≡ Menu

So, Uncle Marmot, what ARE the Korean papers saying about the Samsung shellacking?

Well, the Chosun Ilbo noted the ruling was pretty much the mirror opposite of the Seoul District Court ruling in Korea the day before. This, they note, was due to the jury system in the United States. It’s said, the Chosun relates, that the jury focused more on the design and function patents rather than the difficult technical issues. That they returned a verdict in just 22 hours demonstrates that this was a possibility. The Chosun also suggested that the jury might have been rooting for Apple, a leading American company, at a time when the US economy is struggling, and this might have influenced the decision.

Nevertheless, one thing worth noting, said the Chosun, is that the court broadly recognized trade dress, a concept universal in the United States but still unfamiliar in Korea.

The Chosun concluded by saying Samsung has taken a major hit with the decision. Worse than the financial damages is that the company has now been branded a “copy cat.” The verdict will also have an impact on the roughly 50 patent suits ongoing nationwide. Samsung needs to escape from these “copy cat” fights by quickly bolstering their design and software capabilities, says the Chosun. In the short term, the company needs to boost its internal design capacity by bringing in the world’s best experts, and in the long term, it must find a way to strengthen educational facilities by bringing in leading professors in the global design field in order to turn Korean university students into world-class design talent.

The Joong-Ang Ilbo, as one might expect given its history, was not entirely pleased with the decision. It notes that “experts” point out the decision lacked fairness and universiality because the jury—composed of people without expertise in IT or patents—rushed the decision without sufficient consideration, thus helping Apple. The JoongAng has not intention to belittle the character and independence of US legal procedures, it says, but at the same time, it could not exclude the possibility that non-experts caught up in a protectionist social atmosphere had handed down a biased decision (Marmot’s Note: The possibility that the Seoul court handed down a biased decision doesn’t seem to have entered anyone’s mind).

The JoongAng warns that if a protectionist jury handed down a decision unilaterally favorable to the American company, Apple, it could have a significant impact on the development of the global IT industry and economic cooperation between Korea and the United States. It expresses the opinion that sufficient consideration is needed so that in the judge’s ruling and the appeals to follow, legal decisions on a point of bilateral economic contention are not distorted by the social atmosphere (Marmot’s Note: For a prime example of how the non-jury systems are better able to handle social atmospheres, see the Lone Star case).

The problem, says the JoongAng, is that Apple will raise even more parent disputes of a similar nature. Apple and Samsung already have about 30 cases ongoing in nine nations, including Korea and the United States. Being glass-half-full sort of folk, the JoongAng note this is proof that in the Samsung has become a world-class company threatening Apple in the smartphone and tablet PC market (Marmot’s Note: Gee, you think? Samsung is the world’s biggest smart phone manufacturer, with a market share twice that of Apple’s). As Samsung distinguishes itself in the world market, competing companies will try harder to contain it.

Finally, the Joongang warns that the “fast follower” strategy of copying or following other companies or their products won’t work anymore. Regardless of the verdicts, Samsung needs to become a “first mover” that creates new technologies and opens new markets. Of course, the “first mover” can profit big, but they need to endure a lot risk. They also need creative capabilities and will for continuous innovation. The JoongAng expresses hope that this verdict will become an opportunity for Korean companies to make the leap to becoming global leading companies.

Much of the same from the Dong-A Ilbo, except they were even more critical of the jury and worried that the decision could hurt consumer choice.

For the Hankyoreh, cases like this are interesting—they’re not especially big fans of the United States in Haniland, but they’re not too keen on Samsung, either. Their editorial on the decision was pretty balanced and workmanlike. Like the Chosun, it noted that American courts broadly acknowledge intellectual property rights over trade dress. It also notes, both in the editorial and in a related news story, that Samsung—as the leading manufacturer of Android phones—is something of a proxy target for Apple’s real enemy, Google. It’s easier to target the phone manufacturers rather than invading the proverbial Fulda Gap of Google, which offers the Android OS for free at any rate.

The Hani also noted that Samsung products have developed quite a bit in terms of technical innovation, and thanks to the lawsuits, they’ve begun putting together the know-how to develop new designs and differentiate themselves. Like pretty much everyone else, they called on Samsung to move from being a fast follower focused on hardware to becoming a market leader in design and software innovation. Unlike the other papers, however, they note to do this, Samsung needs a create a flexible and creative corporate culture, not one focused on keeping things in perfect order.

MARMOT’S NOTE: As a user of the Galaxy Note, iPad and iMac—all three of which I love—my own feeling is that regardless of the case specifics, it’s a shame both sides can’t lose.

About the author: Just the administrator of this humble blog.

  • http://bcarr.com Brendon Carr

    In the short term, the company needs to boost its internal design capacity by bringing in the world’s best experts, marginalizing and ignoring them and all their ideas before they quit, embittered.

    I fixed it for you.

    [The JoongAng Ilbo] notes that “experts” point out the decision lacked fairness and universality because the jury—composed of people without expertise in IT or patents—rushed the decision without sufficient consideration, thus helping Apple.

    The JoongAng Ilbo needs to read CNET’s report on the “qualifications” of the Apple-Samsung jury. With over a third of its members seeming to come from the tech industry, and one juror being a patent-holder himself, whatever its other weaknesses this seems to have been one of the best-qualified juries in American history.

  • http://www.busanhaps.com Bobby McGill

    Interesting comments from a juror interviewed by CNET:

    “Asked to point to some of the more compelling evidence Ilagan mentioned correspondence. “E-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me,” he told Sandoval. “And also on the last day they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after iPhone came out.’”

    Ilagan also commented on some Samsung executives who presented their testimony via video from Korea. “I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn’t answer one of them. They didn’t help their cause,” he said.

    read the rest here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

  • Q

    Chris Davies at Slash Gear has a different opinion:

    “The validity of the jury decision in the Apple vs. Samsung patent trial has come under renewed scrutiny, with concerns that the speedy ruling could mean fundamental aspects of the process have been overlooked. Many were surprised that the jury in the San Jose case reached its $1bn decision against Samsung in just three days, despite the complexity of the suit; Groklaw has been gathering up some of the skepticism, pointing to obvious discrepancies in calculating damages – where Samsung had been charged for infringing with devices the jury had already deemed did not, in fact, infringe – as well as post-trial comments by jury members which suggested moral punishment not rightful compensation was the goal.”

    More read: http://www.slashgear.com/apple-samsung-jury-speed-doubts-raised-after-punishment-ruling-26243946/

  • http://www.busanhaps.com Bobby McGill
  • http://populargusts.blogspot.com/ bulgasari

    That Wikipedia page about the Joongang Ilbo linked to above states that “JoongAng Ilbo pioneered the use in South Korea of horizontal copy layout” from 1995.” Except that the Hani beat it by 7 years

  • http://blog.oranckay.net oranckay

    The internal Samsung emails and internal documents that were used as exhibits in the US trial were very damming. They have not been used as exhibits in Korea, Australia, or Europe. It is because of this evidence, far more than any other factor, that one sees very different results in the US trial. Note also that because of this evidence the jury (and soon likely the judge, who may increase damages) found that Samsung plotted to copy Apple deliberately. This after Samsung had claimed it had merely done the regular benchmarking that any company would do, and that it wasn’t limited to benchmarking Apple products.

    See here:
    http://allthingsd.com/20120806/iphone-caused-crisis-of-design-at-samsung-memo/

    http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/samsung-can-hardly-explain-away-all-of.html

    The blog Foss Patents (above, below) was widely quoted by the Korean media before its author just couldn’t help but call out Samsung, so he’s being quoted a lot less.

    http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/apples-billion-dollar-win-over-samsung.html

    “Samsung cannot blame its own lawyers from Quinn Emanuel. Samsung has to blame itself for building its success on an infringing software platform and for deciding to copy Apple’s designs. And Samsung has to realize that its own patent portfolio is next to worthless in its fight against Apple. Yes, next to worthless.”

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

    Hopefully, at the end of the day, this could lead to more software innovation at Samsung. I still think Samsung is a systemic innovator. You know, making things faster, lighter, cheaper, more colorful and sharper. That’s still innovation, albeit not the kind of innovation that Apple is good at.

    Maybe I should send Samsung a business plan to build a software and UI center in California. Hyundai has design centers in Michigan and California and Kia has one in Michigan.

  • Creo69

    YIPPY KI YAY! Long live Lone Star!

    I would like to think Korea Inc. got some of what they dished out but 22 hours doesn’t really compare to the yearssss that Lone Star had to waste before getting robbed.

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

    I mean Kia has one in Frankfurt, Germany. Not Michigan.

  • jkitchstk

    Hani says Samesung “needs a flexible and creative corporate culture…,”

    I’d like to be a fly on the Samesung wall when the Samesung employees return with a…”Duhhh, I dunnno Sammy” after being told to have a new creative design by the end of the day.

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

    Creo69,

    Lone Star made about 20% internal rate of return on Korea Exchange Bank. Don’t cry for them.

    Now, if they didn’t go through all that crap, they could have made 70%, but 20% is not bad for a private equity firm.

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

    Rob,

    Hahaha… Fulda Gap reference. Remember how when were were kids and we had nightmares of Soviet tanks flooding the Fulda Gap like cockroaches in a cheap motel?

    Ah, the Cold War. The good ole days when we use to worry about nuclear annihilation more than enjoying the playground.

  • H.Schmidt

    It should be noted that the jurors in the Apple vs Samsung case came from Silicon Valley (where Apple’s headquarters are located) themselves. There would have been significant bias within the jury and would have favored Apple.

    Furthermore, since the US economy is still stagnating, it would have been in the jurors’ best interests to decide that Apple was innocent and that Samsung was guilty.

    All of Apple’s technology comes from Samsung, whereas Apple is Samsung’s biggest customer. It is an awkward period between Samsung and Apple, however both companies will work together as one can not be as profitable without the other.

    Personally, owning the iPhone 4S, I came to realize that nearly half of the iPhone 4S’s price comes from Samsung’s hardware. This phone is the best phone I’ve ever owned based on smoothness. Samsung makes the best hardware, while Apple makes the best software.

  • Wedge

    “Marmot’s Note: For a prime example of how the non-jury systems are better able to handle social atmospheres, see the Lone Star case.”

    OUCH!

  • http://blog.oranckay.net oranckay

    As for regular Korean media response, 권해영 of 아시아경제 covered the trial consistently over the last few months, sometimes writing two stories a day and frequently quoting Samsung sources for things available on the internet like trial dates .

    삼성, 애플이 아닌 미국 애국심에 졌다(종합)
    http://www.asiae.co.kr/news/view.htm?idxno=2012082510420934894

    Apple’s lawyers quoted Korean media in various motions leading up to the trial, for example see second paragraph here:

    http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/samsungs-public-statements-contradict.html

  • Wedge

    H. Schmidt: Good analysis on the jury following its own best interest–until you consider that it also indirectly ruled against Google, through Android, which also happens to have a large local presence, and that it ruled against consumer choice. Your analysis works real well as projection, though.

  • Jashin Densetsu

    i don’t see why they need to go into software. why don’t they just focus on hardware?

  • Jashin Densetsu

    what i don’t get is, why was microsoft sued for bundling internet explorer with windows, while apple bundles a bunch of stuff and controls the hardware platform, OS, browser, apps, app store, music distribution, etc. and has their own market with barriers to entry?

  • Barreira

    >>“Asked to point to some of the more compelling evidence Ilagan
    >>mentioned correspondence. “E-mails that went back and forth
    >>from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should
    >>incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me,” he
    >>told Sandoval.

    Few jurisdictions other than US make broad discovery tools available to litigants. Incriminating internal docs of this sort would not have seen the light of day had this *same* case been litigated in Korea or Europe.

    Regarding juries, they often think like 5 year olds. And if you have kids, you know they can cut through a lot of baloney and self-delusion that adults make up to obscure clear and simple moral principles….

    On the argument that this verdict only hurts consumers, well, I guess consumers are also hurt when they can’t buy knock off Chanel bags in the back streets of Itaewon. (By the way, good luck convincing the Judge to overturn the jury verdict on this one – better pray to St. Jude before filing that motion for new trial).

    Brendon Carr is right – this verdict vindicates long suffering Korean designers and patent attorneys, who were treated like second class citizens in the corporate totem pole, and are routinely asked to crank out work product within unrealistic deadlines and under ridiculously low budgets….

    In the long run, this will be good for Samsung and for other Korean companies – Nothing like a Billion Dollar verdict to drive home the point that creativity and IP matter….

  • R. Elgin

    . . . Samsung makes the best hardware, while Apple makes the best software.

    Which is a reasonable partnership but Samsung’s leadership IS arrogant and is paying for their foolishness. When a mere company assumes the mythic proportions of *being* a fiefdom or country, pride will go before a fall.

  • http://geoju.kr fanwarrior

    http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/08/26/146230/apple-v-samsung-jurors-speak-skipped-prior-art-for-bogging-us-down

    Actually its’ far more involved than that. It seems the jurors completely ignored the question of “prior art” to save time.. one of the most important questions there was. It’s likely that an appeal will absolutely succeed or the judge will invalidate the decision. There is thought the lead juror may have simply swindled them all.

  • Jashin Densetsu

    Samsung makes the best hardware, while Apple makes the best software.

    this isn’t true bro. i don’t know who thinks samsung has the best hardware, and apple’s software sucks. people buy apple for the hardware and brand. even most people who buy apple for the software know the software sucks but they usually want a unix machine in a nice metal box instead of a plasticy PC.

  • gbnhj

    @11,

    I’m intrigued: is something wrong with two parties freely entering into a legal deal which provides a 70% IRR to the seller? I think 20% is something to weep over, when by rights it should have been 3.5 times greater than that.

  • Smudge
  • Creo69

    “Lone Star made about 20% internal rate of return on Korea Exchange Bank. Don’t cry for them.”

    I got a better idea….fug dat! The Korean govt doesn’t get to decide what a tolerable rate of return is for foreign investors. In this case Koreans were sore losers who decided to steal back the profits of a foreign company who got the better of them in a deal. Any Korean crying about Samsun can kiss my butt. What comes around obviously goes around, the sooner Koreans learn this lesson the better off they will be.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Creo69 wrote (#25):

    I got a better idea….fug dat! The Korean govt doesn’t get to decide what a tolerable rate of return is for foreign investors. In this case Koreans were sore losers who decided to steal back the profits of a foreign company who got the better of them in a deal. Any Korean crying about Samsun can kiss my butt. What comes around obviously goes around, the sooner Koreans learn this lesson the better off they will be.

    Can someone please tell me where the “thumbs-up” button is?

  • brier

    Samsung stock down 7.5pct. Is it time to buy?

  • Creo69

    ” Samsung stock down 7.5pct. Is it time to buy?”

