Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple and Samsung Both Get South Korea Bans

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the can-we-do-this-in-every-country-until-they-stop-fighting dept.

Patents 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."

cancel ×

216 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Thats one way.. (5, Insightful)

EponymousCustard (1442693) | about 2 years ago | (#41107881)

to stop the patent wars! Ban everybody!

Re:Thats one way.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108107)

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.. (5, Funny)

AwesomeMcgee (2437070) | about 2 years ago | (#41108689)

I own "Hello World", you owe me $20 or I will sue!

Re:Thats one way.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41109143)

I own Intellectual Vultures and have a business model patent...

Re:Thats one way.. (1)

Arkham (10779) | about 2 years ago | (#41109237)

Well I have a patent on zero, void, null, and None. I expect a royalty of 1 per use.

Re:Thats one way.. (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#41108973)

Lawyers win. Why would they change that?

Re:Thats one way.. (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 2 years ago | (#41109281)

Yeah, patents are really important for innovation, they should enforce it to its logical extents and then we can calmly regress to the dark ages, as our political masters, the IP lobbyists, insist. It will be better for everyone.

Re:Thats one way.. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108109)

Remind me, how do these patents benefit the public again?

Re:Thats one way.. (1, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | about 2 years ago | (#41108261)

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.

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.

Re:Thats one way.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108755)

Yes, the problem with patents now is, that it's "work once, get paid forever". The short time limit part is crucial.
An idea simply isn't worth that much money, that a monopoly of getting free money until the end of the universe is justified.
It's usually worth money though. But only the market can decide how much.

And here's where the problem lies: With no rules at all, the value obviously is gone, as soon as the idea is out there. So you can only demand something in return, at the release. Which is very close to the Kickstarter model. And to just about every damn service business out there. From the guy who paints your walls and fixes your sink or car, to medical doctors, social jobs, etc, etc, etc.

But people fell for the delusion that information would be a tangible good, even though in physics terms, that is nonsense, since it just doesn't work that way. (Just compare actual stealing with making a copy, for an example.)
And to uphold that fantasy world, the only choice left, was to decide for a fixed duration factor, and let the market determine the value solely through how much money one can make in that time.

Which is not only unnecessary (because it can be treated as a service, removing the need for any protection whatsoever), but also very biased in a harmful way (because some do do deserve and require longer times, and others don't at all.
And that's what all this bickering and fighting comes from. It's unfair for everyone. And some like it even more unfairly skewed in their favor.

In reality, we really don't need patents, copyright, etc... they only exist, because some people can't get rid of their delusions.

(Yes, ACs can be [hopefully] insightful too. :)

Re:Thats one way.. (3, Insightful)

teg (97890) | about 2 years ago | (#41108781)

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.. (4, Informative)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41108843)

Yes, unlike copyright, patent problems are more related to the absurdity of what is patented than the time they cover.

Re:Thats one way.. (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | about 2 years ago | (#41109301)

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:Thats one way.. (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41109049)

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:Thats one way.. (1)

JWW (79176) | about 2 years ago | (#41109329)

For an industry that continually drives products to obsolescence every 18 months, the terms of patents is waaaaaayyyyyy too long.

Re:Thats one way.. (1)

donaldm (919619) | about 2 years ago | (#41109261)

Have you ever read a patent? If you haven't and want to please make sure you have plenty of headache tablets available. The problem with many patents and not just software patents is they are written for the legal profession and don't really make allot of sense to a person who normally would have the capacity to understand how to duplicate what the patent is describing. From some patents I have read they appear to be basically a rewording on patents that should have expired years ago or written in such a vague way that they are open to interpretation by the legal profession of course.

From the Wiki on patents. "In modern usage, the term patent usually refers to the right granted to anyone who invents any new, useful, and non-obvious process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter". I can imagine the field day lawyers would have on the wording of this..

