In a stellar piece of investigative reporting, the Korea Herald today ran the headline: “U.S. Accused of Apple Protectionism.”
The story deftly rehashes the rehashed, revisits the well-visited and, about halfway down, relieves reader suspense by identifying the accuser of U.S. wrong-doing as “a local industry insider.”
And what did the anonymous and no doubt well-placed “local industry insider” have to say in his or her one and only quote that this fine piece of journalism was meticulously constructed around?
“It just seems like it will be impossible for Samsung to win a case on Apple’s home turf. I would say they are way too protective of its top tech firm for sure.”
That’s solid and I’m sold.
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }
This is true. Crappe managed to win every major lawsuits against samsung in USA only. But they lost every single lawsuits against Samsung in other countries. British court recently gave verdict to Samsung and told Crapple to run an apology advertisements for Sam.
US court is just simply too biased for their precious Crapple.
It’s not just the ITC. Samsux is now under investigation by the DoJ’s Antitrust Division:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/samsung-like-google-now-under-doj-scrutiny-over-standards-based-patents/
As for Cho Ji-hyun’s unattributed claim that “(unnamed) U.S. trade law experts say a victory for Samsung on Apple’s home turf is impossible,” the lazy Miss Cho needs to do her homework:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/02/samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-u-s-court-lifts-sales-ban-granted-prior-to-apple-vs-samsung-patent-trial/
Recall: The U.S. Court of Appeals expressly handed Samsux a victory by ordering the district court to lift its ban on sales of Samsux tabs that did not violate Apple’s patents.
Finally, please do keep in mind that there are a number of patents at issue in these international jurisdictions. The patents at issue in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and the ITC are not the same.
DLB
Oh, and speaking of the “impossibility” of Samsux getting a fair hearing in the U.S. (a blatantly anti-American sentiment if ever there was one — particularly given how open the U.S. market is to Samsux products), let’s not forget the USPTO’s decision this week to tentatively invalidate one of the very same patents that Apple successfully asserted against Samsung (i.e., Claim 19) in Apple’s lawsuit last summer:
http://gizmodo.com/5954072/the-us-patent-office-has-invalidated-apples-bounce-scroll-patent
Honestly, is the lazy Miss Cho slumming at the Korea Herald during her junior year abroad, because she is one TERRIBLE reporter!
DLB
Well it is a bit curious that the US is the only jurisdiction that has ruled in favor of Apple in all these cases so far. Japan, Germany, UK, Netherlands, Australia have all ruled in favor of Samsung. I wouldn’t call it protectionism though, just a misguided decision by an overzelous jury foreman, which should be corrected on appeal by rational adults. And btw, it turns out that juror lied in order to get on the case, a fact that already has Samsung lawyers salivating. After years of appeals, Apple would be lucky to see even a penny of the billion dollar award.
TF,
I would caution against reading too much into these different outcomes. Recall that each of these courts and tribunals is dealing with different patents, different claims, and different jurisdictions — all of which have to be evaluated on their own merits.
Recall also that in just the U.S. alone, we are dealing with the federal district court and the jury verdict of last summer, the federal Court of Appeals, the ITC, the DoJ, and the USPTO — each of which is looking at different aspects of different patents and the validity of each.
This is enormously complicated stuff, and for any “journalist” to reduce it to a simpleminded “Apple vs. Samsux in the U.S.” meme is pure laziness.
The lack of journalistic sophistication just boggles the mind.
DLB
And since I had some free time over lunch (here in rainy California) just how diverse the most recent development in the Apple-Samsux divorce have been:
In the UK, the issue was tablet design. The UK court found no infringement (which is actually what allegedly biased jury found in the U.S. federal court case last summer.
In Tokyo, the issue was Apple’s patent related to synchronizing music and video.
In Germany, the issue was touch-screen functions, including Apple’s overscroll/bounceback patent.
In the Netherlands, the issue was Apple’s multi-touch patent.
In the ITC, the issues were design, touch-screen, and headphone connections.
In the USPTO, the issue was Apple’s bounceback and rubberbanding patents.
And in Seoul, recall that the Seoul district court actually handed down a split decision against BOTH Samsux and Apple.
If the Korea Herald is going to tackle this subject, then they need to at least assign a journalist who can distinguish between these claims without making a complete fool of herself.
DLB
“This is enormously complicated stuff, and for any “journalist” to reduce it to a simpleminded “Apple vs. Samsux in the U.S.” meme is pure laziness.”
I think the papers in question have a different “prime directive” than you imagine here.
Who is “they,” is that Judge Koh, the jury, or the jury formen?
# 4,
Japan ruled in only one of numerous other patent cases, Japan rules on those individually which is what the first S. Korea media reports failed to share with Koreans, you should wait to see how Japan rules in the other cases before you say Japan ruled in favor of Samsux. Are you simply parroting the first S. Korean media reports or did you know there were other cases in Japan yet to be determined?
#6,
Thank you for that list. I actually have been following the various litigation around the world. All those cases and you would think that Apple would have won on a few of those outside the US at least. But nope, it’s pretty much been a clean sweep. Did Apple only bring forth its strongest case in the US? It appears that way. The other difference is that the US is the only major jurisdiction to decide patent cases by jury trial. Fortunately for Apple. All other verdicts have been by the courts or a panel of experts.
