Korean Media Criticises Apple vs Samsung Verdict

apple and samsung productsCriticism within South Korea of the California Federal Court’s decision in favour of Apple’s patent infringement allegations against Samsung Electronics took an unusual turn over the weekend as editorials and netizens attacked the American legal system, Samsung, and each other.

The verdict inspired even stronger reaction, coming just one day after a verdict by a Seoul court on a similar patent infringement case involving the two companies, a decision which was seen by the public as a victory for Samsung.

Surprisingly little of the criticism in Korean editorials or comments online was aimed at Apple itself. Instead, the prime target was the jury that awarded the American company $1.05 billion in compensation. Nearly every article covering the verdict asserted or implied that ordinary citizens should not have been trusted with judging a case where the details were highly technical. In addition, multiple media outlets stated that there is a current atmosphere of trade protectionism in the United States that unfairly affected the jury’s decision, summed up in the Chosun Ilbo headline ‘Samsung Lost to American Patriotism’.

Online commentary seemed split along political lines, with the top comments on conservative media websites closing ranks around “our company” and lamenting the effect on the country, while comments with a progressive tone celebrated the public failure of Samsung, a company which attracts strong criticism in South Korea in proportion to its dominance in the local market.

From Joongang Ilbo:

Editorial: A Necessary Change from Fast Follower to Pioneer

On August 24th, a jury from a California federal court handed down a verdict that Samsung Electronics is guilty of infringing on smartphone and tablet patents for America’s Apple. In addition, the jury required Samsung to pay Apple $1.05 billion in compensation for the infringement. On the other hand, the jury did not recognize any of Samsung’s claims that Apple had infringed on communications standard patents. The judgment in the home of the smartphone and tablet pc indicates that Apple has emerged as the clear victor in the first round of the patent war with Samsung.

Of course, it is impossible to rule out the chance that an appeals court could overturn the jury’s decision and Samsung stated that it will file an appeal, meaning that it is early to conclude that Apple’s victory is assured. Nevertheless, it is clear that in the ongoing patent war between Apple and Samsung in the United States, the court’s decision will be problematic for Samsung.

In the case of the jury’s decision, experts point out that it lacked fairness and objectivity because it was based on the rushed decision of jurors with no specific knowledge of information technology or patents. After hurrying through the decision process, the jury handed everything to Apple. While we have no intention to disrespect the independence or distinctive nature of the American legal system, we cannot rule out the possibility that the judgment was the biased result of laymen caught up in a social atmosphere of trade protectionism.

If it is true that the jury’s decision is the result of people climbing on the protectionism bandwagon and one-sidedly defending the American company, then it will have a negative effect on the development of the global IT market and the bilateral economic relationship between South Korea and the United States. It will be important to check and make sure that the judge’s decision on the appeal is not manipulated by public opinion.

It is impossible to reverse a decision that has already been handed down; the problem now is uncertainty about whether there will be similar patent disputes in the future. Apple and Samsung have already started thirty separate patent infringement lawsuits in nine difference countries, including the United States and South Korea. Such suits can be considered evidence that Samsung Electronics has become one of the world’s top companies, capable of threatening Apple in the smartphone and tablet pc markets. As Samsung works to raise its profile in the world market, it is inevitable that competing companies will increase their efforts to challenge the Korean firm.

In the future it will not be enough for Samsung to copy other products or be a “fast follower” in the path of other companies. Regardless of the outcome of the Apple case, there is a need for Samsung to accept its role as a leading world company and shift into the role of a creator of new technologies and pioneer in new markets, a so-called “first mover”. Such a move would mean that Samsung would be able to create groundbreaking technologies that don’t attract charges of copyright infringement.

While first movers can earn large profits, there are also substantial risks. There must be sufficient will and creative ability to maintain constant innovation. I look forward to this case triggering a push by our nation’s companies to become world leaders.

Comments from the Chosun Ilbo:

쟌윤:

It’s one thing for the normally ignorant Americans to do this, but there are also many Korean leftists who are insulting Samsung on English websites. The writers are themselves Korean, yet they talk about how Koreans only know how to copy things from other people, how Samsung is an unethical company, how Samsung’s chairman is a criminal, and so on… They even say that there is a red light district near Samsung’s headquarters. Unbelievable

강명구:

It’s only natural for corruption to rear its head in a corrupt place. So if you criticize a company that purposefully doctors photographs so that it looks as if it did construction it never completed and then steals tax money you must be a leftist and that’s the end of the story? You’re trying to protect people who have committed a crime.. some people can’t even use their brains these days

김미진:

This is the weakness of the American legal system. It takes a housewife, a guy with no job, an engineer, an average office worker and the like from within the jurisdiction of the accuser (in this case it was nearby Apple headquarters) and makes them into a jury. Is it right for them decide a patent case? In any case, in the future I’ll boycott all Apple products. This will not have much effect on an unjust judgment but it is the only way I can protest.

심윤희:

Don’t hitch your patriotism to Samsung… Are you a vice president there or something?

