as investors realize that the company has run out of new ideas, and is turning to the the cigarette industry's "new package (same old non-beneficial-but-addictive) cr*p" marketing philosophy, and SSNLF will resume it's climb, along with the stocks of all non iSuck tablet competitors.

braunmax
braunmax

This will soon be challenged, and then forgotten - except Samsung can claim, again and again, that its Galaxy/Android tablet IS real competition for Apple's IPAD. After all Apple is well able to recognise real competition when it sees it! I have an IPAD (2) and it IS my last. Why? because I can develop for Android, whereas Apple wants some kind of limitation for developing for IOS. --- pah! Simply too much hassle. Max

Domingus
Domingus

I am very happy to live in Europe where patentlaws have steered away the disaster they have become in the US. Watching patenting in the US becoming it's own industry where a company patent everything they do and can get a patent on, then turn around and sell the to the highest bidder is plain sickening. Thinkl of it this way. If companies in US is successfull denying other companies to produce things on the background on a somewhat generic patent, other US copanies are denyed their living rights and will die. Having Apple, a large company standing in front of thiss mess, just points out the magnitude of this disease.....

marian.ion
marian.ion

I think this is the begining of the end, and apple is trying to pull every string possible to delay the moment. Looking at the market (private consumer, business and administration), I believe apple without it's genius will slowly decay and slowly dissapear, and they are aware of that and of people's perception and understanding. I think in longer terms it's not really that important what innovation they might bring, it is more important that apple's heart and major brain is, again, no longer there. This time, for good.

waisy
waisy

I just can't imagine how ridiculous this is..patent a design....makes me want to microwave the whole team...hell yeah i might as well patent my name then.!!

water-man
water-man

The position at the top inevitably comes with arrogance and hunger for even more power. However, history proves that the one at the top is the next to tumble because the market refuses to accept that behaviour. The only question is when.

prasadchaoji
prasadchaoji

So, has Apple Inc. paid royalty for zen patent ?

kotoku
kotoku

It is a wonder how these learned justices understand technology and how one can possibly accept something like this. One makes a lipstick red and another comes around and changes the color to alizarine or torquiose and this is accepted as a patent infringement on lipstick making. No wonder we are where we are with this petty siiliness, like its being said it was sometime past Microsoft and now Apple. These guys should be ashamed of themselves. There are better things to go after that shape and form in the tech world. i feel like throwing by Macbook out the window now.

sarai1313
sarai1313

could sue the whole lot for steeling the T.V.

Slayer_
Slayer_

Flat screens, touch screens, buttons, icons, androids, etc.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

In general, copyright covers ideas, words, and concepts that can NOT, by themselves, be made into a tangible product you can hold in your hand. The copyright on a story is the words and plot etc, not the book and pages it's printed in. You can copyright a brand new mathematical formula, but not the device created from the application of the formula. - E=MC2 is a copyrighted formula of Einstein's but the nuclear devices created from it's applications are not his. A patent is a physical item that can be created, held, and used. As with the formula above, you can't patent the formula, but you can patent the device created by applying the formula. -- The nuclear bombs created from the application of Einstein's formula are patentable devices of the people who built them, not Einstein. ............ That's the major division of copyright and patent in the real world, however the US laws and courts are off in a fantasy realm of their own in regards to patents and copyright, so it's hard to say what the courts will do in the US.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

They sued Fox Software for using the words ADD, DELETE, EDIT, PRINT, DATE, and other common English words identical to those used in the dBase II and dBase III systems. The claim was that using those words was a violation of the AshtonTate copyright. It was eventually thrown out of court, but the expenses almost bankrupted Fox and made them an easy buyout target for Microsoft.

gi7omy
gi7omy

Didn't MS actually do that with the word 'Windows' despite the fact that the original Xerox system was WIMP (Windows, Icon, Mouse, Pointer)? Apple accused MS of ripping 'their' system and totally overlooked the fact that they had ripped it themselves from Xerox. They also ripped the name 'Macintosh' itself (well sort of - it was originally to be called Mackintosh after the red Canadian apple, but someone typoed and left out the 'k' - just as well or no doubt they'd be suing Canadian apple growers)

Papa_Bill
Papa_Bill

to develop that cosmetic design that all those people just have to have so they can say "look what I can afford!" show me somebody who wants to trade their Samsung for and iPad

hippiekarl
hippiekarl

They come in a rectangular package(!), and have thrived in the competitive market for decades now with *no advertizing*....(the pharmacology of tobacco refutes your assertion that it/they are 'non-beneficial', btw, but that's for another discussion--maybe round the WC here).

