≡ Menu

More Samsung—Apple crap

- Did Samsung bet wrong in copying Apple? Or did it bet right? In PandoDaily, Farhad Manjoo writes that in ripping off Apple, Samsung might have made the smart call:

It’s tempting, after such a sweeping verdict in Apple’s favor, to conclude that Samsung’s decision to mimic the iPhone was a terrible mistake. The firm will now be on the hook for at least $1 billion in damages, and the judge could triple that amount. Samsung will likely face sales injunctions on many of its products, and will be forced to quickly design around Apple’s patents in its current and upcoming devices, if not to pay a steep licensing fee. Other companies that took inspiration from Apple—including Motorola, HTC and, at the top of the chain, Google—will also be stung by this decision.

But if you study what’s happened in the mobile industry since 2007, a different moral emerges. It goes like this: Copying works.

Of the three paths open to tech companies in the wake of the iPhone—ignore Apple, out-innovate Apple, or copy Apple—Samsung’s decision has fared best. Yes, Samsung’s copying was amateurish and panicky, and now it will have to pay for its indiscretions. But the costs of patent infringement will fall far short of what Samsung gained by aping Apple. Over the last few years, thanks to its brilliant mimicry, Samsung became a global force in the smartphone business. This verdict will do little to roll back that success.

- If you were wondering what they were saying in Samsung Land, here you go. Happy campers they are not. Outside of Samsung, though, I’ve got to say, the reaction seems rather muted. For blog hits alone, I was sort of hoping for Gaza-like protests of angry Korean tech geeks smashing iPads and burning Steve Jobs in posthumous effigy. Alas, there haven’t been any. At least among the people around me, Samsung doesn’t engender the same warm, fuzzy feelings that Apple seems to beget in the United States—and not entirely without reason, some might argue.

- Apple wants an injunction against eight Samsung phones.

- Laugha while you can, Apple Boy. Samsung might launch what North Korean leader Kim Jong-un recently called an “all-out counter-offensive” on Apple when it releases the iPhone 5 in October:

We are talking about utility patents covering basic smartphone functions here. And there’re few things more basic than smartphone connecting and using high-speed mobile data network. With LTE development starting in 2004 from NTT Docomo proposal and ending in a standard in 2009, it is safe to say – Apple had very little to do with it.

In fact, according to Daum, Samsung, LG and Ericsson own 60% of LTE patents worldwide.
[...]
And we didn’t even mention such mobile heavy-weights at the time as Nokia, Motorola (Google), or RIM.

And you thought chipmaker cross-licenses Apple is getting from suppliers to iPhone 5 will protect it from counter suits?

Think again.

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

  • cm

    I give full credit to Apple for taking other people’s ideals and slapping together a unique phone. But let’s face it, Apple has done nothing pioneering any real technology of their own. It was companies like Samsung, Motorola, LG, Sony-Ericson, etc were the ones setting industry standards in the mobile industry that allowed Apple to come up with a phone. Apple has benefited tremendously with the FRAND patents owned by all these companies who reaped little benefits (compared to Apple’s patent wins). What does this tell the mobile companies? Forget trying to license your techs under FRAND terms, you’ll just waste billions on R&D costs for little in return. Instead concentrate on patenting designs and appearances like Apple.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Church!

  • Creo69

    Oh goody! More fun. Thank you Uncle Marmot!

    “But let’s face it, Apple has done nothing pioneering any real technology of their own.”

    Hmm…you mean besides becoming the most valuable company in the world mostly based on their design and marketing savvy. I guess I have to give you some credit for being right this time ㅋㅋㅋ

  • josemareta

    Apple is a good company for many developpers. Samsung had none until recently.
    The Apple ecosystem goes beyond a single hardware set.
    Samsung has been a selfish, outcentered “jaebol” worried about making money in Korea and dumping products abroad (read Samsung as K).
    Apple has created a different way of doing business which has also been good for Korean developpers, who did not have any way of doing business before.

  • josemareta

    A point: Samsung has different models for different countries, besides different specs on the same models.
    The iPhone does not.
    Customers appreciate that.

  • feld_dog

    Ah, Buckaroo Bonzai. What a great flick.
    Thanks, MH.

  • bumfromkorea

    CM: “But let’s face it, Apple has done nothing pioneering any real technology of their own.”

    Creo: “Hmm…you mean besides becoming the most valuable company in the world mostly based on their design and marketing savvy.”

  • YangachiBastardo

    So what’s Google doing next ?

  • hamel

    Creo69: are you familiar with this video clip:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

    Do think it is relevant in this context?

  • Creo69

    bumfromkorea,

    I think you missed the point where I said, “I guess I have to give you some credit for being right this time ㅋㅋㅋ”

    But actually, I don’t think you missed it. You were either just trying to use my words out of context or you are just not that bright.

  • Creo69

    “Creo69: are you familiar with this video clip:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

    Do think it is relevant in this context?”

    A 40 second segment of an interview trimmed down to someone’s agenda…no, not really.

  • hamel

    Creo69:

    really? that’s not relevant? Even when taken in context with Apple’s borrowing over the years?

    Wow. Well I guess that kind of settles the debate, doesn’t it?

  • Creo69

    bumfromkorea,

    You got me thinking now…I wonder what Apple could accomplish with technology they produce that is equal to the quality of their marketing and design standards.

