Slashdot Mirror
Apple and Samsung Both Get South Korea Bans
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."
to stop the patent wars! Ban everybody!
I find it interesting that Apple was ordered to pay more in damages than Samsung was, even though Apple brought the suit.
That seems pretty damning to me.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
I bet they're both really happy by this outcome now.
I bet Chris Penn will shoot first.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
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.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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.
Starting to understand the whole MAD thing yet?
Strange game. The only winning move is, not to play.
...of my mother threatening to bash my and my brother's heads together?
Well played.
I do not know what about what patents the incoming Patent War will be, but next one will be about patenting sticks and stones.
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.
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
The only winners is the lawyers and the competitions.
With more rulings like this we could get rid of the patent wars.
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.
I don't personally think the rubberband effect when scrolling is particularly novel or ingenious, or should be considered as an "invention". That's just my opinion. But I don't see how one can argue that a patent on a visual trick is held in the same significance as one (or two, in this case) that covers wireless technology. Developing the latter was likely to be vastly more costly and resource intensive. I think this type of ruling discourages real invention in favor of cheap software patents, and I don't want to see technology stagnate because of that.
Recent? Kind of. Flagship models? Those would be iPhone 4S and Galaxy S3.
which is totally what she said
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
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.
... M.A.I.P.I., aka Mutually Assured Intellectual Property Infringement.
This is interesting because the judge banned all phones and tablets from both companies except the current generation of their products. From a legal perspective, this ruling does not make sense. The "bounce back" patent Samsung violated has been fixed in the Galaxy S2 and possible the Galaxy Tab, but they got banned anyway. And Apple's iPad 3 and iPhone 4S still use the communication technologies patented by Samsung yet they weren't banned.
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.
Current patent law is monopolistic, anti-competitive and demonstrably absurd. Double KO.
Ding Ding.
...and the awaited fruit of "patented ideas", as that will naturally generate loads of infringements. Once again proven (and needless to say as it's clear as sunlight): an idea CAN'T and should NOT be able to be patented, especially when it comes to navel-gazing ones as "roundness of corners" and stuff. This is reluctant to progression and stops really great ideas to be reality. Even more heart-braking is that this is probably only the beginning...
There are 2 types of people in the world - those who understand decimal and those who don't.
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.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I stand corrected.
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
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...
Which, if you're a maniac with an ace of 72 virgins in heaven up your sleeve, means that you still win.
I heard that they've learned the original translation of the Koran was flawed, and it's not 72 virgins, but 72 "raisens" suicide bombers get. If true, must really seem like a 'bad carreer choice' now.
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 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.
My work here is dung.
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.
which is totally what she said
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.
It is what it is.
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.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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 out in 2010, and the Galaxy SII in April 2011. And anyway, I said "kind of", not "no :| ".
Also, I think you'll find it's the "normal people" who get more upset if they don't have the latest fashionable smartphone - because they are more likely to see them as a fashion statement than a tool.
which is totally what she said
A computing platform may be considered "passé" if no new software is published for it. Consider someone who bought an Xbox a couple months before the Xbox 360 came out or a GameCube a couple months before the Wii came out. By then, the supply of new software had dried up for those consoles. Are there any apps that work only on an iPhone 4S and not on an iPhone 4 or iPod touch?
MAD only works when all of the players are rational and sane. It worked for a long time because nobody is willing to pull the trigger, not even dancing monkey boy of the flying chairs, because doing so would be insane.
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.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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.
The reason why Apple will not license the FRAND patents is that they are not being offered the same rates as the others who have purchased them. The N in FRAND is for non-discriminitory and that is where the problem is The FRAND patents in this case are being offered to Apple at rates 10-100x higher then normal or with cross licensing on Apples non-FRAND patents. Apple is rightfully insisting on the same terms as others have paid.
And it works quite well, if only we'd adopt this as well.
Kind of reminds me how my parents used to react whenever me and my brother couldn't learn to share something.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
How do we KNOW you are standing?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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!
which is totally what she said
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.
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.
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.
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.
"If you don't learn to share and play nice, I'm taking away *both* your toys!"
Mutually Assured Destruction in a safegaurd; a defense.
"You can't nuke me, because I'll nuke you back. So unless you want to be wiped out, you best leave me alone."
Of course, Apple got arrogant. "My nukes are better and I have more of them. I can attack and I'll be fine."
And, well, there you have it. MAD has basically failed. Or worked as it intended. I'm not sure. All I know is that everything is stupid.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
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.
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.
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 without real harm to the software.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Writing a post without that symbol in it is difficult, but if you work at it... Voila!
- Gadsby
This will certainly be a boost for the LG phones in Korea.
BanHammer time!
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
Jesus was a liberal
Apple can only get anywhere near the mobile space because so many other companies have a reasonable approach to their IP.
Apple stands on the shoulders of giants, then turns belches loudly into the giants ear.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
All patients have long been abused look at Polaroid, they got in on the ground floor and would release new patients only after the old ones were to expire.
That seems like a valid use though. Polaroid came up with a great process to do instant film, they deserve (as patents were designed to give) some limited period of time to be able to earn money from that invention.
As for them releasing new patents shortly before the old ones would expire, that is a risky strategy if they held off on purpose - because someone else could have filed a patent before them.
Physical patents I still think have a real place in the world, as long as the period they are good for is not extended the way copyright has been.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is true for phones, but it also banned Galaxy Tab 10.1, which, as I understand, is still Samsung's flagship for tablets.
MAD only works when the D in question is real and permanent. A ban is only temporary, and it can often be successfully appealed, so you can drag the fight out. And, in the end, you can always just pay money for the patent if nothing else works (not always, but for Apple this applies since all patents they're being sued over are FRAND, so the other party has to offer them; they're only fighting over the "fair" price).
Apple is a member and patent holder in the MPEG patent pool. So you're wrong.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
That is NOT how FRAND works. People who contribute to the pool get paid for their patents on a FRAND basis. People who do not contribute PAY on a FRAND basis. There are not differing rates for people who contribute and for those who do not, but of course if you do not contribute you are paying not getting paid. Obviously some companies will both pay and get paid.
The patent system is broken. The real question is should the patents that Apple claims Samsung infringed upon been granted. Imagine if this happened in the car industry. Only the first car company to put anti-lock brakes on their cars would ever be allowed to use the technology. Good ideas get copied. That is what is called progress. Only the specific implementation of that idea should be patented.
That is information that is wrong! There is no 'standard' but customary FRAND fees are not 2.5% per patent which is what was being asked. That 2.5% (actually 2.25%) is what Motorola was SEEKING and was denied by courts from Apple. The typical customary FRAND fees are less then 5% for the ENTIRE package of patents (from all patent holders combined) for a device including wifi and 3g/4g patents. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/13/apple_frand_win_over_motorola_slashes_googles_patent_power.html