Most of people aren't paying income tax not because they are hording their money, but because they don't have enough it to consider it a strong investment in the system.
We need to enforce our social contract (the rules of our society, sometimes also called laws) in order to have stability. Looking around the world, I see societies using a mixture of three systems to enforce their contracts; violence, bribery, and what I will call "equity". Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. Violence is flexible and cheap to set up, but very expensive in the long term because of ongoing costs, like police and prisons, but also because of a large unproductive segment of society. Bribery; handouts, no taxes, welfare, etc, is more expensive to set up, not as flexible, but cheaper in the long term. After all, in the U.S. most welfare recipients get less money than it would require to imprison them. The third, equity, is the most expensive to set up and requires large transfers of wealth from the rich to the poor, but it also builds a stake in society for the poor and makes them more productive and hence is the cheapest for the long term. Examples of this are public education, government jobs programs, etc.
What you are suggesting is we lower the amount of bribery. Have you considered that a consequence of that is having to increase expenditure on another system of social stability? Are you proposing we raise taxes on the wealthy to build equity in the system or are you comfortable with requiring more police and prisons because less people feel they have an investment (or stake) in the system and, therefore, abide by its rules.
Like it or not, welfare has not been with human societies since antiquity because we are kind and loving. People have always, and continue, to buy stability with that money.
Your numbers look a little low. According to House of Representative lobbying disclosure forms (available online), Apple spent about $2.4 million on Congressional lobbying for 2011. Compare that to $9.5 million for Google for 2011 and a paltry $40,000 for the U.S. Apple Association. The House of Representatives has a pretty handy search tool, but you must enter your searches in all caps for some reason.
FYI, this is only direct lobbying and not how much they spent on campaigns, pacs, etc. Unfortunately, in America between pacs, superpacs, other issue advocacy groups, direct lobbying, campaign contributions, etc. it is really difficult to get an accurate view of how much money a company spends unless they don't care that you know.
I have been surfing the internet, playing media, buying stocks, etc. on my cell phone for over 10 years (although it was black and white text when I started). I don't really see any of this (iphone, android, etc) as particularly revolutionary. It seems to me like the natural evolution of the industry. I agree with you that Apple brought this technology to the masses (no condescension intended), but technologically, it doesn't seem surprising to me (the incredible profits Apple has generated from this is a surprise for me, however). It does seem to me like the current advances get undue credit, when both the ideas and technology have been incrementally evolving for decades.
I guess this really comes down to how a tablet would have developed without Apple. Capacitive screen smartphones, and non-microsoft UI's, had already arrived. It does seem logical to expand that form factor if there is a market for it (as there is/was for tablet computers). The system that was to become Android (as well as several others) was already well under development (causing many problems between Sun and the Apache Foundation). I think Apple profoundly influenced the direction the market took, but it appears to me that all of the pieces were falling into place for a capacitive touchscreen tablet with or without Apple. Perhaps it is only a matter of semantics, but it seems to me that Apple shaped the market, but didn't necessarily create it.
I do wonder how much of that lack of defining a tablet as "anything different" was technological. Capacitive touch screens; powerful, energy-efficient consumer processors, advances in battery technology, etc. were important factors in determining the viability of both the iPhone and iPad. The fact that LG was the first to market with a capacitive touch screen smartphone speaks volumes to the direction the market was moving, with or without Apple. Apple did leverage their exceptional ability to make user interfaces for the masses to make the best (or at lease most polished) product to date, but I am not certain the market would not have moved in this direction even without Apple (although Apple may certainly have accelerated the evolution).
Not to nitpick, but HP sold about 62 million computers and 900,000 touchpads in 2011, Apple sold about 40 million ipads and about 17 million macs = 57 million units (close, but not quite).
As you point out, this is the price only under a contract with a phone company. Under these terms you are paying full price for the iPhone, but instead of paying for it up front you are paying for it monthly, with interest. Beware of any for profit business that advertises a product for "free."
