(Note: Samsung had overtaken Apple in smart phone sales in just 3 years by leveraging on the Android platform by Google, and Android phones had outsold Apple's iPhones over the same period. Some observers noted that Apple's suit against Samsung is part of its fight to 'destroy' Google's entry into smartphone arena - Apple's founder Steve Jobs had claimed that Android was a copied product.)
On Aug 24 2012, the South Korean court delivered a verdict (probably meant to 'influence' the American one due soon after - see below) that dismissed some claims and counterclaims from both sides while saying there were some infringements by both. The court decided that Apple copied more from Samsung than the other way round and the 'net' settlement was about US$10,000 in Samsung's favour.
A few hours later on the same day, a US jury decided that Samsung infringed on most of what Apple claimed and awarded Apple more than US$1 billion (vs $2.5 billion Apple claimed). As result, Samsung's share price fell by 7.5% (or US$12 billion off its market capitalisation).
Some observations by critics of the US court's decision:
- Samsung says Apple 'abused' US patent laws
- Apple won almost all its claims while Samsung almost none
- the US jury took only 21 hours to make the decision which involved answering a total of 700 questions according to a 109 page instruction guide! A lawyer was quoted as saying that he would need 3 days just to understand the 700 questions let alone answer them!
A week later (31 August), a Japanese court threw out a similar suit by Apple.
Same case, different decisions. Which one is right and should one believe? It is all about money and power. The more powerful (US) can do what they like while the weak (Korean) would have to accept it. Too Bad...
Japanese handphone manufacturer Sony Ericsson also uses Google's Android OS (operation system) and may similarly be wary of simlar threats from Apple, thus their court decision above.
A few weeks later, Samsung filed to void the US judgement on the basis that the lead juror used to be involved in a dispute with a US company subsequently owned by Samsung! The Americans claimed they were not aware of that man's history. Sure...
Reports in technology industry legal issues site:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120824175815101
On The Apple Victory Over Samsung
Apple's victory over Samsung appears... extreme. Since I'm not a lawyer, I can only give my layman's opinion which is likely worth about what you paid for it. Nonetheless, it appears as if the the opinion will be under attack by Samsung shortly (reference Legal analysts suggest Apple-Samsung verdict may not be safe). Whether that attack will be successful is unknown.
Potential Grounds For Reversal?
The jury form was apparently inconsistent, and Samsung's lawyers apparently anticipated such, as can be seen by this motion found on Grollaw:
Late in the process yesterday at the Apple v. Samsung trial, when the parties and the judge were reviewing the jury verdict form, Samsung noticed that there were, indeed, inconsistencies in the jury's verdict form, a possibility Samsung anticipated [PDF]. Here's the jury's Amended Verdict Form [PDF], amended to fix the mistakes. Here's the original [PDF]. Here's the note [PDF] the jury sent to the judge when told to fix the inconsistencies. What are they, they asked? "Please let the jury know," they wrote in the only note ever sent in their deliberations, "of the inconsistencies we are supposed to deliberate on."
In two instances, results were crazily contradictory, and the judge had to have the jury go back and fix the goofs. As a result the damages award was reduced to $1,049,343,540, 1 down from $1,051,855,000. For just one example, the jury had said one device didn't infringe, but then they awarded Apple $2 million for inducement. In another they awarded a couple of hundred thousand for a device they'd ruled didn't infringe at all. This all was revealed by The Verge in its live blog coverage:
The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything....A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million...continue reading here: http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/6158-on-the-apple-victory-over-samsung
Intercept: "The jury found no direct infringement but did find inducement" for the '915 and '163 utility patents. If a device didn't infringe, it would be rather hard for a company to induce said non-existant infringement.
Apple crushes Samsung in quest for global tech domination
A US jury has rubberstamped Apple's exploitation of the patent system. But Samsung's $1bn loss will cost consumers dear
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/25/apple-crushes-samsung-quest-global-tech-dominationSouth Korean court finds against Apple and Samsung
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0824/south-korean-court-finds-against-apple-and-samsung.html
A South Korean court has ruled that Samsung did not copy the look and feel of Apple's iPhone and that Apple had infringed some of Samsung's technology.
