Case Study: Lawsuit Apple V/S Samsung
. Samsung patent Infringement lawsuit recently handed down a verdict which basically gave Apple everything it wanted: A billion- dollar payment from Samsung, plus the possibility of an injunction against sales of infringing Samsung smart phones and tablets. Will this mega-lawsuit dramatically alter the way our devices are manufactured and, In turn, affect our decision-making process when buying a smart phone for personal or business use? Probably not.
The New York Times predicted that this decision would wreak design havoc in the mobile vice landscape: “Consumers could end up with some welcome diversity in phone and tablet design or they may be stuck with devices that manufacturers have clumsily revamped to avoid crossing Apple. ” The real outcome of the Apple vs..
Samsung lawsuit is likely to be more lawsuits. And perhaps higher prices for non- Apple smart phones. But in the long run, I suspect the effects of this case will be negligible to consumers and business users of mobile devices.
Patent expert Thomas Frey of the Louisville, Cola-based think tank the Advance Institute explains, “This Is emphasis, it’s all moving queens and rooks around the chessboard. In the end the legalities won’t matter. All the solutions will be off the chessboard.
The players will say to each other: ‘If you pay me $X, I’ll say you win. ‘” The recent decision will likely be appealed, and It’s possible that It may be struck down. But even If the decision stands, it’s more likely that Samsung and all Android device makers will keep doing business mainly as usual.
Electronics manufacturers, especially mobile device makers, license patented technologies from each other all the time, for a fee. For Instance, after a patent “misunderstanding” last year, Apple started paying Monika an estimated $1 1.
50 for every phone sold. Similarly, In a settlement agreement last year, Samsung agreed to pay Microsoft $10 to $1 5 for each smart phone or tablet it sells. In the U. S. Market, the vast majority of smart phones are at a price heavily subsidized by wireless carriers, along with a two-year service contract which further obscures the effect of licensing fees on phone prices.
So, for smartened users, the changes likely won’t be too noticeable and infringement lawsuits probably won’t factor into their buying decisions. The components of the lawsuit After a year of scorched-earth allotting, a Jury decided Friday that Samsung ripped off the innovative technology used by Apple to create its revolutionary phone and pad. The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $1. 05 billion. An appeal is expected.
Apple Inc. Filed its patent infringement lawsuit In April 2011 and engaged legions of the country’s highest-paid patent lawyers to demand $2. Billion from Its top smartened competitor. Samsung Electronics Co. Fired back with its own lawsuit seeking $399 million.
But verdict, however, belonged to Apple, as the Jury rejected all Samsung claim against Apple. Jurors also decided against some of Apple’s claims Involving the two dozen Samsung devices at Issue, declining to award the full $2. 5 billion Apple demanded. However, the Jury found that several Samsung products illegally used such Apple creations as the “bounce-back” feature when a user scrolls FIFO to an Ana Image, Ana t verdict TTY to zoom text Walt a Teller tap.
Breaking clown ten As part of its lawsuit, Apple also demanded that Samsung pull its most popular cell phones and computer tablets from the U. S.
Market. A Judge was expected to make that ruling at a later time. During closing arguments at the trial, Apple attorney Harold Inclemency claimed Samsung was having a “crisis of design” after the 2007 launch of the phone, and executives with the South Korean company were determined to illegally cash in on the success of the revolutionary device. Samsung lawyers countered that it was simply and legally giving consumers what they want: Smart phones with big screens.
They said Samsung didn’t violate any of Apple’s patents and further alleged innovations claimed by Apple were actually created by other companies. Samsung has emerged as one of Apple’s biggest rivals and has overtaken Apple as the leading smartened maker.
Samsung Galaxy line of phones run on Android, a mobile operating system that Google Inc. Has given out for free to Samsung and other phone makers. Samsung conceded that Apple makes great products but said it doesn’t have a monopoly on the design of rectangle phones with rounded corners that it claimed it created.
Google entered the smartened market while its then-CEO Eric Schmidt was on Apple’s board, infuriating Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, who considered Android to be a blatant rip off of the phone’s innovations.
After shoving Schmidt off Apple’s board, Jobs vowed that Apple would resort to “thermonuclear war” to destroy Android and its allies. The Apple-Samsung trial in San Jose came after each side filed a blizzard of legal motions and refused advisories by U. S. District Judge Lucy Koch to settle the dispute out of court. Deliberations by the jury of seven men and two women began Wednesday.
Samsung has sold 22. Million smartness and tablets that Apple claimed uses its technology. Inclemency said those devices accounted for $8. 16 billion in sales since June 2010. Apple and Samsung combined account for more than half of global smartened sales.
From the beginning, legal experts and Wall Street analysts viewed Samsung as the underdog in the case. Apple’s headquarters is a mere 10 miles from the courthouse, and Jurors were picked from the heart of Silicon Valley where Apple’s late founder Steve Jobs is a revered technological pioneer. While the legal and technological issues were complex, patent expert Alexander l.
Poltroon previously said the case would likely boil down to whether Jurors believed Samsung products look and feel almost identical to Apple’s phone and pad. To overcome that challenge at trial, Samsung lawyers argued that many of Apple’s claims of innovation were either obvious concepts or ideas stolen from Sony Corp.
. And others. Experts called that line of argument a high- risk strategy because of Apple’s reputation as an innovator. Apple’s lawyers argued there is almost no difference between Samsung products and those of Apple, and presented internal Samsung documents they said showed it copied Apple designs.
Samsung lawyers insisted that several other companies and inventors had previously developed much of the Apple technology at issue. The U.
