What is heartbreak?

What is heartbreak?

Heartbreak is lying on the bathroom floor,

trying your damn hardest to breathe

while at the same time wondering

where it all went wrong and

how you're gonna get up and pretend like

everything is all right,

and what the hell are you gonna do

about that hole in your chest.

Yeah, that's heartbreak.

Getting the competition right: Is it 'Apple against Samsung' or 'Apple against Android'?

I was just doing a response post on IVLE on a thread regarding the ongoing patent wars, particularly Apple v. Samsung, and a thought occurred to me: who's the biggest loser in this equation?

So far, apart from Samsung, Apple is also embroiled in several cases across several jurisdictions with major Android phone makers such as HTC and Motorola. One of the reasons is that because of Android’s late entry into the digital platforms market, therefore it is still lack a wide range of patent holdings to render itself immune to litigation. As compared to Android systems, Apple seems to be in less legal tussles with WebOS and Windows Phone, and the fundamental reason might be because of the strong patent portfolio of its creators (HP and Microsoft respectively).

But it looks like Samsung is find loopholes through which it can get its products out to consumers in a legitimate way, despite the courts’ unfavorable ruling. When the ruling was passed in August 2011 that Samsung smartphones are banned from sales in the Netherlands due to an infringement of Apples patented photo-flicking technology, Samsung sidestepped the ruling by removing the disputed function from its Galaxy smartphones before launching them on the market. Problem solved. Samsung also, upon court injunction for a page-turning patent, simply re-engineered the function and issued an update to its users, skirting the issue easily. But other Android makers like Motorola and LG Electronics have decided to play it safe with a ‘wait-and-see’ tactic by withdrawing disputed functions from their devices’ OS before launching, in the wake of the many legal tussles regarding patented technologies.

At the end of the day, patent wars will mean the ousting of competitors without a diverse patent portfolio and consolidation of companies to form strong alliances against other alliances, thus effectively stifling competition and space for creativity and innovation. So instead of having a diverse range of products to choose from, consumers will have fewer choices in markets where certain products are banned from sales. This allows companies such as Apple to exert forceful control over consumer choice instead of allowing market forces to play the part in ensuring healthy competition. It is not too difficult to see who the biggest loser in the patent wars is.

‘Does Apple’s Patent Win Against Samsung Put More Android Devices at Risk?’http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/10/apple-samsung-australia/
‘Samsung to Sell Smartphone Without Apple Patents’http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/10/13/2011101301164.html
‘Apple/Samsung Circus Could Impact Consumers’ http://www.thestreet.com/story/11259079/1/applesamsung-circus-could-impact-consumers.html

(This first appeared in NUS IVLE Forum for NM4206 Media and Communication Regulation. So I'm not infringing upon my own copyrights. :P )

Post-everything

Good bye, Mr. Jobs. 100 years down the road, when people think of the great technological revolution in the 2000's that has changed the world, they'll think of you. Thanks for everything.

As you can see, Julie is back here. Week 8 (the work week that has just passed) has been excruciating, with 4202 and 4220 individual presentations and reflection report, 4218 group presentation and 4220 research interviews. Plus I was up to my neck in tuition assignments, no thanks to particular individuals who decided to throw them back to me despite my gracious recommendation for them to teach instead. Screw all you incompetent airbags.

Retail therapy! Actually it was more if shopping for essentials because my trusty flats from BATA are gradually coming apart from daily physical abuse. Got this classy pair of leather flats from New Look (because they're one of those rare self-help outlets that saves me the embarrassment of asking for my humongous shoe size), and I hope they'll love my feet alright. Keeping my fingers crossed.

Movie junkies!

I've been dying to catch Friends with Benefits since a week ago because of the slapstick episode put up by Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis while presenting during this year's MTV Movie Awards. Great publicity for the movie, I'd say. I don't care if people are judgmental when it comes to watching rated films because, hello, you only get to live once. In fact, many of the rated films I've watched were more than just skin and flesh. Friends with Benefits presented the story of a creative guy Dylan (played by Timberlake) who was headhunted by Jamie (played by Kunis) to work at GQ in New York. But each of their characters are flawed in a different way; Dylan has to work away from his family in L.A. and has to deal with losing his father to Alzheimer's disease, while Jamie comes from a single-parent family with a constantly disappearing mother. So when the two freshly-heartbroken individuals come together and decided that they didn't want to deal with emotional relationships anymore, the idea of being just sex buddies popped up. But who can stop themselves from plunging themselves headfirst into the big L? To be honest, I preferred the Timberlake-Kunis pairing as compared to No Strings Attached''s Portman-Kutcher duo, because the latter lacked the chemistry which worked the whole film. Maybe that's because, prior to the movie, Timberlake and Kunis had worked closely with the director to conscientiously sculpt the dialogue so that every line flows into place so neatly. I'll love to see Timberlake and Kunis work their magic again - give us a sequel, please?