Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Plans To Block the iPhone 5 In Korea
c0lo writes "In apparent retaliation to its U.S. rival's continual patent challenges in global markets, Samsung Electronics is seeking a complete ban on the sales of the upcoming Apple iPhone 5 in Korea. This is one of Samsung's several recently-opened fronts in the patent world wars: Apple was sued in France on 3 technical patents and counter-sued in Australia over 7 technical patents (after an Apple 'offensive' temporarily blocked Galaxy Tab for the Australian market)."
Where's the popcorn when I need it?! Ah! Here it is! Now the show may begin!
Not.
Soon all cell phones will be banned because of their dangerous IP infringement, and the landline will return as the obviously superior technology
Looks like apple woke a sleeping giant that actually has real patents.
You know, I remember as a kid learning about the great inventions and inventors and thinking how cool it would be to come up with the next great idea. Now when I think about coming up with the next great idea, all I can picture is how I would even *begin* to deal with all the patent lawsuits that would inevitably follow.
Maybe there is someone out there who has the grain of insight in his mind that could lead to a radical advance in propulsion that could make a manned mission to Mars practical. But if the first thing that some venture capitalist tells him is "We'd love to fund this, but there is no way we can afford to defend you in the onslaught of patent lawsuits" how is it ever going to materialize? Patent trolls and patent collectors make it harder and harder for anything that isn't mainstream and almost immediately marketable from ever making it past the concept phase.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
does these patent wars seem like the board game Risk to anyone else?
.... for hopefully this will bring to light how much technology is limited due to all this patent infringement crap.
That's what you get for using the courts to block your competitors.
Google's acquisition of Motorola will be the final nail Steve Jobs' coffin.
I bought a Samsung Galaxy S II GT-I9100. It is superior to the iPhone in any way I could measure. Android Gingerbread is smooth and seamless and has fixed the "chunkyness" of Froyo.
I can see why Apple has gone to the darkside of law suits.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
The world economy is increasingly based on intellectual property, which is not governed by the physical laws of production capacity and unit cost. Instead intellectual property is government by subjective judgements about who deserves how much of the credit. These judgements are formalized in patent and copyright law, but they still come down to interpretation and value judgement. There is no firm ground to stand on.
Koreans are known to claim [fill in this blank] originates from Korea. http://koreasparkling.wordpress.com/
http://koreasparkling.wordpress.com/2007/05/16/who-invented-chinese-characters/
Seriously, people are quick to jump on companies that are doing the suing, but the problem at heart is that there needs to be some serious patent reform. Until then, companies will sue for whatever ridiculous reason there might be if it leads to happier shareholders.
The only people to suffer are the consumers right...
Who cares about those.
..Apple is going to great lengths, and why Samsung should bite back harder:
http://betanews.com/2011/09/18/iphone-5-has-a-big-problem
Spoiler: might be to draw attention from it's late iPhone5 release cycle.
"I never liked the ocean, it ought to be paved over."
...for all the lawyers involved.
I'm rather curious as to when sci-fi will become fulfilled prophecy as these companies go to war with real weapons.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Hopefully, with the current thermonuclear melt down going on between the "big boys" over all those bogus patents, the people holding those patents will come to realize that bogus patents cause more trouble than they are worth (literally). Maybe then the big boys will get on the bandwagon to eliminate bogus patents from the system.
By "bogus" I mean patents that are trying to claim that "one click checkout" is a novel, cutting edge technology (or using gestures to unlock a smart phone, or the colors used for an icon, or any of that trivial nonsense that have achieved the status of an 'novel invention' with the patent office).
Of course, in the meantime, the lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank, which is always the problem because now we want to change a legal concept which serves the needs of the owners of the legal system.
In Korea, only old people use the iPhone 5.
Are you serious? The guy is complaining about a notebook that looks *completely different than Macbooks".
They he's complaining the Windows 7 login screen has a square that he imagines to look like an apple logo. Only no one can see it but him.
But the kicker is the entire webpage looks like it was put together by a bunch of 16 year old, with all the journalistic and critical thinking skills of someone half their age.
If that's what you really think, you're just a confused kid who somehow views apple as "the good guys" and thinks of anyone else as "the bad guys".
