33 thoughts on “Best Super Bowl Commercial So Far

  1. 31

    IP laws need to be abolished. Then people wouldn’t have to deal with the idiocy that IP laws cause.

  2. 30

    I even explained that you were unlikely to have realized just how much you said

    “I even explained to you that you’re a pedophile who tortures kittens.”

    You’re a nutcase, anon. Get help. Please.

  3. 29

    There is no lie in what I say – in fact, when I first provided the beat down on what you said I even explained that you were unlikely to have realized just how much you said, and how much that revealed about you.

    Even here, you still don’t get it.

    Your words indicate what you feel to be a perfectly legitimate use of facts.

    I merely point out that this is, in fact, not so.

    So once again, and please be explicit, what is my lie that you are accusing me of?

    You have not answered – and you continue to accuse without answering. But then again, that surprises no one, as your tricks are as stale as they are empty.

    As for the commercial, you are once again quite incorrect in your attempted spin. I care not at all that you think that others will be laughing at IP rights. You are vey much a buffoon, an empty mouthpiece. Your opinion is rather meaningless. The piece itself simply is not that humorous. As such, it serves poorly its purpose – much like you serve poorly your intended agenda – something to think about (if you dare) as I once again hand you back your head and dismiss you.

  4. 28

    you think that facts are meant to be spun

    What I said was that Kevin Noonan should feel free to spin facts to suit his agenda rather than complain that academics and corporations are hurting his fee-fees with their anti-patent “propaganda”. (You just copied my exact quote and then you lied about it, for the tenth time. What kind of an ignorant —hole does that?)

    I (and anyone else) should feel free to note when Kevin does a poor job of spinning (sometimes he’s very good at it). I’ll do that by asking him reasonable questions about his underlying assumptions.

    Of course, if we’re unlucky an ignorant d—chebag troll like you will show up and copy/paste some weirda-s insulting horesh-t about “heads being handed back” and other recycled nonsense.

    My favoriate description for you remains: the disparaging fortune cookie with a typo.

    I’m sorry that you didn’t think the SuperBowl commercial was funny. Unfortunately for you, many many thousands of people will be laughing at it on Sunday, at the expense of your beloved IP rights.

  5. 27

    It is Samsung saying we are not copiers the patent laws (they talk about trademark presumably because people aren’t going to understand patents) are unfair.


  6. 26

    I stand by everything I wrote.

    Yes – it is quite known that you think that facts are meant to be spun, that “rhetorical tools” like mischaracterizations, strawmen and blatant lies are “OK.” That’s why you keep on having your head handed back to you. You are shameless that way.

    If you are going to [shrug], you might then realize that along with that [shrug] will come your eplectic rants of rage.


  7. 24

    Clarification please Mr Saidman.

    In England, the corresponding design patent litigation stressed that this was not a copyright case and that whether S copied the A product was totally irrelevant (if only because the marketed A products might not fall within the ambit of the not invalid asserted claim).

    In the USA, was S found to have blatantly copied the drawings in the asserted design patent, or was it the A product they copied?

  8. 21

    This commercial makes lawyers looks like idiots to the general public.

    What’s wrong with that? If you can’t laugh at yourself….

  9. 20

    If IP (in general) is run by a bunch of yucks, then it cannot be very important.

    It’s a common philosophical strategy (and its Kappos’ fault).

  10. 18

    Samsung, understandably, is spending millions in this PR campaign to mock, and thus try to diminish, the fact that a jury found it guilty – to the tune of $1 billion in damages – of blatantly copying Apple’s designs.

  11. 17

    This story happens every year and it completely misrepresents trademark law. Of course we can say Super Bowl, just like I can say “I want a Coke”. What we cannot do is call a college game the “super bowl” or start a new company for “coke” beverages. This commercial makes lawyers looks like idiots to the general public.

  12. 15

    You want a “teaching moment?”

    Here is a recent one:

    MM Reply Jan 24, 2013 at 10:29 PM:
    Facts are facts. Kevin and like-minded souls should feel free to spin those facts anyway they want.

    anon Reply Jan 25, 2013 at 10:02 AM:
    This says WAY MORE than you probalby wanted to say MM.

    Massive self-defeat. Breathtaking even.