If the software patent system worked that way, I don't think people would have a problem with it. As it is constructed now, though, software patents are so broad that they are purely conceptual. This is akin to patenting using chemistry to perform a specific task, instead of on specific chemical process. When I look at a software patent, I use 4 tests to determine if I believe it should have been granted.
1) Does it fulfill its purpose of contributing to the useful arts and sciences? test: Can an expert in the field recreate their EXACT process or invention by using nothing more than the patent documents? Most software patents fail here because they do not actually cover a fixed number of implementations, but rather all possible implementations.
2) Is it a patent on a specific instance or on an idea or concept? test: Using the idea or concept demonstrated by the patent, is it possible to create another non-infringing implementation? If not, then it is a patent on the concept itself and not an implementation. Note: if there is more than one idea or concept being demonstrated, use the narrowest one.
3) Is it obvious? 4) Does it have prior-art?
Let me give you two examples: 1) Apple's slide to unlock patent. 1) Would an expert programmer be able to implement Apple's patent with no other information than what is in the patent documents? The patent is very specific on what is going on and so I would say it is a good example of a patent that passes this test. 2) Is is possible to unlock a device using physical contact to a touchscreen without violating Apple's patent? This one is difficult. Apple's patent covers any user interaction with a widget and continuous movement from on place on the screen to another for the purposes of unlocking the device. That is pretty broad, although if the graphical widget did not move across the screen, but instead changed colors, prompting you to drag your finger to another spot on the screen to unlock, I think it would be safely clear of Apples patent. So, Apple's patent probably clears this test. 3) Is it obvious? This is where Apple's patent fails in my mind. Using the movement of widgets to change state is not new, Apple's patent is a logical and obvious extension of it. 4) Is there prior art? In striking down this patent in the Netherlands last year, the Dutch court offered the2004 Neonode N1m as prior art.
2) Microsoft "Virtual Entertainment" patent. 1) Microsoft fails right out of the gate on this one. There are no specs detailing how this would work. If I asked 100 experts to implement this patent, I would probably get 100 different implementations.
On the other hand, businesses get more tax breaks as well. That they only pay taxes on the profits means that the owners get to invest; in infrastructure, workers, r&d, etc. for free. They also don't have to pay taxes on capital appreciation for their stock in that company and those investments. Theoretically, the super rich are supposed to pay that tax when they die, but there are lots of ways around that. Less than a quarter of the Walmart fortune has seen a dime of taxes. Do they deserve that much money? I think they deserve to be rewarded, but too much inequality starts harming everyone. I love capitalism. Capitalism leverages the greed inherent in most people (good idea). Unfortunately, the only way to preserve capitalism for the long term is to ensure that opportunity persists in high enough quantity that people's greed drives them to pursue it. I worry that we are reaching the point where inequality starts eroding our capitalism and not sustaining it. Do you believe that there can be such a thing as too much inequality?
Don't worry about them, they are doing fine. Take Verizon for example: More than 75% of the fall in profits had to do with their pension plan. The iphone piece was small in comparison. Furthermore, they had to pay upfront for 1.2 million new customers (at $400 per customer if they bought an iphone). Over the next two years though, they expect to make about $2000 per customer (or a net of $1600). The bottom line is that these carriers are going to be reporting record profits in no time. The only losers here are the consumers.
But their current business model is much more profitable. If they subsidize phones, then they can justify higher rates to recover that cost. Since not every costumer will upgrade their phone at every opportunity, the carriers get to continue charging the higher rates even once the subsidy has been paid off. Apple likes this system because not everyone that got an iphone for a reduced cost, or even "free" would be willing to pay the full $650. This is a win, win, lose. Win for the carriers, win for Apple, lose for consumers.
In the U.S., corporations have no legal or fiduciary responsibility to increase shareholder equity. This is considered good business practice, however. In addition, the idea of companies existing solely to benefit their shareholder's is an idea that has not gained much traction outside North America.