Re:Thats one way.. (1)

donaldm (919619) | about 2 years ago | (#41108987)

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:Thats one way.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108197)

It's the logical conclusion we've all predicted for years.

It's funny. Either way, organized crime can never win:
* They go the imaginary property fundamentalist path, they lose (see above),
* they stop the nonsense and start living in reality, by seeing it as the service business model (of designing open-source hardware/software) it is, and they can't defraud customers with "work once (having the idea / doing the design/engineering/...) take money forever" anymore.

Their only possible "chance" would be to just loosen the thumbscrews on the economy, freedom and basic human rights enough, that nearly nobody complains.
But because of the constant force of a bazillion geeks and users willing to share or just having no money pushing against them, the effectiveness of this will fall off sharply over time, until it's not worth it anymore. (We're already close or past that, depending on who you ask.)

But you got to admit it's fun to watch. ^^

Re:Thats one way.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108277)

Notice the judge didn't ban the Galaxy S3 - this is a win for Samsung.

Re:Thats one way.. (3, Informative)

Steve Max (1235710) | about 2 years ago | (#41108771)

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.. (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#41108413)

Seriously. Do this in *every* jurisdiction!

Re:Thats one way.. (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41108521)

So, all these different national courts all decide differently on patent issues. Maybe we need a one-world court to finally figure these issues out once and for all. Hmmm...., then of course we will need another, higher court for the inevitable appeal...

Re:Thats one way.. (1)

molecular (311632) | about 2 years ago | (#41108767)

fuck courts, free markets ftw!

Re:Thats one way.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41109123)

That is not a solution of the whole patent problem though. If Samsung and Apple come to an agreement they can still ban every competitor.

Re:Thats one way.. (5, Funny)

flanders123 (871781) | about 2 years ago | (#41109235)

This is like Dad getting fed up with his 2 brat kids fighting in the back seat of the car. "You two kids get along right NOW... or I'll turn this car around right now and NO ONE will get ice cream!".

(Yes that qualifies for +5 Car Analogy)

Finally! (0)

noh8rz7 (2706405) | about 2 years ago | (#41107887)

Finally! Apple gets a taste of its own medicine!

Re:Finally! (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about 2 years ago | (#41107999)

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:Finally! (-1)

coldfarnorth (799174) | about 2 years ago | (#41108133)

Uh, all of those products are recent products. Not only that, but the iPhone 4 is Apple's current flagship model. Galaxy S II is Samsung's.

Re:Finally! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108153)

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:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108163)

The 4S is the flagship model, and only until next month. The iPhone 4 is almost 2 years old.

Re:Finally! (5, Informative)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#41108169)

Recent? Kind of. Flagship models? Those would be iPhone 4S and Galaxy S3.

Re:Finally! (0)

remus.cursaru (1423703) | about 2 years ago | (#41108295)

Thank you, Captain Obvious!

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108611)

Nerds, nerds! Calm down! The only way to settle this is to take it outside and bitch-slap each other silly!

Re:Finally! (1)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#41108799)

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:Finally! (1)

coldfarnorth (799174) | about 2 years ago | (#41108717)

I stand corrected.

Re:Finally! (1)

AwesomeMcgee (2437070) | about 2 years ago | (#41108727)

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:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108929)

um. He is a fanboy of which company...?

Re:Finally! (1)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#41109035)

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.

Once software stops being made for a platform (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41109061)

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?

Re:Once software stops being made for a platform (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41109125)

Siri?

Damages (3, Insightful)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 2 years ago | (#41107945)

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.

Re:Damages (5, Informative)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 years ago | (#41108005)

Apple infringed 2 essential patents, Samsung 1 design patent, apple should have had to pay more.

Re:Damages (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108419)

They did, Apple was fined with $35 000 and Samsung with $22 000

Re:Damages (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108601)

Yes, but Samsung's patents were covered under FRAND.

Re:Damages (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108829)

So Apple is paying what they should have payed under FRAND rules, plus compensation for using the patent without licensing it.

