Asia is the Wild West when it comes to IP - that pretty much sums up their take on other peoples innovation!
They aren't capable of their own - so they just steal it.
The judges in South Korea - paid lackies with absolutely no credibility or fundamental concept of justice.
Justice in SOuth Korea = whose paying my golf membership!
What a joke!
enjoy those screens and processors and other enabling tech from these non innovative asians.
enjoy those screens and processors and other enabling tech from these non innovative asians.
Is ARM asian?
Seeing as how these processors are mostly based on their reference designz.
Apple designz their own stuff and get it made to order, Samsung makes some of it in much the same way as you can ask for a Big Mick without pickles at MacDowells.
I hope ETSI now take this up and fine Samsung for using the 3G patents against Apple These patents are part of the 3G standard and hence under FRAND
Apple should not use this case as evidence of anti-trust actions by Samsung, and show both ETSI , the EU commission and maybe the FCC/FTA how bad Samsung are.
I hope ETSI now take this up and fine Samsung for using the 3G patents against Apple
These patents are part of the 3G standard and hence under FRAND
Apple should not use this case as evidence of anti-trust actions by Samsung, and show both ETSI , the EU commission and maybe the FCC/FTA how bad Samsung are.
Nokia sought the same import and sales injunctions against Apple over FRAND-pledged IP. In that case they settled and cross-licensed with Nokia to avoid the chances that Apple products would be banned from the marketplace. In this case in Korea Apple chose to roll the dice.
I don't agree with SEP"s being subjects for injunctions except in the extreme case that a company won't license under any circumstances. This isn't one of those cases AFAIK, so it just highlights problems with software patents in general.
Oh Jeez, thank you for all that informed insight about South Korea, their rigged judiciary system and corrupted people (sic). Some individuals are really pushing that crap down a whole new level...
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain
It's about Samsung the company, if they were an English company and they did that in the UK, an American company who did it in the USA, a Russian company who did it in Russia, a Japanese company who did it in Japan or anywhere else on Earth, Samsung did what they did the FACT that they did it in South Korea has nothing whatsoever to do with racism.
The denial of the facts while playing the race card is more a form of reverse racism
Seeing as how these processors are mostly based on their reference designz.
Apple designz their own stuff and get it made to order, Samsung makes some of it in much the same way as you can ask for a Big Mick without pickles at MacDowells.
We protect them form the north so they can rip us off. Enough now, and Apple stop giving them business, you are aiding and abetting the enemy. Chop them off.
This article misses the big picture of what is going on. Read Foss Patents latest post for a better understanding
The situation is not good and could result in Apple withdrawing from the Korean market
Read a little deeper.
Apple was found to have infringed FRAND patents. Every other country has determined that you can't get an injunction on FRAND patents. Since Apple never denied that they have to pay a license fee for FRAND, but merely wanted the court to determine a fair license fee, there was never any question of Apple's obligation to pay.
Samsung, OTOH, was found guilty of violating patents that are not FRAND and which Apple doesn't have to license.
There's a world of difference between the two infringements and they should not have been treated equally. More importantly, it's a little odd that S. Korea is the only country that has allowed an injunction for FRAND patents.
This article misses the big picture of what is going on. Read Foss Patents latest post for a better understanding
The situation is not good and could result in Apple withdrawing from the Korean market
Oh Jeez, thank you for all that informed insight about South Korea, their rigged judiciary system and corrupted people (sic). Some individuals are really pushing that crap down a whole new level...
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain
There was nothing racist in the OP's post, so I don't know where you are coming from. These problems, as well as the seemingly all-powerful position that Samsung occupies in SoKo(tm) are well-documented.
It's a shame that you chose to use such a fine quotation of a literary giant in an attempt to suppress discussion. In relation to which, I can say that I have lived in and traveled quite extensively around East Asia (including Seoul, which I enjoyed immensely), studied Asian languages, and so forth. Just because I am an outsider doesn't mean that I can't criticise aspects of these cultures, or that they have a blanket immunity to scrutiny, just as I expect outsiders will judge/criticise my own country of residence.
Do I smell xenophobia here? Of course, I'm certain the US court will not find Apple, the American company, to be in its right... No way that could happen. I mean, of course the refueling planes the US Army will use for the next 80 years are the more appropriate, better built Airbus, and not the Boeing ones that did not meet the requirements. Oh... oh, wait.
