The great Korean sham : 'Samsung Namaskar'

Imagine buying an expensive electronic gadget, which develops a defect.The obvious reaction would be to head for the nearest company service centre to get the product repaired. The Service Centre, after a perfunctory examination decides they cannot repair it, and ask you to junk the gadget.

Shocked ?

Well yes, one ought to be.This is the attitude of Samsung Electronics Co. the giant Korean electronics firm, world’s largest maker of memory chips, mobile phones, flat-screen panels and televisions, that just made a record operating profit for quarter April to June estimated to be between $5.7 billion and $6.1 billion. A company that is so obsessively focused on growth and profit, has little or no time for trivia such as after sales service. They usually refuse to service a defective the product, saying they don't have the requisite component, as its obsolete. Obsolete? "Why I just bought the devise!"

India has historically been a dumping ground of obsolete technology. Samsung has used this practice successfully in the nascent Indian market, using outdated motherboards, IC's chips  monitors, picture tubes, mobile phones and so on the unsuspecting consumer. Since the Indian market was  in its intermediate stage, Samsung gave their products a contemporary look, brand push though glitzy high profile advertising, whilst the internal systems remained based on obsolete processors, motherboards, memory, CRT monitors etc, which had been discontinued in  developed markets.


Further, the issue of patent infringements, simply said, 'copying' is almost part of the Samsung DNA, and is a matter of grave concern. Notorious for the lack of innovation and pastmasters in the act of copying, Samsung has ridden on the back of innovators, most notably Apple Inc of the USA. A recently judgement appended below shows how the US courts have restrained  sales of their Tablet, Galaxy Tab 10.1, as a brazen copying of Apple products, in patents and software :

Coming swiftly after two injunctions barring sales of Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet, US District Court Judge Lucy Koh has also denied Samsung the option of summary judgement motions on all of its claims against Apple -- 12 in all. The decision does not remove the claims from the upcoming trial, but precludes Samsung from any early victories, and casts a shadow on the validity of the claims.

By contrast, Apple used its appeal for summary judgement on only three of Samsung's seven claims, and was rewarded with a dismissal of one of them, now leaving a total of six Samsung claims remaining against Apple's 12 claims. Samsung's case has been weakened further with the blocking of large portions of Samsung's "expert" testimony (although Apple also lost some experts in the process) and a narrowing of additional time granted for new depositions compared to Apple.

Legal experts say that Samsung's claims are also weak on their face, being based almost entirely on standards-essential patents (SEPs) that are eligible for "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing (FRAND), which several judges -- including Judge Koh, who is overseeing this case -- have said should not be used as legal weapons, a key element of Apple's argument against Samsung's claims. At best, Samsung could hope to force Apple to pay for licenses on some of the patents it holds, but at this point is seen as unlikely to win any sales injunctions as Apple has done.

However, the matter is still not settled -- and though Apple's case looks stronger going into the trial, it is likely that the company will have to withdraw some of its own claims (which could be contested in future cases later) in order to narrow down the scope of the case. As patent case analyst Florian Mueller notes, Judge Koh has already restricted the number of hours of speaking time each litigant gets, as well as the number of exhibits. Apple may choose to focus on fewer claims to allow more time for each.

It may also decide to go ahead with a request to issue an injunction against the Galaxy S III, which Apple unsuccessfully tried to block before its US debut. The court may now agree that other Samsung products, such as the S III, are infringing on the same "unified search" patent (which covers Siri and other methodology) and if so should be subject to the same injunction as the Galaxy Nexus and Galaxy Tab are under. Such a move could delay the overall trial while Samsung appeals, however, and Apple has so far pursued a strategy of wanting to hurry the trial along while Samsung attempts delays -- a tactic that has reaped benefits thus far.

Mueller believes the judge has already reached a conclusion based on the evidence so far that Samsung (and, by proxy, Google -- which provides the Android software that has been found to be infringing on multiple Apple patents) and is likely to continue enforcing punitive measures until Samsung withdraws or works around the infringing products and software. The language in the decisions so far, he says, indicate that the judge has taken a dim view of Samsung trying to fight Apple with SEPs rather than legitimate examples where Apple is copying a non-essential Samsung patent.

Apple, by contrast, has been fighting -- and mostly winning -- against Samsung both on hardware (design) patent infringing as well as software (Android) patent infringing. The latter judgements may ultimately carry more weight, as they will inevitably force Google to become an active defendant in the cases, substantially raising the cost of Android and risking portions of the OS itself.

Mueller notes that when looking at all the cases with results so far, Android has been found to be violating a total of 11 Apple and Microsoft patents -- with many other cases (including this one) ongoing, at some point the carriers will tire of defending themselves against software infringements that actually originate from Google."

The cavalier manner in which this organisation functions sparing no innovation, no market, almost with a devil may care attitude towards service and intellectual property rights, takes us back to the 1960's when such issues were not considered impediments in business. In the present day, to sell products with no service guarantees, or overcharge if rendered, to infringing IPR's by blatant copying, are serious corporate violations. In India our liberal attitude and laws towards IPR and patents, Samsung continues to operate with impunity. Such violations are punishable under two statutes 


1) Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices : using obsolete technology,refraining from providing adequate service, thereby pushing you towards their later models, 


2) Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights.


An interesting remark that Was doing its rounds on Twitter was : 


"Starting to wonder if #Samsung is Korean for "untested garbage"!!

The final word is a pretty dismal picture, a firm that enters a market as India, virtually untapped at the time of entry, gains quick market access to a comparatively unsuspecting customer,  sells products that infringe patents and copyrights, give poor and indifferent after sales service,  does not respect the adage 'Customer is King' or 'Customer First', needs to be castigated by consumer resistance and by statute. A time is not far away when the Indian customer will learn these nuances and as Samsung is embroiled in lawsuits the world over, will get enmeshed in legal battles in India as well.