    It is going to drop a lot mofe than 7.5 if they still have to cough up a billion or so in change once the appeals are over.

  • hamel

    Hey Gerry:

    Would you say that the annexation of Korea (by Japan was necessary?
    Was the annexation of Korea an example of colonialist policy?
    And did the annexation of Korea require no apology from Japan?

  • Jashin Densetsu

    this is kinda funny

    https://plus.google.com/u/0/114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G

    “I’m sitting in a Starbucks doing random whatever over an iced americano. While I waiting for my drink, I watched a guy with his friend, pick up a newspaper; and start to remark on the Samsung Apple verdict.

    Guy: “Wait, so what they’re saying is, Samsung is the same as Apple?”
    Friend: “I know, right? Makes me think twice about how much I paid for my Mac Book”
    Guy: “Seriously”

    Not 10 minutes later, a husband and wife, same newspaper:

    Husband: “… Samsung’s iPad is the same as Apple’s iPad, and I paid how much for the Apple one? Honey, I told you they were a ripoff”, after looking up the Samsung tablet on his iPhone.
    Wife: “Oh wow,” looking at the screen, “… that’s a lot cheaper. Think we can return it?”

    I put my Samsung QX410 on my table, and started to plug in, when he leans over to me, “Sorry, you don’t mind if I ask, how much did you pay for your Samsung laptop?”

    “Oh, no worries, it was $700.” I replied.

    I watched shock overcome his face, like actual shock. He looked at me, blankly, for an awkward amount of time, “Mind if I have a look?” he asked.

    So, I obliged, and showed him a few things. He commented on Windows 7, so I opened up my virtual machine of OS/X… By the time the conversation was over, he was ready to kick Cupertino in the nuts, I think.

    … Now, the punchline:

    I’m writing this post after the FOURTH group of Starbucks patrons have made the connection that Samsung is now the same as Apple. They don’t know the details, they don’t really care, what they know is Apple is saying that Samsung is the same as Apple … and with one simple Google Search, you get prices that are basically half for what seems to be the same products — for nearly everything.

    Two of these groups (including the husband/wife) asked me about my Samsung laptop, the second group noticed my Galaxy phone (also by Samsung)… Best billion dollar ad-campaign Samsung ever had.”

  • Creo69

    Hmm…Koreans are calling the ruling against Samsung an act of “nationalism?” Good Lord, if they pick up even a hint of the irony in this there may actually be some hope of them learning something from this.

    Then again, maybe Americans have been reminded of an old trick by South Koreans. A nice nationalistic dick stomping is an easy way to sweep in a billion or two. Lessons in Asian pride and nationalism helped revive the American auto industry in the past after all. Maybe it can help some other American industries as well.

    http://edition.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/08/26/s-koreasamsung-loss-reaction.cnn

  • Creo69

    Jashin Densetsu,

    To a degree you may be on to something. However, people have known for a long time that a computer is basically a computer which is basically a computer. Most all of the internals are from the same Orig Equip Manuf’s and yet people will shell out more for a Samsung or Apple then a lower status product.

    If it were just about price, Apple would never have become the most valuable company in the world in the first place. As we both know, the world is full of fools who will buy the most expensive product just to pretend they can afford it.

  • Q

    Creo69, why do you hate Korea so much?

  • Q

    Wedge, Why do you hate Kore so much?

  • cm

    About the charges of American nationalism and this decision, that’s a charge that I’ve read fairly often in non-Korean, non-American comments. So it’s not something only Joongang Iblo thinks. I think there’s some element of anti-Americanism involved, or lack of understanding of the case. But I think the biggest reason is the amazing amount of anti-Apple feelings that are out there right now. Lot of people are pissed off at Apple.

  • cm

    About the “worthless” Samsung patents, their problem is not that they hold worthless patents. It’s that they’re trying to use the FRAND patents to counter attack Apple. Up to this point, they have failed. Under FRAND terms, Samsung has to allow Apple to use those patents. I read that Samsung is licking its chops at Apple for the LTE patents that Samsung holds, as Apple is transitioning their handsets to LTE phones. Does anybody know these LTE Samsung patents are FRAND as well? If they are, Samsung is making another serious mistake building their defense around FRAND patents. All the courts around the world, save Korea, have rejected Samsung’s FRAND patent violation charges against Apple. If it didn’t work the first round, it won’t work the second round.

  • cm

    If Samsung hasn’t got the message yet, they should be by now filing design patents like crazy, the shapes of squares, triangles, dots, circles, buttons, icons, movements, shakes, pulls, and zaps. These are more far more important patents than FRAND type patents on mobile technology. What the US patent system has done, is given Apple a wide swath of monopoly on design that would make it very difficult for technology companies to compete.

  • Creo69

    ” Creo69, why do you hate Korea so much?”

    I don’t hate Koreans. I do however hate their behavior sometimes. I hate that the Korean govt & public couldn’ t deal with the fact that an American investment firm got the best of them and found it necessary to retaliate and steal from that company. I hate the fact that Samsung felt they could steal an American company’s hard work and get away with it. I hate the fact that when a Korean runs around with a silly Dokdo flag at the Olympics Koreans will deny that has anything to do with politics.

    However, for me the biggest issue is frustration. I just cannot, and never will be able to, wrap my head around the fact of how people whom seem to be decent can do this foolish crap over and over and never learn anything from their mistakes.

  • cm

    Creo, honestly I don’t know why you had to write all that to explain yourself. Some questions are just best to be left and ignored for the sake of unclogging up the discussion.

  • Creo69

    CM,

    Thanks. For future reference when I need your advice on blogging etiquette I will ask for it. Heads up, that won’t be occuring.

  • hamel

    I don’t hate Koreans. I do however hate their behavior sometimes. I hate that the Korean govt & public couldn’ t deal with the fact that an American investment firm got the best of them and found it necessary to retaliate and steal from that company. I hate the fact that Samsung felt they could steal an American company’s hard work and get away with it. I hate the fact that when a Korean runs around with a silly Dokdo flag at the Olympics Koreans will deny that has anything to do with politics.

    So you hate the silly foibles and petty things that Koreans do, just like all humans in general? Well ok then, hate away…

  • Creo69

    CM,

    I forgot one thing. I forgot to mention how utterly miffed I am at the fact that when Koreans do these things you all expect it to not be pointed out, or god forbid, be criticized over it. A ruling by a jury and a billion dollar award IS not a compliment so I am hardly alone and I guess by the logic of some on this blog America must hate Korea. Again, incorrect.

  • Creo69

    ” So you hate the silly foibles and petty things that Koreans do, just like all humans in general? Well ok then, hate away”

    Based on your logic, from what I have seen in the Korean media these past few days it is safe to say many, many Koreans hate Apple and Americans…those “nationalists.” I think we both know this to be false. I don’ t hate Koreans and have never claimed to. I do sometimes hate their behavior…and it is safe to say they are feeling a similar emotion this week. Such is life.

    Why must any criticism, even when it has been proven to be worthy criticism be twisted into the childish, “you hate Korea or Koreans” game.

  • Bendrix

    whether Samsung copied, they were too derivative in many aspects of their earlier phones. hopefully this ruling acts as more of an impetus for them to focus on distinguishabity in addition to spec competitiveness. but I will never think of apple as the good guys. they have taken tech and design from others too. I don’t understand how people develop such loyalty for these huge corporations.

  • Q

    “Deliberations in the Apple v. Samsung battle were far more challenging than most. The jury was confronted with hundreds of questions on a 20-page verdict form that was more complicated than a U.S. tax return. They had in the jury room more than two dozen electronic devices at issue, 12 patents to decipher and 109-pages of instructions from the judge on rendering a verdict.

    “This case is unmanageable for a jury,” Robin Feldman, an intellectual property professor at the University of California Hastings Law School, said before the verdict. “There are more than 100 pages of jury instructions. I don’t give that much reading to my law students. They can’t possible digest it.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/26/apple-jury-patent-trial-samsung_n_1831855.html?utm_hp_ref=technology

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Nevertheless, one thing worth noting, said the Chosun, is that the court broadly recognized trade dress, a concept universal in the United States but still unfamiliar in Korea.

    “Trade dress” in U.S. law has never been used to protect a concept as broad as “rectangular phone with rounded corners.” In fact, that is exactly why this lawsuit was so unprecedented and creative — because it stretched the concept of “trade dress” to the new territory. Regardless of the loss, one of the core legal arguments by Samsung remains true: if Apple can use “trade dress” this way, there is absolutely nothing that stops, for example, TV makers to claim trade dress over rectangular TVs.

    The Civilian Korean thinks this litigation is bullshit. But the Lawyer Korean cannot help but admire lawyers who make bullshit work in their favor. Hats off to Morrison & Foerster / WilmerHale tag team.

  • Creo69

    “Trade dress” in U.S. law has never been used to protect a concept as broad as “rectangular phone with rounded corners.”

    Hyundai should go ahead and build a car with distinctive round corners like a Porsche then and see how long it takes to get the Germans after them.

  • Creo69

    My guess would be…they wouldn’t have to wait long.

  • palladin9479

    “If Samsung hasn’t got the message yet, they should be by now filing design patents like crazy, the shapes of squares, triangles, dots, circles, buttons, icons, movements, shakes, pulls, and zaps. These are more far more important patents than FRAND type patents on mobile technology. What the US patent system has done, is given Apple a [b]wide swath of monopoly on design that would make it very difficult for technology companies to compete.[/b]”

    This has been my point all along. Apple’s strategy started many years ago when they started mass filing patents for ridiculous “square with round edges” stuff. It wasn’t technology but shapes and sizes they were patenting, most tech companies patent methods and process’s not shapes.

    Absolutely nothing in the iPhone was invented nor designed by Apple, it’s all been done by other companies years before Apple put it all together. Every single function that they where arguing can be demonstrated in a previous product, some going back to the mid 90′s. Those companies never thought to patent shapes and sizes though, only actual process’s and methods. Apple ripped of dozens of other companies, then patented their rip off. Samsung attempted to demonstrate this but the judge tossed most of it out.

    Did Samsung infringe on Apple patents … well when you patent “square shape with round edges” it’s kinda hard not to infringe upon it. If I patented the use of the three letters, T H and E, as a precursor to a verbal or written communication, everyone would then be infringing upon my patent.

    Anyhow, this is incredibly bad for the future of the entire tech industry. This doesn’t just apple to phone technology, it applies to every piece of software written. MS can now publish millions of patents about every cosmetic and aesthetic component of Windows, then sue anyone using shaded menus, underlines short cuts, curved dialog boxes, blinking cursor command prompt and so forth. If anyone design’s any software that use’s any of those elements, their software is then banned and they go out of business.

  • Creo69

    Q,

    So your point is that since lay people on a jury are not smart enough to digest this type of material experts, or a panel of judges like in Korea, should handle it? How well did that system work for Lone Star in Korea?

  • Arghaeri

    “JoongAng Ilbo pioneered the use in South Korea of horizontal copy layout” from 1995.” Except that the Hani beat it by 7 years…

    Obviously they meant Samsunged rather than Pioneered. :-)

  • Q

    I agree with Robin Feldman, an intellectual property professor at the University of California Hastings Law School:

    “The trial is evidence of a patent system that is out of control,” Feldman said. “No matter what happens in this trial, I think people will need to step back and ask whether we’ve gone too far in the intellectual property system.”

  • cm

    “Hyundai should go ahead and build a car with distinctive round corners like a Porsche then and see how long it takes to get the Germans after them.”

    WRONG. There has never been a car manufacturer suing another manufacturer because their car somewhat resembles the other. I agree with TK, these lawsuits are bull shit.

  • Creo69

    ” WRONG. There has never been a car manufacturer suing another manufacturer because their car somewhat resembles the other. I agree with TK, these lawsuits are bull shit.”

    Actually, you are wrong. This article discusses how Porsche was actually sued over design issues when they owned VW. Search the article for the word “sue”

    http://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-hans-ledwinkas-revolutionary-tatras/

  • cm

    The Audi TT looks like a Porche 911, we’re coming up to the days when one car manufacturers will now start suing each other because the others took some elements of design cues that were patented. I can see a rush to the door as everyone mobs over each other to patent that shape, after this court ruling. If some car manufacturer is brave enough to patent the black car with stripes in the middle, and nobody else can use the color black with a stripe, then that can net them millions and stop the competition on the dead track.

  • Creo69

    And in case there is any confusion this article says Volkswagen now owns Porsche and Porsche did in fact at one time own VW.

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/04/volkswagen-buys-porsche-after-porsche-bought-volkswagen/

  • Creo69

    ” The Audi TT looks like a Porche 911…”

    Actually that is OK, as Volkswagen owns both Porsche and Audi :-)

    Fun stuff, ehh?

  • Creo69

    And CM,

    Personally I agree that this area of the law has gone too far, but then again wiser people than you or I who spend all day dealing with these issues could very well say the opposite. I can see both sides as it does create limits but if elements are not protectedmlong enough then companies are not going to invest in technology just to have it borrowed by a company that has invested nothing in the technology or element.

  • http://bcarr.com Brendon Carr

    That Audi TT is highly recommended, too. You should all get one.

    The new VW Golf Cabriolet is looking mighty cool as well.

  • palladin9479

    Well considering the jury completely ignored their instructions … this will get tossed. If not by the judged then by the appeals or the supreme court.

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

    Really interesting information there. Basically the jury didn’t even both reading the instructions and just followed the foreman who himself didn’t read the instructions. That’s how they got to a verdict so fast, they didn’t even both with the legalities and the foreman decided to make it a personal statement. If it takes an experienced lawyer three days just to understand the 107 page jury instructions, how could a jury without lawyers present not only understand the instructions but debate, come up with a decisions and award damages so fast. Answer is they didn’t even read the instructions, skipped most of the debate and started awarding damages.

  • JW

    Wait a friggin minute…from what I can tell the jury found that Design Patent 504,889 (the infamous rectangular rounded corners patent) was one of the patents that the jury found Samsung did NOT infringe. So what’s the big fuss about here? Or did I miss something?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd.#U.S._courts

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2012/08/24/jury-has-reached-verdict-in-apple-samsung-patent-suit-court-to-announce-it-shortly/2/

  • palladin9479

    Also as they have demonstrated you can skip all prior art rules, I can go ahead and patent a fiber based fabric used to protect and insulate a sentient or non sentient entity from weather or to position and protect genitalia.

    There I just patented all underwear and tee shirts. Since I don’t like any company other then Calvin Cline I will refuse licenses to any other manufacture and seek injection from them selling undergarments inside the USA.

  • palladin9479

    @JW,

    That was an example of the language Apple uses in all their patents. Every one of them use’s broad language that can cover any UI concept every designed or ever will be designed. Sh!t as simple as using “four buttons in a row”, so now nobody can ever make a phone with four buttons in a row.