Only communists like free markets. In a perfectly free market, profits are zero. The job of the government is a balancing act. Not enough freedom to eliminate profits, but not enough regulation and laws to stifle the markets either. Pick any large company and ask them if they would like to be in a free market (no regulations; patent, copyright, trademark monopolies, government support against nefarious companies doing things like dumping). Capitalist love government regulation (just only when it works in their benefit).
In the United States, antitrust laws were established to combat business practices very similar to this. Standard Oil would open an oil shop in a new town, sell their oil for extremely cheap until all the other shops had closed, then raise the price when they were the only player left (this was their business model). While I am not claiming that Google is being as nefarious as Standard Oil, but what they did is effectively the same. The problem is not having too much money, but using that money to give products away, driving competitors from the market, then charging for it once they are in the dominant position. This is also illegal in the United States, if they chose to prosecute.
I don't disagree that the price isn't excessive, but that is not what this is about. Google used outside revenue (from search) to build a product and give it away for free. They even leveraged their search monopoly to make it more popular. The effect of this was to drive other map companies out of business. Once they obtained a dominant position with maps, they began charging for them. This looks to me like a clear example of anti-competitive behavior. Google is allowed to enter new markets, allowed to give products away for free that undermine that market, but they are not then allowed to charge for the product after the damage is done. Google should have considered this when they decided to give the maps away for free. They are a monopoly and as such are deserving of greater scrutiny.
Corporations have a legal, fiducially responsibility to not violate their corporate charters, even if it means they make less money for shareholders. If Google has "Don't Be Evil" enshrined in their corporate charter, which I believe they do, then they must take that into consideration, even if it means lower profits. However, I think it would be difficult to objectively prove that Google is being evil (or rather that they are violating that provision of their charter).
This is what the Dutch court, right next to Germany, ruled last year. It held that Samsung did not violate Apple's design claims (the same ones Germany says they did). The court pointed out that by choosing a functionalist design, Apple was deserving of less protection.
Which laws are you thinking about when you say corporations have "a fiduciary duty to maximize return on investment for the shareholders?" The directors and executives have to fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, but maximizing profits is not usually part of that responsibility (except in cases of malfeasance). If a shareholder does not agree then they can try to change the board, and hence the objectives. For example, environmentally friendly packaging might be more expensive for a product, and hence less profitable, but using such packaging would not be construed as a violation of fiduciary responsibility despite the fact that shareholder return was not maximized.
I suppose Google directors could argue that their shareholders buy into the "Don't Be Evil" corporate motto and therefore any evil actions by the company, however profitable, are a violation of their fiduciary responsibility.
I have Apple stock and yet I still can't help but be a little sad. Apple makes good products. I own a few and many other people I know have them as well (hence the stock). That said, I like to see winners that are worthy of emulation. Apple hasn't been a good corporate citizen lately. They have tried to drive competition from their markets by less than honorable means. They have not given back to the society that nurtured them. They have not set an example of how to treat your employees, your partners, or your country.
I know it would be considered heresy at American business schools, but I don't believe a company exists only to benefit its shareholders. A company is given many gifts by their society; monopoly on their brand and inventions, protection in trade, infrastructure to distribute their goods, and consumers to buy it. Companies cannot succeed on capitalism alone. Don't misunderstand me, I believe that capitalism is the greatest economic system yet devised because it harnesses our inner greed, but the power of that greed can be self-destructive.
So I guess when I see profits of this magnitude, it makes me a little nervous.
I think the reason is these are not full court cases,but injunction hearings. Only one jurisdiction, Germany, is enforcing any sort of an injunction and they are still allowing third parties to market and sell Samsung products, just not Samsung.
This only works if corporations' only significant consumers are individuals. If corporation A convinces other corporations or governments to purchase their technology, the technology becomes profitable for them. Through such methods it can become a standard that individuals are forced to adopt.
