Most Popular
-
1
Tensions heighten ahead of first president-opposition chief meeting
-
2
Seoul to provide housing subsidy to married couples with newborns
-
3
[KH Explains] No more 'Michael' at Kakao Games
![[KH Explains] No more 'Michael' at Kakao Games](//res.heraldm.com/phpwas/restmb_idxmake.php?idx=644&simg=/content/image/2024/04/28/20240428050183_0.jpg&u=20240428180321)
-
4
Rapper jailed after public street fight with another rapper
-
5
Woman gets suspended term for injuring boyfriend with knife
![[KH Explains] No more 'Michael' at Kakao Games](http://res.heraldm.com/phpwas/restmb_idxmake.php?idx=644&simg=/content/image/2024/04/28/20240428050183_0.jpg&u=20240428180321)
-
6
Samsung chief bolsters ties with Germany’s Zeiss
-
7
NewJeans pops out ‘Bubble Gum’ video amid troubles at agency
-
8
Nominee for chief of anti-corruption body pledges 'independence, effectiveness'
-
9
Med schools expect 1,500+ new admission slots next year
-
10
KT launches new mobile plans for foreign residents
미국 국제무역위원회 (ITC)가 4일 (현지시간) 애플의 삼성전자 특허 침해를 인정한 가운데, 이를 두고 국내외 언론의 반응이 미묘하게 엇갈리고 있다.
ITC는 아이폰 4, 아이폰 3GS, 아이패드 3G, 그리고 아이패드 2 3G의 이동통신사 AT&T용 제품에 쓰인 기술이 삼성의 특허를 침해했다고 판단, 관련 애플 제품들의 수입금지 및 미국 내에서의 판매를 금지하도록 결정했다.
다수의 국내언론은 이번 결정이 수년간 계속되어온 삼성과 애플의 ‘특허 전쟁’에서 삼성이 승기를 잡게 되는 계기가 될 것이라고 예상했다.
일부 언론은 “애플이 안방 (미국)에서 굴욕을 당했다”라며 이번 결정의 의의를 높이 평가했다.
YTN은 이번 승리로 인해 특허 공방이 안개 속으로 들어갔다면서도 “삼성전자가 애플과 특허전에서 유리한 고지를 점했다”며 애플이 궁지에 몰리게 됐다고 보도했다.
머니투데이는 “이번 판정은 기존 예비판정을 뒤집은 결과”이기 때문에 그 파장이 클 것이라고 전망했다.
반면 외신의 경우, 이번 판정을 대서특필하면서도 그 의의에 대해 신중히 비교적 신중히 접근하는 자세를 보였다.
AFP와 BBC 등은 이번에 판매금지 판정에 포함된 장치들이 시장 내에서 비주류 상품들이라며 이번 판정의 의미가 “대부분 상징적 (largely symbolic)”이라고 평가했다.
블룸버그 비즈니스위크 역시 만약 판매금지가 실제로 이행되더라도 애플 측에서 금전적으로 큰 피해를 입지는 않을 것이라고 예상했다. 그러나 비즈니스위크는 최근 탈세, e북 가격담합 논란 등에 휩싸인 애플로서는 “상징적으로 큰 타격”일 것이라고 보았다.
한편 일부 전문가들은 삼성이 이번 판정을 계기로 애플과의 특허소송을 확대할 가능성을 제기했다.
미국의 IT 전문가 롭 엔들은 AFP와의 인터뷰에서 삼성이 이번 판매금지 판정에 포함되지 않은 아이폰 5 등 애플의 신제품들까지 판매금지되도록 특허소송을 확대할 가능성도 있다고 전망했다.
그는 삼성이 이와 같은 방식으로 애플을 압박함으로서 애플이 협상테이블에 앉도록 유도할 수 있다고 분석했다.
그러나 삼성이 애플의 신제품을 상대로 판매금지 소송을 진행하더라도 성공할 수 있을지는 미지수다.
ITC가 애플의 특허 침해를 인정하면서 비교적 최신 제품은 포함시키지 않은 이유가 “특허 소진(patent exhaustion)” 때문일 것이란 설이 유력하기 때문이다.
특허 소진(patent exhaustion)이란 특허 보유자의 권리가 제품 생산 단계에서 1차례만 적용된다는 논리로 애플의 핵심 방어 논리 중 하나였다.