    The kicker is this isn’t all patents Apple has. If it was it would be easy for another company to just purposely design around them. What Apple does instead is unleash a salvo of a few hundred patents, some get knocked down, some get upheld. The other company releases a fix that attempts to work around. Apple then unleashes another salvo of a few hundred, same thing happens. They could then keep going and going forcing the other company to constantly redesign it’s products and all the time seeking injunctions to keep the other products from hitting store shelves. It’s an enforced monopoly.

    The issue is how broad patents are, the USPTO should of never mass granted such blatantly broad patents. Ultimately that will be what the US Supreme Court looks at.

  • Creo69

    ” Well considering the jury completely ignored their instructions … this will get tossed. If not by the judged then by the appeals or the supreme court.”

    You or someone else posted this once before. Certainly there are many articles discussing how fast they came to a verdict, but I haven’t seen much to support the verdict getting tossed.

    As I posted before, no one is going to be surprised to find that Sansung has hired “experts” and slews of PR folks to try to discredit the jury in the eye of the public. As one of the Korean papers pointed out the real damage is in Samsung being labeled a “copycat.” They can easily pull a billion out of a slush fund stashed in one of their vaults in some Samsung warehouse in the countryside of Korea.

  • palladin9479

    @64,

    A verdict from a jury failing to follow instructions can and should be tossed. They failed to even read much less follow legal instruction to them from the judge.

    It’s all part of this thing called “due process”. Our entire legal system is kinda based off it.

  • Q

    Judge Koh found Galaxy Tab 10.1 guilty of infringe on iPad’s patent back in June this year and now the court found Galaxy Tab 10.1 didn’t infringe on iPad?

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/261468/samsung_wants_galaxy_tab_ban_lifted_in_the_us_after_apple_patent_verdict.html

  • palladin9479

    @64,

    No edit button.

    I couldn’t care less about some rant / holy war against Samsung. My only concern is the ability of tech companies to continue developing products, and further the ability of all technology to advance in a free and open market.

    This verdict shuts down the free market single handily due to the laws of unintended consequences. No one can make a smart phone except Apple, as it is physically impossible to a smart phone without smacking into one of their broad non-licensing patents. Once MS and friends start doing this, it’ll be impossible to make an OS (Mac OS included) that didn’t violate one of MS’s patents. Soon you’ll have only one provided for each product in each market place, they will be the ones who have acquired the most patents and paid for the best lawyers to attack every competitor and get their products banned.

    Patents are to protect the inventor’s hard work and royalty rights. They are not to be used to create monopolies.

  • Creo69

    I think there will need to be some more proof than an article written up by “experts” on the Internet to get this casevtossed out. Wonder who is paying these “experts?”

  • palladin9479

    @Creo69

    The sneaky shadowy korean overlords who are running a world wide shadow government.

    Whatch out, better be sure to keep your unobtanium helmet on at all times, to prevent the mind control rays from those shadowy overlords.

  • Creo69

    Ask Microsoft how monopolies work. If you have enough money, you can have whatever you want at least for a little while. And, isn’t Apple the most valuable company in the world now?

    Microsoft’s run may be over but here comes Apple :-)

  • cm

    ” No one can make a smart phone except Apple”

    Sure they can. As long as they come up with a product that can translate what you’re thinking without you ever clicking and scrolling, an invisible virtual panel that you can magically make appear with a flick of the finger. Then they can avoid the Apple lawsuits. Otherwise, companies might as well have a separate GL account for Apple iCharge account.

  • Creo69

    #69

    Are you honestly going to tell me you think Samsung spent millions fighting this in court but they are not spending money on PR and damage control behind the scene? Come on…this is Samsung Corporation…not a lemonade stand. Get real.

  • palladin9479

    Creo

    Just to show you how much of a fanboi you are.

    Live (previously) coverage

    Jury messaged several things up

    http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/

    “The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn’t find that it had actually infringed anything.”

    Judge made them go back and fix it.

    Again, they never even went over the instructions and just followed the foreman assuming he already knew everything. He didn’t read them either as they specifically say that damages are awarded based on value not as punishment.

    http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/25/us-apple-samsung-juror-idINBRE87O09U20120825

    The foreman wanted damages to punish Samsung and send a message. That is against the jury instructions that they didn’t bother to read.

    Like I said this will most likely get tossed, if not by this judge then by the appeals court or the USC ruling the patents involved invalid.

    And just to demonstrate, Apple is seeking an immediate injunction against all the listen Samsung products. Samsung convinced judge to wait till after the rule 50(b) motion. Apple is not seeking to license or enter into agreement with Samsung, they don’t want Samsung products being sold period.

  • Barreira

    >>“Trade dress” in U.S. law has never been used to protect
    >>a concept as broad as “rectangular phone with rounded corners.”

    This case was not about “rectangular phone with rounded corners.”

    There is actually case law (gasp!) that explains the applicable principles. For example, look up http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/…rs/12-1105.pdf and see what the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals said about one of Judge Lucy Koh’s prior ruling on this case. Focus on Pages 28 through 32.

    On pages 30-31, the Court of Appeals sums up why Samsung is wrong in arguing that Apple is trying to protect a broad design concept (such as “an object with four sided object”):

    “Samsung contends that the district court properly focused on overall visual appearance rather than on the ‘design concepts’ highlighted by Apple. In our assessment, however, the . . . error was to view the various designs from too high a level of abstraction. Fidler [the Fiddler Tablet, which goes back to 1994 and allegedly predated the iPad] does not qualify as a primary reference simply by disclosing a rectangular tablet with four evenly rounded corners and a flat back. See Durling, 101 F.3d at 104 (‘The error in the district court’s approach is that it construed [the] claimed design too broadly.’). . . . Rather than looking to the ‘general concept’ of a tablet, the district court should have focused on the distinctive ‘visual appearances’ of the reference and the claimed design. Id. [In fact, the Court of Appeals spends a lot of time in Pages 28-30 comparing the detailed differences between iPad and the Fiddler Tablet -- Details matter!!!]“

  • jkitchstk

    #63 palladin9479,
    “Sh!t as simple as using “four buttons in a row”, so now nobody can ever make a phone with four buttons in a row.”

    It’s not just “four buttons in a row” it’s 5 rows with 4 columns of icons(5×4). Why would anyone want to copy 5×4 other than to copy Apple? Whoever at Samesung allowed that copycat maneuver should be fired.

    Stop the Stealing

  • palladin9479

    @Creo

    Considering your an apple fanboi … you kinda just contradicted yourself.

    MacOS exists and Apple can freely sell it. As a Unix based OS it’s chock full of concepts and IP that Oracle now holds. Steve Jobs once threaten to sue Sun over some UI patents. Sun CEO Jonathan Scwhartz (since gone as Sun no longer exists) then mentioned to Steve “isn’t MacOS Unix now?”. Steve then dropped his threat and Apple never bothered Sun again. Sun had more then enough IP patents on the inner workings on everything Unix that they could of buried MacOS and most likely iOS. They didn’t because at that time they didn’t see Apple as a competitor, maybe they should of just to prove a point.

    Right now you can download and Instal dozens of flavors of Linux or BSD as an alternative. You can even get Solaris if you want a hard core work OS. You can compile components and market a PC based on a Linux OS variant. MS is not ~currently~ seeking injunctions, they might.

  • palladin9479

    Apple zealots onward march!!

    “It’s not just “four buttons in a row” it’s 5 rows with 4 columns of icons(5×4). Why would anyone want to copy 5×4 other than to copy Apple? Whoever at Samesung allowed that copycat maneuver should be fired.”

    How in the hell can you patent a dimension? So nobody in the entire world can use five rows of four together? Better warn the math people, they might infringe on Apple during their studies.

    Is it not dawning on people how broad these are?

  • Creo69

    #77 I have never owned an Apple product in my life and I am posting from my Galaxy Tab.

  • palladin9479

    Ford should sue every single automaker in the world. They all infringed by making automobiles suspended on four wheels.

    “Why would anyone want to copy four wheels other then to copy Ford.”

    Kinda a funny argument to have …

  • palladin9479

    @78

    Considering your blatant attacks on Samsung’s product line with little to no regard for the actual impact, I can only conclude that your either lying, trolling everyone, or are a sociopath.

    As the last would be rather extreme and a bit unsettling (arguments with sociopaths never end well) I would hope it was the two former.

  • Creo69

    #79 The only thing I saw in the article you linked to from Reuters is that “the jury stands by our verdict” Did I miss the great mistrial revelation?

    Everbody thinks they are going to win on appeal…would be pretty stupid to go in with the idea you are going to lose.

    Hell, I will even wish Samsung luck!

  • Creo69

    ” Considering your blatant attacks on Samsung’s product line …”

    Hmm…I appear to be in good company with the jurrors…I bet you think they are sociopaths too.

    Dude…Samsung made some bad business moves by not working hard enough to encourage design creativity in their products. Live, learn and move on. I doubt they are nearly as upset as you as they made a ton of money without any real design costs…profit, profit, profit:-)

  • Q

    Creo69, are you really writing from Galaxy Tab?

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    There is actually case law (gasp!) that explains the applicable principles.

    Does it? I recall reading that opinion and came out more confused than before. The only “explanation” that the Fed. Cir. does is that “they look different,” in so many words.

    I am not an IP lawyer, so I am willing to learn here. Is this always how it works in a patent case? I am not sure how there can ever be a principled decision if the standard is “they look different.” Nor do I see how Apple’s patent is anything other than “rectangular phone with rounded corners.”

  • cm

    Read the Canadian comments about this. It’s not just the Korean paper who are accusing home town favoritism, as there seems to be a sense outside of the US, that this was a mistrial. About 99.99% are against Apple.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/24/apple-samsung-patent-battle-california.html

  • cm

    “Dude…Samsung made some bad business moves by not working hard enough to encourage design creativity in their products.”

    Creo, are you willing to say the same things to HTC, and Motorola, who also are named in the Apple lawsuits? So the only innovative company in the planet is Apple and nothing but Apple?

  • Creo69

    #83 Hell yes…I love my Tab and this decision could be an end to android and all my fun apps. But, I believe in the American legal system and I also believe others far smarter than me are working to create a system that tries to balance freedom with protecting the investments companies make in their products. Is it tilted too far in one direction with this ruling or will this ruling create more designs coming out of Samsung which will beneft consumers…we will see.

  • Creo69

    #86 Motorola? Who the hell is that? They made walkie talkies when I was a kid and have been dead since I left Chicago 10 years ago. They died because they could not continue to create products consumers would buy. Dead, that is how business works.
    Apple didn’t become the most valued company in the world by chance…they know what the hell they are doing. Selling the same stuff as everyone else at much larger margins…kudos to Apple!

  • jkitchstk

    # 61 JW,
    “Wait a friggin minute…from what I can tell the jury found that Design Patent 504,889 (the infamous rectangular rounded corners patent) was one of the patents that the jury found Samsung did NOT infringe. So what’s the big fuss about here? Or did I miss something?”

    No, you didn’t miss anything other than maybe the Samesung nuts are out in full force trying to trivialize the verdict or complain about nothing.
    ‘Samsung Will Never Ever Ever Infringe on Apple Again’
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/08/25/samsung-will-never-ever-ever-infringe-on-apple-again/?feed=rss_search
    “What The Trial Was (And Was Not): The jury in this case was not charged to deliver a verdict on current U.S. patent law, but to apply it. And with the patents that Apple has been granted, the jury apparently found this to be a no-brainer. The before-and-after slides that show Samsung’s products vs the iPhone and iPad speak for themselves.
    It might have been tempting to think that the jury would all-out reject the broadness of Apple’s patent claims, but they only really did that in terms of the D’889 Patent for the iPad’s rectangular shape and rounded corners.”

  • palladin9479

    @83,

    Nah he’s trying to appear unbiased. His other posts are generally anti-Korean, he’s attack Samsung as it’s a Korean company and he disliked Korean companies. I’ve seen several guys like him during my lurking around here.

    Did Samsung copy Apple? Of course they did, just like Chevy copied Ford, exactly like BMW copied Ford. Did Ford make the first powered carriage? No they didn’t, not even close. Ford was merely the first to make it popular, and since spawned many other companies who copied their idea and improved upon it. It’s how the technology has worked since the first walking ape saw another walking ape use a stick to get a piece of fruit. The question is to what degree and what effect did that copying have, was it a clone (aka the Chinese iFone method) or were they just copying the general idea and implementing it in a different way.

    Previously companies were allowed to copy general ideas as long as you didn’t reuse branding or key algorithms. Make sure your product looks sufficiently different that a consumer couldn’t confuse yours with your competitors. Apple is trying to bring that to a whole new level now, their arguing that not only must your produce look different on the outside, but absolutely nothing on the inside can remotely look similar.

    Ex: You can’t use a four button bar at the bottom (the four button was NOT in reference to the 5×4, it was in reference to the home bar at the bottom that was four buttons). You can use three or five but not four. Except if Apple decides to make a five button home bar, then you can’t use five either. You can’t use the same hand gestures as they do, unless they change theirs then you can’t use those either. You can’t use the same icon design as them, unless they change theirs then you can’t use the new one either.

    It goes on and one what could be done. Some very crafty people right now are making a huge list of everything remotely patentable, hundreds of thousands if not millions of UI elements and will be submitting them. They’ll patent 1×1, 1×2, 1×3, 1×4, 1×5 ~ 1,x10, 2×1, 2×2, 2×3+ menus. They’ll patent round icons, square icons, circular icons, triangle icons, trapezoid icons. They’ll patten rectangular phones with touch screens, lick screens, motion sensing screens, circular phones, ect. You could in theory make such a long list of patents that nobody could design anything without tripping up on one of them. Then you file for injunction and prevent them from making their product, ever.

    You guys want to continue down that road, we’ll see how stupid it can get.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    It would be great if everyone could just shut the fuck up except to talk about the law. Focus on the actual language of the statute, regulations and case law, and cut out all this crap about what commentators and analysts are saying. This applies to both sides of this stupid-ass “debate.”

  • palladin9479

    @89,

    Except they didn’t uphold patent law. They completely neglected the crux of Samsung’s argument, prior art. That all the patents apple was claiming existed before the iPhone was made and this constitute prior art. Samsung is free to use prior art in their design’s. The jury foreman didn’t like that and thus directed the jury to just drop the debate and find Samsung guilty.

    That more then anything else is what’s gonna cause this to get tossed. The upheld one extreme interpretation of patent law while ignoring another component of that same law. Its right there in the instructions though in a very verbose and annoying to read format that practically requires a legal dictionary to understand. If they would of read the instructions they would of known they couldn’t just skip over the defenses well … defense.

  • Creo69

    If this decision sticks it means one thing…the next time I go looking for a new toy I wll have choices instead of looking at the same product from seven different companies.

