Apple and Samsung Both Get South Korea Bans 216
New submitter Mackadoodledoo sends this quote from the BBC:
"A South Korean court has ruled that Apple and Samsung both infringed each other's patents on mobile devices. The court imposed a limited ban on national sales of products by both companies covered by the ruling. It ruled that U.S.-based Apple had infringed two patents held by Samsung, while the Korean firm had violated one of Apple's patents. The sales ban will apply to Apple's iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 and its tablets the iPad and iPad 2. Samsung products affected by the ban include its smartphone models Galaxy SI and SII and its Galaxy Tab and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet PCs."
Thats one way.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thats one way.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what the US should do if they had half a brain. Nobody wins with software patents. Not even "Hello world".
Re:Thats one way.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ell I have a patent on zero, void, null, and None. I expect a royalty of 1 per use.
you forgot to claim FILE_NOT_FOUND
Re: (Score:2)
I just did a patent search, and found NOT, AND, OR, NOR, and NAND have not yet been patented... so I'm filing today. Sadly, CadTrak already got XOR, back in the 70s.
Re:Thats one way.. (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry guys. I patented patents and at the same time patented asking for compensation for when whatever patented was used.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a patent on the letter E. Everyone in this thread owes me money.
Not I (Score:5, Funny)
- Gadsby
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thats one way.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyers win. Why would they change that?
Software, or design patents? (Score:2)
I totally agree that software patents should be banned.
But aren't most of the fights around design or hardware patents?
Hardware patents have a real place for existing, but seem to be kind of abused.
Design patents I am not as sure about either way - it seems like they could still be a reasonable thing, it's just not as clear to me they are harmful the same way software patents are. You can always alter a design enough to clear a design patent, some software patents are nearly impossible to work around witho
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me, how do these patents benefit the public again?
Well they do give the legal profession associated with patents a lucrative income. I suppose "pig's at a trough" (apologies to the pig) come to mind, but as for benefiting the the public, err no! :)
Re: (Score:2)
They benefit the public by keeping the lawyers occupied. Unlike many other areas of IP law (such as copyright), most patent law takes place outside the courtroom, and involves large corporations with lots of money.
Re:Thats one way.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll assume you're being facetious, but the general idea is that a company can patent an idea and profit from it on an exclusive basis for a short time. Unfortunately the 'short time' part has been twisted beyond recognition.
That is for copyright [wikipedia.org]. Patents don't last much longer than they used to - in fact, due to killing submarine patents [wikipedia.org] the problem has decreased somewhat.
Re:Thats one way.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Open mouth. Insert foot. I was thinking Copyright, not Patent. ;)
This is why you should never post before having at least one cup of coffee...
Re: (Score:2)
I'll assume you're being facetious, but the general idea is that a company can patent an idea...
NO!
You can not and never could patent "ideas". The only thing you can patent are inventions. Unfortunately people are twisting this with over broad definitions of "invention". Any patent that begins with "A method to solve" is invalid.
and profit from it on an exclusive basis for a short time. Unfortunately the 'short time' part has been twisted beyond recognition.
I actually agree with the original intent as it does give incentive to invent in the form of compensation, but now its just grown to ridiculous lengths for the length of time the patent can generate income and it stifles competition.
Copyright is the IP that has been twisted by unreasonable extensions of duration, not patents. Patents remain fairly limited in duration, even if they have been perverted to cover areas they never should have, such as math, genetics, software and business practices.
Re: (Score:2)
For an industry that continually drives products to obsolescence every 18 months, the terms of patents is waaaaaayyyyyy too long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
don't really make allot of sense
That sentence didn't make a lot of sense. In fact, it's unparsable.
You don't read
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Notice the judge didn't ban the Galaxy S3 - this is a win for Samsung.
Re:Thats one way.. (Score:4, Informative)
He didn't ban the Galaxy S3. Nor the iPhone 4S. Nor the new iPad. Nor the latest Samsung tablets. It's a "win" for Samsung because they'll earn a slightly bigger reward, but that's it.
Re:Thats one way.. (Score:5, Informative)
$35,000 payment to Samsung for infringement on 2 patents
Ban on iPhone 3GS
Ban on iPhone 4
Ban on iPad 1
Ban on iPad 2
Samsung's Penalty
$22,000 payment to Apple for infringement on 1 patent
Ban on Galaxy S2
Ban on "certain other products"
Net Cost
Apple pays Samsung $13,000 (about the cost of an entry-level Hyundai)
Each side loses millions of dollars in sales of its banned devices
Samsung loses additional money because Apple buys components for the banned devices from Samsung [digitaltrends.com]
Each side pays its legal team hundreds of thousands of dollars for the representation.
