Aug 082012
 

You’ve no doubt heard that Apple recently entered into evidence a Samsung document that meticulously goes over a number of iPhone features and compares them to their own current offering (the S1), then goes on to make recommendations on how to improve Samsung’s future devices based on the iPhone’s implementation. AllThingsD’s John Paczkowski and Ina Fried reported on it first and Paczkowski took the time to upload the document in question to ScribeD. At 132 pages, it’s really an amazing tribute to the lengths Samsung went to copy the iPhone, but what struck me most was how similar many of Samsung’s current features were to the iPhone at the time of the analysis.

And these are pulled from just the first 28 entries. What this indicates to me is that not only did Samsung use the iPhone as the basis for its design decisions, it periodically reviewed the effectiveness of its copying to fine-tune it. The fact that the Samsung examples so closely resemble iOS at the time of the analysis makes it clear that this is not some one-time comparison – it’s a template for willful, iterative grafting of Apple’s look and feel.

 Posted by at 3:17 pm
Aug 082012
 

There’s a pretty scathing article in the The Kernel about Samsung’s business practices in South Korea that make their rampant infringement on Apple’s intellectual property look mild in comparison. It paints a picture of a business that essentially runs South Korea, with tentacles molesting every business sector in the country from theme parks to food and beverages. Speaking out against Samsung in-country is tantamount to treason, even in the face of numerous bribery, corruption and even money laundering scandals. And then there’s the company’s refusal to release data on the health of its employees:

In a paper published by the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health in its Summer 2012 edition, Samsung is highlighted as one source of major health issues in the semiconductor industry.

The study, “Leukaemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in semiconductor industry workers in Korea”, says: “Samsung, the world’s largest information technology and electronics corporation (as measured by revenues), has refused to make public such data concerning the industrial processes that affect electronics workers and has impeded attempts by independent researchers to obtain essential information.”

The bottom line is – and always has been – that Samsung is a grossly unethical company that will use any means at its disposal to remain competitive. Buying off government officials, actively busting any attempt by workers to unionize, blatantly ripping off the designs of its more successful competitors: nothing is out of bounds for this company. The Apple v. Samsung case is just another entry in a catalog of business decisions made without regard for their consequences.

 Posted by at 12:14 pm
  • RSS
  • Twitter