    Bottom line…Samsung having to get off their lazy asses and create some actual product instead of replicating Apple is good for me.

    Dang q very much

  • Creo69

    #91 Like I said, I wish Samsung luck. Somebody will win…somebody will lose.

  • Q

    I agree with Haydn Shaughnessy at Forbes, ‘The Apple vs Samsung Verdict Is A Big Mistake’:

    If Apple had really been in the design business then they’d have seen Samsung’s copy as sheer flattery (at least at the trade dress level) and moved on to the next iteration. Design is fashion, a peculiar form of intellectual property that wavers and transforms by the season.

    In Brussels right now you can buy Pierre Marcolini’s autumn collection of chocolates. Since Marcolini began making single estate chocs, combining them with ingredients like Earl Grey tea, that fashion has swept through the chocolate making business. His neat idea of copying the seasonal element of fashion is also out there and copied. Marcolini is no longer alone in launching seasonal sweets.

    But that’s trivial you might say…. not to Pierre though, I’m sure. And that is the central issue with ideas and designs. To a degree, they are shared property. On the bigger stage, in the fashion business, Zara is a b-school case study in how to copy catwalk design and to get them into the shop, pronto. Zara in fact has built a new retail business model around being deft enough with color and shape not to be a total copycat but to get close enough that buyers crave its goods, while the original is still fresh in people’s minds.

    When the Duchess of Cambridge wears blue, knitted, shops fill with blue, knitted. Chinese car manufacturers are upbraided for copying the designs of western car makers. But take a look at the new Audis. Audi is the up and coming design house in autos but I happen to think their latest shapes are a rip off of Mercedes. There’s only so many ways you can do four wheels and a cabin (or cockpit I guess we should say).

    Design is not invention. It arises from a common pool of creativity. I happen to think Apple’s icon designs are superlative but no more so than Chris Bangle’s designs for BMW – now take a close look at Opel, which are as similar to BMW as Audi are to Mercedes and not just because Opel designers finally know how to do curves – more importantly they have the technology to bend the metal like BMW does.

    Apple deserves no kudos for taking the trade dress fight to the courts. Maybe if they were a bunch of losers whose design advantage had been unfairly appropriated and now they had no cash for the kids’ school fees, then there would be a cause for sympathy. But this is is the most valuable company in history. Mr Cook. Move on. Create.

  • Creo69

    #94

    Nobody sees theft as “flattery.” Companies are in business to make a profit and beat the competion. It is not like kindergarten where you get a butterfly sticker sharing crayons.

  • Barreira

    >>“This case is unmanageable for a jury . . . . There are more than
    >>100 pages of jury instructions. I don’t give that much reading
    >>to my law students. They can’t possible digest it.”

    US juries *routinely* get very complicated and long (yes, 100 pages long) jury instructions in complex cases – business fraud, patent infringement, etc. etc. This case involved many patents and different types of patents (design & utility) plus trade dress claims – but it was not unusual as far as complex cases go.

    >>”Jury messaged [sic, messed] several things up.”

    Jury always “messes up” something in every jury trial – the question is not whether any “error” exists, but whether the “error” was sufficiently material. In any event, in most cases the “error” is just a difference in opinion – a decision within the range of what reasonable people might have made, given the evidence presented.

    One thing is certain – this case will go through multiple rounds of appeals, irrespective of the merits or likelihood of success, and the lawyers for both sides will continue to be well fed for many years.

    One bad thing for Apple: As a practical matter, the amount of damages (‘one Billion dollars’, said like Dr. Evil) virtually guarantees enhanced scrutiny of the appeal by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court.

    Whether one likes the jury system or not (and winners always love ‘em, losers always bitch about the apparent idiocy of referring complex disputes to a bunch of retired postal workers), it represents a democracy’s supreme expression of confidence on the wisdom & judgment of its citizens. Mistakes are made now and then, but talk to experienced trial lawyers – they have a great deal of respect for the jury system in getting to the “truth” and reaching an equitable and just result most of the time (if not better) . . . .

    . . . and it’s hell of a lot more difficult to bribe/influence a random jury of 12, than a single judge or a small panel of 3 judges . . . . ;-)

  • palladin9479

    @92

    “If this decision sticks it means one thing…the next time I go looking for a new toy I wll have choices instead of looking at the same product from seven different companies”

    Now I know your just trolling everyone..

    Aren’t you reading any of this? You’ll have exactly one company to chose from, Apple.

    Anyone else who design’s a smartphone will trip across one of their patents and not be allowed to sell it. Apple is currently in litigation with every single smartphone maker. Their not seeking licensing their seeking flat out injunctions to every product everyone else is making. Samsung, Google and the rest have already redesigned parts of their products to step around Apple’s design patents, and Apple just digs for more to try to ban them. It was the four button home bar, Samsung switched to a five button bar. Then it was cell phone being a rectangle with rounded corners (yes Apple attempted to charge for a shape). Every time it’s something small and stupid, next they’ll be going after colors and pallets.

    The only way to make a smart phone that doesn’t bump into an Apple patent is to make one without a screen, camera or hand sensor. It must be controlled via telepathy.

  • cm

    I’m in the same thought as palladin9479, this patent thing can go endlessly ridiculous. The can of worms have been opened, and I think this is going to get bad before it gets better.

    Having said that, I can’t fault those jurors for the decision. Samsung did copy Apple, going strictly by the law in the book. While I don’t see this ruling getting overturned by the Appeals court, maybe Samsung can get a reduction in fines – like in the millions, and not in the billions – which I think is ludicrous.

    But definitely I agree with palladin9479, the patent needs a fresh reform to prevent abuse of system like this by Apple.

  • Barreira

    Palladin9479, not true. There are straightforward ways to get around the Apple patents. Again, this case is not about “squares with round corners”.

    Yes, non-infringing products will look and work differently from Apple products. Why is that bad for the consumer?

    Samsung may bitch now, but next time a Chinese company copies Samsung’s design and user interface, it will see otherwise. Companies always do, once they become innovators.

  • palladin9479

    @96,

    You guys aren’t even reading here. They originally fined Samsung $2,000,000 for a product that they found not to be infringing on any Apple products. They rushed through it and did so cause the foreman wanted to “stick it to the man”.

    I’m harping on this because a major decision that effects not only every part of the IT sector but also every industry in the world (your milk carton is using white paper with squared edges) was decided by a single guy who thought himself on a mission. Read the damn post-trial juror interviews, including the one from the foreman himself.

    This isn’t about Samsung vs Apple, this is about how technology and everything else in the world is developed from here on out. You people have such small minds thinking this is only about cell phones. Think how many different products in the world look similar to others. Previous that similarity was accepted as a matter of practicality (only so many ways to make something), now that’s up in the air. Your trash bag is using a semi-transparent plastic based material, I hold the patent on making refuse holding products that appear semi-transparent. I also hold the patent on refuse holding products made out of opaque brown material, and opaque black material, and about 250 other colors and shades.

  • palladin9479

    @100

    No there isn’t, don’t you understand that.

    You don’t actually have to make a product to patent part of it. I don’t have to make a phone with a 3×5 icon layout, I don’t even have to make phones. I just need to patent the idea of every conceivable combination of grids from 1×1 to 10 x 10.

  • palladin9479

    Did you realize that Apple says any phone that’s using a flat LCD as it’s keyboard is infringing upon their design?

    Functionally there are only so many ways to do things, Apple is putting patents on all those ways. Their just the first company to really attempt this method to establish a monopoly. If something isn’t done really soon other companies will follow suit and you’ll end up with a locked market.

  • cm

    “Yes, non-infringing products will look and work differently from Apple products.”

    Like what? Microsoft and Nokia? Even they had to bribe Apple not to bother them with their lawsuits. and cut a deal to give a portion of their hard earned dollars. Hey, I’d cheer for Apple too if they had come out and invented how LTE works and now they want everyone else to pay for the R&D and the risk they took. But buttons and icons and how they’re arranged? That’s bull shit!

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Again, this case is not about “squares with round corners”.

    Could you explain how? For example, the Fed. Cir. opinion you cited, at 30, says: “First, while the TC1000 has a flat glass front, the screen area of that device is surrounded by a gray area that frames the screen. In addition, the perimeter of the TC1000 is encir-cled by a wide rounded-over metallic rim. And the screen area contains indicator lights in several places, unlike the minimalist design claimed in the D’889 patent.”

    To me, all this says is that Apple can patent iPad’s design because it added a “frame” and has no indicator lights. Sure, I can get behind the point that the case is not literally about “squares with rounded corners.” But in the substance of the case, it is pretty damn close. How is it any better that Apple can patent “a rectangular tablet with rounded corners with a black frame and no indicator light”?

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Having said that, however, very little chance that the verdict will be changed in the appeal. “Substantial evidence” standard is pretty easy to satisfy. Samsung might be able to reduce the damages, but given how widely sold its smartphones, I wouldn’t be surprised if the damages stayed too. $1 billion judgment is actually not that hard to reach in this day and age.

  • palladin9479

    “How is it any better that Apple can patent “a rectangular tablet with rounded corners with a black frame and no indicator light”?”

    Or worse… they ALSO patent

    “a rectangular tablet with rounded corners with a black frame and an indicator light”.

    And

    “a rectangular tablet with rounded corners with a white frame with or without an indicator light”

    And also

    “a rectangular tablet with sharp corners with a black frame and no indicator light”

    I did that in a few minutes. If you were paying people they could sit around all day and write down every possible variation of a design. Another group of people would then turn those lists into patent applications, literally hundreds of thousands of patents. Multiple this across all products and their possible configurations and you get a virtual monopoly.

  • palladin9479

    @106.

    The damage’s aren’t the money nor even the “copy cat label” BS (people really don’t care). The real damage is about to come, namely in that Apple is seeking permanent injunction against Samsung selling those products in the USA. This means multiple billions of profit for Apple as they would have no major competitor.

    Samsung design’s a new phone, Apple reach’s into the bag of patents and pulls out more, case repeats but faster as there is now a precedent set. Samsung’s products get banned from being sold. Eventually Samsung just stops trying to sell ant of those products in the USA as it’s too expensive to litigate and not even be able to reach the market.

    During this time Apple turns towards every other manufacture and using this precedent gets all their products banned. Eventually they stop selling their products in the USA. Consumers in the USA are left with one choice and only one choice. The cellphone market in the USA is worth much more then what Samsung would have to pay. We’re talking 100′s of Bn USD here, not one.

    Puts the case in a different light.

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

    Creo69,

    The best offer for Korea exchange bank was $7B. Hana bought it for $3.9B. However, Lone Star took out $3B in dividends from KEB. Dividends need to be counted into returns also. Lone Star could have made $7B in 2.5 years, but ended up making $6.9B in 8 years. That’s why the IRR is lower. Not because they made less, but because it took them longer to get out.

    Again, I ain’t crying for Lone Star.

  • cm

    #108, I don’t think the Americans are that dumb enough to let that happen. I have faith in the American system that they will correct this abuse in time.

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

    Also, going through a lot of B.S., blood, sweat and tears is part of the job these PE guys. Do you have the faintest idea how much these fellows make?

  • DLBarch

    Boy, from what I can tell, that federal jury had a far better grasp of IP issues than most of the commentators on this thread. Nevertheless, time to move on.

    And on a much lighter note, how many Apple products can you count in this admittedly VERY cool ad for Seoul tourism?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEcVOZiK4i4&feature=relmfu

    There used to be a cruel, self-deprecating joke in Seoul tourism circles that, when translated, went something along the lines of “no one goes to France for business, no one goes to Korea on vacation.”

    I can only hope that’s no longer true.

    DLB

  • palladin9479

    @110,

    I would hope so too. I was expecting a more fair verdict handed down similar to what was found in other countries, both being found guilty of infringing on each other and told to deal with it like adults. Instead we got a jury that basically ignored Samsung’s defense entirely because they couldn’t understand it and did listen to one guy on a mission.

    That more than anything is why I think the case will be booted at the higher appeals level and eventually heard in front of the USC. Of course by then the damage would of been done, Apple is seeking immediate injunction against all the Samsung products. If approved this means retailers will have to take all Samsung phones / tablets from their stores leaving consumers with one main choice … Apple. They would stay off store shelves unless Samsung could get the injunction overturned.

    Now how much money do you think that injunction is worth?

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

    “Instead we got a jury that basically ignored Samsung’s defense entirely because they couldn’t understand it and did listen to one guy on a mission.”

    Agree 110%.

  • jk6411

    It’s very true that not only Koreans are pissed about the verdict.
    Samsung has many fans worldwide, so does Android.
    51% of smartphone users own Android phones, versus 31% for Apple’s iPhones. (and Apple is continuing to lose market share)
    This is the primary reason Apple sued Samsung.

    But there are plenty of pissed-off Android fans out there.

  • hacker

    Then maybe Samsung’s defense team should have done a better job defending thier client and maybe Samsung should do a better job of protecting their emails.

  • YangachiBastardo

    “no one goes to France for business, no one goes to Korea on vacation.”

    I had to go to France for business last July, i will have to repeat the experience soon…i feel like jumping off the balcony.

    But i gotta love Paris after all: it’s not every day i find a city that actually makes me feel like i’m back to the civilised world when i land in Milan…quite an accomplishment i have to say.

    Next time i’ll try Dhaka, but i suspect i won’t experience the same thorough feeling

  • palladin9479

    @116,

    Wouldn’t of mattered. Their defense was based on understanding prior art and that the design elements Apple was suing over existed long before the iPhone. Apple’s legal team was even successful in getting the pictures of previous cellphones that had those design elements thrown out.

    Pretty much Samsung might as well of not showed up for the trial, it was pretty one sided and makes me cringe when I think on the magnitude of this precedent. The jury didn’t even discuss Apple infringing upon Samsung’s wireless technology patents that Apple infringed upon.

  • palladin9479

    I really hate that there is no edit button on here.

    “The jury didn’t even discuss Apple infringing upon Samsung’s wireless technology patents that Apple infringed upon.”

    Should be

    The jury didn’t even discuss Apple infringing upon Samsung’s wireless technology patents.

  • JW

    I have an honest to goodness question — Trade Dress is defined as “Trade dress is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers.”

    In that case how is it possible that Apple can prosecute their Trade Dress case without descriptive language such as “rectangular rounded corners”? Of course if a patent consists SOLELY of a single design aspect, I would agree that it’s too much. But why should the overall strength of the case be weakened by the fact that it’s littered with such descriptive language?
    Disclosure – I am long Apple. (YESSSSSS)

  • hacker

    Still have to say it, better lawyers won their argument. Bad tactic, bad results.

  • palladin9479

    @JW,

    Because trade dress is usually referring to flare and things you add to make your product unique / different. Apple is using them to refer to functional aspects of their product.

