Apple patent claims stifling innovation; Japan court rules in favour of Samsung

Is Apple stifling innovation?

A US jury decision against Samsung and a Japanese court decision for the Korean conglomerate raise questions over the entire patent issue

WOULD anyone have expected the Apple-Samsung case to be decided in favour of Samsung by a US court in a jury verdict and against Apple, which is by now even more American than apple pie? I certainly didn’t.

But there is an appeal on the cards and it is still anyone’s guess if Apple will be allowed to claim such things as shape and “pinch to zoom out” as its right. But if it is, then that’s a big setback for other smartphones.

Samsung, however, scored a victory in a Tokyo court which ruled yesterday that the Korean electronics giant, and supplier to Apple, did not violate any patents. That victory will no doubt raise questions as to how fair the US jury was in making an award in favour of Apple, including US$1bil in damages.

The US decision means eventually consumers there may have to pay more for Apple’s iPhone, iPod and devices because others may not be able to emulate features that may have made their devices a success. That will have repercussions on prices elsewhere as well.

In the motor industry there have been many trends in shape over the years, moving from angular to rounded designs. If some car company had decided to sue every other car manufacturer for a similar look and feel and succeeded, car shapes may have had great difficulty evolving.

But the best manufacturers of cars did not. In fact some of them deliberately did not register safety patents just so that others could use the innovations to increase passenger safety.

If Samsung is said to have infringed on shape, then there are a number of other manufacturers who are in trouble too. Rectangular faces with rounded edges are a natural evolution in the mobile phone industry. Certainly, other manufacturers are going to hope there will be a reversal on appeal.

Apple did not invent the touch screen. Thus, it seems strange that it has a patent to “pinch to zoom” which is basically one way of many ways to use a screen. That’s like patenting a particular method of driving a car!

Apple has already followed up on its US victory, seeking an injunction to prevent Samsung from selling eight of its smartphones in the United States including some in the best-selling Galaxy range.

However, hearing of the injunction will only be in December and some of Samsung’s models may be phased out by then, which offers some consolation for Samsung.

Some US commentators view the case as a proxy war against another US company Google which makes the Android operating system used in Samsung, HTC and other smartphones.

An article in the San Francisco Chronicle says that the late Apple chief executive Steve Jobs was once a friend of Google’s co-founders but considered Google’s move into mobile a betrayal that demanded revenge.

“I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product,” he told his biographer Walter Isaacson. “I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

But despite the nice rhetoric, revenge from the grave it is not. Apple’s strategy seems quite clear cut. Patent everything. Then tie up competitors in court if there is any semblance of product infringement and keep its competitive advantage intact as long as possible.

Reports put its profit margins on its iPhone at as high as 50%, a huge mark-up in a cutthroat market which it has been able to achieve by parlaying an excellent product with some very deft marketing and public relations.

That made it the biggest company in the world. Many would say that the product, however, is not necessarily the best anymore if ever it was, especially since competitors are fast catching up with their own nifty designs and features. And marketing and PR too – Galaxy is getting a name for itself and no doubt the cases around the world will help.

Thus it makes much economic sense for Apple to prolong this by any legal means it can for as long as possible. Does Apple care that it may be stifling innovation, raising costs and hurting consumers in the process?

Probably not. And why should it? It is a company based on the profit motive. But it needs to remember that all publicity is not good publicity and if it gets a reputation as a bully, its entire image and that of its products could change.

American companies can carry this patent thing too far and they have. Recall a few years ago when some of them tried to patent the production of pesticides from neem trees. For thousands of years, extracts from the leaves of the neem have been used for precisely that.

The American jury system cannot but be expected to favour a US icon such as Apple which is seen as brash, innovative and successful, the very image of the US itself. But that’s not going to be the case in the rest of the world. And even in the US, if learned judges make the decisions instead of a jury, the results may well be different.

Really, no one is going to benefit and there may well be detriment, if we allow patents to get the better of us and stifle innovation and hinder the development of new products and services at lower costs.
It would be a travesty of sorts and ironic indeed if Apple is now seen as a technology inhibitor instead. Beware!