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Pretty snazzy slogan. How does this ban work? Is it illegal for US citizens to buy their Samsungs abroad, too?

RamonArgila
RamonArgila

Didn't a German court force Samsung to stop selling the Galaxy tab for a patent violation which was essentially similar to the reason Samsung was made to stop selling here?

water-man
water-man

it helps speed up the inevitable I did, Ubuntu and Android give me everything I need.

jeslurkin
jeslurkin

That has been the state of USPO since the estate of watsername got Congress to extend copyright to 75 years, so they could continue to enjoy the benefits of "Gone With the Wind". Nowadays I think they just grant patents w/o investigation. Damn shame, that.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

we need it to shake the evil spirits out of the peyote for the vision ritual...

sarai1313
sarai1313

napkin patants thats what is wrong with this whole system. lets just flood them with crap it we can do it or not .pay the money so no one can .then when they do we sue them so others wont bother any more because we have billions

hippiekarl
hippiekarl

entitled to 'informed opinions'; their victims are as well(!). Your comment (and snide little e-vote) attempt to stifle discussion--not add to it. Look up the page: you were invited to "Join the Discussion!"--not to *denounce* it for not being the voice of 'dr.s and asthmatics ONLY' (a very slender demography). I substantiated everything I've claimed in this little thread, and 'Drs." cannot dispute it themselves. How, then, can you impugn my mentioning it 'as a non-doctor' when the medical profession (grudgingly) AGREES with me?! That attempt to derail (instead of 'join and contribute to') this discussion is beneath your usual commentary....

sarai1313
sarai1313

dont talk about thing you have true info on.you are not a doctor.

hippiekarl
hippiekarl

I submit that there's a lot in common between spliffs and crooked grins (!).

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

but now that you said it, I can see how it looks kinda like a spliff. Now that's an interesting spin. I don't agree with hystericals, but I used to live in Denmark where there was an entirely back-ass-ward culture on smoking: there, it was more impolite to ask someone not to smoke inside than to smoke inside... getting to Copenhagen airport the first thing to meet me was a cloud of stale cigarette smoke... from inside, not from the a "designated smoking dog-house" or whatever other contraptions of contempt they dream up. I can see both ways, but where I come from, there was way too much of the other side. Now, perfume, that's the worst. Especially the stuff with goddamn unholy white musk (an artificial substance that cannot be broken down by nature, more than artificial, unnatural, anti-natural).

hippiekarl
hippiekarl

as a smoker who does NOT seek to 'impose his choice on others not so inclined', I still endure the measured apoplexy of control-freaks who walk up to, and inside, the fumes of burnt foliage to pillory me about it....I've still never been thanked by one for filled-in potholes, teachers that get paid, or for keeping the complainant's property (et al) taxes affordable. I've been called a lot of things for smoking tobacco, but never a "tax-hero"....consideration and tolerance seem to be expected only from the smoker in these circumstances. They *could* be using some of that time and will to, say, collect petitions for electric buses (instead of the diesel amidst whose fumes they're happy to stand while they denounce my 'air pollution' 's effect on their health). P.S. Ansu---I thought that was a hand-rolled cigarette in your latest avatar-pic(!); must be teeth...or one of those 'medical' smokes we hear about in 'dry states'! ;)

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

It's not psychosomatic, her lung capacity is at 80% all the time, never having "attacks". She doesn't need an inhaler for attacks, but she needs to inhale cortisone to keep her life from being an up-hill battle. "Nervous asthma" is not (at) all asthma. Now, I will also say that while I am not asthmatic at all, I told a guy four inches taller, and twenty pounds heavier than me, that if he wants to smoke, he can do it OUTSIDE THE FRIGGIN BUS SHELTER, and I'll have no problem with it. He could not understand what I said until I repeated it, staring up into his face from 4 inches away. Consideration and tolerance are ENTIRELY codependent, and the ultimate fact is, smoking is a choice, and making choices which cause discomfort to others is a dick move, where it can be avoided.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

