LG Seeks Sales Ban of Samsung Galaxy Tablet In Korea

Dupple writes "According to the Dow Jones News Wires, LG has filed an injunction in its home territory of South Korea, seeking to ban the sale of the Galaxy Note 10.1, alleging the panels inside the tablet infringe LG patents. The injunction follows a lawsuit filed by Samsung on 7 December, which alleged that LG infringed seven of Samsung's liquid crystal display patents. LG, which filed the injunction with the Seoul District Court on Wednesday, is aiming to block the sales of the Galaxy Note 10.1 tablet computer."

Map?

[Flitcraft]

If someone drew a map of who sues who in the tech industry, what would it look like? Solid color? Blasphemous word?

Invalidate all patents

[kawabago]

End the nonesense! The drug companies sat on their patents paying dividends and doing no research so when the patents ran out, OOOOOOOPS! Nothing to sell! Patents were supposed to promote research but instead they encourage rent seeking. Lawyers and judges created the mess we have now and we can cure it by taking all their power away.

Re:Judgment of Solomon needed.

[Anonymous Coward]

The most likely outcome of those negotiations is an agreement between all those parties to not sue each other over current or future patents any more - it's basically the only option in such a situation.

Not a chance. The inevitable outcome is that the minor players - whose approval, by your rules, is required for any solution to go forward - would demand that the major players give them a lump of cash before the matter is considered settled. Since there are lots of minor players, and whoever holds out the longest has the best negotiating position to extort money from the major players, you'll be waiting a long time.

The simple solution is to say "All patents in this field are now void, and no new ones will be approved. In five years, we'll take another look at the industry, and figure out whether patents increased or decreased innovation before we decide whether to reintroduce them.".

Re:You are the reason we need lawyers

[dkf]

So you want clear but short laws. That isn't possible, to make things clear legally so laws are not open to interpretation they need to be detailed and takes a lot of text.

Of you can simply say that you are OK with leaving things open to interpretation. Then you've either got a lot of arbitrary decisions, or you need a system (such as common law) to constrain courts to be both self-consistent and consistent with the decisions of superior courts. At which point the effective law balloons...