Samsung lose out to Apple in court

Comments from Chosunbiz:

김이영:

I will introduce you to a comment made on the Washington Post’s article about this judgment. I will just translate it. “This judgment is not a victory for Apple it is a defeat for the American legal system”. As further support, I saw that over half of the comments on the articles about the case on the New York Times website, CNN, and the Washington Post (around 40 different comments) were criticisms of the jurors and of Apple.

정하원:

Despite the fact that I used an iPhone 3s and 4s, the comments about smartphone design in this judgment don’t make any sense. Infringement on a patent for a square with rounded corners? The huge sum of $1.05 billion dollars would take away a full 1% of our country’s economic growth. More than twice the cash amount that Kim Dae-Jung gave to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il? It’s too much from the vital funds for our country.

조정원:

So when Apple steals things from Sony it’s creativity but when Samsung references Apple it’s stealing?? That’s like saying when I sleep with a married person it is for love but when someone else does it it’s just adultery.,, They’ve lost all sense of what’s balanced…hoel

zzz:

Haha, but the average person can see with their own eyes that Samsung definitely ripped off Apple

julylove:

The stock price will probably plummet on Monday, but this is just stupendous and refreshing…Samsung, you’re a copycat.. haha

한국:

Samsung used to steal technology from smaller companies without a thought, but Apple won’t stand for that kind of thing. Just look at this, Samsung tried to do what it wanted quickly but now it gets slammed with this! Samsung doesn’t even have a hair’s weight of creativity to go around! tsk tsk tsk

Comments from Yonhap:

투시경:

Regardless of country of origin, it honestly looks like copying. Without the iPhone or the iPad do you think they would have made the Galaxy series? Come on Samsung, let’s recognize what must be recognized. And in the future, do things more creatively. That’s the only way to survive in the long term.

고리반달:

We need to clearly recognize what should be recognized. Even this article tries to shield Samsung, showing how far our press still has to go. You say the jury didn’t look at anything closely and just responded based on emotion? Then who is it whose son retakes the bar exam for ten years, only to pass and jump ship to Samsung Electronics, passing through the revolving door into a manager position? Would that be justice?

배부른소크라테스:

You lost because of the state of Korean reporters. It is always the reporters who ruin South Korea.

민족민주:

I celebrate Apple’s victory.

아브라카카브라:

Then you shouldn’t have stolen the ideas… Anyone can see that the Galaxy imitated the iPhone design. Who could have come up with that design if not through infringing on patents? It’s obvious that the theft has come out. That was the technology that small companies and venture companies created through sweat and blood. Careful about the patents, Samsung was clever enough to change its products just a little bit and disguise the origin. Then you buy a good patent lawyer and even the judge on your case is a former Samsung scholarship student. [Note: in reference to the case tried in South Korea] Small companies and venture companies sue you for patent infringement but they always lose. You lost to Apple this time, don’t talk bs about the patent process being an obstacle to the development of industry.

가힝:

Are people in South Korea really this attached to the big companies?? Oh lord chairman! Please let the illegal inheritance, accounting fraud, immoral market entry, rigged family control schemes, tax evasion, and abuse of market share to control smaller companies end and think about bringing on someone respectable like Ahn Cheol-soo.

세월따라:

Samsung. Take a look at yourself in the mirror. You make me ashamed to be Korean. ㅠㅠㅠㅠ

슬레어:

Ah, it feels good to see that.

garnet:

It looks like the verdict for the case in South Korea, which came out just one day before the American court announced its decision, was an attempt to protect the stock price.

GoldPark:

Don’t do things in such a dirty way, just pay royalties

Samsung lose out to Apple in court

Share This Article
Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • Matt (@MeCampbell30)

    For a country that doesn’t have a complete jury system yet I don’t find the criticism of the jury system in America surprising. Strictly applying the patent it’s clear that Samsung violated it. But I don’t think some of those patents should have been given in the first place.

    Also, sofa.

    • 미대협

      I agree. But I also see it hurting business because it makes Apple that much stronger. They won this case, who’s next? itunes is crap software and the main reason I’ll never buy Apple music devices, and their computers are overpriced for anyone who isn’t a college student (for the discount). I think this could spark an interesting debate, though, about where the line lies between copying and innovating.

      • Matt

        Not to start a “tech war” or anything, but how is iTunes crap? I never use the online store, but the offline software is great for maintaining an organized music library. I’ve never encountered anything better (Windows Media Player sucks; VLC Media Play and Foobar are no good for libraries; I tried Winamp once nine years ago and hated it; and both media players on my Samsung Galaxy Tab are annoying and extremely inconvenient).

        I realize this might make me sound like an Apple fanboy, but I’m not going to hate on something I find useful and functional just because it’s popular (and even more popular to hate)…

        • 미대협

          I got tired of iTunes deleting my library when I switched to another computer. It would sync and everything on my ipod was gone. Granted it was an older iteration of the software and maybe it’s gotten better now, but after two wipes of my songs I gave up and passed it along to my brother. Then I pirated all the music I wanted and copied it to my phone (once I got one that played mp3s) and never had the problem again. Just my personal experience, I know everyone’s experiences differ.