I guess I don't understand. Didn't Samsung just pass Apple as the largest smartphone company. According to Wikipedia, Samsung is the largest IT company, 2nd largest shipbuilder, 35th and 72nd largest construction companies (two different subsidiaries), 14th largest insurance company, and 19th largest advertising agency in the world. There is a lot there to patent. As for enforcement, are you talking about how they were lax with enforcement with Apple until sued? Most companies will look the other way on a small patent license fee for 6 billion dollars in business. Few companies will look the other way when a company sues them. Patents don't work like trademarks, though, so its Samsung's choice.
I guess I don't follow this closely enough, but was anyone else surprised to see Hon Hai with more patents than Apple? For those who don't know, Hon Hai, aka Foxconn, is Apple's primary manufacturing partner.
I am certainly not in the heads of the Supreme Court. I do see an evolution of opinion on this issue over the decades. It does seem odd to me, however, that after a succession of decisions leading up to Diebold, they simply turn it off for 2 1/2 decades. During that time, the lower court continues to expand patentable material. From a lay observer, I have to wonder if technology and its legal consequences were changing so fast that the Supreme Court was waiting to see how the lower court would respond and what the consequences would be.
That said, I support patents and copyrights, but I believe the courts have gone too far on software patents and Congress too far on copyrights.
This investigation is in response to requests by Naver and Daum, according to the article. I don't see a grand conspiracy of Korean companies in general. I see two Korean companies attempting to use the government to hold onto their dominant positions. This kind of action happens in the U.S., Korea, Japan, China, everywhere. Companies look to their government to protect them when they are in trouble, particularly from foreign competition. In this instance, the government has listened.
All that said, the chaebol have a power in Korea greater than any company can command in the United States, most European countries, etc. It is similar to the zaibatsu system that used to dominate Japanese business. Unlike the zaibatsu system, however, Korea has only begun to dismantle the chaebol. Remember that it was only a few years ago that the chairman of Samsung was convicted of felonies in Korea and the verdict was turned aside by the government in the interest of the economy. Now that is power.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of people aren't paying income tax not because they are hording their money, but because they don't have enough it to consider it a strong investment in the system.
We need to enforce our social contract (the rules of our society, sometimes also called laws) in order to have stability. Looking around the world, I see societies using a mixture of three systems to enforce their contracts; violence, bribery, and what I will call "equity". Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. Violence is flexible and cheap to set up, but very expensive in the long term because of ongoing costs, like police and prisons, but also because of a large unproductive segment of society. Bribery; handouts, no taxes, welfare, etc, is more expensive to set up, not as flexible, but cheaper in the long term. After all, in the U.S. most welfare recipients get less money than it would require to imprison them. The third, equity, is the most expensive to set up and requires large transfers of wealth from the rich to the poor, but it also builds a stake in society for the poor and makes them more productive and hence is the cheapest for the long term. Examples of this are public education, government jobs programs, etc.
What you are suggesting is we lower the amount of bribery. Have you considered that a consequence of that is having to increase expenditure on another system of social stability? Are you proposing we raise taxes on the wealthy to build equity in the system or are you comfortable with requiring more police and prisons because less people feel they have an investment (or stake) in the system and, therefore, abide by its rules.
Like it or not, welfare has not been with human societies since antiquity because we are kind and loving. People have always, and continue, to buy stability with that money.
Your numbers look a little low. According to House of Representative lobbying disclosure forms (available online), Apple spent about $2.4 million on Congressional lobbying for 2011. Compare that to $9.5 million for Google for 2011 and a paltry $40,000 for the U.S. Apple Association. The House of Representatives has a pretty handy search tool, but you must enter your searches in all caps for some reason.
FYI, this is only direct lobbying and not how much they spent on campaigns, pacs, etc. Unfortunately, in America between pacs, superpacs, other issue advocacy groups, direct lobbying, campaign contributions, etc. it is really difficult to get an accurate view of how much money a company spends unless they don't care that you know.