애플은 삼성전자의 3세대(3G) 표준특허에 대한 사용료를 퀄컴이 이미 지불했으며, 퀄컴의 칩을 사용하면 추가로 삼성전자에 해당 특허 사용료를 낼 필요가 없다고 주장해왔다. 유럽 법원 역시 이와 같은 주장을 받아들여 퀄컴 칩을 사용한 제품에 대한 애플의 특허 침해를 인정하지 않았다.
그러나 이번에 특허 침해가 인정된 제품 들은 인텔이 만든 칩을 이용하고 있는데, 인텔 칩을 사용한 제품에 대한 특허 소진론이 받아들여지지 않은 이유는 삼성전자와 특허 사용계약을 맺은 주체가 인텔이 아니라 인피니온이기 때문이다.
인텔은 2009년 인피니온의 모바일 사업부를 인수한 이후 애플에 제품을 공급했는데, 이번 판정을 통해 ITC는 인텔이 삼성전자와 인피니온의 특허 사용권 계약을 이어받았다고 인정하지 않은 것으로 보인다.
이번 판정에서 이동통신사 AT&T용 제품만 특허침해가 된 것도 해당 제품들이 인텔 칩을 사용했기 때문인 것으로 알려졌다.
이와 같은 추측이 사실로 드러날 경우 삼성이 퀄컴 칩을 이용한 제품을 상대로 특허 침해 판정을 받을 가능성은 비교적 낮다고 할 수 있다.
ITC는 아직 판정의 정확한 근거를 밝히지 않은 상태이다.
이번 ITC의 판결에 대해 버락 오바마 미국 대통령이 어떻게 결정할지도 주목이 된다. 이날 최종판정에 따라 ITC는 오바마 대통령에게 중국 팍스콘 공장 등 해외 에서 조립되는 해당 애플 제품의 수입 금지를 건의할 수 있으며, 오바마 대통령은 60일 내에 결정을 내려야 한다.
대통령이 이와 같은 판결에 대해 거부 결정을 내리는 경우는 극히 드물지만 이번의 경우 오바마 대통령이 거부결정을 할 확률도 있는 것으로 알려졌다. 현지 보도에 따르면 백악관이 4일, 이번 경우와 같이 ITC가 특허 관련해 수입금지 조치를 내리는 것을 제한하도록 공식 제안한 것으로 알려졌기 때문이다.
한편 애플은 이번 판결에 연방항소법원에 항소할 것으로 알려졌다. (코리아헤럴드 윤민식)
<관련 영문 기사>
Korean media hails Samsung’s victory in ITC ruling
By Yoon Min-sik
South Korean media on Wednesday hailed Samsung Electronic Co.’s legal victory against its rival Apple as a potential “turning point” in the two tech giants’ patent war.
The U.S. International Trade Commission ruled Tuesday that Apple infringed on a patent owned by Samsung, a decision that could lead to a ban on imports and sales in the United States for AT&T models of the iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G.
Korean media suggested the victory might tilt the scale toward Samsung in future cases against Apple.
The Asia Economy Daily and other papers wrote that Apple was “humiliated” on its “home field,” indicating that the U.S. agency’s ruling against Apple may prove to be critical.
Local broadcaster YTN said that while it would be premature to predict Samsung’s victory just yet, the ITC ruling might corner Apple.
“The ITC ruling could allow Samsung to take the high ground in future patent cases against Apple,” it reported.
Business paper Money Today wrote that the ramifications of Tuesday’s ruling would be huge given that the ITC had overturned its earlier ruling which exonerated Apple’s infringement charges.
Foreign media remained cautious not to overplay the significance of the ITC’s ruling.
The AFP and BBC reported that Samsung’s victory “could be largely symbolic” since the banned devices are no longer actively sold in the U.S.
The Bloomberg Business Week also predicted that the impact of the possible ban would be financially limited because it only applied to older devices. It added that the ruling was a “big blow symbolically” to Apple, which suffered a string of bad publicity including controversy over tax avoidance and allegations of conspiracy to fix prices of electronic books.
Some experts said Samsung may take the patent case to another level.
Silicon Valley analyst Rob Enderle told the AFP that the South Korean firm may expand similar lawsuits against Apple’s new products, which he explained was “typical.” He said such an action might be enough of a risk to prompt Apple to become “more open” to negotiations with Samsung.
Even if Samsung decides to pursue legal action against Apple’s newest products, it is unclear if it would be successful.
South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency, citing local experts, said a legal principle called “patent exhaustion” had been applied to the ruling in a way that excluded Apple’s latest devices from the possible import ban. Under the principle, companies cannot collect licensing fees multiple times.