    It would be like me patenting using four wheels as trade dress for a car design. I could argue that the quad-wheel design is integral to the brand recognition of my product and that anyone else using a quad-wheel design would be attempting to copy me and confuse customers.

    The fact that four wheels are functional for a reason is left out of the argument. Four icons on the bottom bar is the optimal number, Apple says that four buttons is “trade dress” and thus is claiming exclusive right to use four buttons on the bottom bar. Google / Samsung eventually went to a five button bar to not have to deal with Apple even though one of the buttons is rather redundant and clutters up the design. It’s the same reason they used that 5×4 layout, it was the optimal layout for a vertical orientated screen that already had other things on it. Go any more then 5×4 and the icons are too tight together or too small, go any less and you get wasted space.

    “Pinch to zoom” is just using a hang gesture to indicate zoom in / out. The pinching motion is used because it’s the optimal one, this was determined with notebook trackpads and a long time before the iPhone was made. Apple claims its part of their branding yet it’s just the optimal method to do something.

  • cm

    I can see where all this is going to lead to, it’s also going to lead to trade wars between different countries. Now different countries will have their own companies filing frivolous patents in their home countries like China has done recently, to block out foreign competition.

  • YangachiBastardo

    Now different countries will have their own companies filing frivolous patents in their home countries like China has done recently, to block out foreign competition.

    yeop exactly my thought and iwouldn’t be surprised to see Samsung turning into a sino-centric company, sharing more and more tech with local manufacturers in orders to have China on their side against the big A

  • JW

    palladin,

    So does that mean that you CAN’T under current law be issued a design patent so long as it has significant functional value? Was that ever the intent in US patent law? I would guess no, but I speak as an ignoramus in these matters. One thing to note in case someone doesn’t know is that intellectual patents do not last forever.

  • palladin9479

    @JW,

    Not sure the question your asking. Patent law doesn’t take common sense things into considering as the people who wrote it never thought it would be twisted that way. You can patent designs, methods and procedures. Logo’s are part of trademarks. The idea of trade dress is that a design of something has consumer recognition and is patentable.

    Basically Apple made a phone with four buttons on the bottom bar, it argues that those buttons make it look distinct and that anyone using four buttons on the bottom bar is trying to infringe upon it’s customer recognition and thus the company would be losing business.

    There was a certain line of sanity, I’m not going to sue you because your using a “File” menu to access save and load procedures. Apple is arguing that it should be able to sue you for using a “File” menu. Apple has crossed over that line and it caught everyone else in the world off guard. They’ve taken the title Patent Troll to a whole new level.

  • palladin9479

    @JW

    Also patents have a design lifetime, Apple’s patents on a four button bar will expire. That lifetime is about 10 years from the date of issue.

    So … smart phone manufactures will be able to compete with the current iPhones in about eight years.

  • hacker

    palladin9479 – On a serious note, all wisecracks aside, you said “The jury didn’t even discuss Apple infringing upon Samsung’s wireless technology patents that Apple infringed upon.” Would that have really even been something that required discussion? It is my understanding that Samsung licensed that tech to Intel which in turn used it to create the chip which it sold to Apple. Since Apple purchased the chip legally from Intel wouldn’t the license have transferred as well? Or is there some double-dipping involved that requires each reseller to pay?

  • JW

    So if Apple can prove that the four bottons on the bottom bar does make its product look distinct in the marketplace when it first came out vis a vis other products, it is a valid point to be made in furtherance of their overall trade dress case. I see no sanity issue with that at all.

  • cm

    #128,

    I’m with hacker on that one. I don’t think it takes that long for the jury to determine that it’s a FRAND patent. And under FRAND terms, Samsung is obligated to let Apple use that patent. I’m not a patent lawyer or an expert on this, but if I’m wrong, then somebody correct me.

  • palladin9479

    @128,

    Honestly I wish I could answer that in greater detail. Give me a day or so to do some research and get a technical answer. From what I know it has to do with the actual wireless protocol their using. It’s become pretty much an accepted standard though, kinda of like a rectangular phone using round edges and a LCD touch screen.

  • cmm

    For those new to the MH since last December or so, I’m a fairly long time poster, former Samsung researcher, and in general, not a Korea basher. For the rest of you, hope you’ve been well?

    I’m loath to look at the exact details of what Samsung got in trouble for (rectangles w rounded corners or otherwise), but overall, as someone who’s had a decent look from the inside, they got what they had coming.

    For those who suggested that they should have been more careful with their email… usually they are. For example, when I was on a team with intent to develop a product that other companies already have commercialized, a senior member of my team produced the manufacturing methods of two domestic competitors. Guess how our team was instructed to go about manufacturing our prototypes? It was made very clear that this info was never to be attached to or spoken of via email. I could tell stories about this kind of stuff all day long, and I’m sure I have some in the archives. I saw it and dodged it for years. Samsung got punished for, in what I would say from my experience, is their MO. It’s about time they they got too bold and messed with the wrong people.

    Regarding their ability to innovate, create, etc. in the future… It’s certainly within the abilities of their employees. They hire talent, period. But it’s nothing that management truly supports, although they say and often believe that they do. Brendon’s addition @1 is right, but it applies equally to anyone who wants to do something too far from what others are doing, whether they are a foreign hire or not. There is little patience for delays and setbacks or for the slow results that come when you truly want to do something innovative. Not consistently reporting good news isn’t good for your future in the company (or your boss’s… or his boss’s… get the picture?). I like Wangkon’s idea of opening design centers abroad, but only if they are set up in a way that allows a culture more conducive to innovation to take hold.

    Finally, this isn’t a loss for consumers anymore than a massive crackdown on Chinese factories pirating and copying everything that foreign R&D money developed would be. “Competition” based on the copycat model doesn’t really benefit consumers, and not just because the products are largely identical. It places the risk and cost of innovation on one company and let’s the copycat company profit from the innovator’s investment by stealing into the market the innovators created. In the end, there’s less motivation to invest in innovation–consumers and society lose. Had Ayn Rand been born 50 years later, she’d explain this in a book called, “Apple Shrugged,” (but to the chagrin of Republicans, she’d still be atheist).

  • YangachiBastardo

    cmm: WELCOME FUCKIN’ BACK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • palladin9479

    “So if Apple can prove that the four bottons on the bottom bar does make its product look distinct in the marketplace when it first came out vis a vis other products, it is a valid point to be made in furtherance of their overall trade dress case. I see no sanity issue with that at all.”

    It’s bad because nobody can EVER use four buttons.

    Now combine that with the fact that you don’t need a product to make a patent. Apple could patent three button, five button, six button and seven button bars. They only make a four button product, yet have patents for it’s variations. Once the precedent is set that generic trade dress patents are enforceable by injunction, then they can go around removing all competition.

    Plus how the hell is using four buttons any different then using a “File” menu?

    That is why prior art is so important here. Four button menus have been in use for years prior to Apple using them. If Samsung can demonstrate that a previous non-Apple product contained them then Apple can not claim them to be trade dress or part of it’s branding image. Of course no court in CA is ever going to allow that argument to come out, not with Apple being such a big player in the local economy.

    In case your wondering, what I just outlines is what every other nation has found so far. That generic UI components are not trade dress. Specific design’s can be, and they’ve found Samsung in fault for those, but as the EU put it “You can’t patent cool”.

  • Q

    Samsung would react with 4G/LTE patent lawsuit against iPhone 5. That could be a bigger match:

    http://www.unwiredview.com/2012/08/23/samsung-hey-apple-you-did-good-in-patent-court-wait-till-lte-iphone-5-comes-out-weve-got-goodies-for-ya/

  • cm

    Again, Q, I’ve already said this in other posts, if Samsung’s 4G LTE patents are FRAND terms, they are just simply wasting their time. Nobody in Europe and America will take Samsung’s side if they try to sue companies using FRAND patents.

  • palladin9479

    @cmm

    I agree that Samsung was at fault for copying Apple’s concepts. I don’t agree that the current enforcement method is ok. This is really going to hurt consumers, company’s seek monopolies and this just handed them the mechanism to do so.

    “Finally, this isn’t a loss for consumers anymore than a massive crackdown on Chinese factories pirating and copying everything that foreign R&D money developed would be. “Competition” based on the copycat model doesn’t really benefit consumers, and not just because the products are largely identical. It places the risk and cost of innovation on one company and let’s the copycat company profit from the innovator’s investment by stealing into the market the innovators created. In the end, there’s less motivation to invest in innovation–consumers and society lose. Had Ayn Rand been born 50 years later, she’d explain this in a book called, “Apple Shrugged,” (but to the chagrin of Republicans, she’d still be atheist).”

    It has nothing to do with the Chinese, Apple’s phones are made in China and the Chinese couldn’t care less about US trade laws.

    I don’t care if you like, hate or loath Samsung, this issue is bigger then people’s personal feelings. If this continues then the ONLY smartphone in the USA will be Apples. And yes Apple did sue Samsung over the Galaxy S being rectangular with round edges. I am not making this up.

  • cm

    cmm, this is much about the broken patent system, as the innovation problems at Samsung. It’s also a fight between Android and Apple. It goes far beyond the lack of innovation problem at Samsung.

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

    cmm,

    I could understand that. For that, I don’t think they could replicate trailblazing product innovation in Korea. They would have to greenfield outside of Korea. A Western country, probably the U.S., in a part of the U.S. where programmers and innovators like to live…. Gee, I wonder where that would be?

  • palladin9479

    For those who somehow thing this is going to make “more innovative phones”.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-27/apple-rises-on-samsung-mobile-patent-infringement-ruling.html

    “A judge scheduled a hearing next month to consider Apple’s request for a permanent U.S. sales ban on devices such as the Galaxy S and S II smartphones and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 computer. A ban may undermine Samsung’s grip on a smartphone market valued at $219.1 billion by Bloomberg Industries and set a precedent for rival handset makers that use Google Inc.’s Android operating system. ”

    Yeah 1bn is pennies, their going for the 200bn prize.

    This only mentions the Galaxy S II but Apple’s already starting litigation to bad the Galaxy S III, they’ll use this case as a precedent to do it. Their also litigating anyone using Android.

    This isn’t Apple vs Samsung, this is Apple vs Google / Android. Apple would lose a head on battle with Google as Android is FOSS. Apple could win against phone manufacturers by attacking their design’s.

    By now I’ve laid out enough info that anyone can see where this is headed and what exactly Apple’s goal is. It’s not pretty and definitely not good for the consumer. Need I remind anyone that this is the company who’s former CEO is on record at saying they like monopolies and believe that competition hinders their innovation.

  • JW

    “It’s bad because nobody can EVER use four buttons.”

    But that’s just wrong. As you and I both stated these patents do not last forever. And if you meant during the lifetime of the patent, then I don’t see why it’s a problem so long as it’s argued in context of other designs that contribute to a unique look.

    “Now combine that with the fact that you don’t need a product to make a patent.”

    This is almost irrelevant it seems to me. Let’s assume for sake of argument that you have to have a visible product in the marketplace in order for your design patent to be valid. That doesn’t weaken Apple’s case one bit.

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

    re: what Q said in # 135.

    Any legal types correct me if I’m wrong, but if Samsung does own seminal patents on 4G LTE technologies, isn’t it obligated by the law to give Apple (and others) a chance to pay royalties for reasonable fees? Technical patents and design patents have different royalty standards, or something of that nature.

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

    Yes, didn’t see what cm said. Samsung’s 4G patents might be FRAND patents and thus must be allowed to be used by other companies for reasonable royalty fees.

  • palladin9479

    “This is almost irrelevant it seems to me. Let’s assume for sake of argument that you have to have a visible product in the marketplace in order for your design patent to be valid. That doesn’t weaken Apple’s case one bit.”

    Again wrong. Nothing says it needs to be for a visible product, not mentioned anywhere. It was most likely one of those implied things, but lawyers find ways to twist anything. Laws of unintended consequences being what they are.

    10 years is forever in the world of IT. Would you wait 10 years to get a new phone? Didn’t think so. By the time the patent expires we’ve moved on to something else and there is a different set of patents in the way.

    Your just focusing on one side of the issue, most likely on purpose as I don’t think your that dumb. It was decided awhile back that you don’t need an actual product to have a valid patent. This decision is that you can litigate on very broad / generic patents. Put those two together and toss in lawyers for good measure and see what you get.

    We could go around and around in this discussion, but those who want to believe that Apple is in the right are going to do so. This isn’t the first time Apple’s patent trolled. This is the farthest they’ve ever gone though and bodes very ill for not only the tech industry but everywhere else if it’s not overturned. Other countries are watching this and you can be positive that should this become a standing in the USA, every other nation will enact laws to prevent it from being used over there.

  • PineForest

    Wangkon,
    According to the Canadian article linked above, and that I just read, yes, those are just industry standards that Samsung is legally required to license and give access to.

    The bottom line is that Samsung was caught, finally, with its hand in the cookie jar, big time. Internal emails from Samsung proved that execs planned and executed a THEFT of Apple design details & functionality. And whether anyone likes it or not, Apple DID have the patents for their work. Samsung’s attempts to go back in time and show how other companies developed and perhaps even marketed the elements in question was foolish, IMHO. Everyone who is in tech knows that a company like Xerox (whose name I’ve seen mentioned in some of the digi-traffic surrounding the case) was notorious for great labs and shitty product development & marketing. There are no doubt many firms who are using and have used elements first designs by Xerox. But Xerox never patented them, or if they did, they were not careful about protecting those patents.

    Apple DOES own patents, and it has just protected them.

    Apple is first and foremost a software company. From the get go, their status as the BMW of the PC world has been that their O/S is more stable, more elegant, more streamlined and more aesthetically pleasing than the alternative. They have maintained this edge for decades.

    But they DO design their own hardware, and they DO also maintain a visceral distinction in the superior look and feel of their products, which ALSO goes back decades. Samsuck can bark all they want about the role other companies have played in Apple’s success story as I’ve just laid it out, but it’s an empty argument.

    I don’t know the precise details of how the court viewed and rules on the rectangle with rounded corners, but anyone with a pair of eyes and a penchant for elegant tech devices can see that Samsung A) ripped off Apple blatantly and B) got popped for it.

    I think it’s great.

    Also,

  • PineForest

    Also nothing. My bad :)

  • JW

    Palladin, you seem to be flying off the handle, so I’ll just stop now. Let’s try again next time!

  • palladin9479

    “Apple is first and foremost a software company. From the get go, their status as the BMW of the PC world has been that their O/S is more stable, more elegant, more streamlined and more aesthetically pleasing than the alternative. They have maintained this edge for decades. ”

    I think want to throw up after reading that.

    Holy sh!t … apple fanboi much?

    The OS is crap, I’m an systems engineer and do this for a living. They butchered BSD and dumbed it down as much as possible, it’s actually less secure then Windows. It’s also less stable but that’s a different discussion involving closed vs open standards.