I have been surfing the internet, playing media, buying stocks, etc. on my cell phone for over 10 years (although it was black and white text when I started). I don't really see any of this (iphone, android, etc) as particularly revolutionary. It seems to me like the natural evolution of the industry. I agree with you that Apple brought this technology to the masses (no condescension intended), but technologically, it doesn't seem surprising to me (the incredible profits Apple has generated from this is a surprise for me, however). It does seem to me like the current advances get undue credit, when both the ideas and technology have been incrementally evolving for decades.
I guess this really comes down to how a tablet would have developed without Apple. Capacitive screen smartphones, and non-microsoft UI's, had already arrived. It does seem logical to expand that form factor if there is a market for it (as there is/was for tablet computers). The system that was to become Android (as well as several others) was already well under development (causing many problems between Sun and the Apache Foundation). I think Apple profoundly influenced the direction the market took, but it appears to me that all of the pieces were falling into place for a capacitive touchscreen tablet with or without Apple. Perhaps it is only a matter of semantics, but it seems to me that Apple shaped the market, but didn't necessarily create it.
I do wonder how much of that lack of defining a tablet as "anything different" was technological. Capacitive touch screens; powerful, energy-efficient consumer processors, advances in battery technology, etc. were important factors in determining the viability of both the iPhone and iPad. The fact that LG was the first to market with a capacitive touch screen smartphone speaks volumes to the direction the market was moving, with or without Apple. Apple did leverage their exceptional ability to make user interfaces for the masses to make the best (or at lease most polished) product to date, but I am not certain the market would not have moved in this direction even without Apple (although Apple may certainly have accelerated the evolution).
Not to nitpick, but HP sold about 62 million computers and 900,000 touchpads in 2011, Apple sold about 40 million ipads and about 17 million macs = 57 million units (close, but not quite).
As you point out, this is the price only under a contract with a phone company. Under these terms you are paying full price for the iPhone, but instead of paying for it up front you are paying for it monthly, with interest. Beware of any for profit business that advertises a product for "free."
If the software patent system worked that way, I don't think people would have a problem with it. As it is constructed now, though, software patents are so broad that they are purely conceptual. This is akin to patenting using chemistry to perform a specific task, instead of on specific chemical process. When I look at a software patent, I use 4 tests to determine if I believe it should have been granted.
1) Does it fulfill its purpose of contributing to the useful arts and sciences?
test: Can an expert in the field recreate their EXACT process or invention by using nothing more than the patent documents? Most software patents fail here because they do not actually cover a fixed number of implementations, but rather all possible implementations.
2) Is it a patent on a specific instance or on an idea or concept?
test: Using the idea or concept demonstrated by the patent, is it possible to create another non-infringing implementation? If not, then it is a patent on the concept itself and not an implementation. Note: if there is more than one idea or concept being demonstrated, use the narrowest one.
3) Is it obvious?
4) Does it have prior-art?
Let me give you two examples:
1) Apple's slide to unlock patent. 1) Would an expert programmer be able to implement Apple's patent with no other information than what is in the patent documents? The patent is very specific on what is going on and so I would say it is a good example of a patent that passes this test. 2) Is is possible to unlock a device using physical contact to a touchscreen without violating Apple's patent? This one is difficult. Apple's patent covers any user interaction with a widget and continuous movement from on place on the screen to another for the purposes of unlocking the device. That is pretty broad, although if the graphical widget did not move across the screen, but instead changed colors, prompting you to drag your finger to another spot on the screen to unlock, I think it would be safely clear of Apples patent. So, Apple's patent probably clears this test. 3) Is it obvious? This is where Apple's patent fails in my mind. Using the movement of widgets to change state is not new, Apple's patent is a logical and obvious extension of it. 4) Is there prior art? In striking down this patent in the Netherlands last year, the Dutch court offered the2004 Neonode N1m as prior art.
2) Microsoft "Virtual Entertainment" patent. 1) Microsoft fails right out of the gate on this one. There are no specs detailing how this would work. If I asked 100 experts to implement this patent, I would probably get 100 different implementations.