A QUESTION OF BUSINESS By P. GUNASEGARAM starbiz@thestar.com.my

P Gunasegaram is an iPhone user but only because the service provider gave such a good deal.

 Japanese court rules for Samsung over Apple

In this Aug. 25, 2011 file photo a lawyer holds an Apple iPad and a Samsung Tablet-PC at a court in Duesseldorf, Germany. The Duesseldorf state court ruled Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012, that neither the South Korean company‘s Galaxy Tab 10.1 nor the Galaxy Tab 8.9 could be sold in Germany because they were in violation of unfair competition laws. A German appeals court has upheld a decision prohibiting Samsung Electronics Co. from selling two of its tablet computers in Germany, agreeing with Apple Inc. that they too closely resemble the iPad2. (AP)

Samsung wins one battle in the multinational conflict over patent and innovation

By Jeong Nam-ku, Tokyo correspondent

A Japanese court has ruled in favor of Samsung over Apple in a patent lawsuit. In the August 31 verdict, Tamotsu Shoji, the Tokyo District judge, declined Apple’s claim that “8 models of Samsung Galaxy series infringed on Apple’s patents.”

Apple had sued Samsung for infringing on its synchronization of music and other data with remote servers. It asserted that “Samsung’s products use Apple’s technologies of synchronization, which constitutes patent infringement,” and demanded both compensation of 100 million Japanese Yen (around US$1.27 million) and a block on eight Samsung products.

According to Jiji Press, judge Tamotsu stated, “Samsung’s products are technologically distinct from Apple and can’t be considered infringements.”

As a first trial, this does not hold much importance beyond being an indication of what the final verdict might end up being. However, because the verdict ordered a ‘dismissal’ on Apple’s injunction, there is only a slight possibility for an overturn in the final verdict.

Apple has also sued Samsung for infringing on its ‘bounce back (technology that springs back when the document has reached the end)’ patent, a claim that is still ongoing.

This verdict is the first ruling out of the 9 lawsuits Apple and Samsung Electronics have against each other. Samsung also filed lawsuits against Apple in April and October of 2011, arguing that Apple also infringed on 6 of Samsung’s patents.

Samsung and Apple have ongoing lawsuits in different 10 countries. In the US, a judge ruled that Samsung had infringed Apple patents, ordering the Korean electronics giant to pay $1.05 billion in damages.  

Translated by Yoo Hey-rim, Hankyoreh English intern

Related posts:
Apple's rot starts with its Samsung lawsuit win 
Apple wins $1bn in US while Samsung wins in Korea; it may reshape the free Google Android system 
US Stocks dominate; Korean share drops after US's ruling on Apple-Samsung patent wars 
The US Pacific free trade deal that's anything but free? 
US launches financial attacks against its allies! 

Learning from Steve Jobs: from Garage to World Power!

Tweet

Learning from Steve Jobs

Ceritalah by KARIM RASLAN

Before we can start talking about the need for innovation or speak of the need to create geniuses, we have to learn that creativity and innovation are first and foremost cultural phenomena.

STEVE Jobs is dead. Apple’s co-founder did more than anyone – and this includes his arch-rival Microsoft’s Bill Gates – to make computing manageable for everyone. Indeed, even my seventy-something mother owns a well-used iPad2.

Jobs’ brilliance lay in his ability to look at technology from the viewpoint of the user, stripping down the complexity and jargon until a machine became a tool in the hand of the user.

He asked straight forward but critical questions: what do consumers want and need? How can I meet these demands?

Instead of producing computers that flaunt their sophistication, Jobs made his devices ever more accessible and simple.

Apple products were the perfect marriage of form and function. They were sleek, intuitive and useful – objects that we enjoy touching and holding so much so that we develop a strange emotional link with them.

In order to achieve this aim, Jobs also upended the way we’ve traditionally thought of music, books and films – freeing them from their analogue formats. He discarded the old-fashioned ways of receiving entertainment and placed his products – the iPod, the iPhone and iPad at the heart of future solutions.

His success was prodigious and extraordinary. At one stage last year, Apple briefly eclipsed ExxonMobil in terms of market capitalisation.



