5 ms·

At this point, for most people watching this from outside of the US, it looks like protectionism racket disguised as a legal verdict. Samsung is eating Apple's

At this point, for most people watching this from outside of the US, it looks like protectionism racket disguised as a legal verdict. Samsung is eating Apple's lunch and the US is trying to stop that. The US gov keeps pushing for more free market worldwide (which is great), except that when one of its industries or great companies is in danger because of international competition, protectionism is the way. How can they be taken seriously?

threeseed 13y ago
How can you be taken seriously when you post such illogical dribble ? To imply that US judges have been 'bought off' by Apple or by the US government is a huge claim to make that deserves substantiation.
- dba7dba 13y ago
  Except Apple has been this successful in court against Samsung ONLY in US. Not in Japan. Not in Europe.
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  Doesn't have to be the judge. Did you read interviews from members of the jury? They were like "yeah, apple is awesome and even though there were prior art, it was on different device so yeah, apple is awesome and all their claims are valid, let's make samsung pay a billion dollar".
- peterashford 13y ago
  As another non-US citizen I have to agree with Patrick. The US legal system looks like it has gone out of its way to punish the foreign competitor. Or more to the point, the jury in this case. Did anyone expect a bunch of US citizens to support a Korean company competing with a US icon like Apple? As a New Zealander, this whole affair seems like a load of US-centric BS to me.
Samuel_Michon 13y ago
> for most people watching this from outside of the US, it looks like protectionism racket disguised as a legal verdict. If that is so, how would you explain that Apple has gotten several injunctions (Australia, Germany, Netherlands) and won lawsuits against Samsung outside of the US? Even in South Korea a court ruled that Samsung had infringed on Apple’s patents. Also, let’s not forget, Apple is far from the only company suing Samsung over mobile patents.
rayiner 13y ago
It's not protectionism, but rather an attempt to enforce particular rules of the game in the face of changing economic profiles. In a nutshell, American IP policy is predicated on the understanding that the production of IP is America's competitive advantage. The U.S. can't compete with asian countries for low-cost manufacturing, but still dominates when it comes to software, design, etc. There is a reason phones designed and built in China run software written in California. Thus, the U.S. wants to enforce rules that treat design as a protectable asset. The reasoning is this: if Apple spends a bunch of money coming up with a really effective design, Samsung shouldn't just be able to get the benefit of that work for free. It's the mirror of the physical property rules which ensure that if Samsung invests a bunch of money in some new manufacturing facility, Apple can't just get the benefit of that work for free. I think such suits will become more common as developed economies keep transitioning away from manufacturing. The law quite easily protects the output of China's industrial production (physical things). It's not as effective in protecting the output of America's industries (content, designs).
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  How come Samsung has lost all their software patent lawsuits against Apple in the US while they won in South Korea? Get real.
  - sbuk 13y ago
    So the South Koreans are protectionists too?
    - patrickaljord 13y ago
      Probably, yes.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  There's no IP for fashion. And I think the world is a better place if everyone copies GUI design and makes things consistent. Remember that the point of IP is to serve the public at large.
aroch 13y ago
So we're going to ignore the German and EU patent battles that Apple has won against Samsung? Way to provide not only biased but willfully wrong information in order to support your argument

threeseed 13y ago

How can you be taken seriously when you post such illogical dribble ? To imply that US judges have been 'bought off' by Apple or by the US government is a huge claim to make that deserves substantiation.

dba7dba 13y ago
Except Apple has been this successful in court against Samsung ONLY in US. Not in Japan. Not in Europe.
patrickaljord 13y ago
Doesn't have to be the judge. Did you read interviews from members of the jury? They were like "yeah, apple is awesome and even though there were prior art, it was on different device so yeah, apple is awesome and all their claims are valid, let's make samsung pay a billion dollar".
peterashford 13y ago
As another non-US citizen I have to agree with Patrick. The US legal system looks like it has gone out of its way to punish the foreign competitor. Or more to the point, the jury in this case. Did anyone expect a bunch of US citizens to support a Korean company competing with a US icon like Apple? As a New Zealander, this whole affair seems like a load of US-centric BS to me.

Samuel_Michon 13y ago

> for most people watching this from outside of the US, it looks like protectionism racket disguised as a legal verdict. If that is so, how would you explain that Apple has gotten several injunctions (Australia, Germany, Netherlands) and won lawsuits against Samsung outside of the US? Even in South Korea a court ruled that Samsung had infringed on Apple’s patents. Also, let’s not forget, Apple is far from the only company suing Samsung over mobile patents.

rayiner 13y ago

It's not protectionism, but rather an attempt to enforce particular rules of the game in the face of changing economic profiles. In a nutshell, American IP policy is predicated on the understanding that the production of IP is America's competitive advantage. The U.S. can't compete with asian countries for low-cost manufacturing, but still dominates when it comes to software, design, etc. There is a reason phones designed and built in China run software written in California. Thus, the U.S. wants to enforce rules that treat design as a protectable asset. The reasoning is this: if Apple spends a bunch of money coming up with a really effective design, Samsung shouldn't just be able to get the benefit of that work for free. It's the mirror of the physical property rules which ensure that if Samsung invests a bunch of money in some new manufacturing facility, Apple can't just get the benefit of that work for free. I think such suits will become more common as developed economies keep transitioning away from manufacturing. The law quite easily protects the output of China's industrial production (physical things). It's not as effective in protecting the output of America's industries (content, designs).

patrickaljord 13y ago
How come Samsung has lost all their software patent lawsuits against Apple in the US while they won in South Korea? Get real.
- sbuk 13y ago
  So the South Koreans are protectionists too?
  - patrickaljord 13y ago
    Probably, yes.
Dylan16807 13y ago
There's no IP for fashion. And I think the world is a better place if everyone copies GUI design and makes things consistent. Remember that the point of IP is to serve the public at large.

aroch 13y ago

So we're going to ignore the German and EU patent battles that Apple has won against Samsung? Way to provide not only biased but willfully wrong information in order to support your argument