    How would you describe a company that successful …. “the former most valuable company in the world that is still the most valuable company in the world” Is there something above the level of “most valuable?”

    Hmm…

  • Creo69

    “Creo69:

    really? that’s not relevant? Even when taken in context with Apple’s borrowing over the years?

    Wow. Well I guess that kind of settles the debate, doesn’t it?”

    Is there some mystical force that surrounds Apple and protects them from lawsuits that I am missing? Or, do you really just not have a valid point?

  • hamel

    As you wish, Creo. As you wish. ;)

  • http://blog.oranckay.net oranckay

    A patent specialist by the name of 정우성 has been the loudest voice of reason in Korea regarding the Apple v Samsung patent war. See his latest:

    ‘애플 완승’은 애국심 탓? ‘삼성 관점’ 벗어야 보인다
    http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/View/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0001772154&PAGE_CD=ET000&BLCK_NO=1&CMPT_CD=T0000

  • silver surfer

    Hey this article is saying pretty much what I said in the previous Apple thread. When they made the decision to copy, they probably figured it would be worth it.

  • bumfromkorea

    I love the way you miss my point, then proceed to think that I missed your point, then proceed to say this:

    You got me thinking now…I wonder what Apple could accomplish with technology they produce that is equal to the quality of their marketing and design standards.

    The obliviousness is strong in this one.

  • Creo69

    “I love the way you miss my point…”

    Your obviously way over my head with your big words (obliviousness) …so that is to be expected professor.

  • Creo69

    opps…you’re

  • http://blog.oranckay.net oranckay

    I myself do believe Samsung made a calculated decision to engage in premeditated copying so as to not miss the smartphone train, then pay a financial price while misleading the public by saying “Apple thinks it owns the rectangle” (as if that’s all the case was about – what else can you say when you copied things like bounce effect and slide-to-unlock and so many other things?), then move on and be ready to compete through innovation later.

    1 billion USD is not a lot of money for Samsung Electronics. And even if Judge Koh (or another) ups the amount because the jury found it “deliberate,” it will still have been a good enough deal for SEC….. UNLESS (!!!) this guilty verdict leads Koh or others to be more predisposed to issue preliminary injunctions against other Samsung phones when Apple files motions asking for such. Which, again, is all the more likely given the evidence now on the record in the US federal court system and, again, because a jury found it to have been deliberate.

    Note the things Judge Koh said in issuing preliminary injunctions ahead of the trial and imagine what it could look like for Samsung’s current products post verdict….

    “Although Samsung has a right to compete, it does not have a right to compete unfairly, by flooding the market with infringing products. While Samsung will certainly suffer lost sales from the issuance of an injunction, the hardship to Apple of having to directly compete with Samsung’s infringing products outweighs Samsung’s harm in light of the previous findings by the Court.”
    http://9to5mac.com/2012/06/26/apple-wins-injunction-on-samsungs-galaxy-tab-ahead-of-google-io-kicking-off-tomorrow/

    “In sum, Apple has shown that claims 6 and 19 of the ’604 [Siri] Patent are likely both valid and infringed. Apple has therefore shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the ’604 Patent.”
    http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/06/apple-wins-us-preliminary-injunction.html

    If anything other than Samsung’s reputation is going to be hurt by the this trial, it’ll be future preliminary injunctions against current products. Apple filed some motions asking for them the first day of biz after the trial. If successful, it this could really hurt Samsung.

    I do like my Samsung phone. Just sayin’.

  • guitard

    There is nothing in this world more convoluted and screwy than the patents. I highly recommend this “This American Life” podcast about patents. It’s very enlightening.

    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack/

  • http://geoju.kr fanwarrior

    Anyone who talks about the $1 billion like it’s a done deal is an idiot.
    It’s not anywhere near over, and Samsung’s offensive is likely to include invalidating the jury decision and hurting apple in the end. Apple can’t deny the prior art forever, and it’s going to come back to bite them hard.

  • cm

    Samsung reveals new line of Microsoft Windows 8 platform phones and tablets – the ATIV S and the ATIV Tab series.

    http://www.tweaktown.com/news/25529/samsung_trademarks_ativ_tab_and_ativ_s_names_possible_future_windows_8_based_devices/index.html

    Let’s see if Apple will be successful suing these as well.

  • cm

    With the successful monopolization of multitouch features like pinch to zoom by Apple, all Android based phones are in danger of losing in the courts unless they get rid of these features, or come up with a new way to do multitouch taskings. Samsung and Microsoft have struck a licensing deal and it’s probably a smart move by Samsung. But for all the smaller makers like HTC, LG, and Motorola, this is a very bad news. They have been losing money even with a free Android operating system. Now they must buy license from Microsoft if they want to move toward Windows phones. If my prediction for Windows phone comes true, I see a consolidation in the mobile phone industry with Apple taking the biggest market share, followed by Samsung and Nokia taking the next shares. As for RIM, I don’t know where they will fit in, as it will depend on their new Blackberry 10 operating system which is set to be released in January. If successful, they could challenge the Windows for the second place. As for all the smaller players, I see virtually no hope for them unless there’s some kind of a breakthrough in the Android world.