    It looks very nice, Apple spends most of it’s R&D budget making things look nice and being comfortable to the average user. It’s definitely the prettiest set of software out there. As for it’s quality, it’s complete and utter sh!t. It only seems stable and secure because everything is closed. Compile your own drivers and you’ll suddenly see how much crap their kernel and memory subsystems are.

  • YangachiBastardo

    Well honestly i have no opinion about this as the issues are very technical and complex and people on each side (i.e. Brendon, TheKorean, cm, WK etc. etc.) seem to make solid well-reasoned arguement.

    What i find a bit perplexing is the shadenfreude displayed by commenters like PineForest above or Creo (bringing up the Lone Star case). As somebody else pointed out i don’t understand how people can be so emotionally attached to some big company

  • palladin9479

    @JW

    I haven’t said anything angry. I’m quite bored right now, else I wouldn’t be on here.

    It’s just amazing the number of fanboi’s who try to defend them.

    It’s even more amazing when they try to pretend that Apple isn’t trying to create a monopoly by litigating all competition away. That’s not how it should work, you win by making the best product available for the best price.

    Do you guys even know what the profit margin is on an iPhone 4?

  • Bendrix

    PineForest, you sound exactly like Apple’s ad copy. Apple’s been lucky in taking stuff that wasn’t protected as well as they protect their own patents – you’re right about that. The most famous example being from Xerox PARC. But even a lot of their hardware designs, which you say are theirs, were lifted from companies like Braun. The original iPod, the most recent Mac Pro and iMac all look like past Braun products. They make beautiful and easy-to-use computers and devices. But they are not as angelic as you depict them. And their software development is starting to head into the area of too cutesy and skeumorphic in order to appeal to the consciously tech-ignorant “art” consumers it targets.

  • palladin9479

    @149,

    Humans instinctively want to belong to a tribe. It was one of those evolutionary developments we had while we still walked on our hands. We determine which tribe we’re in by what’s we have in common, clik and clubs form this way. You put 10 random people in a room and they’ll immediately start sorting themselves out into groups. This is all done at a subconscious level, they don’t even know their doing it. You put them there long enough and eventually the groups will form into two camps. Wait longer and the camps will seek to wage war on each other to win dominance or push the loser away.

    Apple has spend tons of money building a following by appealing to this very basic human nature. Their products and the way they market them make people want to be part of their group, their tribe. Tribal mentality sets in and this group see’s any outsider as a competitive tribe and against instinctively wants to push it away. Again all on the subconscious level and not all to an extreme degree. There is also an independent streak in humans, the desire to set off and do things our own way, again part of that evolutionary development we went through. The balance between those two sides can be seen in a person’s personality and how they adapt to group situations.

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

    This event has inspired a meme:

    http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3qno7h/

  • PineForest

    Did I say Angelic? And this whole fanboy charge is a distraction from the facts at hand. What it really means is that I am a very pleased Apple CUSTOMER.

    That is because they make great products, have made great products for years–which is why they are where they are. Have all the critics on the blog forgotten that Apple went up against the behemoth , MS, from the beginning??

    Palladin wants to throw up after seeing my comments? Based on BSD being dumbed down? Absurd. Apple sells to end users. Are you suggesting that they needed to maintain all the robustness and complexity of BSD AND sell to that market? Really? That would’ve flown like a led zepp.

    I don’t care if you’re a sys eng or whatever, that is irrelevant. Tell me how the O/S is crap; the O/S that has, for the duration of the MS wars, outperformed MS in stability, ease of use (remember what I said about who their customer base is and was) and elegance. And gosh, let’s all run for the hills waving our hands in the air because—all these billions of users can’t COMPILE THEIR OWN DRIVERS. HAHAHAHAhahahahaha. What percentage of them want to, fuckwit?

    Tribe mentality? Bullshit. People who are not inherently GEEKS love this stuff, because it doesn’t feel cold, without personality, and alienating. If that appeals to the tribe, it appeals to the whole human tribe. Sometimes the most geeky among us really are at the fore of those who just don’t. get. this. Jobs DID get it, and I hope his inheritors do too.

    Fanboi.. good lord, what a poor excuse for an argument.

  • PineForest

    Bendrix,

    You may be right. But in the real business world, that is a reality and/ or conundrum that every firm has to face. Samsung has been avoiding this reality, and they finally got bit by it.

  • PineForest

    BTW, what does skeumorphic mean? I forgot my techy urban dictionary. :)

  • PineForest

    BTW Sorry Palladin, I’m sure you’re a really smart guy and not a fuckwit… LOL .. I get so worked up sometimes.

  • Q

    It seems not all 4G/LTE patents are FRAND terms: http://news.nate.com/view/20120827n11418?mid=n0600

  • cmm

    @yb Thanks man, good to see you here too. I’ve lurked from time to time, and was glad to see you popping in recently.

    @palladin

    I agree that Samsung was at fault for copying Apple’s concepts. I don’t agree that the current enforcement method is ok. This is really going to hurt consumers, company’s seek monopolies and this just handed them the mechanism to do so.

    The mechanism to have a monopoly, which is a reward for the risk of investing in innovation, was not just handed to Apple by this court hearing. It was handed to them by The Constitution and the laws of the lands. Granted, the system is old has it’s problems, but even if fixed, such copycats should still be skinned.

    It has nothing to do with the Chinese, Apple’s phones are made in China and the Chinese couldn’t care less about US trade laws.

    I was making an analogy, to which the fact that Apple’s phone are manufactured in China is completely irrelevant. Either you missed the analogy (Samsung:copying the iPhone and calling it a Galaxy S = XYZ Chinese company:ripping off surgical device developed by an American company and flooding the international market with a cheaper version of it), or you think rampant Chinese copying is okay because it results in a lower price for consumers?

    I don’t care if you like, hate or loath Samsung, this issue is bigger then people’s personal feelings. If this continues then the ONLY smartphone in the USA will be Apples. And yes Apple did sue Samsung over the Galaxy S being rectangular with round edges. I am not making this up.

    I don’t like, hate, or loathe Samsung, and my comment was not about my personal feelings. The only smartphone in the USA will not be Apples–this is not the slippery slope that you are representing it as here. I realize that the rectangular w/ round edges aspect was a real part of the suit, but it’s also been overused as an argument to discredit, and in some cases an unfair misrepresentation of, Apple’s legitimate gripes.

    @cm

    cmm, this is much about the broken patent system, as the innovation problems at Samsung. It’s also a fight between Android and Apple. It goes far beyond the lack of innovation problem at Samsung.

    Of course, and yes, the patent system is far from optimal and hasn’t kept up with changes in industry, but that still leaves such rampant copycatting unjustified, and an improved system should result in similar punishment.

    @Wangkon

    For that, I don’t think they could replicate trailblazing product innovation in Korea. They would have to greenfield outside of Korea. A Western country, probably the U.S., in a part of the U.S. where programmers and innovators like to live…. Gee, I wonder where that would be?

    If I recall how things work here, good thing you aren’t a whiteman, because that kind of talk would get you accused of racism! Anyway, when you get that Audi, get the S, not the A–much more fun.

  • palladin9479

    @157,

    MacOS sucks from an engineering point of view, which is what I am. BSD is inherently a secure and stable OS, not quite as nice to work with as Linux but not nearly as archaic as Solaris. In order to make it more “it just works” Apple had to stupefy large parts of the BSD kernel, it’s trivial to break a MacOS box because of this. Many things have root privileges that shouldn’t, yet asking an ignorant (in the literal sense) user to manage system security and permissions is something they didn’t want to do. They also go to rather great extremes to hid all that from the user, so even if you were knowledgeable you couldn’t manage it. This is why I prefer Solaris as my workhorse OS, incredibly steep learning curve but once your there it’s a truly wonderful OS for getting things done. I would never wish it on a user though, you guys would be clueless on what to do after the login screen (assuming your even using the GUI).

    I can identify an Apple fanboi a mile away, they practically scream about how they love their tribe. You guys should at least paint your faces.

  • PineForest

    Yawn.

  • PineForest

    Ok, pal, personal insults duly exchanged.

    But, I’m not an end user. I’m an IT professional. And while I’m sure you’re really smart in your area, you’re kinda missing my point. The vast majority of these end users that you look down on are not valued enough or marketed to by many IT firms. Apple has been successful in knowing what non geeks want and giving it to them. If acknowledging that makes me a fanboy, fine.

  • palladin9479

    @cmm

    “I realize that the rectangular w/ round edges aspect was a real part of the suit, but it’s also been overused as an argument to discredit, and in some cases an unfair misrepresentation of, Apple’s legitimate gripes.”

    How can it be “overused”, it’s either true or false. If true then it’s a demonstration of what exactly Apple is patenting. Further Apple constantly seeking injunctions instead of settlements / licensing is further evidence of what their goal is.

    I disagreed because you were trying to argue that Apple having a monopoly over the looks of a cell phone will somehow many more “innovative” phones appear. I’ve demonstrated how false that is, as Apple has no plans to allow ANY other smart phone to be sold. Previously a manufacture could make a product and just ensure it didn’t copy Apple, yet now there is no such product. Any successful product must be easy to use and have a certain orientation, all of which Apple has patented. Or are you suggesting circular or trapezoid shaped phones would be popular?

    The very nature of smart phone design means there is a limited scope on what you can do, Apple has done it’s best to lock out the market by patenting as much of that as possible.

    You can’t patent a shape and you can’t patent cool, Apple as done both.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    And whether anyone likes it or not, Apple DID have the patents for their work. Samsung’s attempts to go back in time and show how other companies developed and perhaps even marketed the elements in question was foolish, IMHO.

    Yeah, you’re definitely not qualified to talk about patent law.

    Can we please get back to the law here? I am still waiting to hear any explanation about how it is possible that Apple can patent a design concept rather than an actual technology, and whether there can be ANY limiting principle if Apple can do this. Citations to statutes, rules and case law are most welcome.

  • palladin9479

    @162,
    “IT Professional” is a very big word and yields no respect from me.

    You could be a kernel developer, an engineer, or a security analyst for example.

    Two of those are required to have deep knowledge on the inner workings of their fields, they must be able to find solutions to complex problems within a very small window of time. The other on that list runs reports all day, compiles statistics and has next to zero knowledge of the inside of the machine. They would be bringing their home computer to other people to fix.

    And in case you missed it, I don’t look down on users, never have. Different job different skill set, nothing more nothing less. What I do look down on is spreading uninformed fanboi BS like that sh!t you spewed early.

  • palladin9479

    @164,

    Because 9 jurors said they could. The USPTO mass accepts anything that remotely resembles a patent. They’ve been rubber stamping them by the millions. Once Apple has a piece of paper saying they own exclusive rights to “something” they can then litigate anyone who has anything that resembles that “something”.

    As for legal citations, there are none. The US patent system hasn’t had a serious overhaul since before the information age, the writings of the rules simply didn’t take software into consideration. It’s now a totally play-by-ear situation, which is why this ruling is so important. No ones ruled yet on something this big, it’s sets a precedent that things like “icons laid out in a 4×5 grid” are grounds for copyright infringement. Functionally this is no different then the location of a power or volume button.

  • PineForest

    New flash Pal,

    I could give a shit if I impress you.

  • JW

    I am still waiting to hear any explanation about how it is possible that Apple can patent a design concept rather than an actual technology, and whether there can be ANY limiting principle if Apple can do this.

    TK, I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here. Apple can patent a design because there is such a thing called a design patent. Design patents have been around for a long time. See for example, this design patent for the Volkswagen Beetle.

    http://www.patentadesign.com/gallery/volkswagen-beetle-car-design-patent.html

    I think it would also be useful if we can clearly separate out arguments against Apple vs arguments against the design patent system. Cuz then it would make sense not to say things like “This particular lawsuit is bullshit”.

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

    cmm,

    Well, it’s not because of a racial reason.

    I’m leaning on getting a house first. Tired of living in condos (although I have two).

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    TK, I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here. Apple can patent a design because there is such a thing called a design patent.

    Right, but I am not sure if anyone can patent a design concept, like general shapes and colors — until Apple just did.

  • cmm

    WK, Of course I know what you meant.

    Beware of home ownership though… being owned by a home sucks.

  • JW

    TK, I see what you’re saying, and I’m more inclined to believe that the system is out of control in terms of what it’s allowing vs what Apple has done vis a vis this case, but I still don’t see why one should be able to submit an outline drawing of something like say a VW Beetle for a valid design patent but not for an outline drawing of the iPhone. They both depend fundamentally on design “concepts”, as far as I can see.

  • yuna

    Right, but I am not sure if anyone can patent a design concept, like general shapes and colors — until Apple just did

    Know what you mean. I’m sure I linked to this LOL before:
    http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/904697-apple-ipad-too-cool-to-be-confused-with-samsung-galaxy-tab-judge-rules
    talk about a 병주고 약주고 ruling.

    So like somebody said at the beginning of the thread, the morale is you can apparently patent cool, only if it’s shown that the competitor company’s uncool ajossi in a grey suit with an uncool name writes a email (like in those TV ads) saying “GET ME COOL!”.

    As for the racial profiling of the jury/judge etc. let’s just say, Heathrow airport immigration control desk has three turbans, and three blacks and the queues are herded by two bindis.

  • yuna

    morale->moral

  • yuna

    But I do hate those Apple TV Ads. I could kill all those Apple Ads.

    It’s so f**** overrated and uncool and annoying, like the products themselves.
    Like I mentioned before, the only time a hard disk just died on me was with an Apple Powerbook, which their “geniuses” couldn’t fix, they just told me that I’d had it for 2.5 years I should have backed it up. I was going to throw hurl the laptop at the Oxford Street store especially when the innane people were queuing outside for the latest ishit.

  • yuna

    inane.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCL5UgxtoLs

    Like everything else which seems to be genuine Korean innovation (cyworld vs facebook, singing fridges, brilliant mobile system/technology etc.), I think Samsung had to lose in its quest for globalization, when hit with a competition/obstacle, rather than stick to what they are good at and improve on their unique culture, their immediate solution was to copy/assimilate so I think it had to happen sooner or later, it’s not such a big loss in the long run.

  • Barreira

    thekorean @ 170 , you are right – you can’t get design patents for abstract “concepts.” Apple’s *design* patents (as opposed to some of the *utility* patents also at issue in this case) are tied to specific iphone design drawings that they submitted to the patent office.

    One thing to keep in mind:

    The jury also found that Samsung’s infringement was “willful” (i.e., intentional). This finding triggers some bad things, like trebling of damages awarded by the jury.

    One way to fend off “willful” infringement charges is to get a formal “opinion letter” from a patent attorney, saying that your product is not infringing.

    This has to be done *before* taking the product to the market, since the whole point is to argue that you “relied” in good faith on the opinion letter of your patent counsel.

