so what? Patent and trademark law is not about some notion of originality. It, in part, about prior art, licensing and novel process or applications.
Apple paid good money to settle a case strategically based on technology they had invested in, so they could use a trademark they probably already owned. The owners of the trademark used the courts to stall them long enough to turn a profit.
Gee. It almost sounds like someone was making a buck without doing anything, and it wasn't Apple.
In short, please read my last comment. Hate on corp culture all you want, but recognize that Apple is just doing what every
other corp out there does: protects its interests and increases shareholder profit.
Pretending that they are wrong to do this is, plainly put, stupid. Because they are compelled by law as a corporation to do both of these things.
Failure to do so would place the officers of the company in a position where they might appear to default on their responsibilities, and make them open to dismissal (or worse) form the shareholders. This is a cold hard fact.
In short, I am criticizing the sloppy way people spout off "facts" that have no bearing on the subtle ways that corporations use the law to get what they want. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter at all that a Korean or Chinese holding company was sitting on a bunch of "iWords" waiting for the day Apple came calling. Apple owns the trademark because they bought it, just like corps own trademarks since the adoption of international trademark law.