Samsung May Try To Block Next iPhone In Europe Too

phonewebcam writes with a report in The Register about the ongoing spat between Samsung and Apple. From the article: "Samsung could try to get the iPhone 5 delayed or banned in Europe, a source has told South Korea's Maeil Business Newspaper today. The Korean giant is considering a lawsuit against the next version of the Apple smartphone due in October, in the expectation that iPhone 5 will make use of some basic telecoms technology that Samsung has patented. ... It comes a day after The Korea Times quoted an anonymous Samsung exec saying that the company would attempt to do the same thing in Korea."

Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion

[ArhcAngel]

In this case I think

“You don't mess with the 800 pound gorilla!” [wikipedia.org]

is more apropos. Samsung is the GE of S. Korea

Here is a list of industries under Samsung

Electronics
Shipbuilder
Financial
Chemical
Retail
Entertainment
Flash memory
Aviation
Optical storage
Mobile phones
Smartphones
Hard disk drives

Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I can't speak for "people"; but my hope from such mutually destructive activity is that (at the cost of considerable short-term mayhem) it will make the present arrangement untenably expensive even for the incumbent patentholders. Essentially, the present patent system is hopelessly over-determined(in the sense that pretty much any action is covered by numerous broad, sometimes overlapping, patents held by multiple entities, and the cost of securing licenses for them all exceeds the value of almost any action); but survives because it is rather loosely and selectively enforced. Strengthening it will serve to bring its faults into sharper focus.

Historically, you had the patent trolls sucking blood on the sidelines, and the little guys getting squished; but a more or less cold-war environment between the major players. Some sabre rattling and money moving about; but nothing that really upset the status quo. However, if it gets to the point where entire flagship product launches can be, and sometimes are, scotched by patent complaints to any one of an alphabet soup of assorted regulatory bodies, I suspect that the pressure to change the situation will be considerably greater.

As long as the major players can use patents to their advantage, at the (comparatively minor) cost of paying off a troll now and again, the situation will not change. If the pain moves sufficiently far up the food chain that nobody can ship anything, I'm guessing that the congresscritters of the world will be prodded into action...

Re:"It's okay when we do it"

[Andy Dodd]

Not quite as simple as you make it sound.

Apple has been slapping Samsung with weak "look and feel" patents.

Samsung is firing back with a bunch of core hardware patents... The patents they're using are closer in idea to what the patent system was originally designed for, as opposed to Apple patents which are an abuse of the patent system.

There is also the fact that Samsung is using these in a defensive role... Apple are a bunch of douchebags who rather than seek reasonable licensing fees (this happens a LOT and you never hear about it because sane companies ask for reasonable and non-excessive fees), immediately seek injunctions to have devices removed from the market.

Re:The cliche practically coined for this occasion

[Missing.Matter]

Wow... I had no idea Samsung was so big.

Samsung / Apple

• Revenue: US$ 172.5b / US$ 65.23b
• Net Profit: US$ 13.8b / US$ 14.01b
• Total assets: US$ 294.5b / US$ 75.18b
• Total equity: US$ 112.5b / US$ 47.79b
• Employees: 276,000 / 49,400

Re:Isn't this escalation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. The injunction was under the insane and ridiculously vague EU Community Design [osnews.com] system. Specifically, apple drew something vaguely tablet-like on the back of a napkin before the ipad even existed, filed it - which results in automatic approval - then used it to sue Samsung years later, being sure to file in Germany since there's no requirement to inform the other party there.