Posts Tagged ‘Apple Korea’

Collaboration

Thursday, February 28th, 2013
Collaboration

By Don Southerton, KoreaLegal.org Editor

I’m often asked, “Don we know you work with most of the top Korean
groups, their overseas teams and leadership, but what exactly do
you do?”

One aspect of my work is providing leadership with a cross-
cultural success strategy. Another dimension is conducting training
sessions and workshops when serious issues surface that disrupt
global operations.

In addition, I also work with non-Korean executives of
global companies doing business in Korea, or with businesses
partnered with Korean firms.

But, essentially I teach “collaboration.” This is my message. That
said, implementing and facilitating “collaboration” is not a quick and easy
task. Expertise is required to discover core issues that impede
operations, along with implementing a long lasting action plan and
sound countermeasures.

BTW I’m always looking for new and engaging client projects. If
you have something in mind just email me, or call and we can
discuss.

1-310-866-3777

 

Collaboration

WSJ: Southerton Advises Non-Koreans in Overseas Korean Offices

Tuesday, January 15th, 2013
WSJ: Southerton Advises Non Koreans in Overseas Korean Offices

By Don Southerton, KoreaLegal.org Editor

The Wall Street Journal Korea Real Time blog and journalist Evan Ramstad did a wonderful job sharing insights into our newly released book Korea Facing: Secrets for Success with Korean Global Business. For the full article and interview, go to:
http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2013/01/14/southerton-advises-non-koreans-in-overseas-korean-offices/

Southerton Advises Non-Koreans in Overseas Korean Offices

January 14, 2013, 6:50 PM KST

By Evan Ramstad

As we’ve noted in the past, the canon of English-language books that explain South Korea’s contemporary life and culture for people doing business here is quite small.

But there’s a niche that’s even smaller: advice books for non-Koreans who work for Korean companies in other countries.

Don Southerton, a U.S. business consultant, has written several publications centering on the Korean auto industry, new urbanism, entrepreneurialism, and early U.S.-Korean business ventures. His firm, Bridging Culture Worldwide, provides strategy, consulting and training to businesses that are working in South Korea.

Just a few weeks ago, he published his latest, an e-book and paperback called “Korea Facing: Secrets for Success in Korean Global Business.” With it, he has flipped the tables to look at the challenges that non-Koreans face working in the overseas offices and subsidiaries of Korean firms. The book is available in e-book form for Amazon’s Kindle, Barnes & Noble’s Nook and Apple’s iPad devices.

For the full Korea Real Time article and interview, go to:
http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2013/01/14/southerton-advises-non-koreans-in-overseas-korean-offices/

 

WSJ: Southerton Advises Non Koreans in Overseas Korean Offices

Korea Facing: A Recap

Thursday, November 15th, 2012
Korea Facing: A Recap

by Don Southerton, KoreaLegal.org

After posting weekly Korea Facing updates over the past few months, I thought a short resource recap was timely. In part, with many readers demanding schedules and oceans of daily emails, some topics of interest may have come and gone unread. We have also added a substantial number of new readers since Korea Facing’s launch.

Here are the topics and direct links to each of the articles.

Korea corporate hierarchy

http://archive.aweber.com/bcw-clients/ItJtY/h/Korea_Facing_Hierarchy_Part_1.htm

http://archive.aweber.com/bcw-clients/GGH.Y/h/Korea_Facing_Hierarchy_Part_2.htm

http://archive.aweber.com/bcw-clients/DIzHI/h/Korea_Facing_Hierarchy_Part_3.htm

http://archive.aweber.com/bcw-clients/9s9kI/h/Some_Feedback_on_Hierarchy_Part.htm

Workplace generation issues

http://archive.aweber.com/bcw-clients/FYgz2/h/Korea_Facing_The_New.htm

http://archive.aweber.com/bcw-clients/IhKQ2/h/Feedback_Korea_Facing.htm

Countermeasures (dealing with challenges)

http://archive.aweber.com/bcw-clients/KPbVo/h/Korea_Facing_Countermeasures.htm

http://archive.aweber.com/bcw-clients/DqVAs/h/Comments_on_Korea_Facing.htm

Goals

http://archive.aweber.com/bcw-clients/EDZZs/h/Stretch_Goals_and_the_Seemingly.htm

Approval process

http://archive.aweber.com/bcw-clients/5cT5c/h/Korea_Facing_Approvals.htm

Not taking “No” as an answer

http://archive.aweber.com/bcw-clients/Jx15M/t/Korea_Facing_Knock_On_The_Door.htm

Western teams

http://archive.aweber.com/bcw-clients/OKd.6/h/Korea_Facing_Why_Hire.htm

 As always, your comments, questions, and feedback is appreciated.