  • Bendrix

    I think a lot of creative endeavors are like this: you start out aping until you find your own voice, style, whatever. but I don’t I think Samsung was ever in the position of starving artist risking it all to make it big. if it was a calculated move, they’ve pushed along smartphone development. I think this trajectory can be seen in a lot of industries. new product, or in this case implementation of a product, followed by competitors who bring some other ideas. years more of this and eventually it all plateaus.

  • Creo69

    Fanwarrior,

    Where are you getting the idea that all prio art was ignored. The article I linked to has the quotes of the jurror and he did not say they ignored all prior art. Me thinks folks are taking his comments out of context to fit their needs. What they ignored is up to debate when you look at the direct quote. From the looks of what this person said they had an issue with prior art onlymas it related to one patent.

    http://m.cnet.com/news/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/57500358

  • cm

    As try as they did, Apple just could not wean itself from Samsung made components which make up 26% of the Apple line of products. But experts are predicting that this lawsuit will not effect the customer-supplier relationship between the two companies which is worth tens of billions of dollars each year.

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Friend+Samsung+Apple+want+damage+parts+deal/7153296/story.html

    I think Samsung will start raising prices for Apple bound components. What do you think?

  • Creo69

    ” I think Samsung will start raising prices for Apple bound components. What do you think?”

    I think with Steve Jobs and his huge ego out of the picture we will see the dynamics between these two companies changing for the positive in the future. It takes time for corporate culture to change even when the leader of it is gone.

  • hamel

    Has anyone here yet touched upon the movie 2001: A Space Oddyssey and its inclusion (or not) in the prior art debate? Wasn’t there something like an ipad/tablet in that film?

  • Awarren

    Anyone who can compare the copying that Apple did back at the genesis of the Macintosh with what the white-shirt, 12 noon, let’s all rise for lunch clones of Samsung’s so-called research labs has no right to say they ever experienced life on the Korean peninsula. This is taking cultural relativism to the point of absurdism.

  • JW

    **OFF TOPIC** Farhad Manjoo spends an entire article pointing out that… “copying works”. Thanks for pointing that out! Yes I am jealous of the guy, I wish I can be him, make the money he’s making, etc etc. But isn’t he overrated? **OFF TOPIC**

  • JW

    From the article Orankay linked to

    첫째, 소송을 제기한 것은 애플이 맞지만, 이 소송을 글로벌 특허전쟁으로 확전한 것은 삼성전자가 주도했다는 사실이다. 삼성전자는 애플이 오히려 자신의 특허를 침해했다고 미국 법원에 소송을 제기하는 한편, 한국, 일본, 독일로 소송을 확전했다. 그리고 영국과 프랑스와 이탈리아까지 소송을 넓혔다. 애플은 네덜란드와 호주법원을 통해 응전했다. 그러니까 소송을 이렇게 확전하면서까지 자신감을 표현했던 것은 다름 아닌 삼성전자였다는 사실이다.

    Ahhhhhhh, this I did not know. All this time I thought it was Steve Jobs who started the fight.

  • JW

    Correction — Apple did start the fight, but Samsung expanded it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com setnaffa

    @31, Awarren,

    Plagiarism is the same wherever it happens because underneath their cultural baggage app people are the same. We’re all Mark I, Mod 1 Homo Sapiens. We’re all pretty much ready to do things others don’t approve.

    Some cultures frown on theft. Others reward it. Some are picky about whose theft is okay and whose is wrong. But to just look at the “groupthink” of certain Samsung employees and not see it mirrored among Apple fanatics is a bit telling, don’t you think?

  • Awarren

    Setnaffa,

    Sorry – your statement above is the very definition of cultural relativism.

  • cm

    JW, what are the chances of Lee Gun Hee underestimating Apple? I can see him now, thundering these words:

    Apple? What patent do they got, other than some stupid design patents that will never stand up in court!
    We got all these patents in the 3G and 4G technology we built up over the years, let’s show them what we have. This is war! Counterattack!

  • JW

    I have no idea, but all I know is worst comes to worst, they can just pay licensing fees or design around the patents and still do brisk business. They thought the gamble was worth the risk, and they are probably right.

  • Creo69

    CM,

    Chances are slim. I just saw on the news that the head of Samsung’s processor division has now increased his distance from this battle and said the relationship between Apple and his division will continue on cooperatively.

  • Awarren

    Most any advancement in civilization, cultural and technology is a result of a blending or clash, not always on equal footings, between different peoples once separated by geographical distances. This does not describe the traditional Korean Chaebol workplace- whether inside or outside Korea. Anyone who has had sustained contact with a Korean Chaebol, either working for the company or supplying it some service or product, knows what I am saying.

    This is not a question of looking down on Koreans or being insensitive. There is nothing in Korea that you can’t find in any country in the world – this is to be expected. But there is no way in hell, zero chance, that Korean companies can approach what other parts of the world have achieved in areas such as software and design. And yes, Koreans do, in order to make up where they are deficient, copy and “benchmark” to an extreme that people like Hamel for some reason can’t seem to comprehend.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com setnaffa

    Dogs don’t have 5 legs just because you call the tail a leg… You are the one assigning relative values to crimes based on culture.

    Apple plagiarized the work of others. So did Samsung. Both were wrong. Both made Billions. Both have fanboi mobs defending them. Neither will be brought to book. And only the corperate executives and their lawyers will get rich off this free advertising.

