Site Network: um_bloggers | imagebank | videoworks | essence | business home

Welcome to the official blog of Uncle Ming's Gallery

I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking. (我以為讓愚蠢的人自暴其醜, 正是最大之言論自由所以是最安全的主因)


1. 資科人看世界之17

選擇性「報導」 v. 全面性「報道


無極 PoleZero

註:  以下內容, 純屬作者一般個人意見,不能視為有法律約束力之專業意見,凡涉及如投資、法律、會計、建築或醫療等受法律規管行業之專業問題,如有疑問請自行向具專業操守 之相關專業顧問或從業員查 詢




學科學的人,習慣客觀和全面觀察事物,不免對消息有點懷疑, 唯有化身做鍵盤調查員,試圖拼湊一幅較為完整的圖像。首先聲明,我並無擁有蘋果或三星股票,也沒有採用他們的手機,絕不是其中一家公司的粉絲 (fans),以下資料,純粹是蘋果大戰三電星的全球戰況實錄,由於維基百科已經整理得非常清楚,又可自由引用,故此大部份是直接引用(謹此鳴謝),只可 惜沒有中文版本,稍後有空將略加翻譯說明,再附帶其他資料來源,大家再自行評定勝敗的程度。




Current Situation (up to Sept, 2012)



South Korea

A Seoul court has ruled in favor of Samsung when it came to two patents in a case on its home turf. While it decided that Apple had infringed on two Samsung patents, it also found that Samsung had returned the favor on Apple's "bounceback" design patent, but not on another regarding icon design resulting in damages of about $22,000 Samsung. ….The ruling means that the infringing products can no longer be sold in South Korea. The list of affected hardware includes mostly previous gen products like the iPhone 4 and iPad 2, as well as the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Galaxy S II and Galaxy Nexus. Asia Economic indicates the two patents Apple was found to have infringed are of the much-disputed standards-essential type relating to the transmission of data. This action doesn't appear to significantly tilt the battlefield in any particular direction.

(Source: ReutersWSJ liveblogAsia EconomicWall Street Journal)



Samsung's complaint in Japan's Tokyo District Court cited two infringements. Apple has filed other patent suits in Japan against Samsung, most notably one for the "Bounce-Back" feature. Samsung has also sued Apple, claiming the iPhone and iPad infringe on Samsung patents.

First Japan Verdict

On Friday, August 31st 2012, The Tokyo District Court ruled that Samsung’s Galaxy smartphones and tablets did not violate an Apple patent on technology that synchronizes music and videos between devices and servers. The three-judge panel in Japan also awarded legal costs to be reimbursed to Samsung.

Opinions Regarding First Japanese Verdict

Presiding Judge Tamotsu Shoji said: "The defendant's products do not seem like they used the same technology as the plaintiff's products so we turn down the complaints made by [Apple]."

An unnamed spokesperson for Samsung said: "[We will] continue to offer highly innovative products to consumers, and continue our contributions toward the mobile industry's development."

Ronald A. Cass, a current legal consultant and former law professor and vice chairman of the International Trade Commission, commented: “I wouldn’t expect there to be a lot of judgments like this one." - Quote regards to the verdict from the American courts not the Japanese courts in reference to how patent disputes are heard by juries.

(Source: Wikipedia)



In August 2011, the Landgericht court in Düsseldorf, Germany granted Apple's request for an EU-wide preliminary injunction barring Samsung from selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 device on the grounds Samsung's product infringed on two of Apple's interface patents. After Samsung's allegations of evidence tampering were heard, the court rescinded the EU-wide injunction and granted Apple a lesser injunction that only applied to the German market. Samsung also pulled the Galaxy Tab 7.7 from Berlin's IPA electronics fair due to the ruling preventing marketing of the device, before the court was set to make its ruling in September 2011. According to an estimate by Strategy Analytics, the impact of on Samsung, in Germany, could have cost up to half a million unit sales. In the same time period and in similar cases of related legal strategy, Apple filed contemporaneous suits against Motorola with regard to the Xoom and against German consumer electronics reseller JAY-tech in the same German court, both for design infringement claims seeking preliminary injunctions.

On September 9 2011, the German court ruled in favor of Apple, with a sales ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1. The court found that Samsung had infringed Apple's patents. Presiding judge Johanna Brueckner-Hoffmann said there was a "clear impression of similarity". Samsung would appeal the decision.