I think it's pretty much a balanced judgment that Korean Court issued, given the complexity of the matter, not to mention the political ramifications.
The patents Apple infringed upon of Samsung I still can't figure out what the actual patents were. They weren't that specific in the explanation on the articles that I have read.
The only way a consumer can't be confused is that the Samsung says Samsung on it and the iPad has the Apple logo on it.
It is possible for someone to see the iPad, walk into a Store and the rep says they look similar and they do basically the same thing, but the Samsung is cheaper, and the customer might IGNORANTLY buy the Samsung and then find out AFTERWARDS (after the 30 day return policy is over). This kind of scenario happens quite often in the RETAIL market since these reps try to push the product that they get paid a SPIFF on vs. the better quality product.
A simple demo, anyone can make one product better than the other, but if one REALLY does their homework, they'll usually pick the iPad, but only the more sophisticated buyers.
Unfortunately, Apple has to deal with the mentality of either untrained sales people at their resellers, contending with Sales Spiffs that Samsung often does, which is kind of a BRIBE to the sales rep, because sales reps aren't going to tell the customer WHY they are pushing the Samsung over the iPad, if they actually carry both products. It's too bad these Spiff programs are quietly being done at the store level. The average person that doesn't read what's going on the industry, doesn't know.
Handing out spiffs is usually because the company is a little desperate and needs to Spiff the sales rep to sell THEIR product vs the competition, because Samsung doesn't have tons of people walking in the store asking for their products by name as much as Apple does.
It's funny to walk into a verity of stores listening to the dialog between sales reps and customers at resellers that sell both products. Most of the time, the sales rep is CLUELESS about Apple products, which is why Apple has started the Store within a Store concept, because Apple supplies their own trained sales people because of this problem.
Doesn't mean Mueller is dishonest... Until now, I think his pieces have been pretty fair to both parties. Are we going to see the argument that anyone who writes about tech law needs to be:
- not working in tech (might have a relationship to Apple or Microsoft or Nokia or Samsung or Oracle, direct or indirect)
- not working in law (same)
which would leave us with the same levelof "journalist competence" as we're used to?
Comments
enjoy those screens and processors and other enabling tech from these non innovative asians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
enjoy those screens and processors and other enabling tech from these non innovative asians.
Is ARM asian?
Seeing as how these processors are mostly based on their reference designz.
Apple designz their own stuff and get it made to order, Samsung makes some of it in much the same way as you can ask for a Big Mick without pickles at MacDowells.
These patents are part of the 3G standard and hence under FRAND
Apple should not use this case as evidence of anti-trust actions by Samsung, and show both ETSI , the EU commission and maybe the FCC/FTA how bad Samsung are.
just uploaded on youtube, Jimmy Kimmel samsung add
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJWilkin
I hope ETSI now take this up and fine Samsung for using the 3G patents against Apple
These patents are part of the 3G standard and hence under FRAND
Apple should not use this case as evidence of anti-trust actions by Samsung, and show both ETSI , the EU commission and maybe the FCC/FTA how bad Samsung are.
Nokia sought the same import and sales injunctions against Apple over FRAND-pledged IP. In that case they settled and cross-licensed with Nokia to avoid the chances that Apple products would be banned from the marketplace. In this case in Korea Apple chose to roll the dice.
I don't agree with SEP"s being subjects for injunctions except in the extreme case that a company won't license under any circumstances. This isn't one of those cases AFAIK, so it just highlights problems with software patents in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi
Oh Jeez, thank you for all that informed insight about South Korea, their rigged judiciary system and corrupted people (sic). Some individuals are really pushing that crap down a whole new level...
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain
It's about Samsung the company, if they were an English company and they did that in the UK, an American company who did it in the USA, a Russian company who did it in Russia, a Japanese company who did it in Japan or anywhere else on Earth, Samsung did what they did the FACT that they did it in South Korea has nothing whatsoever to do with racism.
The denial of the facts while playing the race card is more a form of reverse racism
ARM is a British company based out of Cambridge
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartf
ARM is a British company based out of Cambridge
Founded by Apple and Acorn.
The question was giving context to the post I was replying to.
Read a little deeper.
Apple was found to have infringed FRAND patents. Every other country has determined that you can't get an injunction on FRAND patents. Since Apple never denied that they have to pay a license fee for FRAND, but merely wanted the court to determine a fair license fee, there was never any question of Apple's obligation to pay.