    I’m sorry, were you trying to say Apple’s theft was “okay” because they’re Americans? Or because fewer of them wore suits to lunch? Or some misplaced notion that the “1984″ Superbowl commercial represents Apple in the 21st Century? Or because Steve Jobs is/was your “Dear Leader”?

    Stealing is stealing. And it’s wrong. And there is nothing relative about that (unless you have a relative in prison). Stealing $5,000,000,000 from a corporation is not more serious than stealing $1 from . It’s the same.

    And all of us are guilty of it. Come on now, ‘fess up…

    Remember that waiter or waitress you short-changed on the tip? The extra change you got at the store and didn’t return? That money you found on the sidewalk that wasn’t yours but you pocketed before anyone else?

    Even the folks at Apple.

    So take the beam out of your eye before you try to remove the dust speck from Samsung…

    And maybe try to learn the definition of terms before you use them as ad hominem arguments…

  • JW

    Uh oh, here we go with the soapbox diarrhea…run for the hills ya’ll

  • http://www.biblegateway.com setnaffa

    And since your further comment show you’re of the opinion that Koreans are some sort of Untermenschen, I regret responding to you.

    May you receive exactly what you have earned.

  • Awarren

    Sorry, as some might point out, it is true that there is a strong clash of cultures in Chaebol subsidiaries overseas, but sorry to say this, in order for the clash to be productive, it is necessary for the controlling power to be more technically advanced.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com setnaffa

    @42, JW, are you sure that blogs are anything but soapboxes?

    And it’s “y’all” unless you’re addressing more than 5 in which case it’s “all y’all”…

  • JW

    You failed to note the significance of “diarrhea” !

  • cm

    There’s seem to be quite the confusion how much is Samsung theft and how much is Google Android theft. Google is trying to distance itself from this saying that their operating system had nothing to do with all this. For sure Samsung took some of the designs from the iPhone, but that doesn’t take Google totally off the hook. For instance multitouch features like pinch to zoom are stock features in Android. And the fact that Steve Jobs had promised war on Android is another factor that needs to be considered, that Apple’s real target is Google.
    There’s got to be a world of hurt right now in the Android world, even though they may deny it.

  • Barreira

    >>Samsung reveals new line of Microsoft Windows 8 platform
    >>phones and tablets – the ATIV S and the ATIV Tab series….
    >>Let’s see if Apple will be successful suing these as well.

    I read somewhere that MS got license(s) from Apple to cover certain aspects of Windows 8.

  • cm

    Yup, I’ve already pointed that out. So even if you buy Microsoft, you’re still helping out Apple with their share of the cut. For a phone manufacturer, you can see why it won’t be as profitable as going strictly with Android. That’s why Apple cannot lose out in anyway.

  • Barreira

    >>But let’s face it, Apple has done nothing pioneering any real
    >>technology of their own. It was companies like Samsung, Motorola,
    >>LG, Sony-Ericson, etc were the ones setting industry standards in
    >>the mobile industry that allowed Apple to come up with a phone.

    The concept behind FRAND patents is this: A group of companies agree to set the specs for an industry wide standard (e.g., a common standard for USB, or HDMI). Companies jockey to get “their” technology incorporated into the standard. The particular techs or specs selected are not necessarily the “best” ones from a technical perspective.

    Companies do this, because greater interoperability increases demand for the component technologies and finished products, and they too benefit from expanded access – and companies will even give up some of the monopoly power granted by patents to do this.

    Part of the trade off is that if your patented component technology is incorporated into the common standard, you have to provide access to the technology on fair and non discriminatory terms to everybody….

    As you can imagine, much of the value in a FRAND patent comes from the fact that is part of a the industry standard….

  • Barreira

    >>For a phone manufacturer, you can see why it won’t be as profitable
    >> as going strictly with Android. That’s why Apple cannot lose out in
    >> anyway.

    Looking closely at the patents that were found to be infringed, I see nothing that is absolutely critical to make Android UA viable.

    Replacing the infringing UI components and designs will result in devices that look and work differently from Apple’s, but Android will live on and continue to compete against Apple – I don’t think anyone thinks Google is gonna keel over and play dead.

    Likewise, Samsung will move on, and hopefully put some money behind creating some original designs and marketing it. (Imagine what Samsung phones would look like today if they had invested $1 Billion in product design and on UI …. ).

    And Apple should remember that Samsung (and Korean companies generally) have real competitive advantage in crazy-fast product development (palli palli).

    …. So the game is not over…. It’s just the beginning, and consumers will benefit in the end.

  • cm

    “you have to provide access to the technology on fair and non discriminatory terms to everybody….”

    That’s right. In this court case, the Apple jury decided that the fair and non discriminatory terms for Apple’s use of Samsung patent was exactly zero dollars. So I’m confused where does FRAND patents help any company, and whatever the benefits are, are they worth the billions that they’ve poured into research and development?

  • iMe

    Hey Creo,
    why do you keep saying Apple is the most valuable company in the world? What are you basing that on? As a longterm shareholder of both Samsung and Apple I can tell you that neither brings much “value” to the world other than plastic gadgets and nice returns to their investors. The world will go on about its business without a hitch even if both companies go belly up tomorrow. And you do understand that stock prices go up and down, right? Most valuable my ass. Only to a bunch of 30-year-old virgins.