Corporate legal teams assure CEOs it was worth it because the costs will be much higher if they don't defend their patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Ban on "certain other products"
Apparently, WSJ lists those as Galaxy S, Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Nexus. So each company has 4 devices banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. Do this in *every* jurisdiction!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
fuck courts, free markets ftw!
Re:Thats one way.. (Score:5, Funny)
(Yes that qualifies for +5 Car Analogy)
Re: (Score:2)
I am more surprised that South Korea blocked Samsung (A South Korean company). I find that EU tends to be really good at cracking down on American Companies that have an European competitor (Intel vs AMD). But to block both companies shows a non-bias view of the problem.
Damages (Score:4, Insightful)
That seems pretty damning to me.
Re:Damages (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Not a design patent. The court has specifically stated that design patents do not apply here as they are all of the form follows function kind.
The patent that Samsung infringed on is overscroll bounce effect.
FRAND doesn't mean small (Score:3)
Typical FRAND rates are 2-3.5% of the retail value of the finished product. It's just that hardly anyone ever actually pays that, instead they cross-license other patents.
Apple doesn't want to cross-license, but says the FRAND rates are too high.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why patents don't spawn innovation. They kill it.
Re:Damages (Score:5, Informative)
Samsung bought the suit in this instance in April last year
http://samsungtomorrow.com/1126 [samsungtomorrow.com]
in response to Apple filling suit in the United States
Home field advantage (Score:2)
I find it interesting that Apple was ordered to pay more in damages than Samsung was, even though Apple brought the suit.
Yes, shocking that a Korean court would fine the American company more heavily than the Korean one.
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably their lawyer's costs per hour, the only ones who always win.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory links: Australia [apple.com] pays $150 (13"), $200 (15") or $300 more (15" Retina) than the USA [apple.com] before considering the exchange rate.
Mexican standoff (Score:2)
I bet Chris Penn will shoot first.
The Judge(s) don't want to be LYNCHED (Score:5, Informative)
Considering that Samsung, just ONE CONGLOMERATE, generates 20% of the entire country of Korea's GDP, I hardly think the judge(s) would be capable of being impartial.
Korean's are quite "feisty" (I've got some blood). I've been in numerous protests in Seoul where students would fight the police for days over some perceived fault by the U.S. Demonstrations by striking workers quickly become violent.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Samsung, just ONE CONGLOMERATE, generates 20% of the entire country of Korea's GDP, I hardly think the judge(s) would be capable of being impartial.
Indeed, a conglomerate. So I don't see why the judge would have unreasonable difficulties to be impartial in a case that in practice involves a few non-flagship phone and tablet models...
How's the thermonuclear war goin' for ya, Steve-O? (Score:5, Insightful)
Starting to understand the whole MAD thing yet?
Re:How's the thermonuclear war goin' for ya, Steve (Score:5, Informative)
Enter Apple.
Steve: “Good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”
Also Steve said don't steal our technology, invent your own. Yet Apple doesn't sue over technology but over mere style and perception and obvious design choices. Yet in the biggest hypocrisy ever, Apple won't license FRAND patents that are by definition Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory, and which others have taken a license for. Because Apple is special. Apple being special is not surprising considering that Steve himself was special enough that he should be able to park in handicapped parking spaces when it suits him. Whenever countersued over FRAND patents, Apple complains "but hey, this is an FRAND patent -- standards essential -- no fair!". Then why doesn't Apple buy a license for that patent like everyone else? If anything, the fact that it is standards essential, and FRAND ought to be a powerful reason to ban products from the market -- after all the license is *reasonable* and *fair*. But I guess it's not fair when Apple is the defendant.
In the California case of Apple vs Samsung, perhaps the best outcome would be to simply ban both company's accused products from the market. This would still leave Samsung with phones and tablets that are not infringing and could be sold. It would leave Apple with none. Meanwhile Samsung also can continue selling dishwashers and other appliances, TVs and other consumer electronics, jet aircraft engines, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not true. The mobile industry standard for most frand patents is 2.5%. What Apple claims is that, since it's phone is not the usual $50 phone, and is a $600 one, it should be eligible for a lesser percentage than the industry standard. Samsung, Nokia, Motorola et all disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason Apple hasn't been offered the same rates as others is because most others who license them have actually contributed to the FRAND pool. Apple isn't a technology innovator: they just repackage what other people have already built. Therefore, they haven't contributed jack shit to the patent pool, so they get to pay their full worth.