          I have a Galaxy Note at the moment, and I love android market and all the free stuff I get since I’m living in China and can’t buy anything on there. I don’t know how iTunes works over here though.

          • Patrick

            I’ve pirated every mp3 and they all work fine on my Iphone. Just because you have Itunes doesn’t mean you have to pay for all of your songs. Sorry you’re only learning about that now.

          • chucky3176

            iTunes is a closed clunky program, unintuitive, and you can’t just click and drag MP3 files from your USB stick to copy. It’s a horrible program that tries to baby sit you and end up costing you time and money. Their program is designed so that you can’t easily switch your hardware to non-apple products without destroying what you have downloaded already. Their intention is on purpose and it’s monopolistic practice.

          • Matt

            chucky3176, it sounds to me like you just don’t know how to use iTunes. I’ve been using iTunes for years to manage my massive music library of mostly pirated music (over 100 days’ worth of audio, at around 200 GB), and I’ve maintained this same library across two different laptops, several iPods and iPhones, and my Samsung Galaxy Tab (obviously you have to go through the files themselves rather than via the iTunes interface). As long as you know how to manipulate files in Explorer (Windows) or Finder (Mac), iTunes is a perfectly fine way to manage the listening and organizational aspects of it all.

            [/that was entirely too long…]

          • Chucky3176

            Matt, the last time I tried using the iTunes, it was last year. I spent hours farting around, trying to move my MP3 files around and ended up in total frustration. I ended up downloading an app from the web which allowed direct browsing of the USB. After that ordeal, I gave up using iTune. Now I’m not a Mac expert, but neither am I a computer illiterate. For someone of my level of expertise, it should be easy to move files around and it should be intuitive. There’s something definitely wrong if someone of my level of computer literacy can’t do this easily. It’s simply a bad software.

          • Patrick

            iTunes will let you drag files to any place. Just open iTunes, then open another window like your usb and then click and drag. Nothing complicated here.

          • Chucky3176

            Patrick, it wouldn’t let me do that.

          • Chucky3176

            Specifically my problem was copying/moving/deleting files around between my iPhone, hard drive on my computer, and the USB drive.

          • Patrick

            There are always updates to the software. I do believe I had some problems early on as well, but to date I think they have been fixed.

  • Brett Sanbon

    Okay, Samsung obviously used what Apple was doing as “inspiration”. Honestly though, there are tons of cell phones on the market that have rounded corners. “Pinch to zoom”/”Double tap to zoom”… is there any other practical way?

    I am skeptical that the hearing took place in California of all places. The people there worship Apple more than the mainland Chinese, and thats saying a lot. I doubt the jury was a jury of “peers”. Were there any techies? Anyone familiar with technology patents? Any Korean-Americans? Most likely 90% of jurors own at least 1 apple product.

    Yes, Samsung “borrowed” technology from Apple. Yea, the Galaxy Tab looks like a black iPad. All Samsung has to do is curve the top of any device and its not a rectangle anymore (look at the SIII).

    Heres the thing- It only cost Samsung $1 Billion to become the #2 cell phone manufacturer in the world (they are outselling Apple now, but that may change after iPhone 5). Facebook paid that much for Instagram. Samsung now has many people in the world thinking that Samsung phones are on par with Apple’s, regarding technology. Free publicity anyone? Heh, Samsung pays a little now, but may end up gaining more in the long-run.

    • Cassidi

      Exactly what I was thinking. There absolutely had to be a little bit of bias in the jury.

      • Patrick

        Of course they copied. Just look at the two products. One doesn’t have to be an expert to see which came first and which came second. As Apple apparently had that patent and was given it, you can’t blame the jury for choosing the obvious. I would rather have a jury system than a system where one judge hands out random verdicts as they do here in Korea. (A random system where every foreigner gets almost double the penalty of a Korean)

        • chucky3176

          Samsung wasn’t the first company with Android phone. It was HTC who cooperated with Google to bring out the first Android phones. Samsung got on the board, when every other companies were doing the same thing. Now everyone is pointing out at Samsung as if they’re the main culprit.

        • Nyancat

          Apple is just plain scared of competition, everyone knows it. They sell a shitty ‘experience’ to you at high prices, now that another smartphone maker is coming out with better specs for a similar price of course they are worried about losing the market to them.
          Since Jobs is dead they are probably worried about the ‘innovating’ part of their business because if they come out with a phone similar to the Iphone 4s this time around then get ready to see apple users jump on the Samsung bandwagon.
          Apple wasn’t the first touchscreen phone, what if they got sued for using that? They are also not the first camera phone as well? Should they get sued for that too? It’s kinda sad though, I would have hoped they would take the high road and try fighting the competition albeit not legally.

          • Patrick

            In my opinion they sell a very smooth experience, not shitty. I don’t know what phone you’re using but they don’t get much easier to use than an iPhone. High prices, perhaps.

          • Brett Sanbon

            I know a lot of people who have switched from Apple to Android because the phones are a pain in the ass. I like my simple OSX on my Macbook Pro but I dont think Id ever buy an iPhone. Most people buy them because everyone else is buying them, and those people are buying them because Apple became trendy in the late 90’s/ early 2000’s.