  • cm

    Like Samsung, it looks like Google is having the same problem with using their Motorola FRAND patents (which was a $12.5 billion purchase for them) to counter attack Apple with.

    http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/google-loses-leverage-as-motorola.html

    It’s absolutely funny that here’s a design company, a patent troll, world’s most valuable company, is free loading off of all the heavy weights in the mobile industry. And they’re winning big.

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

    Apple wants to be what Microsoft was in the 90′s. Unfortunately, they may get their wish, to the detriment to the consumer.

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

    cm,

    If Google is taken to court, and if it’s a jury trial, I have a feeling that the jury will look upon Google more favorably than Samsung. Google, like Apple, is a darling of Silicon Valley.

  • cm

    Well look at it this way WK, maybe those jurors are inside traders in disguise? I think they bought all those Apple stocks, knew what their verdicts were going to be even before the trial, then they made out like bandits after the trial was over. LOL….

    Perfect way to make big bucks, so why not?

  • Creo69

    ” As a longterm shareholder of both Samsung and Apple I can tell you that neither brings much “value” to the world other than plastic gadgets and nice returns to their investors. ”

    Both of these companies provide provide a tremendous number of jobs throughout the world and create products that add utility and enjoyment to the lives of countless consumers. I would call that value.

  • iMe

    LoL
    Riiiiight, Creo69.

    Oh, look! By your stupid definition, Walmart should be more “valuable” than Apple! And Mickey D’s!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers

    Moron.

  • http://geoju.kr fanwarrior

    #27 It’s clear the juror admits to skipping something. Whether it’s the question of prior art completely or on a specific one, but they still admit to not doing a proper job. Furthermore it seems as if the jury foreman had an agenda and guided the jury in a very specific direction (one that may benefit him down the road). The lead juror, who is a patent holder, “clarified” prior art for them. In a way that completely contradicted what they expected. They expected there was prior art, and in fact some of the evidence on some of the patents seems to be very clearly prior art (some are borderline) and yet all but one were upheld. It’s very fishy.

    They averaged an extremely short amount of time per question, something like less than 2 minutes on over 700 questions. It is very clear the jury didn’t do a proper thorough job in reviewing this and that’s why it’s going to end up getting overturned or nullified.

  • DLBarch

    The best 22,000 won I’ve ever spent:

    http://book.naver.com/bookdb/book_detail.nhn?bid=6227737

    Ciao, comrades,
    DLB

  • cm

    Gizmodo takes the jury decision, their interviews, and absolutely rips them to pieces, saying Samsung will have a good chance overturning the decision. According to here, jury’s math was even wrong and they did a very sloppy job following the judge’s instructions.

    http://gizmodo.com/5938219/why-the-apple-v-samsung-ruling-may-not-hold-up

    I don’t think Samsung’s guilt should be overturned. But if there’s any justice, I think they should get a chance to reduce the amount of fine considerably. The damage award given to Apple was simply absurd and obscene. A lot of those Samsung phones shouldn’t have even been included in the list of copy right violations.

  • Creo69

    “LoL
    Riiiiight, Creo69.

    Oh, look! By your stupid definition, Walmart should be more “valuable” than Apple! And Mickey D’s!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers

    Moron.”

    Actually, I am an atheist ;) Maybe you have me confused with that wanna be president guy Mitt(en).

  • DLBarch

    CM@62′s link is a good one, and one that MHers at all interested in last week’s Apple v. Samsung decision should read.

    There is PLENTY of room for thoughtful argument over the jury’s decision in that case. So far, though, very little of it has been made either here or, worse, in the largely hysterical Korean media.

    CM provides an excellent link.

    DLB

  • cm

    Groklaw’s observations (while the trial was still going on) seems to be the only one who has a problem with and questioning the fairness of this trial, denying Samsung a right to present evidence and being denied the right to self defense. Even criticizes Fosspatents, for spinning a story (as he says). I would really like to know what evidence(s) Samsung were disallowed to present in court.

    These points now leads me to the question, was this trial really fair?

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120822133019225

  • DLBarch

    I’ve been out of the MH loop since Friday, so my apologies if someone has already linked to this, but for you gluttons for punishment who just can’t get enough of the Apple-Samsung lawsuit (such as yours truly), here is a link to the actual jury verdict form:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/103860673/12-08-24-Apple-Samsung-Amended-Jury-Verdict

    If nothing else, the form’s layout puts to rest the notion that no jury could have reasonably worked its way through the verdict in three days. That’s a glib journalistic assessment that’s not born out by the surprisingly streamlined form itself.

    And for those budding lawyers out there, the standard for throwing out a jury verdict is that “no reasonable jury” could have come to the conclusions that it did. That’s a very high bar…and it’s not cleared just because a jury took three days rather than two or three weeks to reach the conclusions that it did.

    The three-day argument is a red-herring. The real potential problems lie elsewhere.

    DLB

  • cm

    I’m very interested in your other potential problem that lies elsewhere.

    This case is just fascinating, I’ve been reading about this all week.

  • cm

    If this is true, then indeed this could be a mistrial.