Samsung, OTOH, was found guilty of violating patents that are not FRAND and which Apple doesn't have to license.
There's a world of difference between the two infringements and they should not have been treated equally. More importantly, it's a little odd that S. Korea is the only country that has allowed an injunction for FRAND patents.
Judge sentenced "both are guilty"
so, Judges are biased.
Really?
It's worth reading the Foss discussion:
http://www.fosspatents.com
And since googleguy says that Foss is a reliable source, the iHaters need to pay attention.
There was nothing racist in the OP's post, so I don't know where you are coming from. These problems, as well as the seemingly all-powerful position that Samsung occupies in SoKo(tm) are well-documented.
It's a shame that you chose to use such a fine quotation of a literary giant in an attempt to suppress discussion. In relation to which, I can say that I have lived in and traveled quite extensively around East Asia (including Seoul, which I enjoyed immensely), studied Asian languages, and so forth. Just because I am an outsider doesn't mean that I can't criticise aspects of these cultures, or that they have a blanket immunity to scrutiny, just as I expect outsiders will judge/criticise my own country of residence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It's worth reading the Foss discussion:
http://www.fosspatents.com
And since googleguy says that Foss is a reliable source, the iHaters need to pay attention.
Here we go.
"Top Anti-Android Blogger Florian Mueller is Being Paid by Oracle"
http://www.dailytech.com/Top+AntiAndroid+Blogger+Florian+Mueller+is+Being+Paid+by+Oracle/article24633.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcallows
No surprises here.
Do I smell xenophobia here? Of course, I'm certain the US court will not find Apple, the American company, to be in its right... No way that could happen. I mean, of course the refueling planes the US Army will use for the next 80 years are the more appropriate, better built Airbus, and not the Boeing ones that did not meet the requirements. Oh... oh, wait.
I think it's pretty much a balanced judgment that Korean Court issued, given the complexity of the matter, not to mention the political ramifications.
Korean court ruling against its own? Fat chance!
The patents Apple infringed upon of Samsung I still can't figure out what the actual patents were. They weren't that specific in the explanation on the articles that I have read.
The only way a consumer can't be confused is that the Samsung says Samsung on it and the iPad has the Apple logo on it.
It is possible for someone to see the iPad, walk into a Store and the rep says they look similar and they do basically the same thing, but the Samsung is cheaper, and the customer might IGNORANTLY buy the Samsung and then find out AFTERWARDS (after the 30 day return policy is over). This kind of scenario happens quite often in the RETAIL market since these reps try to push the product that they get paid a SPIFF on vs. the better quality product.
A simple demo, anyone can make one product better than the other, but if one REALLY does their homework, they'll usually pick the iPad, but only the more sophisticated buyers.
Unfortunately, Apple has to deal with the mentality of either untrained sales people at their resellers, contending with Sales Spiffs that Samsung often does, which is kind of a BRIBE to the sales rep, because sales reps aren't going to tell the customer WHY they are pushing the Samsung over the iPad, if they actually carry both products. It's too bad these Spiff programs are quietly being done at the store level. The average person that doesn't read what's going on the industry, doesn't know.
Handing out spiffs is usually because the company is a little desperate and needs to Spiff the sales rep to sell THEIR product vs the competition, because Samsung doesn't have tons of people walking in the store asking for their products by name as much as Apple does.
It's funny to walk into a verity of stores listening to the dialog between sales reps and customers at resellers that sell both products. Most of the time, the sales rep is CLUELESS about Apple products, which is why Apple has started the Store within a Store concept, because Apple supplies their own trained sales people because of this problem.
Take it up with googleguy. He thinks Foss is a great reference.
BTW, even if he is paid by Oracle, how does that refute what he said? Please point out the errors in his blog.
And who's payroll are you on...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032
Here we go.
"Top Anti-Android Blogger Florian Mueller is Being Paid by Oracle"
http://www.dailytech.com/Top+AntiAndroid+Blogger+Florian+Mueller+is+Being+Paid+by+Oracle/article24633.htm
Doesn't mean Mueller is dishonest... Until now, I think his pieces have been pretty fair to both parties. Are we going to see the argument that anyone who writes about tech law needs to be:
- not working in tech (might have a relationship to Apple or Microsoft or Nokia or Samsung or Oracle, direct or indirect)
- not working in law (same)
which would leave us with the same levelof "journalist competence" as we're used to?
Great.