          • Nyancat

            well you could say the same for many other smartphones in the market now regarding the “smooth” user experience, android allows for more customization compared to IOS, it’s like the windows of smartphone OS. Now that apple has taken such action they won’t have to put as much effort into ‘innovation’ anymore since they have effectively diminished the competition. Why would they go this route? Because they fear the competition.
            I don’t use an Iphone or Samsung, I’m using one of their competitors, but have tested both. Might even get an Iphone 5 if it’s worthwhile.

    • 미대협

      I read an interview Cnet did with one of the jurors who was actually a mechanical engineer. He said something about emails between the bosses at Samsung being a major deciding factor for him. At least HE has technical knowledge, but I couldn’t say for everyone present. And I also think it’s weird that patent disputes go to the regular court system? Should patent violations be treated by someone with some knowledge of technical expertise who then evaluates the products? What did they run this as, thievery?

      • Adjdj

        These cases must also be judged on common sense, not just purely technicalities. The jury injects humanity to an otherwise litigious proceeding. These lawyers have to explain to ordinary citizens why they are right. If you can’t do that, you’re obviously full of poppycock.

  • Genxi

    Both companies may have copied each other in the past, but like some commentors have mentioned, the patent of squares with round corners is plain stupid. Sure, I agree that Samsung have infringed in some designs…but over one billion dollars in damage is a little too steep for some simple designs.

  • Cassidi

    The netizens really shouldn’t be ashamed over something like this, no one in america really cared about this case, let alone know anything about it.

  • poktanju

    This also touches the issue of Samsung having to review its strategy and maybe stop copying others and really start innovating.
    To a larger extent, its the whole Korean economic model that should be reviewed.
    Look at the past 30 years of development in Korea. After the IMF cash injection, Korea started copying Japan. Just look at 2 of Korea’s biggest industries: Cars with Hyunday, Kia etc (clearly targeting Toyota, Nissan etc), Electronics with Samsung, LG (clearly targeting Sony, Panasonic etc).
    I work with Koreans every day and I can tell that every strategic decision that is made depends on what competition has announced first.

    • Patrick

      For a car example just look how the Kia Ray has copied off of the even uglier Nissan Cube. They don’t even know what looks good, and still copy it. http://www.caradvice.com.au/145154/kia-ray-revealed-only-for-korea/

      They should be next in line for a patent challenge.

      • chucky3176

        If it was copying it would be unintentional. I don’t believe Peter Shryer would intentionally copy a design from the ugly Nissan, when he’s one of the top car designers in the world. That’s hard to believe.

        • Patrick

          It is shame that Kia Korea took his great Ray concept and turned it into what it is now. http://www.kia.fr/Experience-KIA/Concept-cars/Ray-Concept/ The cube copy.

          Pretty sure, it wasn’t Shryer’s decision. Also see the new SM cars (Samsung as well) for how they ripped off the Audi grill shape) Shameful.

          • chucky3176

            As head of the KIA design centers, I have a hard time believing Schryer wasn’t involved in the decision making. The design was an effort from the KIA’s California Design center. Looking at the car, it’s a box type car. It also looks like the KIA Soul. There’s only so many ways you can make the box cars look any different.

            http://kia-buzz.com/from-the-past-to-future-a-look-at-box-form-styling

          • Patrick

            The Kia Soul is one ugly car as well. Hard to understand what Shryer could see in that one either. Guess that’s why when I look at all of the cars that he’s currently credited with as his design work they don’t have either the Ray or Soul listed, but they have several other Kia cars. Maybe you could do some more research and see if Wiki needs to be updated and get back to us.

          • Patrick
          • Chucky3176

            Samsung cars are owned by Renault. They are either rebadged Nissan or Renault.

  • Chris

    I’m sick of seeing the “hurr apple copyrighted squares” argument. The lawsuits apply to the design, OS, functionality, everything. Practically everything about the user experience of the Galaxy S, short of cracking open the device and looking at the chipset/soldering, is an uninspired copy of the iPhone 3GS. It is clear that the Galaxy S was a damage control knockoff designed to secure the Korean market before the iPhone 3GS (first iphone in Korea) could dominate it. This was widely covered in Korean news and it is in line with Samsung’s business practices.

    This has largely turned into a fanboy battle between idiotic Apple fans and hipster-esque anything-but-Apple Android fans. The objective observation here is that Samsung largely instigated this through lawsuits in 2009-2010, effectively taking the opening shots and pissing off Apple’s leadership. This is what they get.

    For the record, I haven’t owned an Apple product (except Apple wired keyboard) since 2009 and I am planning on getting a Galaxy Nexus and Nexus Tab when I get back to the US. I hope I’m not being biased, I’m just sick of seeing the uninformed injecting their opinions on this case.

    • Barack Obama

      incorrect. the lawsuit applies to specific patents one of which specifically and solely covers the rounded corner square icons. You can’t sue for something vague like “design, OS, functionality, everything.”