--Jeremy
Standing on the shoulders of giants (Score:2)
Apple stands on the shoulders of giants, then turns belches loudly into the giants ear.
Patent War (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Patent War (Score:5, Insightful)
Strange game. The only winning move is, not to play.
The only winning move is being a lawyer
Re: (Score:3)
Or in more general terms, an arms dealer.
In a nuclear war, being in the uranium business is quite lucrative.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case I'd rather be in the iodine trade. Everybody will want to buy the stuff - to protect against radiation poisoning. Market will be many orders of magnitude bigger than the U or even Pu market.
Why am I reminded... (Score:3, Insightful)
...of my mother threatening to bash my and my brother's heads together?
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think that with all the early childhood blunt head trauma you'd have a harder time remembering that.
I can only say... (Score:3)
End this before is too late (Score:5, Funny)
equal? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Please. ANYONE can come up with wireless technology. It's easy and simple. But NO ONE would ever dream of rubber band bouncing a list if you scroll too far!
On a serious note, if all it too to be in compliance was to just stop a list when it gets to the end, I don't think my smart phone experience would be all that different. Now if someone came up with a carbon nanotube scrolling that doesn't bounce and is rigid, I think we all are screwed.
Cold War strategy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe this is what was referred to as Mutually Assured Destruction. That doctrine probably prevented nuclear war during the Cold War, but alas... Apple's not as rational as the Russians or Americans, so it lobbed the nuclear bomb of patent litigation anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments understand the consequences of war, just as corporations do. The difference is that corporations don't give a shit about anyone else.
We don't need to wonder if Apple, Samsung, and the rest lover their children too.
M.A.D. welcomes its new cousin... (Score:2)
... M.A.I.P.I., aka Mutually Assured Intellectual Property Infringement.
Interesting Decision (Score:3)
From a financial perspective, the ruling makes sense. Many of the components in Apple's products are made by Samsung, so banning the current generation of popular Apple devices would potentially hurt Samsung more than help it. At least the judge seemed reasonable in its explanation of why Samsung's designs did not copy Apple's designs.
Do we need more evidence? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's supposed to be monopolistic and anti-competitive. That's the whole point.
Ending of Rocky III (Score:2)
u MAD, bro? (Score:2)
Well played in a King Solomon kind of way, South Korea. However I don't think this will actually cause the companies to realize their mistakes that both are harming themselves. Companies are proving that anti-competitive tactics are the most effective way to make money. Get a temporary virtual monopoly on a market, no matter how short, if you can get enough momentum you will have a successful product.
Jury in Apple vs Samsung case needs instruction (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
In the Apple vs Samsung case in California the jury needs instruction from the court. It seems the rectangular jury table with round corners infringes upon Apple's patent and the jury is unable to proceed.
Unfortunately, this can't be resolved, because Samsung and Google have bought the publisher of the books containing the relevant law and are demanding huge license fees to allow them to be used in this case (even though the court has already paid for the books themselves).
Re: (Score:3)
US Patent 812376/2: Method and apparatus for Applying a "plague" to more than one house.
US Patent 212872/1: System for comparing colors of cooking implements.
Simple solution (Score:2)
Kind of reminds me how my parents used to react whenever me and my brother couldn't learn to share something.
Can't Trust The Article (Score:3)
I was going to read the article (I know, GASP!), but then I noticed that it pointed to the BBC. Considering the BBC's reliance on Florian Mueller for its patent coverage, I have to assume that the article is largely make believe. I'll wait until Groklaw posts about it.
Finally! (Score:2)
Tit for tat.
It's like the two kids who are constantly tattling on each other - punish both of them for tattling. I know, not the same exact thing but you get my drift.
Trash Patents (Score:3)
Not really big on the idea of software patents. Even less so on UI widgets, icons etc.
I can't see how these are 'innovation'.
If I was judge in the California Apple v Samsung I'd like to fine them both $5 billion and give the money to NASA.
I think that would promote the progress of science and useful arts.
Re: (Score:2)
That $5 billion would be better spent elsewhere. A large portion of money going to NASA ends up in the hands of Morton Thiokol, Raytheon et al. and from there into various people in Congress.
I'd be like that internet billionaire guy who gives out $3 million prizes to people who come up with new discoveries in physics and math... I forgot his name though
at least this will make LG happy (Score:4, Insightful)
This will certainly be a boost for the LG phones in Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
in the end the bans probably don't matter that much, since they are for older products. I think this is just the courts way of saying: screw you both, we are fed up with your antics.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, the iPhone 4S is the current Apple flagship, and the Galaxy S3 is the current Samsung flagship. The products banned are all at least one generation old.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true for phones, but it also banned Galaxy Tab 10.1, which, as I understand, is still Samsung's flagship for tablets.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
Recent? Kind of. Flagship models? Those would be iPhone 4S and Galaxy S3.