As for Apple’s “bouce-back” patent getting invalidated by the USPTO, it never should have been granted in the first place. Ditto for their “multi-touch” patent, their “slide to unlock” patent, and the ever popular “colorful grid of icons” patent (yes these are actual Apple patents). None of them are original nor particularly innovative. The USPTO has basically been a rubber stamp agency but maybe they’re finally coming to their senses.
got anything to say about the foreman, dlb? aint raining anymore though its grey. btw for vitnamese try cao nguyen on king near tully. hq vietnamese food at good prices. deep fried eggrolls are outstanding!
THIS JUST IN: DUTCH COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF SAMSUNG!
read this opinion piece:
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/10/23/apple-vs-samsung-samsung-put-the-boot-in-hard/
i done told yall; apple may rue the day it decided to fuck w koreans!
#12,
I’m sure the world will rue the day you leave your kpop palace basement, pawi, but that’s no reason not to get out a bit.
I’ve no doubt Apple underestimated Samsung in some ways, but don’t sell the stock yet.
Meanwhile, here on the sunny side of the Caldecott it’s a balmy day with nary a cloud in the sky.
Anyhoo, complaining about the journalistic integrity of the Korea Herald is a fool’s lament.
Funny how Samsung wins in court elsewhere in world, while in US, they choose over Crapple.
Japan recently rejected 2 of Samsux infringement claims(request for injuction to stop iPhone sales) against Apple
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/economy/business/AJ201210200043
and the Dutch ruling was a non-win for Samsux since it was on the defense.
It isn’t an issue of Samsung v. Apple… It is an issue of backward, unprogressive, innovation-unfriendly copywriter laws in the US.
No truer or more lamentable words may ever have been written. I rue the day I fucked a Korean and will every morning for the next 18 years.
HT to me when Neff or Bobby McGee get around to posting this one:
Racist New Yorkers protest H-Mart opening:
http://gothamist.com/2012/10/25/protesters_call_flushing_supermarke.php
dogbertt, your tagline of “racist New Yorkers” is misleading.
Are you claiming that the protesters are racist because they are protesting what they claim to be discriminatory hiring policies?
Here are excerpts:
Now that is a well-sourced piece.
joe, im glad u finally got sum. u should thnk god korea helped u!
ps that white dont want no wrk at hmart. watch what happens when hmart offers him a job as stock boy.
Pawi is right — white men will not work for the (legal) wages H-Mart will offer. That’s discrimination all right, but not by H-Mart.
It is not misleading at all to call these protestors racists. Note not one of them has applied for a job there and been rejected.
If you live in the U.S., and are familiar with Korean businesses, it is clear that they hire: (a) Korean speakers, because they need to have employees who can converse with monolingual customers; and (b) Latinos, because they will work for little pay.
That said, in my town, there is one white employee at the Korean-owned dry cleaners I frequent, so there are certainly exceptions here and there.
Thats a very precise period, are you forecasting your precise time of death, or are you in maximum security jail for your crime?
Even though people like Park Chung Hee and subsequent Korean government leaders have sheltered and protected chaebols like Samsung – that’s completely different… And the fact the Samsung won in Korea and Apple was found guilty of infringement is completely besides the point… The point is “whah, whah, boo, hoo! – it’s not fair that we can’t copy and get away with it!”
Last year, a friend of mine interviewed for a job at Samsung HQ in Gangnam and they made him write two pages arguing that they didn’t copy the iPhone as an assignment – he told me that a little piece of him died that day when he turned it in, but his argument was quite persuasive.
The bits are oh-so-much more entertaining when you don’t need the Cliff’s Notes.
DLBarch, the Korean media isn’t the only ones who are charging local home court bias. It’s not just a Korea thing. Read Groklaw.net. They’re also starting to wonder the same thing. I don’t think it’s just anti-Americanism.
And if you look around, you’re going to read things like this outside of the United States.
http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202570119537&Some_See_Bias_in_AppleSamsung_Verdict&slreturn=20120926101829
All in all, I think it’s just too early to charge American home bias. The earlier results have overwhelmingly favored Apple, but that’s just the beginning war. There’s a long way to go before the final results are in.
Ah, bit if you’d read the CliffsNotes on korean women maybe you wouldn’t be rueing it for 18 years
I suspect that Anonymous Joe refers to a child born of that union, a child whom he will have to support for the next 18 years.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
A good hypothesis, should have read the cliff notes on how to put on a condom….
I shoulda read’em twice.
How do you do the blonky smiley, Joe?
Reminds me of a long-term relationship I was in back in the late 70s, early 80s. She was attempting to use a diaphragm and took an excessive amount of time in the bathroom trying to fit the thing in place.
Finally giving up, she returned from there, tearful and apologetic, admitting, “I can’t get it in.”
I consoled her and promised, “I’ll take care of it.” I went into the bathroom and stayed for five minutes, then returned, tearful and apologetic, admitting, “I can’t get it in either.”
She actually guffawed at that . . . and things got a lot better afterwards . . .
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
colon+ROLL+colon
You must log in to post a comment.