  • glenn

    If Apple is serious with their patent claim then they should be filing cases for the other companies whose smartphones and tablets are more or less are similar with their design.
    Samsung is doing a good job of offering an alternative brand for smartphone and tablets, but greedy Apple wants it all.
    If apple really wants to be the best company in the world they should be able to trump and overcome other competitors by providing better devices rather than just making few expensive changes with their line-up.

  • Synchromystic

    This entire debate is utterly ridiculous. My opinion–the very idea of intellectual property is complete nonsense. Ideas are not property. IP is a sham, and its derivative concepts of copyright or patent infringement are only used by companies to gain a competitive edge and squeeze royalties out of others, while unfairly squelching access to free information. In a free market, the customers would decide which technology profits with their own money.

  • bigwin80

    The 6 patents that Samsung infringed are listed on this site:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500273-37/apple-v-samsung-the-infringing-device-scorecard/

    1. 381 patent: bonce-back feature when you scroll beyond the edge of an image or document.

    2. 915 patent- One finger to scroll or two finger pinch to zoom

    3. 163 patent- Tap to zoom gesture

    4. D677 patent- front of the iphone(square, rounded edges, screen)
    5. D087 patent- back of the iphone(square, rounded edges, camera)
    6. D305 patent- User interface, centers on a grid of rounded square icons against a black background.

    Patents 1,2, 3 and 6 arn’t even Samsungs fault. Those features are a part of Android. Not to mention such features shouldn’t be patented in the first place. Apple didn’t even invent one finger scroll, tap to zoom, rounded square icons etc. They were simply the first ones to patent them because no one was douchey enough to patent something like that.

    Seriously, rounded square icons against a black background isn’t an invention. Maybe I should patent rounded square icons against a beige background. Oh wait, Apple probably patented that as well.

    Patent 4 and 5 is a joke. Square with rounded edges and a screen. Apple didn’t invent it but they were the first ones to patent it. It boggles my mind that something so base can be patented.

    • bigwin80

      The whole case is a sham. The court house was located 10 miles from apples headquarters(I am not joking). Jurors were picked from apples hometown city. A place where their influence on the economy and culture is unquestionable.

      A similiar case like this was litigated in Great Britain a few months ago. The British court threw out Apples case and demanded they apologize to Samsung.

      http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Apple-UK-Samsung-Lawsuit-Apology,16363.html

      Only in Apple land is a frivolous case like this awarded to them. The jurors might as well have been apple employees.

  • http://www.hikosaemon.com Hikosaemon

    I would have thought the media would be celebrating this great victory for one of the first ever Korean American federal court judges.

    • Patrick

      She tried the case, but how is that a victory for the judge. That sounds like the Korean judicial system. The judge in America rules over the case and tries to maintain a fair trial. The victory is either for the prosecution or the defendants. The jury gives their verdict and the judge makes the sentence. True, that an Korean American judge ruled over the case shows an advanced society.

      • chucky3176

        But then she was made to overturn an earlier ruling that favored Samsung, by the higher courts.

        • Patrick

          Please explain, or don’t bother. Normally higher courts overtune the decisions made by lower courts so your post makes little sense.

          • chucky3176

            That’s right, the higher courts ordered her to reverse the decision, after the appeal. What doesn’t make sense?

          • Patrick

            Please provide a link Chucky so I can just read myself.

  • ajstew

    “They even say that there is a red light district near Samsung’s headquarters. Unbelievable”

    There is, and Samsung business men go to the area nightly right after work. No, it’s not your traditional red light area, but everyone knows where it is… and everyone knows to keep it a secret from their wives. The stories I have heard from Samsung employees and those paying the bills.

    • Patrick

      Funny, and it wouldn’t surprise me. I’ve even heard from someone who works at the company that they’re really tight asses about those who enter. Won’t let them bring phones in and such because of the cameras on them. Scared people are going to take pictures about what they’re working on copying.

      • x1SFG

        You really have no experience in R&D or the tech field, do you? Most places do not allow phones, cameras, or electronics in sensitive R&D areas. The US government has these designated areas, as does Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, Intel, AMD, Sony, Panasonic, and so on. It would not surprise me that Samsung would also follow suit.

    • http://www.zenkimchi.com ZenKimchi

      And no one sees the irony in criticizing the American jury for being ultra-nationalistic and then shaming the Korean “leftist” press for not being nationalistic enough.

      • Brett Sanbon

        I see it, I SEE IT!!

  • chucky3176

    Amen to Engadget. I think this just about says it all, that Apple is a monopoly.

    http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/25/editorial-engadget-on-the-apple-vs-samsung-ruling/

    It’s done. It’s all over. There’s nothing left now but the tears, the big checks — and the appeals. After weeks of laborious deliberations and no shortage of courtroom antics the jury has issued its verdict and, while it isn’t a complete victory for Apple, it’s most certainly a loss for Samsung. Naturally, we have some thoughts on the subject. Join us after the break as we express our feelings.

    Tim Stevens

    The creative geniuses in Cupertino have every right to protect their creations, but I hope their role going forward is that of sagely stewards not prickly defenders.