    The foreman of the jury may own an patent used by Apple – conflict of interest.

    http://www.androidpit.com/what-juror-in-apple-samsung-suit-may-have-owned-patent-used-by-apple

  • Creo69

    Cm…

    I find this part of your article interesting…

    “Furthermore, the fact that a patent-owner was treated as a patent-expert is patently absurd. We need expert judges to handle these court cases, not someone like Hogan who could have swayed the opinion of the eight other jury members simply because of the fact that he owned a patent. Once that was established, Hogan could have convinced the jury of anything. ”

    To me this means nothing. On a jury you are always going to have people who “sway” and “convince” other jurors. These are just people with a stronger personality or the ability to convince others they are more knowledgeable of a subject based on their life experience. Every jury ever assembled has had this issue so I don’t see it as being a big deal. The part about his patented product potentially being used in an Apple product may be a problem…but sounds like a lot of “what if” at this stage.

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

    we finally starting to see people question the jury and its ridiculous reward to apple. they may rue the day they decided to frak w koreans.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-oe-love-apple-patent-damages-20120830,0,3981673.story

  • Creo69

    “we finally starting to see people question the jury and its ridiculous reward to apple. they may rue the day they decided to frak w koreans.”

    Your article discusses the amount of compensation to Apple. If it is too much the judge will adjust it I am sure, not big deal and not going to stop any American company from going after companies that try to steal their hard work and the financial rewards that come from that hard work.

  • cm

    Thinking about this, I’m not going to suggest jurors are not smart enough to decide the patent cases, but to eliminate any kind of questions of a fair trial, I think I would feel more comfortable to have judges who are familiar with patent laws and experienced in patent cases to decide the outcome. I don’t understand why so many factors were allowed that would be used later to question the validity and the fairness of the trial. Factors like, holding a patent trial in the Silicon Valley, home of Apple, picking jurors from just miles from Apple headquarters, having a juror who may own a patent used by Apple – not only that, a foreman who played an instrumental role in persuading the jury. None of these may have played a role in the outcome, but still it all looks bad. Why give people the reasons for doubts about the fairness of the trial?

    They should have had the trial in New York or Chicago, anywhere except city of Apple headquarter, and the case should have been tried by an experienced trial judge.

  • cm

    I don’t agree with Pawi’s race card, but I do partially see his point when I read the link to the LA Times article which points to the outrageous amount awarded to Apple, in fact it’s unprecedented amount. The question I have is, if Samsung was an American company, would they have given Apple $1 billion in damages? I don’t know about that. Further question rises, when I watched the foreman of the jury, Velvin Hogan being interviewed on Bloomberg. What he said about the case struck me, when he said (off top of my head), “I wanted to make a point that in this country, we have laws about intellectual property rights, and we enforce those laws”. I got the impression that Hogan was directing this at a South Korean company coming into America and breaking intellectual property rights to American company, and we as Americans, are not going to let this happen.

    Now back to Pawi’s race baiting. I love the American judicial system. That’s because we all can see what went wrong in the system. It’s transparent for all to see and to criticize. Just look at how many people have seen the problems have blogged about it and wrote about it in the media and the discussion forums. Maybe changes can happen even because of all these criticisms. If this was a miscarry of justice then I have faith in the American system that it will be corrected by the appeals courts.

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

    Thank God for free speech! Or maybe thank the Enlightenment . . .

    Anyway, free speech, a free press, and a free internet make possible the analysis we’re seeing emerge about this case.

    As CM notes, the case is fascinating. Concerning the truth of the matters, I’m withholding judgment until I see a lot more evidence and analysis.

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

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

    the man is near 70. he grew up in a different time. i have no doubt he wanted to teach the ‘gooks’ a lesson. apple may rue the day they fraked w koreans.

  • Creo69

    “What he said about the case struck me, when he said (off top of my head), “I wanted to make a point that in this country, we have laws about intellectual property rights, and we enforce those laws”. I got the impression that Hogan was directing this at a South Korean company coming into America and breaking intellectual property rights to American company, and we as Americans, are not going to let this happen.”

    And if he was directing it at a South Korean company what is wrong with that? The laws he is speaking of do exist and for a long time some countries in the world completely ignored them and did as they damn well pleased…some are still doing it. Technology is expensive to produce and both a company and country have a right to protect their investments by any and all means possible.

  • YangachiBastardo

    the man is near 70. he grew up in a different time. i have no doubt he wanted to teach the ‘gooks’ a lesson. apple may rue the day they fraked w koreans

    That i don’t kniw, but it is true that many white people can’t stand the thought of other ethnic groups outcompeting them

  • http://www.expathell.com thankswww

    Samsung made a big boo-boo when they made their original Galaxy S look TOO MUCH like an iPhone 3G (and… well….. they copied the box, charger, iPad box, icon design, various advertisements etc etc etc).

    Patents? Jury trials? Well, if Samsung had anyone working in their legal department with half a brain, they would have come to the conclusion that patent violation or not, if they were to be sued in their largest single market, the odds would already be stacked against them. They surely thought of this, right? Surely, someone at Samsung with half a brain sat down and wrote a memo something along the lines of “Hey, this new Galaxy phone might look a little too much like the iPhone, and ripping off the box, charger, advertisements, icons etc might be going just a tad too far…perhaps we should change it a bit more because after all, if they sue us in the USA, they’ll have home-court advantage etc etc….”