In March 2012, the Mannheim state court judges dismissed both the Apple and Samsung cases involving ownership of the "slide-to-unlock" feature used on their respective smartphones.] The New York Times reported the German courts were at the center of patent fights among technology company rivals. In July 2012 the Munich Higher Regional Court Oberlandesgericht München affirmed the lower Regional Court's denial of Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction on Apple's allegation that Samsung infringed Apple's "overscroll bounce" patent; the appellate court's appealable ruling affirmed the lower court's February decision doubting the validity of Apple's patent.

(Source: Wikipedia)


France & Italia

Shortly after the release of the iPhone 4S, Samsung filed motions for injunctions in courts in Paris and Milan to block further Apple iPhone sales in France and Italy, claiming the iPhone infringed on two separate patents of the Wideband Code Division Multiple Access standard. Samsung reportedly singled out the French and Italian markets as key electronic communications markets in Europe, and by filing suit in a different court, avoided going back to the German court where it had lost a round earlier in its battle with Apple.

(Source: Wikipedia)



On August 24 2011, The Hague banned three Samsung telephone models following the Apple suit. On September 26, Samsung asked the court for an injunction on sale Apple's iPad and iPhones, on the grounds that Apple does not have the licenses to use 3G mobile technology. On October 14, the court ruled, denying the sales ban and stating that because 3G was an industry standard, Samsung's licensing offer had to meet FRAND (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) terms. The court found that Samsung's fee was unreasonable, but noted that if the companies cannot make a fair and reasonable licensing fee that Samsung could open a new case against Apple.

In late October 2011, the civil court in The Hague ruled for Apple in rejecting Samsung's infringement arguments and denied Samsung's motion made there; Samsung appealed the decision and in January 2012, the Dutch appeals court overruled the civil court decision, rejecting Apple's claim that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringed its design rights

(Source: Wikipedia)



Also in autumn 2011, an Australian federal court granted Apple's request for an injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1. Samsung agreed to an expedited appeal of the Australian decision in the hope that if it won its appeal before Christmas, it might salvage holiday sales that it would otherwise lose. Ultimately, the injunction Apple sought to block the Tab 10.1 was denied by the High Court of Australia. In July 2012 an Australian judge started hearing the companies' evidence for a trial anticipated to take three months.

(Source: Wikipedia)



Samsung motioned a U.K. court[which?] for a declaration that its Galaxy tablets were not too similar to Apple's products and Apple counterclaimed, but Samsung prevailed after a British judge ruled Samsung's Galaxy tablets were not “cool” enough to be confused with Apple’s iPad. In July 2012, British judge Birss denied Samsung's motion for an injunction blocking Apple from publicly stating that the Galaxy infringed Apple's design rights, but ordered Apple to publish a disclaimer on Apple's own website and in the media that Samsung did not copy the iPad. The judge stayed the publishing order, however, until Apple's appeal is heard in October 2012.

(Source: Wikipedia)



First US Trial

Apple accused Samsung of infringing on three utility patents (United States Patent Nos. 7,469,381, 7,844,915, and 7,864,163) and four design patents (United States Patent Nos. D504,889, D593,087, D618,677, and D604,305). Samsung accused Apple of infringing on United States Patent Nos. 7,675,941, 7,447,516, 7,698,711, 7,577,460, and 7,456,893. One 2005 design patent "at the heart of the dispute is Design Patent 504,889", which consists of a one-sentence claim about the ornamental design of an electronic device, accompanied by nine figures depicting a thin rectangular cuboid with rounded corners. A U.S. jury trial was scheduled for July 30, 2012 and calendered by the court through September 7, 2012. Both Phil Schiller and Scott Forstall testified on the Apple v. Samsung trial.

US verdict

On August 24, 2012 the jury returned a verdict largely favorable to Apple. It found that Samsung had willfully infringed on Apple's design and utility patents and had also diluted Apple's trade dresses related to the iPhone. The jury awarded Apple $1.049 billion in damages and Samsung zero damages in its counter suit. Design Patent 504,889 (describing the ornamental design of the iPad) was one of the few patents the jury concluded Samsung had not infringed. This amount is functionally reduced by the bond posted by Apple for the injunction granted during the trial (see below).

