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);
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.
You don't understand it. The lawyers are indeed really happy. They still got paid.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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