    Home-court advantage! Did no one at Samsung even stop to think about the ramifications of basically replicating a product, and then trying to sell it on the original producer’s home turf? Could they really be that clueless? It would be like Cherry Motors (Chinese company that copies Daewoo car designs) trying to sell their copied Korean cars in the Korean market without ever taking into account that they might be sued into oblivion, and not just because what they did was wrong, but because they perpetrated their scheme on the home turf of the company they were directly ripping off.

    It turns out that the only person in Samsung’s legal department with half a brain was former Chief Samsung Lawyer Kim Yong-chul, whom before leaving Samsung and writing a book about how backwards and corrupt they are, was tasked with distributing bribes to officials, prosecutors, tax collectors, journalists and scholars.

    Instead of pursuing “revengee” I think Samsung needs to accept their loss, find some qualified foreigners from the global talent pool, and pay them enough money to tolerate life in Korea long enough to either design the products directly, or pass on their knowledge to some young generation Korean people who haven’t totally been crushed by the education/social system yet.

  • Creo69

    ” That i don’t kniw, but it is true that many white people can’t stand the thought of other ethnic groups outcompeting them”

    Yeh..cause the Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, etc, ETC! are not competitve at all with other races…rightttttt

  • cm

    thankswww and Creo69, I have no doubt in my mind Samsung was guilty. But it still doesn’t clear the questions about the due process of the law and the fairness of the punishment meted out. The juror’s instructions were not to punish the defender, but it looks they went above and beyond punishment. If this was China or even Korea, yeah who cares, we all know the state was trying to protect their home corporation, and this wouldn’t be surprising. But the rule of law is a much more defined concept in the US, and I don’t think the Americans would find this acceptable in a highly published case like this.

  • YangachiBastardo

    Yeh..cause the Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, etc, ETC! are not competitve at all with other races…rightttttt

    Never said or implied that

  • Creo69

    ” thankswww and Creo69, I have no doubt in my mind Samsung was guilty. But it still doesn’t clear the questions about the due process of the law and the fairness of the punishment meted out. The juror’s instructions were not to punish the defender, but it looks they went above and beyond punishment. If this was China or even Korea, yeah who cares, we all know the state was trying to protect their home corporation, and this wouldn’t be surprising. But the rule of law is a much more defined concept in the US, and I don’t think the Americans would find this acceptable in a highly published case like this.”

    The judge will just remind the jury the award was not supposed to be punitive and lower it.

  • Creo69

    ” Never said or implied that…”

    Why even mention “white people” then…why not just say not say it is human nature for humans to hate others out competing them?

  • YangachiBastardo

    Why even mention “white people” then…why not just say not say it is human nature for humans to hate others out competing them?

    I was commenting on pawi remarks but…ok my pedantic teacher :) i agree: homo homini lupus, we humans are a bunch of war mongering bastards who crave power and wealth at everybody else expenses, i won’t deny that

  • DLBarch

    CM,

    I think one of the legitimate problems with the jury verdict is its inconsistencies, and if I were counsel for Samsux (something that, like big tobacco, would NEVER happen) I would focus on this area.

    (In contrast, while discussion of the flaws in the way patents are issued by the USPTO, complaints about the jury system, and the size of awards can be interesting, they are completely irrelevant. Both sides knew the rules of the game when this litigation began, and complaining about them afterwards reminds me of that old joke about the guy who shows up to a baseball game and complains that no one’s playing soccer.)

    Looking over the jury verdict, one glaring inconsistency (and in fairness, one mentioned in one of the articles you linked to) was that the jury awarded damages for inducement of infringement without finding that the Samsung product actually infringed any Apply patent.

    That verdict is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile. You CANNOT have inducement to infringe without ALSO finding actual infringement. This is, as they say, black letter law.

    Two other quick observations. First, Judge Koh (or, alternatively, the Court of Appeals) cannot toss out the entire award based on a few inconsistencies in the jury verdict. The Court is empowered, however, to toss those portions of the verdict that cannot be sustained on the merits.

    Second, someone raised the issue of whether the Samsux defense should or could have made an issue of the economic contributions that Samsux makes to the local economy. Let me nip that in the bud. That claim may or may not be true, but no federal or state court anywhere in America would allow such evidence to be introduced to a jury for the simple reason that it is completely irrelevant to the issue of patent infringement.

    Put another way, patents are a form of property right. And no one has a right to someone else’s property just because they also employ a few workers at the local hardware store.

    Anyway, CM, I’m glad you’ve stepped up to look into this litigation. I have no problem agreeing to disagree over these issues. What always surprises me is when commentators, including, alas, the Korean media, are so quick to move on from a technocratic dispute over patent law to a full-throated disparagement of completely unrelated matters.

    And for the record, my contempt for the business practices of Samsux is limited to Samsux. I would never extrapolate Samsux’s disrepute onto the rest of Korea.

    Personally, I’m pulling for LG to take advantage of Samsux’s recent bad press and start marketing itself as “Korea’s respectable alternative.”

    Cheers,
    DLB

  • cm

    If anyone is still interested, Japan court has just ruled Samsung didn’t steal from Apple, which I has surprised me a bit. Aside from few outdated banned models which were later modified, Samsung has beaten Apple’s charges in every country aside from United States.

