• CactusMcHarris

    Pardon me for the ignorance, but even if that were in Euros that wouldn’t be very much for such a large company, would it? I guess that’s what you mean in your last sentence – it’s a token payment?

  • http://www.chinasmack.com/tag/funny/page/3 Jakgani

    The judge ordered Samsung to immediately stop selling 10 products, including the Galaxy S II, and also banned sales of four Apple products, including the iPhone 4 and iPad 2.

    The court ruled that Apple infringed on two of Samsung’s wireless technology patents and was ordered to pay Samsung 40 million won ($35,400). Samsung was fined 25 million won for violating one patent relating to so-called bouncing-back function used when scrolling electronic documents

    So, Samsung can still sell the Galaxy III.
    Apple can still release and sell the iPhone 4S/5 and iPad3.

    I can’t see shops with iPad2 in stock – refusing to sell it based on the courts decision.

  • R. Elgin

    Very much a token payment, indeed. I guess the court doesn’t think much of the suit maybe.

  • brier

    Isnt that just weekend beer money for a company like Apple?

  • paulhewson

    CNN is saying that both Apple and Samsung lost and that they are both banned from selling certain models.


  • paulhewson
  • DLBarch

    The AP wire has this story under the lede:

    “Court rules Samsung didn’t violate Apple’s iPhone design”

    I GUARANTEE there are thousands of SV types clicking on that link at this very minute this morning (California time) thinking that the story refers to the San Jose case, not the Seoul case.

    Aneurysm, anyone?


  • DLBarch

    Oh, and yeah, @4, that 40 mil. won damages award is about the same amount that Apple earns in interest on its cash reserves between now…

    …and now.


  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936


    You need to read more articles on the subject. Patent infringement fines in Korea are typically low, but products do get banned from selling, which is were the real money loss and punishment come from:


    The court ordered Samsung to stop selling the Galaxy S, Galaxy SII, and Galaxy Nexus smartphones as well as the 7-inch and 10.1-inch Galaxy Tab tablet devices.

  • gbnhj

    From the MacRumors link above:

    Interestingly, the South Korean court stated that Apple and Samsung smartphones were dissimilar enough that there would be “no possibility” for consumers to confuse the products of the two companies.

    Well, that would be constancy from the courts here on an IP claim. Truly, as they would see it, have Korean consumers ever been confused?

  • DLBarch

    The Apple-Samsux jury is back and the verdict is being read.

    So far, well, let’s just say I’m pleased and leave it at that.


  • DLBarch

    AP’s reporting $1.5 billion.

    That’s wrong. It’s over $2.3 billion by my count.


  • DLBarch

    Nope. Court clarifies…it’s $1.05 bil. in damages.

    Strange…that’s not how it was read by Judge Koh off of the jury form.

    Ah, well…


  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    The key is… will there be any product bans?

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936


    You’re happy that they could patent a rectangle w/rounded corners?

    I do think Apple’s software related patents should hold water… but seriously, a rectangle?

  • DLBarch


    The design patents and trade dress constituted more than “a rectangle,” and, frankly, you should know that.

    Apple has now prevailed in 9 out of ten of the international jurisdictions in which it has filed. One guess where it didn’t.


  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936
  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    … and… I know many of Apple’s patents are valid, and I’ve said it several times, but I don’t think this one should be:


  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    … as University of Chicago Econ professors said, re: Design Patent #504,889 :

    “Still, the Patent and Trademark Office gave Apple a rectangle patent, which illustrates an important point about our IP system: it is pretty easy to get an absurd patent awarded. Actually defending it in court, as Apple now has to do, is of course more complicated. “