FRAND doesn't mean "free for all", just that the patents are available for anyone to license under the same rules. Using a FRAND patent without licensing it is just as bad as (if not worse than) using a non-FRAND patent without licensing, because you know about its existence by default AND you know you will pay the same as everyone else in the industry.

Re:Damages (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108897)

Apple infringed 2 essential patents, Samsung 1 design patent, apple should have had to pay more.

That's about as completely backwards as you can possibly be. Apple is accused of infringing FRAND patents - patents that MUST be licensed under Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory rates. Samsung is accused of infringing non-FRAND patents that are covered under no such obligation.

Apple should be required to pay a Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory license fee. Samsung should be required to pay a significant licensing fee plus a penalty rate. One set of patents must be licensed under FRAND terms while the other are under no such requirement.

Re:Damages (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41109099)

Apple should be required to pay a Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory license fee. Samsung should be required to pay a significant licensing fee plus a penalty rate. One set of patents must be licensed under FRAND terms while the other are under no such requirement.

Apple should have and could have paid a Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory license fee. They didn't. The other is a design patent... Enough said.

FRAND doesn't mean small (2)

Chirs (87576) | about 2 years ago | (#41109319)

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:Damages (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108135)

The net amount Apple pays is $17130 - wow that's cheap. Some individuals have to pay that much for a divorce case.

Re:Damages (1)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | about 2 years ago | (#41108241)

That's probably their lawyer's costs per hour, the only ones who always win.

Re:Damages (1)

Aeros (668253) | about 2 years ago | (#41108291)

Thats the cost of 8 macbook pros! Sadly enough

Re:Damages (4, Informative)

Dupple (1016592) | about 2 years ago | (#41108519)

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

Hahaha! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107971)

I bet they're both really happy by this outcome now.

Re:Hahaha! (4, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 2 years ago | (#41108103)

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

Re:Hahaha! (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | about 2 years ago | (#41108441)

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 (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#41108749)

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:Hahaha! (1)

hsmith (818216) | about 2 years ago | (#41108847)

Yes, but they have to justify their jobs somehow. How else than endless patent wars?

Re:Hahaha! (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#41108937)

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.

MAD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107977)

Isn't the point of mutually assured destruction that it keeps both sides from going to war?

Re:MAD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108031)

No, the point is that the other side will always lose.

Re:MAD (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#41108227)

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:MAD (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41108737)

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.

Mexican standoff (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41107985)

I bet Chris Penn will shoot first.

Judgment of Solomon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108013)

I think a complete ban on both sides will be more effective and comical.

The Judge(s) don't want to be LYNCHED (5, Informative)

wisebabo (638845) | about 2 years ago | (#41108023)

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:The Judge(s) don't want to be LYNCHED (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108091)

Yep, I am sure that US judges are 100% impartial and there is no protectionism masqueraded as bullshit patents awarded by the US patent office ;)

Re:The Judge(s) don't want to be LYNCHED (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108137)

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.

Yeah, compared to the US Government and court system's reputation for probity and hontesty.

Re:The Judge(s) don't want to be LYNCHED (1)

oji-sama (1151023) | about 2 years ago | (#41108279)

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...

This does seem a little one-sided... (-1)

OliWarner (1529079) | about 2 years ago | (#41108033)

I'm certainly no Apple fan and this might be deliberate by way of judicial finding but Samsung definitely has the better deal coming out of this spate of bans:

  - Samsung has their old-generation stuff banned from sale.
  - Apple has their current-generation stuff banned.

To me it seems like Apple are the only people walking away from this with a ban that means anything.

Re:This does seem a little one-sided... (0)

oji-sama (1151023) | about 2 years ago | (#41108075)

- Samsung has their old-generation stuff banned from sale. - Apple has their current-generation stuff banned.