    As a software developer at heart, I couldn’t help but wince while watching all the rulings come in, the majority indicating that Samsung’s implementation of various features like pinch-zooming and bounce-scrolling did indeed infringe on Apple’s. This means that, at face value, Apple owns that functionality, so others who want it are going to have to take extraordinary measures on the implementation side to dance around conflicts. This, without doubt, will give Android hardware and software makers — and indeed Google itself — something to think about in the coming weeks.

    The $1.05 billion ruling is of course the first ramification here, but I’m concerned about what’s next. Will we go back to tap-zooming on other devices? Will grids of icons be off-limits going forward? Ultimately that could mean that creative designers and developers will come up with new ways around these restrictions — there’s nothing like a limited set of tools to inspire creativity — but I’m concerned that this ruling will stifle progress in the short-term.

    I’m also concerned about how this ruling has substantially increased the potency of Apple’s patent arsenal. While this tactical strike was an almost unmitigated victory, should Apple push the big red button again we might be knocking on the door of Mutually Assured Patent Destruction. The creative geniuses in Cupertino have every right to protect their creations, and as this verdict shows they can and will do so quite successfully, but I hope their role going forward is that of sagely stewards open to partnerships, not prickly defenders throwing landmines across the field of consumer electronics.

    Darren Murph

    This is going to come off cynical, but it is what it is. There was zero doubt that Apple would win this. None. Looking at the closing arguments alone, it was plainly obvious that showing a jury full of laypeople Product A vs. Product B and asking them — in a roundabout way — if they looked alike would lead to an Apple victory. But the thing that really burns me up is that Samsung was on the other end of this. Why not Motorola? Why not HTC? Why not every Android smartphone maker since 2007? The brutal truth is that Samsung was simply made an example of because it’s the only phone maker in the world that’s actually pulling in meaningful profits besides Apple.

    I’ve been told that this trial isn’t about tech editors and avid followers of technology — these folks can clearly see that a Samsung product and an Apple product are not the same. But let’s be honest: the notion that consumers could have been willfully deceived that an Android-based Samsung phone was an iPhone is pathetic. There’s a giant “Samsung” logo on it. It’s about as absurd as suggesting that someone could be duped into buying a Honda Odyssey instead of a Dodge Grand Caravan. They’re both minivans after all, right?

    It’s about as absurd as suggesting that someone could be duped into buying a Honda Odyssey instead of a Dodge Grand Caravan. They’re both minivans after all, right?

    And let’s not even start on iOS 5’s pull-down Notification Center, which was unquestionably spotted in other mobile operating systems. Oh, and iMessage? Nah — I’ve never seen that idea implemented anywhere prior. The reality is that Android has made iOS better, and iOS has made Android better. The competition has led to stronger offerings on both sides for consumers of all ages, and if you want my honest opinion, Apple succeeded in derailing Samsung long before this trial ended. Just look at the Galaxy Note 10.1. It’s a truly disappointing piece, largely because it was intentionally designed to not be as awesome as the iPad. And make no mistake — it’s a far cry from being an iPad.

    In the end, consumers will lose. Companies high and low are scrapping potentially amazing product ideas right now for fear of legal retaliation. Not just from Apple — this ruling is way, way bigger than that — but from any company with a patent on [insert obscure shape here]. I hope we’re happy.

    Jon Fingas

    Especially as I own technology from both companies, I have incredibly mixed feelings about the verdict. I agree with many of you that software patents ought to be curbed or even given the boot — they often cast too wide a net, and some of them have workarounds so trivial that you wonder why the patent holder bothered. If it were up to me, Apple wouldn’t sue over software patents at all. You’ll even catch me agreeing that a few things like multi-touch are closer to being “obvious” features that wouldn’t justify patents to begin with, even if their exact implementations aren’t as simple as some would like to imagine.

    Wouldn’t it have been much nicer if Apple and Samsung alike had refused the temptations to sue (or countersue) and decided to compete only with the best possible devices they could muster?

    This lawsuit also included trade dress complaints, however, and it’s hard to simply give Samsung a pass in this area, as good as its devices can be. For me, most of the issue centers around the original Galaxy S. That conspicuous bottom app tray? The sheer number of similar, unnecessarily square icons? The particular hardware styling of certain variants, including the Fascinate? They raise eyebrows, and none of them were either built into Android or reflected in phones from peers like HTC. No, I don’t think Samsung was hoping to outright confuse buyers with Galaxy S models, but it certainly feels like the company wanted to ride Apple’s wave of success and garner a similar amount of cachet without as much effort. I just can’t let that slide, as much as I want to. The good news is that Samsung has (mostly) turned the corner with phones like the Galaxy S III; despite all the legal scrutiny over software, it’s proof that Samsung can go on a more distinct path.

    That equal frustration with either party leads me to think that, really, the escalating patent wars between Apple and Samsung just need to come to an end. Apple, you can’t truly destroy Android through lawsuits. Samsung, you can’t feign ignorance that uncanny similarities existed, or draw the ire of regulators by countersuing with standards-based patents. I don’t have significant objections to the verdict against Samsung — Apple simply presented a better case — but wouldn’t it have been much nicer if Apple and Samsung alike had refused the temptations to sue (or countersue) and decided to compete only with the best possible devices they could muster?