S. Arial is Just the latest skirmish between the two tech giants over product designs. Apple and Samsung have filed similar lawsuits in eight other countries, including South Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, France and Australia. Samsung won a home court ruling Friday in the global patent battle against Apple. Judges in Seoul said Samsung Llano’s copy ten KICK Ana Tell AT ten Opinion Ana ruled Tanat Apple Interline on Samsung wireless technology.
However, the Judges also said Samsung violated Apple’s technology behind the feature that causes a screen to bounce back when a user scrolls to an end image.
Both sides were ordered to pay limited damages. The Seoul ruling was a rare victory for Samsung in its fight with Apple. Those arguments previously have been shot down by courts in Europe, where Judges have ruled that they are part of industry standards that must be licensed under fair terms to competitors. The U. S. Ease is one of some 50 lawsuits among myriad telecommunications companies Jockeying for position in the burgeoning $219 billion market for smartness and computer tablets.
Apple sued Samsung for a $2. 5 billion in damages. Was that wishful thinking? Is Apple getting any of that money? Yes. The jury has ruled that Samsung willfully infringed a number of Apple patents (more on that in a minute) in creating a number of devices (more coming up on that, too) and has been ordered to pay Apple $1. 05 billion in damages.
Apple, which Samsung countered for $422 million, will not have to pay anything to Samsung.
As Buzzer’s FED notes, that 10-figure payout may be handsome, but it’s likely to pale in comparison to the profits Apple can make from licensing its patents later on. So what did Samsung copy exactly? Apple accused Samsung of infringing on seven patents that covered everything from he “pinch and zoom” capability of devices to “bounced” effect you see when scrolling. Samsung was found guilty of infringing six of the seven patents Apple’s lawyers weren’t able to convince the Jury that Samsung had violated a patent on the physical design of the pad and willfully infringing five of those.
That “willful” infringement helped bump up the sum of the damages. Ignore the numbers associated with each patent.
What’s important here are the functions and designs Samsung was found to have pilfered from Apple, and which the Korean company likely can’t use in future products without paying a hefty bill to Apple. As we described before, there are two types of patents at stake: utility patents, which control the features a phone or tablet can have, and design patents, which cover how they look. The Jury found Samsung guilty of willfully violating all three of the utility patents: No. 81 , 91 5, and 667. Really, touchstones wouldn’t be touchstones as we know and love them without the tech patented in these three. Patent 381 covers semaphore’s ability to drag documents, rotate by twisting, and zoom in by pitching, court documents show.
It also covers the bounce that happens when you scroll too far in a document. Patent 91 5 covers how we scroll through documents using one finger. And patent 163 covers the tap-to-zoom functionality found in Google Maps and other map APS. There were also two design patents Samsung willfully violated (No. 67 and 305) and one unwillingly (No. 087), according to the verdict.
Patents 667 and 087 cover the exterior of the phone. Somehow, Apple was able to patent and successfully defend a claim to phone that are rectangular with rounded edges and rounded backs. That’s essentially the look of phones before the phone 4, as can be seen in the sketch from the patent below. The last patents the simple way icons are square-grinded out on an phone screen. I nee court T Ailing Entitles elegant Samsung smartness, tong most AT teen are no longer widely available in the market.
The list comprises: Galaxy S G Galaxy SO (AT) Galaxy SO (Skyrocket) Galaxy SO (T-Mobile) Galaxy SO G Galaxy S Showcase Druid Charge Galaxy Prevail However, the lawsuit encompassed 28 products. In the verdict delivered Friday, Samsung was ordered to pay $1. 05 billion in damages to Apple after the Jury found that Samsung copied critical features of the phone and pad. In response to the filing, Samsung issued a statement: “We will take all necessary measures to ensure the availability of our products in the U.
Market,” the Verge reported. But didn’t Samsung call Apple a copycat? And accuse Apple of violating Samsung patents? Indeed, but Samsung accusations didn’t sway the court. As part of Samsung counter-suit, the company claimed that Apple had infringed on three utility patents (things like sending email and multitasking) and two 36 standards essentials patents. The Jury ruled that Apple didn’t infringe on any of Samsung eaten, but Apple wasn’t able to prove that those patents were invalid. What now?
Well, Apple’s share price shot up in the moments following the verdict and we have to imagine that there will be some champagne getting uncorked in Cupertino later this evening. The verdict marks a major victory for Apple on several fronts: It’s solidified Apple’s stranglehold on some features and, most importantly, sent a warning signal to its competitors to back off or else.
We can add another item to the list of things Tim Cook is doing right by Apple (not by society though) during his iris year as CEO. What’s next?
Come on, what’s next in any high-stakes court case that hasn’t reached the Supreme Court: a legal challenge. Samsung said it will seek to overturn the decision, willing to take the case all the way to the Court of Appeals. It’s all-around bad news for Samsung, Google and all the other device makers whose products are powered by the Android operating system.
A warning shot has been fired, and Apple’s competitors will be extremely wary of creating any device that even vaguely resembles an Apple product, reports the New York Times’ Nick Winnfield.
So expect to see more fighting between Apple and Samsung ahead. And Apple bonbons aside, the verdict is also be bad news for smartened-buying public who could see fewer smartened choices on the shelves and higher prices for the ones still there, as Apple and smartened makers start signing licensing agreements to use patents (lest Apple use them too). Samsung could be forced to pull products that were found to tread on Apple’s intellectual property. What this case proves most of all: Hell hath no fury like an Apple imitated.
Consumers will feel the heat too.