 

 

 

Korea Facing: A Recap

Korea Facing: Approvals

Wednesday, October 24th, 2012
Korea Facing: Approvals

By Don Southerton, KoreaLegal Editor

In this week’s Korea Facing update we look at approvals, and the challenges.
BTW why not subscribe to Korea Facing.
http://forms.aweber.com/form/88/1499178088.htm

In the Korea Facing article on Decision Making, we pointed out that in most cases leadership made key decisions and teams implemented. Getting these approvals in itself can be a challenge, time consuming, and should take into account such subtleties as senior management’s mood.

At times, teams can wait days for an approval. This can be because senior Korean management is out of the office and traveling. But, it can also be that Korean teams try to be sensitive to their boss’ mood, well-being, and workload, along with an awareness of pressing issues impacting the company and their division.

In other words, if senior management is dealing with a major challenge, or looks stressed, team leaders may delay requesting a meeting that day. In contrast, if their senior management looks to be in a good mood, timing might be better to get an approval. Again timing is everything and good timing–being sensitive–is the sign of a savvy team leader.

An Example
In once instance when I was in Korea I witnessed teams (there was a line) waiting all day to meet with an overseas business Vice President to get approvals for a wide range of projects. One specifically involving a merger of services in the world’s largest and most competitive car market. The delay: the VP was on the phone with his back turned to the door making arrangements for his daughter’s wedding…a personal matter, but one which the teams and subordinates would not infringe.

Take away…
In a word, be patient when waiting for an approval. Recognize that to be effective Korean teams often need to wait and time their meetings with seniors for an approval. Be sensitive and do not unduly press Korean teams. If the issue is time sensitive, (which many usually are), communicate this, and seek clarity on the status. In many cases, pro-actively sharing with your clients, suppliers, and service providers the Korea facing approval process can greatly reduces stress on your side.

Questions? Comments? Challenges? Let me know by email.

Just email dsoutherton@bridgingculture.com

Korea Facing: Approvals

Kolon Dupont Struggles Continue

Sunday, September 9th, 2012
Kolon Dupont Struggles Continue

By Don Southerton, KoreaLegal.org Editor

Amid the Samsung and Apple IP drama, the Kolon–Dupont struggle still warrants attention. It’s a long and complex case, one that required not only the facts, but an understanding of the cultural aspects…:)

Progressive and independent Korea media Hankyoreh notes–Kolon must suspend production, now appealing ruling in dispute over trade secrets 

By Lee Seung-jun, staff reporter

A thread of aramid fiber just 1.6mm thick can support a weight of 350kg. It is used to make bulletproof vests and helmets. It has also been suggested as a material for firefighting uniforms since it is five times the strength of steel and can withstand temperatures of up to 500 degrees Centigrade.

It’s been 50 years since Delaware-based company DuPont developed aramid fiber, called by some the “golden fiber” and “super fiber”. The market for the material grows fiercer by the day.

One example of this trend was a decision handed down August 31 (US time) by the US district court in Richmond, Virginia slapping a 20-year ban on global production, sales and marketing of Kolon Industries’ aramid fiber product “Heracron.”

DuPont had sued Kolon for violating trade secrets. The court has accepted Kolon’s request to suspend the ruling, so the Korean manufacturer will avoid having to suspend production for now. 

Kolon Dupont Struggles Continue
Kolon’s factory in Kumi, North Gyeongsang province.

However, the challenge for Kolon, a latecomer in the market, and the tensions that have erupted due to DuPont’s efforts to keep its challenger in check are racing towards an extreme. The global market for para-aramid fiber (used mostly in bulletproof vests), which Kolon produces, is currently 1.7 trillion won (about US$1.5 billion) and growing.

The tensions between the two companies are due to the character of the aramid fiber industry. It is also a fairly closed market, with US-based DuPont (46%) and Japan’s Teijin (44%) accounting for about 90% of the market and latecomers Kolon (5,000t) and Hyosung (1,000t) accounting for 10%.

Aramid fiber currently accounts for just 2% of Kolon’s total sales, and the company’s sales in the US market amount to just 3.3 billion won (about US$2.9 billion), but the Korean manufacturer has been cultivating aramid textiles as a next-generation business.

The tensions between Kolon and DuPont go back 30 years. The late Yoon Han-shik, a Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) researcher whose research into producing aramid fiber domestically began in 1979, received a US product patent for aramid fiber in 1985 with support from Kolon.