  • Creo69

    CM,

    As I am sure you know, the ruling in Japan is over ONE patent only. There will be many more rulings in Japan before anyone can say Samsung did not violate any of Apple’s patents. But, Samsung one point…OK if you want to keep score.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/apple-loses-japan-patent-suit-against-samsung-on-syncing-content/2012/08/31/2569b0ca-f34c-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_story.html

  • Q

    In the news article:

    The Tokyo court also ruled out today an injunction request by Apple to bar Samsung from offering 8 models of Galaxy products in Japan, said Kenichi Hasegawa, a Tokyo-based spokesman for Samsung.

    What do you do in Korea, Creo69? Do you work at regular job?

  • Creo69

    Q,

    1 + 1 = 2 (points)

    How many patents were involved in the US case? I would look it up my self but I am giving an adjjuma a brazilian wax at my salon right now and if the wax isn’t justttt right her “landing strip” is going to have some pot holes.

  • YangachiBastardo

    I would look it up my self but I am giving an adjjuma a brazilian wax at my salon right now and if the wax isn’t justttt right her “landing strip” is going to have some pot holes

    Thanks for helping me to stay in shape, i doubt i’ll touch any food for the next 4 days

  • cm

    #87,

    Creo69, I didn’t know it was for only one patent. The brief news I read today didn’t have all the details. I guess there will be more rulings ahead?

  • Creo69

    Sorry CM…I am just too used to dealing with the folks on this blog who like to omitt little facts :-)

  • Creo69

    I just saw on the news that the patents in the Japan case were not included in the US case.

    So, I will revise the score.

    Samsung – 2
    Apple – 1,000,000,000,000

    ㅋㅋㅋ

  • YangachiBastardo

    Creo:

    Checked out the market share of the 2 companies in China (the argest smart/tab market in the world) recently ?

    WK is right about Apple hubris and their slowpace in putting out new products.

    I’m really, really, really curious to see how the iPhone 5 will fare.

    Me personally i want no midget phone thanks.

    Also i won’t pay a premium price for a tab: we generally change ‘em every 6 months, they’re junk who cares

  • Creo69

    Did you ever think that Apple isn’t going to waste their time in a market like China where the govt openly allows Apple fakes to be produced and sold for a hundred bucks or so.

  • Q

    Sharp display has not been able to begin production of iPhone 5 displays because of manufacturing problems (LINK: InformationWeek report). Yasukuni shrine worshipper/Korea bashing Foxconn CEO Mr. Terry Gou‘s alliance to Sharp seems not working.

  • cm

    This is from the Korea Times.

    ““Unlike Korea and the United States, Japan rules case-by-case. Six other pending issues are waiting judgments by the court. But we are confident we have proven Apple’s claims are totally groundless,” said an executive. ”

    So we got five more cases to go before the winner is declared. But this is kind of stupid and waste of time, trying case by case.

  • YangachiBastardo

    Creo: i’d say so considering they still have In China a 15% market share, they spent billions in marketing there and as i said it’s the largest smart&tab market in the world, soon to be the largest consumer market in the world.

    I don’t know exactly how many companies don’t have a China strategy nowadays.

    Now if you tell me that wasting huge money to penetrate an impenetrable market, while in the process giving away your technology for essentially a bunch of beans is not the smartest approach in the medium term…i may even agree

  • Q

    Philips copied design of Samsung TV, but Samsung’s reaction is cool. Samsung would not sue Philips and would make more effort to manufacture better quality product:

    윤부근 삼성전자 CE담당 사장이 “필립스가 삼성 TV의 디자인과 모델명 모두 따라 했다”고 말했다.

    31일(현지시간) 독일 베를린에서 개막된 ‘IFA 2012’ 전시회에 참석해 주요 임원들과 함께 경쟁사들의 부스를 둘러보다, 필립스의 ‘스마트 LED TV 7000시리즈’를 보며 한 말이다. 윤 사장은 제품을 보며 허탈한 웃음을 짓기도 했다.

    윤 사장과 동행했던 김현석 TV사업부장도 “(삼성전자의) 2년전 TV모델의 디자인과 시리즈명까지 따라했다”고 부연했다.

    이날 IFA 2012에 전시된 필립스의 TV는 실제로 삼성 TV의 디자인은 물론, 7000· 8000 등으로 불리는 모델명까지 모두 삼성의 ’판박이‘였다.

    윤 사장은 하지만 이런 경쟁사들의 베끼기 행태에 대해 “같이 가야 하는 것”이라며, 강경 대응할 뜻은 없다고 말했다. 그는 ”우리가 (다른 TV와) 격이 다른 제품을 만들면 된다“며 ”(필립스의 TV를 보며) 빨리 격차를 더 벌려야 겠다는 생각이 들었다“고 강조했다.

    http://news.nate.com/view/20120831n28044?mid=n0600

  • Creo69

    “Creo: i’d say so considering they still have In China a 15% market share, ”

    15%? I stand corrected. Apple is doing much bette than I imagined in China. Hell, Starbucks only has 10% of the coffee market in its own country and Apple has already surpased that level in China. Apple is going to kick ass there.

    I always knew they would.

  • enomoseki

    crApple lost a case against Samsung in Japan.

    Another proof that their ridiculously retarded “rectangle round edges” patent doesn’t hold outside of their silly backyard.