Indeed, it’s estimated that well over 100 million iPhones and 25 million iPads have been sold to date. That the Indian government, on the day he died, rolled out its own tablet computer, called the Aakash (or “Sky”) is a greater tribute than the legions of obituaries.

The global outpouring of grief on Jobs’ death is hence a measure of the man’s reach even in death. It’s also a testament to his iconoclastic style as well as his breath-taking ability to think unconventionally.

Furthermore, Jobs executed his ideas with flamboyance and flair, disregarding the consequences as his various inspirational ideas wrought havoc with long established industries.

Standing back from the man’s achievements, it’s hard to deny that all entrepreneurs have a little bit of Steve Jobs in them.

They all possess a modicum of his verve, dynamism and, yes, madness. Wouldn’t they have become bank managers or civil servants otherwise?

However, we can’t deny the element of luck either: had Jobs died in the 90s, he would probably have been consigned to history’s footnotes, yet another businessman ousted from a company he had founded.

Also, as the son of a Syrian emigrant, Jobs was lucky he was born in America, where the opportunities to succeed were more pronounced than anywhere else.

Indeed, it’s hard to see where else a college dropout could turn a company that he started in his parent’s garage into a multinational with a market capitalisation of US$222.12bil (RM694.78bil).



This is not to say he was some kind of secular saint. His paranoia and abuse of friends and subordinates alike were well-documented. Neither was he a flag-waving patriot either.

Unlike Henry Ford, most of Apple’s products were contracted out to East Asian manufacturers, particularly China, where allegations of sweatshop labour and poor working conditions continue to haunt the tech-giant even today.

Nevertheless, no one can deny that Jobs displayed the individualism and entrepreneurial spirit that are the hallmarks of the American character.

Indeed, if we shift the discussion from Jobs to the idea of entrepreneurialism, we have to acknowledge that we are all shaped by the environment we are born into.

We can separate ourselves from the world that surrounds us on our birth.

So as we start talking about the need for “innovation” in Malaysia’s economy or speak piously of the need to “create” geniuses we have to address the national condition.

Let me ask a question then: what if Steve Jobs were born in Malaysia? Could he have reached the same dizzying heights or would he have been consigned, like so many others, to dead-end jobs.

Alternatively, would he have directed his prodigious talents to chasing after government contracts? I’m not joking.

If Malaysia is to compete in the future, we have got to learn that creativity and innovation are first and foremost cultural phenomena. These are things that you cannot pay for or legislate into existence.

Creativity cannot thrive in an environment where the balance between risk and reward is skewered. Can we truly say we’re allowing people to reach their fullest potential when our obsessions with race and religion are so dominant?

Innovation in Malaysia is hampered by our Government’s constant interventions: protecting and bailing-out businesses and individuals that ought to have gone bust ages ago.

There’s absolutely no incentive for people to think unconventionally if the most important criteria for creating wealth is your “know who” rather than “know how”.

How many Malaysian Jobs’ or Gates’ or Zuckerberg’s have we smothered because they lacked connections or were born in the “wrong” community?

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has declared 2012 to be the “National Innovation Move­ment” year, but it won’t count for much unless we start really rewarding hard work and genius rather than mediocrity or mindless conformity.

Related Posts:

Internet Mourns Steve Jobs' Death: From garage to world power, Life and times!
Steve Jobs' Legacy To Democracy
Apple’s Iconic Steve Jobs passes on 

It's Education, Stupid !

Tweet







It’s that time of year when I spend much of my time reading the books that have been nominated for the FT/Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year. It’s a judging duty that is both a pleasure and a pain. The pain is the sheer amount of time it takes to wade through thousands of pages.  The pleasure is reading books that would not necessarily cross my path. This year, as with the last, many of these books are written by economists and, understandably, focus on the state of the world economy. It is interesting to read how many agree that education and training are crucial to long-term economic success, for individuals, companies and countries. I made a similar argument in my most recent book The Shift, focusing in particular on the types of education and training that create specialization. Here are the two reasons why it has never been so critical to become educated:

• Rampaging connectivity – will see at least five billion people around the world using some form of mobile device to download information, access knowledge and coach and teach each other. Some will have the intellectual capacity and motivation to really make something of this extraordinary opportunity, wherever they happen to be born. These people will want to join the global talent pool and, if possible, migrate to creative and vibrant cities. By doing so, this vast crowd of talented people will increasingly compete with each other, continuously upping the stakes for what it takes to succeed.