Later, he received patents in seven other countries, including Great Britain, Japan and Germany. In the process, DuPont offered to start a joint venture with Kolon, but the two sides weren’t able to agree on terms.

DuPont responded in 1986 by launching – with Dutch firm AkzoNobel – a patent violation suit at the European Patent Office against Yoon.

In December 1991, a European appeals court ruled that Yoon’s research was original, but the war continued.

Kolon jumped into full-scale aramid production, but experienced difficulty getting the raw materials. At the time, the Korean press reported that DuPont had pressured AkzoNobel, the producer of the raw material for aramid, not to supply the materials to Kolon.

In an interview in the Jan 21, 1994 edition of the Dong-A Ilbo, Yoon said, “We could monopolize this technology by 2002, but far from competing in the market with DuPont, we’re just wasting time day to day.”

Tensions flared once again when, after a series of ups and downs including an investment suspension due to the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Kolon began commercial production of aramid fiber in 2005, becoming the world’s third largest producer behind DuPont and Teijin with 500 tons that year.

Kolon said DuPont began moves to keep the Korean producer in check as Kolon sales grew upon its entry into the US market in 2006. DuPont made an issue of Kolon’s hiring in 2007 of consultant Michael Mitchell, a 24-year veteran of DuPont.

Kolon Dupont Struggles Continue
Dupont headquarters in Delaware

DuPont informed the FBI and US Justice Department and launched a suit. In September of last year, American jurors ordered Kolon to pay US$919.9 million in damages. The court confirmed the decision in November. It was a huge sum that included even DuPont’s product R&D costs.

Kolon admitted it hired former DuPont employees, but claimed the hiring of former employees of other firms was industry practice. It also argued that it never received any trade secrets from Mitchell, and that the 149 trade secrets DuPont claimed were violated were already public knowledge.

Kolon has also raised doubts about the first trial being held in Richmond, Virginia, the site of a DuPont factory, and judge Robert Payne’s 21-year stint at the law firm McGuire Woods prior to becoming a judge. McGuire Woods has enjoyed a relationship with DuPont. Kolon’s legal team asked the court to provide a different judge, but was turned down.

Kolon also filed an antitrust claim at a US court against DuPont, which controls over 80% of the US market, but this was dismissed in July. An appeal is currently ongoing.

DuPont filed a petition against Kolon for trade secret violation at Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office in 2010. Prosecutors decided to stop calling in witnesses in March, ending its investigation without a ruling.

In a September 1 statement, DuPont welcomed the decision, saying, “The judge’s order sends a clear message to Kolon and others that they cannot benefit from the theft of our trade secrets.”

Kolon, on the other hand, made clear it would appeal the verdict, saying, “We have sufficient grounds to set right the results of the first trial in an appeal.”

Kolon Dupont Struggles Continue

Back to School–Korea Facing: Secrets to Success

Sunday, August 26th, 2012
Back to School  Korea Facing: Secrets to Success

By Don Southerton, KoreaLegal.org Editor
Korea Facing represents both the title of the new book in progress, and the theme for our training and coaching programs.  The programs support those working for Korea based companies globally, Korean expat teams, and companies who work for and with Korean-based Groups…. To get a weekly bulletin/ update fill out the form on the sidebar.

Back to School  Korea Facing: Secrets to Success

Back to School  Korea Facing: Secrets to Success

Who Stole from Who–Apple or Samsung?

Sunday, July 29th, 2012
Who Stole from Who  Apple or Samsung?

Don Southerton, Korealegal.org Editor

Who stole from who in the Samsung Apple IP case is the question. Wired Magazine did a well-illustrated article on the case and issues at stake.  For the full article see LINK

Wired notes: Did Apple rip off Samsung’s intellectual property to create the iPhone, or did Samsung pilfer Apple’s patents when it took on the iPad and iPhone with a slew of mobile devices and tablets?

Those are the burning questions at issue in the biggest trial so far in the ongoing worldwide mobile-phone patent war that’s broken out between Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Samsung, HTC, Motorola and others.

Apple and Samsung, both competitors and business partners, have been jousting over the issue for more than a year, in what’s really a proxy war between Apple and Google. But after 1,400 court docket entries, on Monday, in a San Jose, California, federal court, a nine-member jury is expected to be chosen to resolve the dispute in a highly anticipated patent and antitrust trial.

See article for full text copy.

Who Stole from Who  Apple or Samsung?

British Courts Say Samsung Tablet Not as Cool as Apple

Thursday, July 19th, 2012
British Courts Say Samsung Tablet Not as Cool as Apple

By Don Southerton, KoreaLegal.org Editor

In what is another chapter in the saga, a UK Court remarks Samsung tablet not “as cool” as Apple.

