Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Sep 2011 21:43 UTC
Legal So, after a bunch of attacks from Apple, Samsung seems to have gone on the offensive against the gadget maker from Cupertino - and big time, too. In three countries, France, Australia, and South Korea, Samsung has filed patent infringement lawsuits against Apple - with the South Korea suit being the weird one. Unlike Apple's software patents and napkin scribbles community designs, Samsung is using actual hardware patents.
Thread beginning with comment 490104
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Samsung strikes back!
by pjafrombbay on Tue 20th Sep 2011 05:01 UTC
Member since:

In a former life I (and Albert Einstein) worked as a patent examiner. I find it incredulous that Apple could have ever been awarded protection for those "napkin scribbles". So goof for Samsung to fight back! Perhaps Governments could have a good look at their intellectual property laws and remove some of the stupidity that seems to have crept in over the years. And while they are at it remove gene patents.


Reply Score: 4

RE: Samsung strikes back!
by Neolander on Tue 20th Sep 2011 06:35 in reply to "Samsung strikes back!"
Neolander Member since:

Perhaps Samsung fighting back is finally the beginning of this patent apocalypse that some of us have been wishing for. The tech world going on the legal variant of a pillow fight until regulators intervene and put some reason in this patent madness.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Samsung strikes back!
by DoctorD on Tue 20th Sep 2011 19:35 in reply to "RE: Samsung strikes back!"
DoctorD Member since:

I too despise wasteful patent wars. In this case, from a government point of view, I consider regulation an expensive patch on a self inflicted wound. Just considerably narrow the portfolio of what patents can actually apply to in the first place.

Rather then waste money on a system handing out government granted monopolies (patents by definition) to every little spark of the imagination, limit the scope of what these can be applied to considerably, and not without a great amount of caution. Then you don't have the two-fold problem of granting monopolies, then enforcing regulation to counter the effects these monopolies produce. This saves a lot of money, on the government side of things and otherwise, but even more importantly, it obsoletes the court-oriented cluster f@#$ that has resulted from a severely permissive patent system. A system that ultimately results in more lawyers, making them richer at the expensive of the rest of us - with little real value produced.

Now frankly, I'm not sure if this is likely to happen, because of the considerable power of corporate lobbying/protectionism, but I do find it to be a much more appealing approach.

Edited 2011-09-20 19:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Samsung strikes back!
by mrstep on Tue 20th Sep 2011 20:44 in reply to "Samsung strikes back!"
mrstep Member since:

It's a design patent, not a technical patent. WTF. How complicated is it? If you copy the look of a competing product almost exactly, you can get called on it. If you start selling a professional computer tower that happens to look just like the Mac Pro, do you think that should work too? How about a Gerrari that looks just like a Ferrari?

The patent system is a broken joke, about to get even worse in the US, but that doesn't make trade dress violations part of that.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Samsung strikes back!
by tupp on Wed 21st Sep 2011 00:26 in reply to "RE: Samsung strikes back!"
tupp Member since:

After looking at this comparison between the Samsung tablet and and the Ipad, I have to conclude that you are correct in saying that Samsung copied Apple:

Oh... wait that is photo of the Ipad next to the Samsung digital image display, which was released four years before the Ipad was first announced.

Well, of course that Samsung design doesn't count, because, although the Ipad looks just like it on the front, the Samsung is just a digital picture display. If Samsung had put computer electronics inside that item, then we could safely say that Apple copied the external look of Samsung device... er... uh ...never mind.

Even the Crunchpad prototype and final design shamelessly copied the Ipad:

Oh, wait... this article is dated a full six months prior to the first announcement of the Ipad.

What I really hate is when non-electronics companies try to steal a concept for a design and claim it as their own. Here is such an example, the Knight-Ridder tablet concept:

Such a blatant ripoff of the Ipad design should not go unpunished, and Apple should... um... Sorry, but it seems that this video was made in 1994 -- sixteen years before the Ipad was first announuced.

Wait, remind me, who is doing the copying?

Reply Parent Score: 4