• The technological revolution – brought mobile devices to billions, and is now transforming how work gets done. Robots are taking the place of unskilled and semi-skilled workers, while business analytics, modelling and collaborative technologies are taking away much of what has traditionally been the role of the middle manager. However, while technology may be replacing the mechanical aspects of work, it is not replacing the more complex, skilled work that involves creativity and innovation. That’s the high value piece that remains, and it is once that requires education and training. 

As high quality education becomes more of a premium, we can expect the sector to begin to transform itself even more rapidly. Just what this transformation will look like is difficult to predict with accuracy. But here are two emerging trends that I believe will shape it over the coming decades:

The Gutenberg Project: the race is on to digitalise many of the books and articles of the world, while the professors of academic institutions such as MIT are making their key lectures available on the web. Combined with hyper connectivity and the potentially global reach of the Cloud, this means that knowledge and wisdom will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. This could see the development of new ways of educating that leapfrog those of normal educational institutions, creating more fluid, virtual and vibrant networks of learning. 

Virtual Schools and Universities: there has been a great deal of research over the last decade focusing on how people learn. This has looked at e-learning, face-to-face teaching and over-the-phone coaching. What has become clear is that none of these on their own are the best; it’s the combination of all three that has the greatest impact. This is important for educational strategies since at least two of these processes are virtual, and F2F can largely be substituted by video conferencing. I saw the speed of this transformation recently when I visited UOC (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya) in Barcelona. Its sleek headquarters are the hub of a virtual university that has 60,000 students (and growing) taught by a faculty of over 3,000 virtual educators. Using simulations, games and collaborative environments, the institution is building deep expertise in supporting education across the world.

Some have argued that, of all the institutional forms, education has changed least over the past few decades. It looks as if the need for deeper knowledge and rapid advances in learning technologies may change all that.

 Newscribe : get free news in real time 

iQuit - Steve Jobs Resigns: Apple CEO Stepping Down

Tweet

Official Press Release from Apple

CUPERTINO, California - Apple’s Board of Directors today announced that Steve Jobs has resigned as Chief Executive Officer, and the Board has named Tim Cook, previously Apple’s Chief Operating Officer, as the company’s new CEO. Jobs has been elected Chairman of the Board and Cook will join the Board, effective immediately.

“Steve’s extraordinary vision and leadership saved Apple and guided it to its position as the world’s most innovative and valuable technology company,” said Art Levinson, Chairman of Genentech, on behalf of Apple's Board. “Steve has made countless contributions to Apple’s success, and he has attracted and inspired Apple’s immensely creative employees and world class executive team. In his new role as Chairman of the Board, Steve will continue to serve Apple with his unique insights, creativity and inspiration.”

“The Board has complete confidence that Tim is the right person to be our next CEO,” added Levinson. “Tim’s 13 years of service to Apple have been marked by outstanding performance, and he has demonstrated remarkable talent and sound judgment in everything he does.”

Jobs submitted his resignation to the Board today and strongly recommended that the Board implement its succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO.

Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple has reinvented the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App Store, and has recently introduced iPad 2 which is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices.

Letter from Steve Jobs

August 24, 2011

To the Apple Board of Directors and the Apple Community:

I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.

I hereby resign as CEO of Apple. I would like to serve, if the Board sees fit, as Chairman of the Board, director and Apple employee.

As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple.

I believe Apple’s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role.

I have made some of the best friends of my life at Apple, and I thank you all for the many years of being able to work alongside you.

Who is Tim Cook?

Currently. Timothy D. Cook is Apple’s chief operating officer and reports to Apple’s CEO. Cook is responsible for all of the company’s worldwide sales and operations, including end-to-end management of Apple’s supply chain, sales activities, and service and support in all markets and countries. He also heads Apple’s Macintosh division and plays a key role in the continued development of strategic reseller and supplier relationships, ensuring flexibility in response to an increasingly demanding marketplace.