LONDON (Reuters) – Apple has been instructed by a British judge to run ads saying that Samsung did not copy its design for the iPad in the latest twist in the ongoing patent battles between the two tech giants, according to Bloomberg.

Judge Birss, who ruled last week that Samsung did not infringe Apple’s designs because its Galaxy Tab tablets were not “as cool” as the U.S. company’s iPad, said Apple should publish a notice on its website and in British newspapers to correct any impression that the South Korean company copied Apple, Bloomberg said.

The notice, which is in effect an advertisement for Samsung, should remain on Apple’s website for at least six months, the report said.

The judge, however, rejected Samsung’s request that Apple be forbidden from continuing to claim that its design rights had been infringed, saying that Apple was entitled to hold the opinion, the news agency said.

Samsung said in a statement after the hearing: “Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited.

 

 

British Courts Say Samsung Tablet Not as Cool as Apple

Samsung Suffers Another Setback

Thursday, July 5th, 2012
Samsung Suffers Another Setback

By Don Southerton, Korea Legal.org Editor

Just a short update to my last post. No surprise here.  In fact, Samsung’s Korea IP team could benefit from a consultancy.  I can help bridge some gaps.

SEOUL, July 4 (Yonhap) — Samsung Electronics Co. has suffered another setback in its patent war with Apple Inc. as a U.S. court rejected Samsung’s request to lift a sales ban on its Galaxy Nexus phones in America, industry sources said Wednesday. 

The U.S. District Court of Northern California on Tuesday turned down Samsung’s request to delay a preliminary injunction against sales of its Galaxy Nexus phones in the U.S. market while it pursues an appeal.

 The district court issued the injunction on June 29, accepting Apple’s claim that the Galaxy Nexus phone violated its unified search technology. The ruling becomes effective upon the iPhone maker’s payment of a US$95.6 million bond, which will be used to compensate Samsung if the sales ban is reversed.

Samsung Suffers Another Setback

US Courts Deal Samsung Setback

Saturday, June 30th, 2012
US Courts Deal Samsung Setback

By Don Southerton, KoreaLegal.org Editor

Last week saw the US courts dealing Samsung with serious setbacks in the ongoing Apple Samsung IP saga.

BusinessWeek Korea notes: An American judge ordered Samsung Electronics Co. to halt U.S. sales of its Galaxy Nexus smartphone while the court considers Apple’s claim that the South Korean company infringed its patents.

In Apple’s second victory in a week against Android devices, the U.S. District Court of Northern California said Friday that the Galaxy Nexus smartphone “likely” infringes four patents held by Apple Inc., including a patent used in the “Siri” voice-activated assistance available in the iPhone 4S.

“Apple has clearly shown that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief,” Judge Lucy Koh wrote in the ruling available online.

She ordered Apple to post a $96 million bond — an estimated damage sustained by Samsung from the temporary sales ban — in case the iPhone maker loses to Samsung in a later trial, scheduled for 2014. The sales ban in the United States will be effective immediately when Apple posts the bond.

The Galaxy Nexus lawsuit is one in a series of legal battles between Apple and Samsung. The two world’s largest makers of smartphones together claimed more than half of the global smartphone market in the first three months of this year.

Samsung and Apple have been embroiled in multiple lawsuits in Asia, North America and Europe since April 2011 when Apple accused Samsung of copying its iPhone and iPad. Samsung shot back with claims that Apple is using its mobile technology without permission.

The latest order from the Californian court follows Koh’s decision Tuesday to temporarily block the sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer in the United States.

But it is “the first serious blow” Apple has dealt to Samsung and Google Inc., said Florian Mueller, a Germany-based patent analyst. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was released more than a year ago and accounts for a small portion of Samsung’s mobile sales. The Galaxy Nexus smartphone was launched in the U.S. market in December 2011.

The Nexus is also the first smartphone to be powered by the most recent Android operating system called “Ice Cream Sandwich,” which includes a unified search feature that lets users search information stored in various locations with a single input.

As a result of the sales ban, Samsung and Google’s “co-developed flagship device for the current generation of Android will have to be stripped of some or all of its Siri-like functionality,” Mueller said in an emailed response.

Samsung said it is disappointed with the court order and will take all legal measures.

“We are currently working closely with Google to resolve this matter, as the patent in question concerns Google’s unified search function,” said Nam Ki-yung, a Samsung spokesman.

“Samsung will continue to take all available measures, including legal action to ensure the Galaxy Nexus remains available to consumers.”

Apple did not return calls seeking comment.

US Courts Deal Samsung Setback