I apologies for what I'm about to say if I'm wrong, but you seem pathetic and sad attributing these weird emotions to a huge multi-national corporation and living vicariously through the successes and failures of Apple.
You're a prime candidate for turning off the computer and getting some fresh air outside; you've completely lost your mind.
You are 100% correct, except that you are describing presisely what capitalism is NOT. The first and foremost prerequisite of capitalism is voluntary association. Capitalism is founded on the lack of coercion (i.e. government interference) in the market, not the presence of it.
Remember that we are talking about the most expensive, most powerful government in world history. Again, capitalism is defined by the lack of government, not the presence of it. Theoretically, the purest form of capitalism is anarchy (the complete lack of government and its only tool, the special right to employ coercion as a business model).
Could it be that the patent system is biting the technology companies, that they themselves brought it into existence and nourished it, in the ass? And, if yes, would they ever realize it?
I work for a fairly large chemical company and we stopped filing for patents. Although the purpose of a patent is to protect the inventor, it inevitably makes the idea accessible by the competition. Since all chemical factories are private grounds protected by fences and guards, we cannot check whether our competitors have actually stolen our patented inventions (and, of course, nor can they). Besides, we have better stuff to do than going through all production facilities in China to check every damn apparatus to see whether we should file a lawsuit or not.
So there you have it. No patents, no trouble. Just a big ol' fence and LOTS of security (both physical and IT). We also stopped publishing our research findings to conferences and journals and we demand a confidentiality agreement from every university that sends students to work for us.
Not at all. It's the legal profession, driven by the deluge of annual legal graduates in the USA that's turning this into the mess. The USPO merely rubber stamps forms, and state that any issues have to be dealt with in the court system. Legal people want lots or very highly paid work, so they engineer all these conflicts to server their own needs, not that of the corporation they're supposedly work for.
Mom: what are you going to study at college?
Son: Law
Mom: Why!?
Son: I want to work in IT
And make Apple start using more U.S. employees to manufacture their products.
To get the U.S. economy back on track, it's going to be necessary to put the brakes on the importation of goods manufactured by companies taking wholly unmoderated advantage of wage disparities between countries to turn profits.
Just as legislation of minimum gasoline efficiency of vehicles sold in the U.S. is needed, so too do we need to legislate minimum percentage of wages paid to domestic manufacturing employees to permit sale of certain goods in the U.S.
FTFA:
``For as long as Apple does not drop mobile telecommunications functions, it would be impossible for it to sell its i-branded products without using our patents. We will stick to a strong stance against Apple during the lingering legal fights.’’
Samsung owns mobile telecommunications? So every cellphone infringes? Wow, how'd they get that patent?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Let's say if iPhone 5 sales get blocked and people buy them illegaly. Can they still use them?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Very fair. The rotten Apple attacks other companies and their customers. Now, it will have to deal with counter attacks from all sides.
Violence and aggression will create more aggression. The one who starts it is not going to be the final winner. This is why some countries wait in war to be attacked instead of attacking first. Apple will be seen as guilty for starting this fight.
...only old people use iPhone.
Yes, but Apple and Samsung are suing eachother over "visible" technologies. Like user-interfaces, and other things a judge can grasp.
We should be encouraging more behavior like this.
/. now believe that the patent system is actually functioning well and serving the public in the way it was supposed to? Anyone who keeps remotely abreast with tech and science trends knows that the current patent system (and for matter, intellectual property law in general) is massively broken.
How many who are reading
Reform will only come when the waves get big enough that the public starts paying attention. That's not going to happen with the equivalent of small scale knife fights that get settled behind closed doors.
To make real reform happen, it needs to get to a point when high profile players with very deep pockets get to a point where neither will back down. Even better is if all parties involved start generating some real fear, uncertainly and doubt. Get the public to pay attention. Really make it seem like the nuclear options are on the table. Aka, "If we lose, we're going to have to disable X features on your device..."
Then we'll see some action. Then we might some serious attempts at reform.