Before joining Apple, Cook was vice president of Corporate Materials for Compaq and was responsible for procuring and managing all of Compaq’s product inventory. Previous to his work at Compaq, Cook was the chief operating officer of the Reseller Division at Intelligent Electronics.

Cook also spent 12 years with IBM, most recently as director of North American Fulfillment where he led manufacturing and distribution functions for IBM’s Personal Computer Company in North and Latin America.

Cook earned an M.B.A. from Duke University, where he was a Fuqua Scholar, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Engineering from Auburn University.

Read more: http://everythinginbudget.blogspot.com/2011/08/iquit-steve-jobs-resigns-apple-ceo.html#ixzz1WCRuy0gc

Steve Jobs - The iCon says 'iQuit'

Steve Jobs has resigned in a long-expected move and named Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook as his replacement. In tribute to the 'iCon' here's a look at Jobs through the years. PHOTOS BELOW.

AP Photo

In Pictures: Steve Jobs through the years
Click on the thumbnails BELOW to view a brief history of Steve Jobs' now legendary career. 

Apple's legendary co-founder and top ideas man Steve Jobs resigned as chief executive Wednesday, the company said, in a long expected move after he began a dramatic fight with cancer.

In a written statement, Apple, the world's second biggest company by market capitalization, announced that chief operating officer Tim Cook would take over as CEO but that Jobs would stay on as chairman of the board.

"Steve's extraordinary vision and leadership saved Apple and guided it to its position as the world's most innovative and valuable technology company," board member Art Levinson said in a statement.

No reason was given for Job's resignation, but his health problems, including a lengthy medical leave for a liver transplant in 2009 and his increasingly gaunt appearances at public events, fueled speculation he would have to give up the everyday running of the company he co-founded in 1976.

Cook ran Apple when Jobs went on medical leave and has essentially been running day-to-day operations since early this year with the company racking up record revenue and profit.

Jobs is seen as the heart and soul of Apple, with analysts and investors repeatedly expressing concern over how the Cupertino, California-based company would handle his departure.

"The board has complete confidence that Tim is the right person to be our next CEO," Levinson said.

"Tim's 13 years of service to Apple have been marked by outstanding performance, and he has demonstrated remarkable talent and sound judgment in everything he does," Levinson continued.

Jobs submitted his resignation on Wednesday and urged the board to implement its succession plan and name Cook as his replacement, according to Apple.

In Pictures: Steve Jobs through the years

Cook was previously responsible for Apple's worldwide sales and operations, including management of the supply chain, sales activities, and service and support in all markets and countries.

Jobs is a living legend in Silicon Valley. He is the beloved visionary behind the Macintosh computer, the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad.

Born on February 24, 1955 in San Francisco to a single mother and adopted by a couple in nearby Mountain View at barely a week old, he grew up among the orchards that would one day become the technology hub known as Silicon Valley.

Jobs was 21 and Steve Wozniak 26 when they founded Apple Computer in the garage of Jobs's family home in 1976.

While Microsoft licensed its software to computer makers that cranked out machines priced for the masses, Apple kept its technology private and catered to people willing to pay for superior performance and design.

Under Jobs, the company introduced its first Apple computers and then the Macintosh, which became wildly popular in the 1980s.

Apple's innovations include the "computer mouse" to make it easy for users to activate programs or open files.

Jobs was elevated to idol status by ranks of Macintosh computer devotees, many of whom saw themselves as a sort of rebel alliance opposing the powerful empire Microsoft built with its ubiquitous Windows operating systems.

Jobs left Apple in 1985 after an internal power struggle and started NeXT Computer company specializing in sophisticated workstations for businesses.

He co-founded Academy-Award-winning Pixar in 1986 from a former Lucasfilm computer graphics unit that he reportedly bought from movie industry titan George Lucas for $10 million.

Apple's luster faded after Jobs left the company, but they reconciled in 1996 with Apple buying NeXT for 429 million dollars and Jobs ascending once again to the Apple throne.

Since then, Apple has gone from strength to strength as Jobs revamped the Macintosh line, revolutionizing modern culture with the introductions of the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and iTunes online shop for digital content.

Related articles

• Steve Jobs Resigns, Tim Cook Named New CEO of Apple (bilerico.com)