Apple argued that the licensing fee for the technology in Samsung’s patent claim had already been paid for by Qualcomm Inc., Apple’s current wireless chips supplier. Given the ruling, Korean media speculated that the patent exhaustion principle was not accepted for Apple’s older models that used Intel chips.
At issue is that Samsung had a patent deal with Infineon Technologies, whose wireless solution division was sold to Intel in 2009. And Samsung and Intel did not have a formal agreement on the patent in question.
If the patent exhaustion principle was indeed applied to Apple products, Samsung is less likely to win future patent case against Apple’s Qualcomm-supplied devices. The ITC has yet to unveil specific grounds for its ruling.
The ITC ruling could be overturned if U.S. President Barack Obama decides to strike it down. While the presidential veto is extremely rare, Obama is against import bans based on patent disputes similar to the Samsung-Apple case. The White House on Tuesday recommended to the U.S. Congress that it limit the ITC’s ability to impose import bans on such cases.
Apple said it would file an appeal with the U.S. Federal Circuit.
(minsikyoon@heraldcorp.com)
Korean media hails Samsung’s victory in ITC ruling
By Yoon Min-sik
South Korean media on Wednesday hailed Samsung Electronic Co.’s legal victory against its rival Apple as a potential “turning point” in the two tech giants’ patent war.
The U.S. International Trade Commission ruled Tuesday that Apple infringed on a patent owned by Samsung, a decision that could lead to a ban on imports and sales in the United States for AT&T models of the iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G.
Korean media suggested the victory might tilt the scale toward Samsung in future cases against Apple.
The Asia Economy Daily and other papers wrote that Apple was “humiliated” on its “home field,” indicating that the U.S. agency’s ruling against Apple may prove to be critical.
Local broadcaster YTN said that while it would be premature to predict Samsung’s victory just yet, the ITC ruling might corner Apple.
“The ITC ruling could allow Samsung to take the high ground in future patent cases against Apple,” it reported.
Business paper Money Today wrote that the ramifications of Tuesday’s ruling would be huge given that the ITC had overturned its earlier ruling which exonerated Apple’s infringement charges.
Foreign media remained cautious not to overplay the significance of the ITC’s ruling.
The AFP and BBC reported that Samsung’s victory “could be largely symbolic” since the banned devices are no longer actively sold in the U.S.
The Bloomberg Business Week also predicted that the impact of the possible ban would be financially limited because it only applied to older devices. It added that the ruling was a “big blow symbolically” to Apple, which suffered a string of bad publicity including controversy over tax avoidance and allegations of conspiracy to fix prices of electronic books.
Some experts said Samsung may take the patent case to another level.
Silicon Valley analyst Rob Enderle told the AFP that the South Korean firm may expand similar lawsuits against Apple’s new products, which he explained was “typical.” He said such an action might be enough of a risk to prompt Apple to become “more open” to negotiations with Samsung.
Even if Samsung decides to pursue legal action against Apple’s newest products, it is unclear if it would be successful.
South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency, citing local experts, said a legal principle called “patent exhaustion” had been applied to the ruling in a way that excluded Apple’s latest devices from the possible import ban. Under the principle, companies cannot collect licensing fees multiple times.
Apple argued that the licensing fee for the technology in Samsung’s patent claim had already been paid for by Qualcomm Inc., Apple’s current wireless chips supplier. Given the ruling, Korean media speculated that the patent exhaustion principle was not accepted for Apple’s older models that used Intel chips.
At issue is that Samsung had a patent deal with Infineon Technologies, whose wireless solution division was sold to Intel in 2009. And Samsung and Intel did not have a formal agreement on the patent in question.
If the patent exhaustion principle was indeed applied to Apple products, Samsung is less likely to win future patent case against Apple’s Qualcomm-supplied devices. The ITC has yet to unveil specific grounds for its ruling.
The ITC ruling could be overturned if U.S. President Barack Obama decides to strike it down. While the presidential veto is extremely rare, Obama is against import bans based on patent disputes similar to the Samsung-Apple case. The White House on Tuesday recommended to the U.S. Congress that it limit the ITC’s ability to impose import bans on such cases.
Apple said it would file an appeal with the U.S. Federal Circuit.
(minsikyoon@heraldcorp.com)
![[Herald Interview] Mistakes turn into blessings in street performance, director says](http://res.heraldm.com/phpwas/restmb_idxmake.php?idx=652&simg=/content/image/2024/04/28/20240428050150_0.jpg&u=20240428174656)