Apple taking the hard line on this on so many fronts seems so nonsensical that I half believe that they're doing this on purpose. If you're Apple, I think you see the writing on the wall. Doing what Apple does best (other than making money) on the production side - putting together other people's ideas into a smart, well-designed, consumer-friendly package - is going to get harder and harder with these shackles and hillbilly armor that everyone's weighing themselves down with. If you think about it, Apple doesn't usually invent most of the tech in their products.
Really, is this absurdity that far-fetched? The level of Apple's aggression on so many fronts is mind-boggling.
I think Google's got a Plan, too. We already know that Google types think of massive patent bidding wars - they were submitting joke bids during the Nortel auctions.
That's my fantasy, anyway. In this fantasy, the world is Good & Just. Apple hasn't taken over the role of Evil Empire from Microsoft and Google's policy of do no evil actually means something.
Could it be that the patent system is biting the technology companies, that they themselves brought it into existence and nourished it, in the ass? And, if yes, would they ever realize it?
I work for a fairly large chemical company and we stopped filing for patents. Although the purpose of a patent is to protect the inventor, it inevitably makes the idea accessible by the competition. Since all chemical factories are private grounds protected by fences and guards, we cannot check whether our competitors have actually stolen our patented inventions (and, of course, nor can they). Besides, we have better stuff to do than going through all production facilities in China to check every damn apparatus to see whether we should file a lawsuit or not.
So there you have it. No patents, no trouble. Just a big ol' fence and LOTS of security (both physical and IT). We also stopped publishing our research findings to conferences and journals and we demand a confidentiality agreement from every university that sends students to work for us.
Yes, and trade secrets like those your company is holding are certainly one valid way to protect your company's IP.
The downside, however, is that both you and your competitors are wasting thousands of hours inventing the same new compositions. The pace of innovation throughout the industry is slowed, since there is so much duplication of effort. This shows that the existence of the patent system is just as important as ever, but that we need reform on the litigation side.
When you're a technology company that makes millions and millions of consumer devices, you pretty much *have* to file a patent.
Yes, and trade secrets like those your company is holding are certainly one valid way to protect your company's IP.
The downside, however, is that both you and your competitors are wasting thousands of hours inventing the same new compositions. The pace of innovation throughout the industry is slowed, since there is so much duplication of effort. This shows that the existence of the patent system is just as important as ever, but that we need reform on the litigation side.
Interestingly, there are very few if any important discoveries / inventions that are lost to time, or effort wasted due to keeping something a trade secret versus publishing or patenting it. Most patents cover already very established principles with small variations that are generally easily reverse-engineered or are quite intuitive to anyone 'skilled in the art' trying to solve the same problem.
A large amount of duplicated work is inevitable even when the idea is publicly released, because most companies still need to go through an implementation cycle to be able to produce / develop their own version of the patented 'idea'. In most cases the 'key' patentable innovation is really about something quite obvious to anyone working on the problem. The fact that in the current development climate there are many companies working in parallel, unable to see the published patents until years after they submitted means that duplication of work is unavoidable - even if you're happy to try and license every patent out there that might even be tangentially related to your product.
In fact most venture capitalists tell people that it's more important to develop a product and 'get it out there' than to try and innovate around (or use) existing patents (and risk never ending up releasing the product).
Patents are being granted at a rate so high (and with such doubtful content) that it's a full time job for a team of patent lawyers to keep up with anyway, let alone a small engineering team who are focused on developing a product. The majority of the cost of litigation (whether researching, defending or attacking) is paying the legal fees, and that is not something that is a worthwhile expenditure (or future legal risk due to documented liability for intentional infringement) during the high technical risk of failure R&D phase of a new product development.
So in this way, patents do nothing to stop competitors from wasting thousands of hours/dollars re-inventing the same things. In fact, they end up costing more as the lawyers still need to eat too.
Samsung is doing nothing more than trying to protect itself from a patent troll.
Apple has been doing this sort of thing for decades. Apple is even worse than Microsoft.
Interestingly, there are very few if any important discoveries / inventions that are lost to time, or effort wasted due to keeping something a trade secret versus publishing or patenting it. Most patents cover already very established principles with small variations that are generally easily reverse-engineered or are quite intuitive to anyone 'skilled in the art' trying to solve the same problem.
On the contrary, as you admit, they may require reverse-engineering. That's wasted effort.