On the other hand, businesses get more tax breaks as well. That they only pay taxes on the profits means that the owners get to invest; in infrastructure, workers, r&d, etc. for free. They also don't have to pay taxes on capital appreciation for their stock in that company and those investments. Theoretically, the super rich are supposed to pay that tax when they die, but there are lots of ways around that. Less than a quarter of the Walmart fortune has seen a dime of taxes. Do they deserve that much money? I think they deserve to be rewarded, but too much inequality starts harming everyone. I love capitalism. Capitalism leverages the greed inherent in most people (good idea). Unfortunately, the only way to preserve capitalism for the long term is to ensure that opportunity persists in high enough quantity that people's greed drives them to pursue it. I worry that we are reaching the point where inequality starts eroding our capitalism and not sustaining it. Do you believe that there can be such a thing as too much inequality?
Don't worry about them, they are doing fine. Take Verizon for example: More than 75% of the fall in profits had to do with their pension plan. The iphone piece was small in comparison. Furthermore, they had to pay upfront for 1.2 million new customers (at $400 per customer if they bought an iphone). Over the next two years though, they expect to make about $2000 per customer (or a net of $1600). The bottom line is that these carriers are going to be reporting record profits in no time. The only losers here are the consumers.
But their current business model is much more profitable. If they subsidize phones, then they can justify higher rates to recover that cost. Since not every costumer will upgrade their phone at every opportunity, the carriers get to continue charging the higher rates even once the subsidy has been paid off. Apple likes this system because not everyone that got an iphone for a reduced cost, or even "free" would be willing to pay the full $650. This is a win, win, lose. Win for the carriers, win for Apple, lose for consumers.
In the U.S., corporations have no legal or fiduciary responsibility to increase shareholder equity. This is considered good business practice, however. In addition, the idea of companies existing solely to benefit their shareholder's is an idea that has not gained much traction outside North America.
Only communists like free markets. In a perfectly free market, profits are zero. The job of the government is a balancing act. Not enough freedom to eliminate profits, but not enough regulation and laws to stifle the markets either. Pick any large company and ask them if they would like to be in a free market (no regulations; patent, copyright, trademark monopolies, government support against nefarious companies doing things like dumping). Capitalist love government regulation (just only when it works in their benefit).
In the United States, antitrust laws were established to combat business practices very similar to this. Standard Oil would open an oil shop in a new town, sell their oil for extremely cheap until all the other shops had closed, then raise the price when they were the only player left (this was their business model). While I am not claiming that Google is being as nefarious as Standard Oil, but what they did is effectively the same. The problem is not having too much money, but using that money to give products away, driving competitors from the market, then charging for it once they are in the dominant position. This is also illegal in the United States, if they chose to prosecute.
I don't disagree that the price isn't excessive, but that is not what this is about. Google used outside revenue (from search) to build a product and give it away for free. They even leveraged their search monopoly to make it more popular. The effect of this was to drive other map companies out of business. Once they obtained a dominant position with maps, they began charging for them. This looks to me like a clear example of anti-competitive behavior. Google is allowed to enter new markets, allowed to give products away for free that undermine that market, but they are not then allowed to charge for the product after the damage is done. Google should have considered this when they decided to give the maps away for free. They are a monopoly and as such are deserving of greater scrutiny.
Corporations have a legal, fiducially responsibility to not violate their corporate charters, even if it means they make less money for shareholders. If Google has "Don't Be Evil" enshrined in their corporate charter, which I believe they do, then they must take that into consideration, even if it means lower profits. However, I think it would be difficult to objectively prove that Google is being evil (or rather that they are violating that provision of their charter).
This is what the Dutch court, right next to Germany, ruled last year. It held that Samsung did not violate Apple's design claims (the same ones Germany says they did). The court pointed out that by choosing a functionalist design, Apple was deserving of less protection.
