by 
I’ve always enjoyed hearing about judges who use unusual remedies to make a point. One well-publicized case involved sentencing some kids who vandalized veterans’ graves to watch the movie Saving Private Ryan.
{complink 379|Apple Inc.} is facing one such sentence in the UK: a judge is requiring that Apple publish a notice on its Website stating {complink 4750|Samsung Corp.} did not infringe on Apple’s iPad patent, Bloomberg reports:
- As well as Apple’s website, the company must pay for notices in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, Guardian Mobile magazine, and T3, according to a draft copy of the order provided by Samsung’s lawyers.
One of the reasons cited for this measure is Apple’s widespread use of patent law as a means to block sales of Samsung’s Galaxy tablet around the globe. But it’s a backhanded victory for Samsung: the justice said the Galaxy couldn’t be confused with the iPad because it is not as “cool.”
In another twist, the judge denied Samsung’s request that Apple be blocked from making public statements about the Galaxy. Apple is entitled to its opinion, he said.
This is Apple’s second comeuppance in as many weeks: Last week, Apple withdrew from the EPEAT environmental ratings organization, only to return several days later. (See: Apple's EPEAT Fiasco.) Apple was roundly criticized by customers and environmentalists alike, and Bob Mansfield, Apple’s senior vice president of hardware engineering, signed a letter of explanation that for Apple rated as an apology.
The whole Apple-Samsung legal saga lapsed into silliness several lawsuits ago. Experts’ examination of the Galaxy’s and iPad’s designs show significant differences, yet infringement accusations require a defense and, apparently, several countersuits. Although the UK judge probably didn’t intend to set a precedent, it's possible the “uncool defense” will soon start cropping up in the legal lexicon.
In the meantime, did the "I will not..." punishment work for you in grade school? Or would you do the same thing again?
My daughter reports that certain teachers require apology letters. But she doesn't mind writing them, (rather like Anne in Anne of Green Gables ) finding in them an outlet for creativity.
I like the judge's decision on this. Instead of just ending the case by stating that Samsung did nothing wrong, there is actually an outcome against the accusing company. More outcomes should be like this, with companies taking responsibility for their actions, instead of always trying to battle other companies in court to get the upper hand in the marketplace.
The judge looks more prejudiced.
@_hm: who (or what) is the judge prejudiced against? Even though Samsung “won,” he clearly likes Apple's product. There is an odd kind of balance there…
This is something which motivates apple I guess. Its a factor which should be looked very closely and a factor which should be improved for sucessability
@Barbara: Judge crosses boundry of his authority and get involved in his personal opinion. This is not good for Biritish judiciary.
This reminds me of our teacher whose poular scolding phrase to any errant student was
” expletives ***, ***,***, I told you this 20 thousand, 2 two hundred tewnty two times and….”
And the whole class would complete the sentence “.. and this is one omore time I am telling you”
Such “sentences” loose their edge if overused.
As far the judge is concerned , it is not clear under which section of the law he odered such a sentence.
Maybe this will send a humbling lesson to all the patent trolls flooding the courtrooms!
@pocharle That would be a positive result.
How about make Apple allow any person that bought an iPad (while the rule was in place) to be allowed to return it without a fee, if they switch to Samsung?
When a particular brand or technology becomes so popular, such issues can be happen. Most of the other things are get unnoticed. Now the game war is between Apple and Samsung, so what's the benefit a customer can get it out from that.
Roques, I think it's a policy addressed by the service provider. Since the service is attached with the devices, service peoples have to take care about such issues.
One of the reasons cited for this measure is Apple's widespread use of patent law as a means to block sales of Samsung's Galaxy tablet around the globe.
@Barbara, thanks for the post. I think Apple has all the right to block sales of Samsung Galaxy if it thinks that Apple patent is being violated. So the question should be whether Samsung has violated any Apple-patent's rather than whether apple was right in blocking the sales of samsung tablet.
Maybe this will send a humbling lesson to all the patent trolls flooding the courtrooms!
@pocharle, I am not sure if this verdict will have much of an impact. Different courts interpret the cases in different way. Infact Apple has won the case against samsung in many different courts so may be they have the option to approach higher court.
Hi, Barbara
“ But it's a backhanded victory for Samsung: the justice said the Galaxy couldn't be confused with the iPad because it is not as “cool.””
When I knew about the judge saying that there was not such patent infringement because Samsung tablet's design was not as creative and cool as Apple's, I thought that it was a great marketing statement for Apple: even the law had noticed that Apple's tablet is better. Therefore, there is no patent issue.
So, from the marketing point of view, it was a victory for Apple, not for Samsung.
-Susan
Sententencing kids:
Sentencing kids to watch Saving Private Ryan for vantalizing veterans' graves sounds like an educative sentence. It makes sense. The kids may think about something, if not now, later on in their lives. What was the other option, send them to prison to develop more negative personalities and end up with mental issues, and physical abuse, maybe?
Sentencing Apple as if it were a kid:
On the other hand, requiring Apple to publish a notice on its Website stating Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's iPad patent sounds ridiculous. It doesn't make sense. To me, this sounds more like the judges are already tired of these continuing, never-ending patent issues.
-Susan
@Mr Roques, It'll be an interesting switch over. As it appears in this case the Judge clearly shows preference for Apple's ipad.