A large amount of duplicated work is inevitable even when the idea is publicly released, because most companies still need to go through an implementation cycle to be able to produce / develop their own version of the patented 'idea'. In most cases the 'key' patentable innovation is really about something quite obvious to anyone working on the problem.
[Citation needed]. It's very easy to blithely claim something is obvious in hindsight: pff, internal combustion engine? Flying machines? The atom bomb? Easy!
However, it is very difficult to come up with a new idea, never seen before by anyone... and simultaneously claim that it's obvious.
The fact that in the current development climate there are many companies working in parallel, unable to see the published patents until years after they submitted means that duplication of work is unavoidable - even if you're happy to try and license every patent out there that might even be tangentially related to your product.
"Unable to see the published patents"?
In fact most venture capitalists tell people that it's more important to develop a product and 'get it out there' than to try and innovate around (or use) existing patents (and risk never ending up releasing the product).
Actually, most venture capitalists tell people that it's important to have your engineers keep abreast of the state of the art, rather than spend all their time developing in the dark.
Patents are being granted at a rate so high (and with such doubtful content)
The rejection rate for patent applications is higher than its ever been.
that it's a full time job for a team of patent lawyers to keep up with anyway, let alone a small engineering team who are focused on developing a product.
The engineering team isn't supposed to be looking at what patents have granted or not, on the basis that they should develop a product that only incorporates rejected patent applications... the engineering team is supposed to be looking at what patent applications have published - or what is mentioned in trade journals and on Slashdot - and come up with new and innovative ways to do things.
The majority of the cost of litigation (whether researching, defending or attacking) is paying the legal fees, and that is not something that is a worthwhile expenditure (or future legal risk due to documented liability for intentional infringement) during the high technical risk of failure R&D phase of a new product development.
Agreed. Therefore, rather than hiding one's head in the sand, one should focus on making products that aren't simple rehashings of existing technologies.
So in this way, patents do nothing to stop competitors from wasting thousands of hours/dollars re-inventing the same things. In fact, they end up costing more as the lawyers still need to eat too.
Not so... you're actually comparing two different things here. Litigation is expensive, absolutely... So therefore, we should never review white papers or trade journals? And furthermore, since patent litigation is so expensive, therefore no one ever saves time and money by including pre-developed libraries or incorporating known algorithms? Sorry, the conclusion simply doesn't flow from your argument.
So basically your company just discovered trade secrets.
it's pretty sad when all the time it's news about either iphone, android, apple, etc. i couldn't give a shit. stupid fucking phones. it's not news.
You were smacked down before with this silly, pathetic claim.
Please turn off your computer as we instructed you to do this morning.
Oh, and your mom called and said she wanted you to move out of her basement.
F%&K YEAH!
One problem with your comment is that a patent is not to protect the inventor. The purpose of copyright/patents is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.". This does not mean it is to protect the inventor, etc. but to promote further progress by granting a very limited monopoly in order for others in the same field, etc to develop and further the progression of discoveries. Copyright, patents, trademarks, etc has been twisted and corrupted to an extreme so that it benefits the corporations or copyright trolls, etc. for the sake of making money. Bastardizing the system for the benefit of they few is wrong and diretly goes against what copyright was intend for. I do agree that it should be done away with, at least to a large degree. Instead of completely scraping it, it should have minimum term periods that can't be extyend except for very ultra limited circumstances (does not apply to music, movies, etc). Also non commercial should be legalized and consumer/non-commercial rights should be a major part of the process (for example: no costs to fight / counter act against claims of supposed violations.). Freedom of information should be paramount as to promote progress of inventions, discoveries, etc. Very limited monopoly with a major point of consumer rights/protections. I think that this would be a much better starting point to go off from instead of scraping everything.
Oh, it's so cute you believe that.
But capitalism is the operation of a purely for profit business, not a voluntary association. It is quite fond of coercion when there is profit to be found. Our most successful capitalists are willing to do almost any dirty trick to become the top and often only player in the market.
This is why no country runs a purely capitalist system. Western economies run mixed economies because a pure capitalism only works in theory, in reality we end up with the likes of Microsoft.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
But doesn't suing apple make them homophobic?