Which laws are you thinking about when you say corporations have "a fiduciary duty to maximize return on investment for the shareholders?" The directors and executives have to fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, but maximizing profits is not usually part of that responsibility (except in cases of malfeasance). If a shareholder does not agree then they can try to change the board, and hence the objectives. For example, environmentally friendly packaging might be more expensive for a product, and hence less profitable, but using such packaging would not be construed as a violation of fiduciary responsibility despite the fact that shareholder return was not maximized.
I suppose Google directors could argue that their shareholders buy into the "Don't Be Evil" corporate motto and therefore any evil actions by the company, however profitable, are a violation of their fiduciary responsibility.
I have Apple stock and yet I still can't help but be a little sad. Apple makes good products. I own a few and many other people I know have them as well (hence the stock). That said, I like to see winners that are worthy of emulation. Apple hasn't been a good corporate citizen lately. They have tried to drive competition from their markets by less than honorable means. They have not given back to the society that nurtured them. They have not set an example of how to treat your employees, your partners, or your country.
I know it would be considered heresy at American business schools, but I don't believe a company exists only to benefit its shareholders. A company is given many gifts by their society; monopoly on their brand and inventions, protection in trade, infrastructure to distribute their goods, and consumers to buy it. Companies cannot succeed on capitalism alone. Don't misunderstand me, I believe that capitalism is the greatest economic system yet devised because it harnesses our inner greed, but the power of that greed can be self-destructive.
So I guess when I see profits of this magnitude, it makes me a little nervous.
I think the reason is these are not full court cases,but injunction hearings. Only one jurisdiction, Germany, is enforcing any sort of an injunction and they are still allowing third parties to market and sell Samsung products, just not Samsung.
This only works if corporations' only significant consumers are individuals. If corporation A convinces other corporations or governments to purchase their technology, the technology becomes profitable for them. Through such methods it can become a standard that individuals are forced to adopt.
Just an internet misunderstanding. I thought you were implying something with your last sentence and I was trying to dig out what it was. cheers.
I guess I don't understand. Didn't Samsung just pass Apple as the largest smartphone company. According to Wikipedia, Samsung is the largest IT company, 2nd largest shipbuilder, 35th and 72nd largest construction companies (two different subsidiaries), 14th largest insurance company, and 19th largest advertising agency in the world. There is a lot there to patent. As for enforcement, are you talking about how they were lax with enforcement with Apple until sued? Most companies will look the other way on a small patent license fee for 6 billion dollars in business. Few companies will look the other way when a company sues them. Patents don't work like trademarks, though, so its Samsung's choice.
I guess I don't follow this closely enough, but was anyone else surprised to see Hon Hai with more patents than Apple? For those who don't know, Hon Hai, aka Foxconn, is Apple's primary manufacturing partner.
I am certainly not in the heads of the Supreme Court. I do see an evolution of opinion on this issue over the decades. It does seem odd to me, however, that after a succession of decisions leading up to Diebold, they simply turn it off for 2 1/2 decades. During that time, the lower court continues to expand patentable material. From a lay observer, I have to wonder if technology and its legal consequences were changing so fast that the Supreme Court was waiting to see how the lower court would respond and what the consequences would be.
That said, I support patents and copyrights, but I believe the courts have gone too far on software patents and Congress too far on copyrights.
This investigation is in response to requests by Naver and Daum, according to the article. I don't see a grand conspiracy of Korean companies in general. I see two Korean companies attempting to use the government to hold onto their dominant positions. This kind of action happens in the U.S., Korea, Japan, China, everywhere. Companies look to their government to protect them when they are in trouble, particularly from foreign competition. In this instance, the government has listened.
All that said, the chaebol have a power in Korea greater than any company can command in the United States, most European countries, etc. It is similar to the zaibatsu system that used to dominate Japanese business. Unlike the zaibatsu system, however, Korea has only begun to dismantle the chaebol. Remember that it was only a few years ago that the chairman of Samsung was convicted of felonies in Korea and the verdict was turned aside by the government in the interest of the economy. Now that is power.