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected.
Re: (Score:2)
How do we KNOW you are standing?
Re: (Score:2)
Recent? Kind of.
Heh, fanboy. Normal people don't need to upgrade their devices every 6 months just because what they have is suddenly so passe...
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary; I rarely upgrade simply for the sake of it. I had my previous phone for 2 or 3 years, with only Android 2.4 I think. I kept it even after I dropped it and the screen cracked. I only got a new phone this year after I lost the previous one.
"Recent" to me in day to day parlance would probably mean "in the last 6 months". Maybe a year at most. In the tech industry things can change quite quickly though, so "recent" tech sounds more like stuff released in say the last 3 months. The iPhone 4 came
Re: (Score:2)
Mine used to be Solid Snake saying "It's your call; you can drop this if you want", with texts getting the Codec alert noise, until I lost my phone. Thanks for reminding me, I'll have to get those set up again!
Once software stops being made for a platform (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm.. if it was that obvious, then the OP wouldn't have got it wrong. I was just helping to reduce ignorance. You on the other hand, are being an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
The latest iPad is the "The New iPad" (aka iPad 3). Which escaped the ban.
The latest iPhone is the iPhone 4S, which also escaped the ban.
Re: (Score:3)
Most likely the products banned were the ones the case was originally brought again...
Their current products may also technically infringe, but by the time a court case is brought and heard they too will be obsolete. The legal process, like many other things, is simply too slow for the modern world.
Re: (Score:2)
They are current generation. Pull your head out of your ass, neckbeard.
Original parent: "- Apple has their current-generation stuff banned." And since those aren't, logically they can't be current-generation stuff ^.^
I was actually going for funny, but perhaps my neckbeard got stuck on the way out.
Re:Hahaha! (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't understand it. The lawyers are indeed really happy. They still got paid.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand it. The lawyers are indeed really happy. They still got paid.
My guesstimate is the lawyers are on retainer and/or are corporate salaried so they would have gotten paid anyway.
Bloomberg Claims Lawyer Boon at $1200 an Hour (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't understand it. The lawyers are indeed really happy. They still got paid.
My guesstimate is the lawyers are on retainer and/or are corporate salaried so they would have gotten paid anyway.
I don't think this is right. According to a recent article at Bloomberg [bloomberg.com] this is actually causing a spike in lawyers and their services as this demand expands. From the article:
Costs are higher in cases before the ITC. The Washington agency has shorter timelines, squabbles over obtaining information from overseas companies, and no limits on how much pretrial evidence can be gathered or witnesses questioned. Forty or more lawyers may be assigned to each side in an ITC case, based on a review of dockets.
U.S. district court hearings can have 20 lawyers on either side. One or two wil take the lead, and the rest will be responsible for specific witnesses, the technology behind a single patent, or the legal arguments backing a key point.
“These big global cases, they become no stone unturned, no grain of sand unturned -- and for every one you turn over, you examine every facet,” Long said. “To do that, you need lots of people. You go down 1,000 rabbit holes, 10,000 rabbit holes, and most of them are empty but there’s one of them that’s not.”
The smartphone makers don’t disclose their total patent litigation costs. At some smaller companies, those expenses are enough to affect earnings. Computer-chip designer Rambus Inc. (RMBS) spent $56 million each in 2008 and 2009 when it was embroiled in trials, and chip packaging company Tessera Inc. (TSRA) has spent as much as $84 million in a year, based on their annual reports.
I believe these lawyers are assigned cases by their firm and the more cases the more lawyers and the more money paid. Of course, as that last paragraph notes, this means less innovation and more lawyers -- something nobody should want except the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting how the lawyer's guild is also the one WRITING most of these stupid laws in the first place.
Ever notice how the first stepping stone to running for office is often getting a law degree?
It's a guild, like it or not, because outsiders (especially voters) don't seem to get to have any real say in how things are done.
Re: (Score:2)
Which, if you're a maniac with an ace of 72 virgins in heaven up your sleeve, means that you still win.
Or if your former CEO left you with a mandate to scorch the earth.
Either way, if in your mind you have nothing to actually lose, then launching nukes to get the satisfaction of destroying the enemy IS a way to win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except that didn't happen. Neither Apple nor Samsung had their current flagship phone or tablet (on Apple's side, the iPhone 4S and New iPad -- often referred to as the iPad3 though that's not its actual product name) banned.