@Susan, I agree, the judgement served in this case is absolutely pointless. Could it be that the courts are signalling to these companies to get their acts together over unnecessary patent law suits? (It's almost like squabbling little children).
These are very valuable lessons learned. Lean and other tools are good, but organization should fine tune it with their own need and sensitvity to supply / demand. Japanese have suffered most and sholud come out with innovation in lean strategy.
I suppose it depends upon recent history and because we just experienced a natural disaster the downside of lean has become apparent. Once the tsunami is a distant memory I imagine lean will become key again to reducing costs which is always the foundation of most sucessful companies.
Automotive and consumer elctronics giants faced huge disruption in supplychain and it has created havoc in order fulfilment during natural disasters like Tsunami and floods. The agile and resilience are given more importance to reduce any risk associated with particular region natural calamities.
Lean has definitely increased the efficiency of the supply chain and has rendered many companies financially strong. But experts continually call for a reassessment of supply chain strategies, and lean doesn't come up in these conversations as much as it used to.
As one should expect, circumstances drive the conversation. When supply is adequate, companies can focus on driving out cost by implementing lean practices at their own facilities and their suppliers. When supply is critically short, lean is not the focus, and in some cases, is not possible to implement. A lean line does no goods if major portions of it sit idle.
The recent natural disasters have taught us all a lesson that being too much lean in the supply chain context can be sometimes disastrous to our businesses.
Also shedding some of the side activities in the name of being lean can also become a stumbling block in the organization's growth. For growth you need to widen your horizon and for that you need to spend some money on experimenting, trying new things, new methodologies, new technologies – all of which may not bear fruit.
Lean is a way. It's not an end goal and companies therefore must use it as a tool to help them achieve clearly specified objectives. That's why even if people are not talking about it today, it remains a valid tool, one of many that a company can use in pursuit of their goals.
I wouldn't say Lean is losing grounds. It is just now like an old, worn hat and even though it's lost its shine, can still provide protection against the harsh sunlight.
Hi, Anna
Yes, it could be. It could also be that the courts are getting lazy. Maybe they are seeing an easy way out by sentencing companies or people to just post statements on their Websites or status updates for X number of days on social media networks to get rid of them fast. Public exposure, and ridiculizing publicly seems to be the new way of dealing with everything.
-Susan
The real issue(s) arise when a company randomly reduces inventory (raw material, WIP or finished good) without properly analyzing their processes. By that I mean understanding the math / formulas (yes math) required to properly calculate the inventory levels you need in your supply chain to meet demand. The rewards of lean are great but properly implementing it takes a tremendous amount of effort and commitment. More than most American companies are willing to stomach. Toyota did not develop the Toyota Production System over night. It took years and years….
Economic adversity too can be a condition where lean is not desirable. Observers of the sluggish centrally-planned Soviet economy during the post-glasnost collapse cite high inventory as one of the things that helped the society deal with the inevitable shortages.
It'd be nice but I don't really expect it to make much of a difference. There is so much money tied up in even taking these cases in front of a judge (pre-judegement). So those that have built careers on it won't be perturbed much.
To the best of my knowledge, Apple is not a company with the best of return policies. If not best, not very easy.
tirlapur,
Excellent mention. There's this point as well. Laws in this nation are bound by so many different measures that one judge can easily interpret another judge's ruling as 'incorrect'. So with enough of that and a lengthy appeals process, the same case can end up being dragged through the dockets repeatedly.
I think Barbara missed the mark on this article. What is the root cause? According to the article, the root cause is that companies implemented too much lean thinking and when the flood came through, being too lean crippled the supply chain. But this is not correct. There was no mention if these high tech factories were built in a flood zone. There was no mention on how companies assess risk when looking for low cost sourcing and whether or not they knew that there was a risk of tsunami's and floods. Rather than providing sound advice on how to improve the robustness of the supply chain, Barbara spun a story about how a philosophy of continual improvement has limits. This is nonsense. A better article would have been to focus on developing secondary supply sources as a strategic initiatve or maybe how low cost sourcing correlates to high supply chain risk. I see this article as a lost opportunity to properly educate the supply chain community.
You're absolutely correct Susan. The courts are overwhelmed. I think the only solution to accelerate the process of delivering judgements as it appears, I'm afraid is whichever seemed fit- sentencing Apple to letter writing is low (shameful).
Lean doesn't work well for all company types. Has anyone here had experience or heard of QRM (Quick Response Manufacturing)?
Hi, Anna
I haven't been successful in thinking of a good reason why a judge would have thought that letter writing was going to be useful other than trying to make the manufacturers think it twice before suing a competitor.
-Susan
Don't let this news die! Did Apple write the letter? Or are they appealing the verdict and may get off the hook?
Bolaji! 😀 I was thinking just the same when I replied to Anna. I was wondering about what Apple finally did. I'll see if I find it today.
-Susan
Susan,
Let's just say People can go nuts anytime!!!
Ashish.
Well, patent-wars won't help the user or innovation… something should be done about it.
Well, its warranty system is very efficient… expensive but it works. Have you had bad luck with them?
I've heard some horror stories. My brother paid $600 to get a hard drive replaced. Sounds a little outrageous to me!