Yeah, the 4S and 'the new iPad' aren't really current-generation stuff.. Of course it might be a matter of opinion ^.^

Re:This does seem a little one-sided... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108259)

They are current generation. Pull your head out of your ass, neckbeard.

Re:This does seem a little one-sided... (1)

oji-sama (1151023) | about 2 years ago | (#41108893)

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:This does seem a little one-sided... (2)

mlk (18543) | about 2 years ago | (#41108097)

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:This does seem a little one-sided... (2)

Bert64 (520050) | about 2 years ago | (#41108195)

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.

How's the thermonuclear war goin' for ya, Steve-O? (5, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | about 2 years ago | (#41108039)

Starting to understand the whole MAD thing yet?

Re:How's the thermonuclear war goin' for ya, Steve (5, Informative)

DickBreath (207180) | about 2 years ago | (#41109225)

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.

Patent War (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108055)

Strange game. The only winning move is, not to play.

Re:Patent War (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108431)

Strange game. The only winning move is, not to play.

The only winning move is being a lawyer

Re:Patent War (2)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#41108989)

Or in more general terms, an arms dealer.

In a nuclear war, being in the uranium business is quite lucrative.

Why am I reminded... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108063)

...of my mother threatening to bash my and my brother's heads together?

I can only say... (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#41108073)

Well played.

End this before is too late (5, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#41108085)

I do not know what about what patents the incoming Patent War will be, but next one will be about patenting sticks and stones.

Re:End this before is too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108301)

No it won't, I've got a patent on patent wars over sticks and stones!

Re:End this before is too late (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108555)

No it won't, I've got a patent on patent wars over sticks and stones!

Which I see infringes upon my patents "Process for Determining an Organisms Functional State via Prodding Rod" and "Method for Rendering an Organism Nonfunctional via Mineral(oid) Projectile."

My lawyers will be contacting you shortly. Good day sir.

Re:End this before is too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108743)

My patent trumps you all since mine is "with a touch screen"

Mission accomplished! (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 years ago | (#41108119)

The only winners is the lawyers and the competitions.

With more rulings like this we could get rid of the patent wars.

equal? (2)

chowdahhead (1618447) | about 2 years ago | (#41108155)

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.

Re:equal? (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 2 years ago | (#41108943)

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.

decision # 5028.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108217)

So, all these different national courts all decide differently on patent issues. Maybe we need a one-world court to finally figure these issues out once and for all.

Cold War strategy? (5, Insightful)

dskoll (99328) | about 2 years ago | (#41108237)

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:Cold War strategy? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 2 years ago | (#41108449)

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... (1)

macraig (621737) | about 2 years ago | (#41108289)

... M.A.I.P.I., aka Mutually Assured Intellectual Property Infringement.

Interesting Decision (2)

organgtool (966989) | about 2 years ago | (#41108349)

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.

Do we need more evidence? (1)

senorpoco (1396603) | about 2 years ago | (#41108367)

Current patent law is monopolistic, anti-competitive and demonstrably absurd. Double KO.

Ending of Rocky III (1)

senorpoco (1396603) | about 2 years ago | (#41108371)

Ding Ding.

Common sense (1)

Haawkeye (2680377) | about 2 years ago | (#41108471)

I am hoping that something like this happens in the states. We need patent reform that is for sure. I am not an expert in this field but even I can see this is stupid. I understand why companies have and want to protect their ideas but maybe there should be an independent review board that can look at this stuff and figure out a way that both Samsung and apple can get paid for their ideas. Some common sense has to prevail at some point in time! Oh wait I am sorry I take all that back. Common sense what was I thinking!

Great news for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41108619)

This is will only help boost Apple's sales of their Ipad 3 and Iphone 5 in South Korea...

This is truly sad (1)

qrwe (625937) | about 2 years ago | (#41108657)

...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...

u MAD, bro? (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 2 years ago | (#41108675)

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 (5, Funny)

DickBreath (207180) | about 2 years ago | (#41108927)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>