

Korea jury reaches split decision, Apple guilty of infringing 2 Samsung patents - zachh
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/08/24/samsung-scores-victory-south-korea-court-rules-apple-infringed-patents/

======
Tichy
Curious that they decide this now, near the time of the verdict for the US
thing. The way human psychology works, I think this will sway jurors against
Samsung, because they don't like dictations by obscure remote countries.

~~~
terminus
So South Korea is an "obscure remote country?" Wow.

~~~
Tichy
As Nirvana says, this was meant as figurative for how I imagine our brains
will pick this up. Basically "who are these people that they want to tell us
the law?".

------
WildUtah
Should have ruled that each CEO gets to kick the other in the 'nards,
alternating until they quit this nonsense.

Oh, well. There still hope the US jury found the 'nard kicking check box on
page 256 of the jury verdit form.

------
603techguy
The very idea that you can patent 'Bounce back' tells me that the patent
system is broken.

~~~
taligent
Why ? It is distinctive, unique and definitely non-intuitive. We have had
scrollable lists on the desktop for decades and not once has anyone designed
the entire scrollview bounce back when you reached the top/bottom.

It's also not the only way to implement this concept as the newer Samsungs,
LGs and HTCs all have their own version of it.

~~~
jmitcheson
1\. The desktop isn't the same. Bouncing is helpful to combat overscrolling,
which isn't a problem on the desktop. That's why you haven't seen it. (On a
desktop you have to actually click the scrollbar, or use your finger on the
mousewheel - both of which make it pretty obvious that you've reached the
limit of the container).

2\. Real world things bounce. Copying the way something works in the real
world and emulating that in software and sticking an Apple logo on it is not
inventing something. That's just... building things.

3\. I don't mean to misrepresent the first part of your argument, but "it's a
good idea" doesn't cut it for patenting consumer software / hardware. There
are real criteria (mentioned by others) that this doesn't meet.

Changing topic slightly, how is a jury supposed to decide "non obvious to a
person skilled in the art", anyway? Does the jury consist only of hardware
engineers? Because that would be the only way it would be fair. I can no more
wonder what would be obvious or not to a doctor, teacher, lawyer, fireman etc.
as they could wonder what would be obvious to an engineer.

~~~
johnthedebs
I downvoted you, and so I feel compelled to explain.

To your first point: On the desktop there are three ways to scroll: the
scrollbar, the mousewheel, the trackpad. Of those three, only the scrollbar
makes it obvious when you've reached the end of a document. Also, it's not all
that different – Apple has brought the same bounce-back behavior to the
desktop when scrolling with a trackpad.

To your second point: _Some_ real world things bounce. Balls bounce, and
rubber bands do in a sense too. Documents don't. They aren't emulating real-
world behavior at all.

Whether the patents are good/valid is up to a whole other set of (apparently
very arbitrary) rules. But the points you make to refute taligent's are very
weak.

------
waiwai933
The article says a three-judge panel ruled on the decision, not a jury.

------
smegel
Looks like Apple's monopoly in Korea is coming to an end. Samsung will be
thrilled.

~~~
v0cab
_What?_ Apple's monopoly in Korea? What on earth are you talking about?

~~~
smegel
_sigh_

------
taligent
It does appear that the patents that Apple is guilty of infringing are
actually standards essential (FRAND) which does not bode well for anyone.

~~~
markmark
Of course FRAND doesn't mean you can use patents without a license, it means
that they have to be offered for licensing under FRAND terms. Presumably you
are supposed to go to court if you believe you aren't being offered FRAND
terms, Apple just went ahead with no licence at all.

~~~
sjwright
The chips that used the patents were licensed.