    James Trew

    During the ’90s, and into the next decade, many considered Microsoft the enemy, the malevolent gate keeper to their technological world. Forums would be littered with references to “MicroShaft,” or “M$,” so strong was the resentment from certain quarters. At this same time, Apple was something of the plucky, hipster upstart. Having a Mac was cool, it also meant — albeit in a small way — you were sticking it to the man. You were free from the “Mon$ter’s” grip.

    Fast-forward to the present day, and it almost feels like those two roles are reversing. While Microsoft has (quite literally) undergone a dramatic change of image, Apple is fast becoming the unnerving ubiquitous force in consumer technology. This couldn’t be demonstrated any more eloquently than by the events of the last few weeks. Let’s get things straight. Do I think Samsung copied Apple? Yes, it probably did. But then has everything Apple has created been entirely original? Of course not.

    They handed Apple the right to romp ever forward down this self-destructive path, the end of which is good for no one. Not even Apple.

    For example, Windows users have had icons on their desktops arranged neatly in a grid, since long before iOS came around. I’ve owned several pre-iPhone mobiles that did the same. Nokia’s Symbian s60 for example. It might not have been exactly the same, but a grid, with icons, nonetheless. In fact, pre-Android and iOS, most mobile phones often looked and operated in much the same way, the difference was mainly in the hardware itself. Apple (and to be fair, it’s not alone) has ushered in a new era though, where minute details, that really aren’t new innovations, are being patented. More frustratingly, the patents are being granted. And this is where I feel the real problem lies. Apple had the legal right to protect something, it did, and won. Fine. What is more galling is that the jurors seem to have missed an opportunity to question the validity (and by proxy, value) of these patents, and they didn’t. They handed Apple the right to romp ever forward down this self-destructive path, the end of which is good for no one. Not even Apple. Don’t let it become Appl€?

    Steve Dent

    Useful, new and non-obvious — that’s what a patentable invention has to be, according to the USPTO. But that office started brushing aside its own criteria around the internet’s early days, and brought the system to its current, twisted state — with the Apple v. Samsung decision being exhibit ‘A’. Cupertino deserved to win. It was clear to me that Samsung was infringing on items like bounce-back (7,864,163), but that patent, for one, should never have been awarded in the first place. And the whole problem started a couple of decades ago, with the granting of a spate of eye-opening digital clunkers.

    The first time I saw an absurd technology patent was in the early ’90s. It was awarded, in part, for the electronic process of “storyboarding” still images, or arranging them in the same sequence they’d appear in a film or video. “That can’t possibly be patentable,” I thought. “Where’s the novel process? How is that non-obvious?” Companies like Avid had to ante up to use that so-called technology for their video editing software, which increased the price of their products, shaking down them and their buyers. With precedent like that, the USPTO opened the floodgates to similar dubious products which aped existing methods but were now “digital.” For instance, Hollywood has been doing storyboards for a hundred years on paper and celluloid, so why is transferring that process to a computer new and non-obvious?

    It seems that every half-baked idea that pops into a designer’s head is thrown into the patent bin.

    That turned out to be the tip of the iceberg, as inventions like that led to all manner of ludicrous patents, bounce-back included — which is merely an animation to indicate the bottom or side of a page. Does that mean that any smartphone effect that mimics an object falling and landing hard, like flying sparks (off the top of my head) — is patentable? I know US patent law is liberal, but that’s ridiculously thin. It seems that every half-baked idea that pops into a designer’s head is thrown into the patent bin, and a big chunk of those are actually approved. Not only does that stifle budding inventors and companies, it makes a mockery of what an invention actually is.

    • x1SFG

      Pretty spot on.

      Samsung may have copied Apple in terms of its Android OS (which isn’t even Samsung’s fault really, but Google), but then Apple copied Sony then cry foul whenever somebody copies its design.

      Same thing happened with Microsoft and Apple trying to copy Xerox decades ago over the mouse.

  • White Guy in USA

    How would you like it if an American or Chinese car company copied the design language of the new Hyundai or KIA cars.

    • Chucky3176

      They already do copy all cars, including Hyundai. But it would be out of the question to sue them. It would be stupid to sue them just because of appearance. But then there was a case of the Daewoo Matiz about ten years ago. A Chinese company, Cherry ripped off the look of the car, as well as the inside including the engine, transmission, everything inside – the cars were so much alike that parts from Cherry car could work in the Daewoo Matiz. GM took over the Daewoo car and tried to sue the Chinese in China, but failed. Now that’s different from simply suing someone over an outer appearance.

      • White Guy in America

        American car companies do not copy anyone else, only Chinese do. Design language is half of the design so its very important.

        Why am I correct, because, one of the frames on my wall reads,
        Savannah College of Art and Design, Bachelor of Fine Arts in Industrial Design.

        • Barack Obama

          How do you know this? Do you know about every single design and every single part in a car? are you that stupid to make such an outrageous claim? I will say with 100% certainty American car manufacturers has copied from Japanese manufacturers which then makes you a hypocrite.