The individual, who had been standing 50 feet away, walked over to let me know that my smoke was bothering her and would I please put out my cigarette. I advised her that a) I was standing in a designated smoking area; b) pointed to the sign, and; c) pointed out that another ten steps in the direction she had taken to reach me would put her upwind, at which point I would then have to suffer the effects of her extremely cloying perfume, which I already found offensive from five feet upwind! I've never been able to see the second-hand smoke campaign as anything other than a religious manifestation of the anti-smoking furor. More than one study has found the correlation between living with a smoker and increases in respiratory illness (lung cancer, asthma, etc.) to be statistically insignificant; every one of these studies has been attacked because of its results, not on the data or interpretation, but on the funding source or the scientist who performed the study. I've noticed that many of the anti-smoking crowd are also religious about "man-caused global warming". The same people that practiced [i]ad hominem[/i] on those scientists who dared to reach conclusions on the effects of smoking or smoke exposure with which they disagreed now decry similar actions by those who would deny the existence of climate change. That's not to say that smoking or exposure to second-hand smoke don't cause or exacerbate respiratory illnesses; it's common sense that they do, and it's common courtesy to do what one can to limit the effects on others. But people on both sides quite often throw courtesy out the window. @ramon, I don't have a problem at all with your attitude about smokers. My wife is asthmatic and feels the same way; I've been smoking outdoors for years. But (and you knew there would be one, didn't you?), many of those campaigning against smoking are motivated more by a need to control others; many of the same people are involved in many different anti-whate3ver campaigns. It's not a majority. It's not even a significant percentage, but it's enough, and they tend to be the offensive anti-smoking zealots.

hippiekarl
hippiekarl

it made them something of hermits....Sorry to hear you suffer from asthma, a largely psychosomatic condition. Have you ever wondered why your inhaler works whether it contains its 'solution' or just water? That's placebo power, and indicates a deep sublimation of one's, well, sanctimony. Asthmatics actually start coughing (and make 'how dare you' faces) from *across the street* when they see someone merely pull out a pack of cigarettes! Nothing's irritated their bronchioles (nor likely will at their distance), but they're *already* hacking and coughing....that is psychosomatic anticipation, and it's relieved with a dirty look downwind(!) and across the street, and a belt off the inhaler. I suggest that the shoulder-chip is *yours*, therefore (but that you, like many, are not consciously aware that it's there). Did you notice that you even double-posted your comment?! As we've never met in person, I have no opinion on whether 'that makes you a pr*ck' or not. I'll say this, though: at least you posted a comment, which is a more thoughtful gesture than the drive-by down-votes....

RamonArgila
RamonArgila

I have, as I said a post or two above, asthma. Cigarette smoke makes me stop breathing. So does Raid and all similar products, oil paints and any number of petrochemical based products (including cheap perfume). I avoid them all. I think being alive by avoiding you and your habit is as far from sanctimonious as can be.

RamonArgila
RamonArgila

I have asthma. Cigarette smoke stops my lungs from working. That makes me a pr*ck? Have you got a chip on your shoulder.