Apple's attorneys have already filed a request to stop all sales of the Samsung products cited in violation of the US patents, to be heard on December 6, 2012.

Injunction of US sales during first trial

The injunction Apple sought in the U.S. to block Samsung smartphones such as the Infuse 4G and the Droid Charge was denied. Judge Lucy H. Koh ruled that Apple's claims of irreparable harm had little merit because although Apple established a likelihood of success at trial on the merits of its claim that Samsung infringed one of its tablet patents, Apple had not shown that it could overcome Samsung's challenges to the patent's validity. However, in June 2012, Judge Koh granted Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction as to Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus, and thus enjoined Samsung from making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing into the U.S. the Nexus and any other of its technology making use of the disputed patent. Simultaneously, Apple was ordered to post a $95.6 million dollar bond in the event that Samsung prevailed at trial.This was after Apple appealed the Judge Koh's first ruling at the Federal court level. The federal court did reverse three parts of Judge Koh's original ruling. 

Samsung has filed to have that injunction removed , as Apple's sole loss was with regard to only patent the injunction was based on. This most likely means Samsung will both claim the bond and sue for additional lost revenue.

Possible First trial appeal

There has been much debate over an interview given by the jury foreman,  specifically at the 3 minute mark in the video: "the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa, and that means they are not interchangeable", so no prior art.

A few reviewers, most notably Groklaw, reported that this interview indicates the jury may have awarded inconsistent damages and ignored the instructions given to them.  This is really part of the larger debate of whether juries should be allowed to rule on patent cases at all.  The more moderate view to concede the Foreman's brief comment could have been poorly phrased. 

Two additional quotes are worth noting. Around the 2:42-2:45 minute mark the foreman states "each patent had a different legal premise", and, at the 2:59-3:00 minute mark, the comment that has sparked debate specifically referees to the '460 patent. There are a few oddities with this patent, starting with the number of claims (1). (Most US patents have between 10 - 20 separate claims, most of which are dependent claims.) The specifics of this patent have not been discussed by either the Groklaw review or the McKeown review because most believe that the foreman misspoke when he mentioned the number of the patent in question; a more detailed interview with the BBC  made it clear that the patent(s) relevant to the prior art controversy were owned by Apple, not Samsung, meaning that his mention of the "460 patent" was a mistake.

The court that would hear this appeal is the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and is the same court that the injunction request from Apple was appealed to.

Second US Trial

Apple has filed a new US lawsuit on August 31st, 2012, asserting 17 more of Samsung products violate Apple patents. The three major products being cited are the Galaxy S III, Verizon Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note and Galaxy Note 10.1.

(Source: Wikipedia)


- 待續 -


小傳 Biography

自小即獨鍾情科技,小學時已遍讀「十萬個為什麼」,初中物理課講授古典力學 F=ma 之時,私下卻神遊愛恩斯坦狹義相對論之 E=mcc  (即 E=mc2 ), 對經史子集,嗤之以鼻,以為古中國之科技無足稱道,豈料高中某日於圖書館中抱讀廣義相對論、正苦思不解時,偶翻老子道德經以解悶,驚為天書,繼而再閱莊子, 易經,更嘆為觀止,近代科學之多個劃時代之理論,竟已為古人一一論述,諸如「太極生兩儀,兩儀生四象四象生八卦,八卦生萬物」,惋如將宇宙起源,正反物質 之誕生,基片粒子之結構以至元素周期之規律濃縮為密碼般,再翮閱雜書如周髀算經,以至小說神話如山海經,搜神記,乃知古中國之科技知識及國人之想像力,並 非如想像之不濟,不過為政者重文輕理,獨貴仕而輕農工商,寧務虛而不務實,上有好之者下必有甚然,故聰明才智之仕,盡委身於儒法之學,勤習治人之術,奇兵 利器能工巧藝皆目為形而下者之雕蟲小技,盡皆凐沒在民問,凡與實際生活及經濟生產有關之工藝技術,唯有賴師徒制口授耳聞,代代相傳,有系統整理立於文字 者僅聊聊可數如天工開物,凡涉抽像科學概念之理論,更混合超自然之想像, 化身為比形而上學更形而上之玄學如風水命理等,有見及比,從此自號無極,誓以課餘工餘時間,疏理古代文 獻, 還中國古代科技發展之本來面目