  • Dr Dust Cell

    There be new shitstorms a’brewin cappin:
    http://www.androidpit.com/google-vs-apple-android

  • bultak

    i worked in a korean company design department, (it was not technology related). they copied other companies products all the time. i tend to think that this verdict is true. korea needs more small companies that are young, have fresh ideas, and are free from the control by the chaebo.

  • bultak

    i worked in a korean company design department, (it was not technology related). they copied other companies products all the time. i tend to think that this verdict is true.

    korea needs more small companies that are young, have fresh ideas, and are free from the control by the chaebol.

  • 참을 수 없는 존재의 가벼움

    All controversies surrounding the alleged patent infringement case between the two electronics giants involve with the question: What can we call as unique enough to be given a patent?

    The iPone’s retangular case with rounded corners and mutliple ways of calling up information like scrolling or doube tapping on a screen was judged as distinctive by the American court.

    First, if a desk is designed with rounded corners to prevent physical damage when a child happens to scratch or hit the part of the body on it, is it really differentiated enough for a developer to assert it as his or her proprietary design?

    Second, the above-mentioned several functions, embedded in iPones, is deja bu for me. Double tapping is synonymous with double clicking of a computer mouse, while either scrolling a screen or zooming in or out a screen with a finger is similar to mouse scrolling and touching the enlarging button on Internet Explorers’ windows. Is it really ingenious as Apple has claimed?

    Last, who should be the utlimate judge in patent forgery allegations when experts feel it hard to distinguish two similar products. The most trustworthy connoisseur is consumers. However, Apple and the US court is now trying to indoctrinate what is unique with controverisal arguments in people.

    This is really sad for the United States, which has always proclaimed the country as a land of opportunies and enterpreneurial spirits, is turning into a beacon for trade protectionism, kicking out competitors in its market with preposterous grounds.

    • 참을 수 없는 존재의 가벼움

      As an afterthought, Apple’s screen-related controlls can be seen as similar to actions calling up information from computers in the hologram-projected screen in the 2002 movie “Minority Report”, starred by Tom Cruise.

    • lonetrey

      Agreed with your first point, not for the second though.

      Yes, the double-tap is probably synonymous with double-clicking on a mouse. That’s why when Apple thought of it, it was a good idea. Not everyone thought of double-tapping, they could’ve easily gone with “tap & slide your finger up and down twice”, or “tap, hold, and make a circle”. Or something. But you get the idea.

      Third point is also agreed upon. Apple does make some arguments that I don’t agree with…

    • Patrick

      “This is really sad for the United States, which has always proclaimed the country as a land of opportunies and enterpreneurial spirits, is turning into a beacon for trade protectionism, kicking out competitors in its market with preposterous grounds.”

      As sad as it is for the United States, a good taste of their own medicine for Korea.

  • Web of Lies

    Ridiculous verdict. None of this patents are original or should be owned by either Apple or Samsung. Rounded corner icons? Enlarging documents by tapping on screen? Piss off, this is just a pissing match between two corporate titans. You can check out the actual verdict through the link below.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577609810658082898.html#project%3DAPPLESAMSUNGVERDICT%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

  • lonetrey

    -coughdontcarecough-

    I think both phones are nice. Too bad one had to trigger an attack on the other, leading to this.

    I agree that the jury is probably unfair. Big businesses will have an image, and that image will influence opinions before any trial or thought of a trial took place. Short of taking some civilian living in isolation who’s never seen an iPhone before, I’m not sure how they could get a fair jury.

  • Seanshine

    조정원:

    “So when Apple steals things from Sony it’s creativity but when Samsung references Apple it’s stealing?? That’s like saying when I sleep with a married person it is for love but when someone else does it it’s just adultery.,, They’ve lost all sense of what’s balanced…hoel”

    Someone please clue me in on what this Dude is talking about? Am seriously lost. However, am glad to see that majority of the Korean comments above recognized that Samsung should be held accountable just like everyone else, e.g HTC.

  • Stories of butts

    None of them are original and copy from other companies loads of time.

  • Synchromystic

    All of you are continuing to bicker over this verdict, when I firmly stand my ground and say the *only* thing that makes sense: intellectual property is NOT property. Ideas are NOT property. Once my ideas get sent out into the world, I have no right to ownership over them and cannot aggress on anyone’s use to them in the free market. Thus, copying is not theft and thus Apple had zero legitimate claim to bring Samsung to court. It’s that simple. End of story. Any support of IP and patent laws is a sham and is only supported by those who want to unfairly gain from stifling competition and trampling on consumers’ legitimate ability to spend their money on whatever thing they deem sufficiently creative or useful. That, or you just don’t know any better.

  • CAW!

    It’s only a matter of time until Apple starts suing apples.

  • Proud

    That’s the most impressive comments I’ve ever read. So when a South Korean court rules in favor of a South Korean company, over an American company…what is that??? Justice?

    Same-sung needs to sells their products in the USA more than Apple needs to sell their products in Korea.

  • Hamayon

    Here Samsung have copied apple, but In iOS 7 apple have copied android phones

    source: http://comingmore.com/ios-7-features-apple-users-need-to-know/

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»