    MM Reply Jan 25, 2013 at 12:55 PM :
    This says WAY MORE than you probalby wanted to say MM
    Way less, in fact.

    anon Reply Jan 25, 2013 at 01:18 PM :
    LOL – for your sake, “way less” would have been the smarter thing to do.

    But it’s you – so we have what we have.

    Massive self-defeat. Still trying to catch my breath from how massive (and I am sure that you are still every bit as clueless).

    MM Reply Jan 25, 2013 at 01:52 PM :
    Sounds like you need to exercise some of that cheetoh fat off your waist. After you “catch your breath”, maybe you try writing a coherent response. I’m especially interested in any attempt by you to rebut the influence of the Internet/blogs on the evolving perception of patent law.

    anon Reply Jan 25, 2013 at 05:01 PM:
    Let’s deconstruct (and destrxct) your awesome self-defeat at 10:29 PM.

    The most revealing comment (in the line of ‘liars think everyone else is always lying”) is: “ Kevin and like-minded souls should feel free to spin those facts anyway they want”

    Facts are NOT for spinning. Facts – both good and bad are to be accounted for. This belies your “facts are facts” statement, because what you really meant was facts are to be twisted. And that is the main reason why you personally are the number one reason why quality blogging is not achieved here at Patently-O. Your rampant spins and attempted spins result in endless mischaracterizations, strawmen, and even blatant lies. Your statement of “facts are facts” is an empty platitude belied by an admission that you are probably still unaware of, but rings through in every one of your posts.

    You could not even finish that paragraph without engaging in this very type of mischaracterization.

    And the lesson continued.

    MM FAIL – lesson on how not to blog.

  13. 14

    … but they certainly got away with the similarity to Apple. If someone new had tried that today …

  14. 13

    In the UK, around the time that Dell appeared in the US, a company appeared making IBM compatible PCs called Orange. They are still around, but now they are cellphone service providers.

  15. 11

    It is banal and better than 96% of the people won’t care and won’t remember it after the commercial that follows it.

    You really need to get out more. You have no idea what humor is – as witness by your “style.”

  16. 9

    The fact that MM decides to post in response to me says more of him as a troll than any content could.

    Not at all. It could have been anyone who wrote that comment and my response would be the same. Why? Because the comment I responded to evinced a profound lack of humor and a super-sensitivity to any and all perceived “attacks” on intellectual property.

    Viewers will be curious about the extent to which the ad reflects the actual truth being mocked. If I buy a 49ers helmet is it true I can’t use it in a commercial about the San Francisco 49ers without the permission of the 49ers? If I make a commercial to be aired during the Super Bowl, is it true I can’t refer to the names of the teams who are playing (a matter of historical fact) without their permission? Or does one assume a very real risk of being sued for that behavior?

    It’s a teaching moment, as they say.

  17. 8

    The fact that MM decides to post in response to me says more of him as a troll than any content could.

    You really ate hurting from all the smack downs I have been giving you, aren’t you?

    Well, I did generously give you a legitimate out: stop the poor quality postings, employ a bit of intellectual honesty, and stop asking me to rip your head off. Give me less cause to do so and I will do so less often.

    Quite simple, but it takes you to decide to change first.

  18. 7

    They should have used tureen instead of plate, 7 squareders instead of fifty minus one and crows instead of black birds.

    Then it would have been funny.

  19. 5

    The concept is funny, but I would tend to agree with Anon that the execution wasn’t that funny. Probably would have been funnier if they would have gone after Apple and design patents and functionality.

    Maybe designers in Korea holding up an apple and orange and the patent attorney saying they look too much alike.

  20. 4

    Not really that funny.

    In fact, it’s dangerous. It threatens innovation, our economy, and the constipational fabric of our nation. But what do you expect from a foreign company?

    I urge all Americans who do not seek to wish to live in a cave with bad cell phone reception to call your congressman. It’s not too late to prevent this blatant assault on our libertines.

    /patent t–b–ger off

  21. 3


    I heard that the Consortium of Leftist Academics will be debuting their own anti-IP commercial during halftime, starring Tom Green and Sinbad.

  22. 2

    Not really that funny.

    Perhaps the thread can be retitled “Lamest Super Bowl Commercials Related to Intellectual Property So Far” and earn an award for truth in advertising.

Comments are closed.