    I don’t know whether Samsung ever got one before selling the infringing phones.

    More importantly, knowing what the infringing Samsung products and the iPhone look like, and how similar they are, do you think any patent attorney in his or her right mind would have provided Samsung with a formal opinion that its phones do not infringe?

  • Creo69

    ” What i find a bit perplexing is the shadenfreude displayed by commenters like PineForest above or Creo (bringing up the Lone Star case). As somebody else pointed out i don’t understand how people can be so emotionally attached to some big company”

    I am sure at this stage in life you find opening a cereal box perplexing without alcohol in your system. That said, of course there is an element of nationalism to this case just as with the Lone Star case in Korea. In hindsight I bet the Korean govt is now kicking itself for not trying to steal MORE of Lone Star’s profits.

  • jk6411

    Creo is having the longest orgasm of his life.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Apple’s *design* patents (as opposed to some of the *utility* patents also at issue in this case) are tied to specific iphone design drawings that they submitted to the patent office.

    Thanks for that. But I would appreciate it even more if you can show me. Can you point me to any exhibits that show Apple’s design patents? I know one of them is the absurd “rectangular phone with rounded corners” thing, but would like to look at the others.

    I don’t know whether Samsung ever got one before selling the infringing phones.

    I can answer this for you, and the answer is yes. I personally know the lawyer who signed that letter.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Oh, and would appreciate it if you could take a look at my question @105. Thank you much.

  • tinyflowers
  • JW

    There’s also the issue of whether this case is more about design patent vs utility. From what I can see in the link below it’s quite clear that there were more utility patents shown to be violated as opposed to design and trade dress. So it’s quite unfair to state that the lawsuit is invalid based only on one’s impression of the design patents only.

    http://www.tuaw.com/2012/08/24/breakdown-of-the-decisions-in-apple-versus-samsung-verdict/

  • Ex-Ex-Pat

    Is this an issue to take sides over? The mutual funds I put money into for my retirement own about as much Apple as Samsung. Aren’t we just rooting for laundry here? Apple has maybe a building or two of designers and programmers in the U.S. The rest of their workers are in China.

  • Creo69

    “Is this an issue to take sides over? ”

    The American govt and American industries have been asking Asian govts to do something about the issue of infringement (intellectual property and otherwise) for YEARS. Is it an issue to take sides over? Yes. American companies do not have to produce phones, movies or anything else and then allow companies from other companies steal and profit from their hard work. It doesn’t matter where they products are produced. Theft is theft and Apple obviously isn’t going to lay down and take it.

  • Barreira

    To thekorean@180,

    >>Apple’s *design* patents (as opposed to some of the *utility* patents
    >>also at issue in this case) are tied to specific iphone design drawings
    >>that they submitted to the patent office.
    >Thanks for that. But I would appreciate it even more if you can show
    >me. Can you point me to any exhibits that show Apple’s design
    >patents? I know one of them is the absurd “rectangular phone with
    > rounded corners” thing, but would like to look at the others.

    Here is one version of the jury verdict form => http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ApplevSamsung-1931.pdf

    Look up the patents referenced in the verdict form, previously issued to Apple. You can get the PDFs of the full patents from Google patents, or uspto.gov.

    >>I don’t know whether Samsung ever got one [opinion letter] before
    >>selling the infringing phones.
    >I can answer this for you, and the answer is yes. I personally know
    > the lawyer who signed that letter.

    Well, if a lawyer actually signed off on an unconditional non-infringement opinion letter, he or she is probably contacting his/her firm’s malpractice insurance carrier by now. Hopefully your friend has $1Billion in coverage.

    Unless, of course, (1) the opinion letter said that the proposed products are potentially infringing (in which case the letter does not help Samsung), or (2) the opinion letter had so many caveats so as to be useless (you investment banker types out there know what I am talking about), or (3) the “non infringement” letter was drafted to provide cover to client, with the understanding (wink wink) that the client will never hold the attorney giving the opinion responsible, even if the opinion turns out to be far off (I am sure this was not the case and, in any event, Samsung would not be able to claim “good faith reliance” on such opinion letter) . . . .

  • jkitchstk

    177,
    “More importantly, knowing what the infringing Samsung products and the iPhone look like, and how similar they are, do you think any patent attorney in his or her right mind would have provided Samsung with a formal opinion that its phones do not infringe?”

    According to TK there is such a person. Hey TK, when should we expect to hear about who exactly this person is, which firm etc…?

    #84 thekorean,
    “Nor do I see how Apple’s patent is anything other than “rectangular phone with rounded corners.”

    For the umpteenth time the “rectangular phone with rounded corners” isn’t part of the Samesung billion dollar payout. Next!

    # 91 thekorean,
    “It would be great if everyone could just shut the fuck up except to talk about the law. Focus on the actual language of the statute, regulations and case law, and cut out all this crap about what commentators and analysts are saying. This applies to both sides of this stupid-ass “debate.”

    Boococky mofo much, aren’t you special. Do you know more than all commentators and analysts?

    #164 thekorean,
    “Yeah, you’re definitely not qualified to talk about patent law.”
    Neither are you since you’re not an IP lawyer.

    # 137 palladin9479,
    “And yes Apple did sue Samsung over the Galaxy S being rectangular with round edges. I am not making this up.”

    Who cares, the jury didn’t award Apple anything for it. Apple could’ve sued Samesung for going poopy in it’s restroom but that doesn’t mean they’d get a judgement. Next!

    # 166 palladin9479,
    “icons laid out in a 4×5 grid”

    Get it right will you please, it’s 5×4. If only Samesung had copied it wrong, it wouldn’t have been the same. They ought to hire you.

    # 148 palladin9479,
    “I’m an systems engineer and do this for a living.”
    That’s scary.

    # 134 palladin9479,
    “It’s bad because nobody can EVER use four buttons.”

    You should “look down” on yourself for making the above statement(per your #165 comment).

    # 165 palladin9479,
    “What I do look down on is spreading uninformed fanboi BS like that sh!t you spewed early.”

    The hypocrisy!

  • http://humesbastard.wordpress.com/ Hume’s Bastard

    “In the short term, the company needs to boost its internal design capacity by bringing in the world’s best experts, and in the long term, it must find a way to strengthen educational facilities by bringing in leading professors in the global design field in order to turn Korean university students into world-class design talent.”

    The Chosun just doesn’t quite get “creativity”, does it? I would really appreciate it if South Korean administrators would get beyond the notion of pedagogy as espionage. What’s in it for a talented IT professional, to have to endure a roomful of test-taking machines with faux-designer clothes and copied technology who have all the charm of cardboard and all the skill of a vacuum cleaner with ears.

  • jkitchstk

    No wonder Koreans LOVE Samesung and will defend it to no end,
    The country’s biggest company, Samsung touches most parts of South Korean society, you can actually live a Samsung life; You can be born in a Samsung hospital, live in a Samsung home, watch a Samsung television, drive a Samsung car, take out Samsung life insurance, and finally die in a Samsung hospital.
    ‘South Korea reacts to Samsung verdict[Video]‘
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1686353/South-Korea-reacts-to-Samsung-verdict

    “Koreans are furious at China for copying its products. But when Korea does the same, Koreans defend the action. That is a highly distorted form of patriotism. When a company takes the wrong path, it is the public’s job to correct it.”
    http://www.thekoreanlawblog.com/2012/08/apple-vs-samsung-koreans-are-furious-at.html
    “Long ago, trade economists noted the best guarantee a developing economy to start playing by international rules is when it starts creating its own intellectual property worth defending. Korea is in many ways, has long ago passed that point. And yet, in some ways, it has not yet reached that development milestone. As I have repeatedly pointed out, Korea has yet to develop a market-defining product…”
    “Putting aside patent issues for the moment, it is not enough to produce high quality products that are often better in various ways than the originals. Producing improved copycat models requires priorities that limit basic R & D…”
    “The Koreans need to find the means to move up the food chain in terms of basic R & D and market-creating innovation. Otherwise, they may risk emulating their Japanese mentors yet one more time.”

  • http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

    Concerning “rounded corners,” here’s what the IHT summarized on the question whether Samsung infringed on Apple patents:

    - “Shape of the iPhone’s face, rounded corners and bezel” – Infringement

    - “Tablet design, including the rectangular shape and rounded edges of the iPad” – No Infringement

    That’s on page 17 of Monday’s edition here in Seoul (August 27, 2012). Although the IHT is the international edition of the NYT, I didn’t find this summary on the NYT’s online article, so no link.

    Anyway, this might explain the confusion as to whether rounded corners were considered an infringement or not. For iPhones, yes. For iPads, no.

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

  • Jashin Densetsu

    Apple is first and foremost a software company.

    no it isn’t bro. nobody uses apple software. even people with macs don’t use safari, quicktime, iwork, etc. people only use itunes because they have to for the store.

    people buy apple for the hardware and brand:

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/11568917/1/apple-is-a-hardware-company-einhorn-just-doesnt-get-it.html

  • cm

    I’m going to do some Samsung defending here.

    I’m looking at the list of the patents that Samsung was found guilty of:

    Pinch to zoom, one finger scrolling, list bounce back, come on… these are worthless patents. Apple should never have given patent rights to these in the first place.

    Samsung obviously took some of the designs from Apple and incorporated them into their phones, but to say they are 100% copies of the iPhone is just untrue. Of course Samsung should be punished, so they should be slapped with $100 million, but not with $1 billion in fines.

    When the iPhone came out in 2007, the first iPhone like phones came out in 2008. They were the Android phones from HTC, followed by LG using the same Android. Samsung didn’t get into the Android smartphone game until late 2009, early 2010, with their first release of their smartphone, the Galaxy S. But now Samsung is taking the broad side of the hit as THE phone that copied 3 months right after the first iPhone, when other manufacturers from HTC to LG to Motorola were also in the game. They also got sued by Apple, and there are still court cases pending for those manufacturers.

  • Creo69

    “Pinch to zoom, one finger scrolling, list bounce back, come on… these are worthless patents. Apple should never have given patent rights to these in the first place.”

    Worthless? Some designer dreamed these features up and Apple paid engineers good money to make them a reality. If something like “Pinch to Zoom” is so easy to create why don’t the other companies produce something that is better. Should be easy enough.

  • Creo69

    The more I read on this thread the more I am convinced this ruling will only benefit consumers. I for one am excited to imagine what a company like Samsung can do when they put their minds in to developing truly unique products instead of just following others. I am also confident that when I replace my Galaxy Tab with something in the future it will be far more advanced as a result of this ruling and the push it will be giving to tech companies.

    Cheers Apple!

  • cm

    Creo69, read Tinyflower’s link. That article answers your question why those patents are worthless and frivolous. It’s bull shit patents.

  • cm

    194,

    How does any company create a software, if it can’t use tap to click, click to reply, click to call, can’t use one finger to scroll? Use telepathy? For that technology we may have to wait until year 3069.

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    yeah, i can zoom the screen on my notebook. i’m sure samsung can get around that.

  • Creo69

    “Creo69, read Tinyflower’s link. That article answers your question why those patents are worthless and frivolous. It’s bull shit patents.”

    Like I said before, there are going to be “experts” making claims on both sides and both sides are sure they are 100% correct. As we stand now, we have a verdict that says Tinyflower’s link is bullshit (an argument that is probably put out there at the expense of Samsung). Until the headlines read otherwise. It is what it is.

    That is how the legal system works so come on back when and if there is an appeal verdict that changes anything.

  • Creo69

    “How does any company create a software, if it can’t use tap to click, click to reply, click to call, can’t use one finger to scroll? Use telepathy? For that technology we may have to wait until year 3069.”

    It may take time to figure this out, but I guarantee this ruling will get us to that point a lot faster than if the giants continued on adding a new feature or two with each new release while calling it an “innovation” and charging a premium for it.

  • tinyflowers

    If something like “Pinch to Zoom” is so easy to create why don’t the other companies produce something that is better. Should be easy enough.

    Actually, plenty of others DID come up with pinch to zoom, years before Apple:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd-dqUuvLk4&t=5m2s

    You should be asking Apple why they couldn’t come up with something better, instead of copying, then patenting, existing technology.

    btw, that TED talk by Jeff Han was entered into evidence during the trial as prior art. Too bad the jury completely ignored all evidence of prior art because it was “bogging them down.” This jury was a completely joke. They ignored evidence, they made up their minds on the first day and they didn’t follow basic instructions. This is all coming from statements the jurors themselves made after the trial.

  • Creo69

    “You should be asking Apple why they couldn’t come up with something better, instead of copying, then patenting, existing technology.”

    If I had only patented cookie dough ice cream when I thought of it (I think I was like two years old at the time) I would have been a rich man (actually one rich two year old). Still kicking myself for that one! Gosh darn it!!!

  • Creo69

    “This is all coming from statements the jurors themselves made after the trial.”

    I guess you can’t complain that they were a bunch of liars at least :)

  • Creo69

    “You should be asking Apple why they couldn’t come up with something better, instead of copying, then patenting, existing technology.”

    And as a matter of record, I am the REAL “NAPSTER.”

  • cm

    Creo69, that doesn’t address Tinyflower’s youtube link which does a good job illustrating that what Apple patented weren’t even theirs to begin with. They stole the ideals and made it their own by patenting them.

  • Creo69

    “They stole the ideals and made it their own by patenting them.”

    And who currently owns the patent? Maybe this “TED” fella you guys are talking about can help out. I wish him luck…along with Samsung :)

  • Wedge

    I’m going to have to catch up on this thread later. Anyway, somewhere up there someone accused me of hating Korea. Nothing could be further from the truth. Criticism of counterproductive behavior does not equal “hate.” Calling out reflexive Korea defending by gyopi does not equal “hate.” If I didn’t like this place I wouldn’t even bother.

    We now return to our regularly scheduled program…

  • Arghaeri

    Lone Star could have made $7B in 2.5 years, but ended up making $6.9B in 8 years. That’s why the IRR is lower. Not because they made less, but because it took them longer to get out.

    Yep, lets just totally ignore the opportunity cost of the money they could have made on that profit in 4 and a half years.

  • Creo69

    “Lone Star could have made $7B in 2.5 years, but ended up making $6.9B in 8 years. That’s why the IRR is lower. Not because they made less, but because it took them longer to get out.”

    And why did it take them longer to get out? Because the Korean govt would not approve their sale. When they did, they put a time frame on the sale putting the buyer in a position to offer a lower price. Seems fair :)

  • hacker

    Just to set the record straight, Apple did not “Steal” nor did they file the original patent on Multitouchbut but aquired it through the purchase of Fingerworks. Pay particular attention to “capacitive mobile screens”.
    “Apple acquired Fingerworks and its multi-touch technology in 2005. Mainstream exposure to multi-touch technology occurred in 2007 when the iPhone gained popularity, with Apple stating they ‘invented multi touch’ as part of the iPhone announcement,[12] however both the function and the term predate the announcement or patent requests, except for such area of application as capacitive mobile screens, which did not exist before Fingerworks/Apple’s technology (Fingerworks filed patents in 2001-2005[13], subsequent multitouch refinements were patented by Apple[14]) . Apple were the first to introduce multi-touch on a mobile device.”

