4 ms·

Typical click-bait title. It's actually a korean company being sued. http://www.toptec.co.kr/ http://www.toptec.co.kr/ This piece from Reuters includes more de

Typical click-bait title. It's actually a korean company being sued. http://www.toptec.co.kr/ http://www.toptec.co.kr/ This piece from Reuters includes more details: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-samsung-elec/south-korea-indicts-group-for-leaking-samsung-display-tech-to-chinese-firm-idUSKCN1NY17K https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-samsung-elec/south-... I guess someone in Samsung was just mad about the fact the world's first foldable phone was made by a Chinese company. https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/11/5/18067116/royole-flexpai-flexible-display-foldable-smartphone-tablet-pricing-features-release-date https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/11/5/18067116/r...

baybal2 8y ago
No, that phone uses Samsung's panel
- zachguo 8y ago
  I'm not sure how you got this piece of info. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royole#Flexible_Display https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royole#Flexible_Display
  - baybal2 8y ago
    Might be mistaking them for other flexible display contenders there
jayd16 8y ago
The article claims the buyers are Chinese. The seller is who is being sued though. I suppose buying stolen goods is also illegal but yeah... it is odd they focus on the nationality of the buyers.
- izacus 8y ago
  It's not odd at all - once you understand the goal is to smear Chinese again. Look at comments even in this topic - there's already ranting against China here. Not even HNers cared enough to read about who stole what. The propaganda objective has been reached.
  - IdiocyInAction 8y ago
    It's not like this wouldn't have a precedent though. China has been ignoring IP laws for years.
  - javajosh 8y ago
    The tech was stolen by a Korean company and sold to a Chinese company. China is famous for stealing Western tech. The "IP is evil" crowd on HN think this is utopia. The rest (like me) think it's terrible. But the fact that Chinese tech companies routinely steal tech is not in question, and it's not even objectively a smear.
    - pas 8y ago
      I think copyright and IP in general is important and both extremes are bad. Sadly this is one area where there are seemingly no easy solutions. Fashion seems to cope well without IP protection except trademarks. And arguably a lot of human endeavors could be done less adversarially (such as pharma research, battery research, etc) but the lure of potential future profit drives a lot of R&D there. So maybe the solution is to reserve IP for things that seem to work well only in a market race setup, but drop it to a few years in all other areas. And as we set up X prizes, a regulator/committee could designate specialized R&D races. (Or other kinds of IP incentives.) Though who knows. Would Netflix produce new series/content without the 70 years of copyright? Well maybe not, but probably there wouldn't be a Netflix either if all that content were just p2p available from the Library after 4-5 years.
  - neya 8y ago
    > It's not odd at all - once you understand the goal is to smear Chinese again. Instead of viewing it as such, why not try to understand the core of the problem - that the Chinese don't respect IP laws. There is no (proper) framework to even sue a Chinese company should IP theft occur, let alone get legal support from the government if you're a foreign company fighting against the Chinese. The government will always side with the local companies. Remember this? https://de.reuters.com/article/jaguar-land-rover-china-lawsuit-idUKL4N19D2X8 https://de.reuters.com/article/jaguar-land-rover-china-lawsu...
kurthr 8y ago
Royale is an interesting company, but I wouldn't call that a phone form-factor. It's also not clear to me that product is available for delivery today in Royale stores in China.

baybal2 8y ago

No, that phone uses Samsung's panel

zachguo 8y ago
I'm not sure how you got this piece of info. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royole#Flexible_Display https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royole#Flexible_Display
- baybal2 8y ago
  Might be mistaking them for other flexible display contenders there

jayd16 8y ago

The article claims the buyers are Chinese. The seller is who is being sued though. I suppose buying stolen goods is also illegal but yeah... it is odd they focus on the nationality of the buyers.

izacus 8y ago
It's not odd at all - once you understand the goal is to smear Chinese again. Look at comments even in this topic - there's already ranting against China here. Not even HNers cared enough to read about who stole what. The propaganda objective has been reached.
- IdiocyInAction 8y ago
  It's not like this wouldn't have a precedent though. China has been ignoring IP laws for years.
- javajosh 8y ago
  The tech was stolen by a Korean company and sold to a Chinese company. China is famous for stealing Western tech. The "IP is evil" crowd on HN think this is utopia. The rest (like me) think it's terrible. But the fact that Chinese tech companies routinely steal tech is not in question, and it's not even objectively a smear.
  - pas 8y ago
    I think copyright and IP in general is important and both extremes are bad. Sadly this is one area where there are seemingly no easy solutions. Fashion seems to cope well without IP protection except trademarks. And arguably a lot of human endeavors could be done less adversarially (such as pharma research, battery research, etc) but the lure of potential future profit drives a lot of R&D there. So maybe the solution is to reserve IP for things that seem to work well only in a market race setup, but drop it to a few years in all other areas. And as we set up X prizes, a regulator/committee could designate specialized R&D races. (Or other kinds of IP incentives.) Though who knows. Would Netflix produce new series/content without the 70 years of copyright? Well maybe not, but probably there wouldn't be a Netflix either if all that content were just p2p available from the Library after 4-5 years.
- neya 8y ago
  > It's not odd at all - once you understand the goal is to smear Chinese again. Instead of viewing it as such, why not try to understand the core of the problem - that the Chinese don't respect IP laws. There is no (proper) framework to even sue a Chinese company should IP theft occur, let alone get legal support from the government if you're a foreign company fighting against the Chinese. The government will always side with the local companies. Remember this? https://de.reuters.com/article/jaguar-land-rover-china-lawsuit-idUKL4N19D2X8 https://de.reuters.com/article/jaguar-land-rover-china-lawsu...

kurthr 8y ago

Royale is an interesting company, but I wouldn't call that a phone form-factor. It's also not clear to me that product is available for delivery today in Royale stores in China.