hippiekarl
hippiekarl

I invoked the TL from my own school years (1960-70s) as simile for the "off-limits (to all but the priviligentsia) smoking area" of the *smoke-free skies*. When I was a kid---and blue smoke wafted under the door of the TL---I often tried to get a peek inside; I assumed they had pinball machines and strong drink, too, from the way they zealously guarded ingress (I knew they had coffee...). I've been admonished by 'hospital police' here and there recently the same as you, for roasting one in my car in the parking lot w/o tinted windows (now, of course, I indulge my antisocial habit(s) in the curtained privacy of a 36' RV, and am left alone in 'smoke-free' parking lots!). The intent of my post (I will confess here) was to mention a fact (or facts) that, while true, were outside of someone (ps.techrep@, as it turned out)'s own 'thought-collective', and see whether its members considered my presentation of a different view on the topic as 'trolling'. I did that as a follow-up experiment to another engaging discussion here (dcolbert's round-table on discussion-protocol/'nettiquite'). So far, I believe I'm collecting down-votes unable to disagree with the fact that it's tobacco's *beneficial pharmacology* that allows a pilot, responsible for the safety of hundreds (landing just above stall speed, in cross-wind gusts, on IFR), to light up and increase his/her short-term awareness and acuity, but needing to (via a gratuitous "-1") *stand up for their group-think* against unpopular facts. Reactionary anti-smoking zealots are not interested in facts---they prefer the angry-mob comfort of human nature's 'low road'; holding hands and shouting down truth that lies outside their paradigm's construct....These are the same people who stand in the middle of the City (where simply breathing in and out equals 15 cigarettes/day) at a bus stop reeking of diesel fumes, to boot, and lecture me that MY cigarette is *killing* them! I usually suggest that if they actually cared about their pulmonary health the way they're trying to claim, they would be far, far away from urban air in its entirety....or at least trying to do something about emissions, PCBs, the nerve-gas sprayers under their sink (Black Flag, Raid, et al), and so on....but, no; when they get sick, it's going to be because of *my* cigarette (their fall-guy for an entire toxic environment). Their health is subject to the vagaries of their bad diet, lack of exercise, and poor sleeping habits, but those are things *they* would have to work on; their thought-collective has it that they don't have a stake in their own well-being (and don't have to; when their lifetime of gluttony and physical laziness catches up with them, they have already decided who to blame: healthy people with cigarettes supposedly deadly to all but themselves!). This is the group most willing to use hyperbole, lies, and slander, and gleefully cite falsified, long-debunked 'studies' such as the one that purported to show that 'second-hand smoke' is *worse* than 'first-hand' (so as to attempt to explain why my cigarette's 'killing' you, but somehow, I--its actual smoker--am fine). The 'sanctimonious pr*cks' to whom I referred in my light-hearted but apparantly poignant post (and social experiment) above, unable to engage against the facts presented, have begun anonymously(!) attempting to impugn them via their messenger with '-1's....despite all their pretense to egalitarianism around here, when their own sacred cow's gored with facts from outside their group-think, anon. "-1"s are the last stop on the low road. At least when the Apple/Google/MS zealots disagree, they---to their credit---have something to add to the 'discussion' along with their votes; these folks' proclivity to throw mud from cover and run when the 'other view' shows up says it all about their actual social agenda, and its 'tyrrany of the Majority' authoritarianism. They engage in stonings--but not discussions--on their 'sacred cow' topics. I had thought that the poster before me was *inviting* discussion on tobacco (beyond the product's 'rectangular' package) through their use, en passant, of inflammatory, inaccurate adjectives about the product itself....but, no: it was merely an appeal to one's own thought-collective to agree with a widely-held (but comically-exaggerated and factually-incorrect) 'unifying metaphor'.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Most states have made school campuses non-smoking areas...for everybody. Several years ago, I was parked in a school parking lot at a band competition and had a cop try to ticket me for smoking in my car.

hippiekarl
hippiekarl

to increase short-term awareness and acuity (repeat as necessary)---in what's the only 'smoking section' on US air routes. Just like the Teachers' Lounge, you can't go there, either (but the crew can; that's where your stewardess is when you can't find her). 747s have an ashtray in the console, as did my OH-58A scout helicopter in the military. Society enjoys the benefit of the outrageous 'sin-taxes' levied against its purchasers (imagine what would happen to your property tax, state sales tax--use your imagination--if cigarettes were ever *illegal* and that revenue had to be made up somewhere else!). Some campers enjoy its bug-repellant benefit, using it to make chiggers, gnats, and mosquitos pick on somebody *else* instead....speaking of its 'repellant' benefit, it also helps keep sanctimonious pr*cks at a more discrete distance ;) But this is all digression; when I saw a post titled "Jobs spinning in grave", I prepared to read about textile work for the dead (and a spam link)...my bad!