  • Creo69

    “Just to set the record straight, Apple did not “Steal” nor did they file the original patent on Multitouchbut but aquired it through the purchase of Fingerworks. ”

    Somebody better tell “TED.” I think he is going to be disappointed.

  • hacker

    Yah, watching the TED video….apples to oranges…I want a phone as big as that screen. Again focus ” except for such area of application as capacitive mobile screens, which did not exist before Fingerworks/Apple’s technology (Fingerworks filed patents in 2001-2005[13.” Read half a sentence and jump. This is starting to sound like a stats convention gone haywire.

  • Arghaeri

    It looks very nice, Apple spends most of it’s R&D budget making things look nice and being comfortable to the average user. It’s definitely the prettiest set of software out there. As for it’s quality, it’s complete and utter sh!t. It only seems stable and secure because everything is closed. Compile your own drivers and you’ll suddenly see how much crap their kernel and memory subsystems are.

    It may have escaped your notice in techyland but looking good and working well are exactly what most consumers are looking for. That this may demand a closed system for a functional device is beyond most comsumers cares or needs. If they wanted to spend all their time doing techy mods they they’re quite within their rights to purchase an open system.

  • YangachiBastardo

    I am sure at this stage in life you find opening a cereal box perplexing without alcohol in your system. That said, of course there is an element of nationalism to this case just as with the Lone Star case in Korea. In hindsight I bet the Korean govt is now kicking itself for not trying to steal MORE of Lone Star’s profits

    Dude, are you a late-game investor in some Lone Star fund ? Why are you obsessed with this story ? Move the fuck on, the PE industry is doing fine, don’t worry buddy. They had some rough days in 2008 but they were pretty quick and clever to recover…heck they’re making money even in Europe where there’ no equity to invest but a desperate need for mezzanine and any other kind of liquidity, no longer provided by the local banks.

    But i know some things might be heart-breaking nonetheless, i know the feeling, trust me… like when i have to squander a not insignificant slice of my 48% effective tax rate to provide free healthcare to so many members of your tribe, who were stupid enough to party around bareback and now they’re basically walking bio-tech labs, brimming with fantastic species of new viruses…life can be a major bitch at times, i know

    Imagine how happy i feel

  • Arghaeri

    Further Apple constantly seeking injunctions instead of settlements / licensing is further evidence of what their goal is.

    I’m confused I don’t recall Samsung either licensing or iffering to settle?

  • Creo69

    “But i know some things might be heart-breaking nonetheless, i know the feeling, trust me… like when i have to squander a not insignificant slice of my 48% effective tax rate to provide free healthcare to so many members of your tribe, who were stupid enough to party around bareback and now they’re basically walking bio-tech labs, brimming with fantastic species of new viruses…life can be a major bitch at times, i know”

    Is this your way of asking me out on a date? What a gentleman you are “Sweetpea.”

    Trust me, whatever undeveloped country it is that you come from you are paying ten times more to cover the cost of you and your “comrades” drinking problems :)

  • Arghaeri

    How does any company create a software, if it can’t use tap to click, click to reply, click to call, can’t use one finger to scroll?

    Duh, never heard of a keyboard/keys, did you never own a computer or phone before the iphone?

  • Creo69

    And YangachiBastardo…

    before you say thank you, just remember that is what I am here for :)

    That and to remind you that if you don’t quit asking women to put their finger in your “secret place” when you are having sex you are going to end up with a third ex -wife.

  • YangachiBastardo

    Dude i was dumb enough to spend a few months dating some erotic lingerie designer from Tokyo with gothic lolita tendencies (i forgot which branch): I had enough camp, kawaii, poofness etc. etc. for the next 3 lifetimes so no offense intended but i think i’ll skip a few rounds of the dating quirky characters game.

    But you got me there: if i was the budget officer of Italy the drug&booze rehabilitation complex would be the first one to go, together with all the douchies milking a paycheck from it.
    I really do not like to associate myself with druggies and drunks, trust me.

    By the way immigrant boy, you might wanna hope&pray people like me get the upper hand in my underdeveloped country, if you don’t wanna deal with some hallucinatory financial crisis that would push your dream of owning some henhouse in katoi land a few centuries down the road ;)

    and honestly sorry to shatter your hopes, but i’m really a fetish-free chap. Actually the only activitiy i really enjoy involving the human body is beating it to a pulp

  • Creo69

    “Actually the only activitiy i really enjoy involving the human body is beating it to a pulp”

    I never would have guessed you have anger management issues.

  • YangachiBastardo

    I have to appreciate your honest to a certain degree though: this whole affair is to a not insignificant degree a matter of nationalism&protectionism.

    The fact that Team Usa champ is some overbloated toys/accessories marketer with monopolistic ambitions is quite discomfortingly telling about the sorry state of the local economy

  • Creo69

    ” The fact that Team Usa champ is some overbloated toys/accessories marketer with monopolistic ambitions is quite discomfortingly telling about the sorry state of the local economy”

    Agree…I am the first to admit Americans got fat and lazy. 80% of the population needs to be re-educated to start pulling their weight in lieu of continuing to sit on their lazy assess gainingweight.

  • YangachiBastardo

    Agree…I am the first to admit Americans got fat and lazy. 80% of the population needs to be re-educated to start pulling their weight in lieu of continuing to sit on their lazy assess gainingweight

    I guess it’s a side-effect of being a net exporter of food, trust me it’s better like this. Actually if you reach on top of that energy indipendence by 2020, your problems will appear miniscule in comparison to Europe:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Hz-mrplKU

  • PineForest

    “”Apple’s *design* patents (as opposed to some of the *utility* patents also at issue in this case) are tied to specific iphone design drawings that they submitted to the patent office.

    Thanks for that. But I would appreciate it even more if you can show me. Can you point me to any exhibits that show Apple’s design patents? I know one of them is the absurd “rectangular phone with rounded corners” thing, but would like to look at the others””

    C’mon, TK, first you tell me I’m not qualified for this discussion and then when you’re confronted with details on what I said, which is merely that Apple HAD and PROTECTED patents here, you turn into a mouse.

  • PineForest

    http://www.technologyreview.com/news/428477/the-iphone-has-passed-a-key-security-threshold/

    An example of the unbelievably horrible Apple security as it has been described by Palladin–

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    C’mon, TK, first you tell me I’m not qualified for this discussion and then when you’re confronted with details on what I said, which is merely that Apple HAD and PROTECTED patents here, you turn into a mouse.

    Go back to what you wrote — what you said was not merely that Apple had patents. That’s half-wrong too, but it is the other thing you said that was so blatantly incorrect that you revealed yourself as someone who has no idea what he’s talking about.

    I don’t pretend to know a whole lot about patent law either. So for the most part, I am asking questions rather than making judgment calls.

  • PineForest

    Hey, I don’t claim to be an expert, but Apple DID have patents for stuff like the click to zoom , the bounce at the bottom of images, etc. right? Those were the patents I was referring to. If they didn’tI stand corrected.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Here is one version of the jury verdict form => http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ApplevSamsung-1931.pdf

    Look up the patents referenced in the verdict form, previously issued to Apple. You can get the PDFs of the full patents from Google patents, or uspto.gov.

    FYI, the verdict form does not list the full serial numbers of the patent — so you can’t look it up from the verdict form. You can try it with the complaint, however: http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf

    Hey, I don’t claim to be an expert, but Apple DID have patents for stuff like the click to zoom , the bounce at the bottom of images, etc. right? Those were the patents I was referring to.

    You’re still not getting it. See my quotation of what you wrote @164. First sentence is half-wrong but defensible; it is the second sentence that is so completely wrong.

  • cm

    “I’m confused I don’t recall Samsung either licensing or offering to settle?”

    I read the licensing offering from Apple to Samsung, and if I was Samsung, I would have rejected it as well. Apple wanted $30 for the Galaxy phones, and $40 for the Galaxy Tab. That would have wiped half the profit for Samsung, PLUS here’s the sticking point, even with the licensing, Samsung would not be allowed to use the tap to zoom, pinch and zoom, bounce at the bottom of the page, and other Apple patented designs. Apple was not willing to give rights to those under no circumstances. Pretty ridiculous terms and even insulting, if you ask me. In essence, Apple was demanding huge sums of money from Samsung to just to have the right to make poor functioning phone with none of the features which would make the phone cool.

  • yuna

    As I have repeatedly pointed out, Korea has yet to develop a market-defining product

    This is not true. If I had been 10 years older, and had known how things worked, there are so many products that I saw whenever I went back to my parents in Korea from other ‘developed’ nations which were so amazing, that I would have just “patented” abroad and been sitting on piles of money by now. Koreans are just not good at making their market-defining ideas sell globally, but there are so many large and small household innovation that I saw light-years ahead of the rest in this frog-in-a-well country which never took off outside, and which, a decade later would make somebody else from another country v. rich. Cyworld/Facebook is one example. Tablet PCs? PAAH! My parents were living in apartment blocks which provided them with tablets which had the all the basic functions of the apartment and which turned into a tablet TV at the touch of the stylus pen light years before iPAD was even a twinkle in Steve Jobs’s eyes! And they were not even luxury apartment blocks! My mother was watching TV on over her sink as she was cutting vegetables and YES, there is one final thing which I don’t know if it has been patented anywhere else in the world yet, I see all the time in Korea which I am reluctant to share even now, in case it produces another undeserving upstart overrated vamped up AMERICAIN hero like Jake Goldenburg or something – that Facebook kid whose name escapes me now.

    It might make me rich yet. Any patent lawyers out there?

  • yuna

    Sorry it was Mark Zuckerburg. All Jewish names invariably get tangled up with Jeff Goldblum in my head.

  • cm

    I concur with Yuna. Korea gets constantly gets shortchanged and relegated here, but the problem is much to do with marketing the Korean ideals globally. For example: streaming videos. Koreans were already watching TV or video on demand online, far before anyone in the West could spell netflix. Digital music became much more popular first in Korea, way before the West caught on with the iPod.

  • yuna

    #231
    I discussed this with some other old Korean men a while back, they said it was because the average Korean housewife was one of the most demanding, picky and discerning consumers in the world, and the whole Korean industry was set up for them.

    Fridge for kimchi? Fridge for makeup? Can you even imagine how plebian these are?
    Bubble technology washing machines? RFID for checking if your kid’s been to the Hagwon? Electric rice cooker with the inner pot plated with precious metal? Korean mothers now choose Korean brand rice cooker over Zojirushi any time now. Gone are the days Korean jubus insist on foreign brand electric goods. That’s innovation and quality catching up in less than 20 years, at least in the household electrical goods.

  • yuna

    And no what I am not sharing with any of you is not among the list in the comment #232 either which are more specific for Korean culture so will not take off abroad, at least outside Asia. However, this idea I am not sharing, it’s going to make me so rich I can just sit and write 10 comments in a row on Marmots Hole all day, day and night.

  • Jed

    #231
    You are exactly right. Imagine if iriver had done a better job of marketing the mp3 player it developed and introduced to the market. There might not have been an ipod nor an i anything. Korean companies, with the exception of Samsung in the last couple of years, are still a little weak at the R&D and marketing points of value creation.

  • dww

    You snooze you loose, Yuna, cause I’m already working on my patent to put little dingy call buttons on every restaurant table in America.

  • hacker

    Yuna/cm – You talk about VOD and the TV/tablet, out of curiousity what time frame was this?

  • cm

    Digital music in Korea, I remember around 1996. I saw a fantastic product in Korea at that time, that played digitized music, saw it as an opportunity to distribute it in Canada (which at that time that thing didn’t exist). I wanted to get in quickly, make lots of money, before the big retailers started getting into it too. I just didn’t have the business expertise to do distribution, so the plan fell through. As for VOD, I remember some major Korean news sites like KBS, SBS, MBC started VOD and live streaming starting around 1997, expanded greatly with the arrival of the high speed internet around 1998 to 2000. There were tons of Korean web sites during the late 1990′s that offered free VOD services of Korean movies and shows. I knew at that time the local Korean rental stores that rented out VHS tapes were soon going to be out of business.

  • Barreira

    >>FYI, the verdict form does not list the full serial numbers of
    >> the patent — so you can’t look it up from the verdict form.

    thekorean, if you go to Google patents and enter “Apple ‘NNN patent”, it will return the Apple patents (NNN = last 3 digits of the patent reg. no. => you can get it from the verdict form).

    Same with Samsung patents – look for “Samsung ‘NNN patent”.

    Have fun.

  • yuna

    #236
    Around 10 years ago.
    http://www.raemian.co.kr/community/notice/view.do?seq=135&searchType=&searchStr=&pg=43
    I had to even look up what those tablet pc like things which came with the apartment was called – “webpads”. The hardware was not built by large well-known companies, no song-and-dance, no bells and whistles about them. They did all the basic functions like check on various things in the flat, turn things on and off. etc. and they had a little pop-out support at the back so that we could stand them like a photo frame and watch TV on them (which seemed to be a second behind the actual TV, so I’m guessing it was web).
    The so-called “Home Network” http://blog.daum.net/suknyangdari/17974
    system in Korea is really for everybody and not just the rich, because of the unique culture of a new-apartment-block-every-second.
    Now it seems they are focusing on developing application for the existing smartphones/tablet pcs which are owned by the residents already.
    Like I said, Korea has so much innovation due to its pali pali culture for bettering everyday people’s lives. They are just not Apple-fanboy oriented, or Facebook teenager oriented, which is why they used to fail in the global market, and which is why Samsung made the wrong decision to make headway in the global market going “with the waves” rather than “against the waves”. I think Korea should go against the waves and stick to things it’s good in without trying to globalize/compromise.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    thekorean, if you go to Google patents and enter “Apple ‘NNN patent”, it will return the Apple patents (NNN = last 3 digits of the patent reg. no. => you can get it from the verdict form).

    I did exactly that. Doesn’t work — Apple has a LOT of patents that repeat those same three digits. You get too many results.

    At any rate, I pulled the complaint and did review those patents. But my question @105 remains the same. I am seriously asking here: how does a patent case ever have a principled decision, if the legal standard is “they look pretty similar”?

  • http://bcarr.com Brendon Carr

    At any rate, I pulled the complaint and did review those patents. But my question @105 remains the same. I am seriously asking here: how does a patent case ever have a principled decision, if the legal standard is “they look pretty similar”?

    I wonder if this is why settlement is recommended?

  • Pingback: A Culture of Copying | ZenKimchi Korean Food Journal