However, in a split decision on patents, the panel also said Samsung violated Apple technology and ordered both sides to pay limited damages.
The Seoul Central District Court ruling called for a partial ban on sales of products including iPads and smartphones from both companies, though the verdict did not affect the latest-generation phones - Apple's iPhone 4S or Samsung's Galaxy S3.
The ruling affects only the South Korean market and is part of a larger, epic struggle over patents and innovation unfolding in nine countries.
The biggest stakes are in the US, where Apple is suing Samsung for $2.5 billion (€2bn) over allegations it has created illegal knockoffs of iPhones and iPads.
The Seoul ruling was a rare victory for Samsung in its arguments that Apple has infringed on its wireless technology patents, which previously have been dismissed by courts in Europe, where judges have ruled that they are part of industry standards that must be licensed under fair terms to competitors.
"This is basically Samsung's victory on its home territory," said patent attorney Jeong Woo-sung. "Out of nine countries, Samsung got the ruling that it wanted for the first time in South Korea."
The ruling ordered Apple to remove the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 1 and iPad 2 from store shelves in South Korea, saying that the products infringed on two of Samsung's five disputed patents, including those for telecommunications technology.
The court also denied Apple's claim that Samsung had illegally copied its design, ruling that big rectangular screens in cases with rounded corners had existed in products before the iPhone and iPad.
"It is not possible to assert that these two designs are similar based only on the similarity of those features," the court said in a ruling issued in Korean that was translated into English by The Associated Press.
It also said individual icons in the Samsung products do not appear similar to the icons Apple used in the iPhone.
However the court ruled that Samsung had infringed on one of Apple's patents on the feature that causes a screen to bounce back when a user scrolls to an end image.
The court banned sales of Samsung products using the technology, including the Galaxy S2, in South Korea.
Court spokesman Kim Mun-sung said the court's ruling was to take effect immediately, although companies often request that sanctions be suspended while they evaluate their legal options.
Nam Ki-yung, a spokesman for Samsung, said the company welcomed the ruling.
"Today's ruling also affirmed our position that one single company cannot monopolise generic design features," he said.
Apple did not respond to multiple calls seeking comment.
The court also ordered each company to pay monetary compensation to its competitor. Samsung must pay Apple 25 million won (€17,596) while Apple must pay its rival 40 million won (€28,150).
South Korea is not a big market for Apple, and the ruling is not likely to have a big impact on jury deliberations in the US.
However, some industry watchers expressed concern over the South Korean ruling to protect industry standard patents.
They say the decision could invite a trade war by giving Samsung and fellow South Korean company LG - both industry standard patent holders - more room to block rivals' entrance into South Korea if they do not agree to licensing terms.
"It would mean that foreign companies would either have to bow to Samsung's and LG's demands ... or stop selling in Korea," said Florian Mueller, a patent expert in Munich, Germany who has been closely following the case.
Courts in Europe, including Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany, have rejected similar claims by Samsung that Apple violated its wireless patents, with judges arguing that the patents have become part of industry standards.
Standard-essential patents are a crucial technology for new players to make products compatible with the rest of the market and must be licensed under fair and reasonable terms.
Europe's anti-trust regulator launched an investigation earlier this year into whether Samsung was failing to license those patents under fair and reasonable terms.
In today’s ruling, the South Korean court said Samsung did not abuse its market power as an industry standard patent holder.
Apple filed suit against Samsung in San Diego, California, in April 2011, alleging that some of the South Korean company's smartphones and computer tablets are illegal knockoffs of Apple's iPhone and iPad.
Samsung denies the allegations and argues that all companies in the cutthroat phone industry mimic each other's successes without crossing the legal line.
Cupertino, California-based Apple is suing Samsung for $2.5bn and demanding that the court pull its most popular smartphones and computer tablets from the US market, making the case one of the biggest technology disputes in history.
Jury deliberations in San Diego began Wednesday after three weeks of testimony. The case went to the jury after last-minute talks between the companies' chief executives failed to resolve the dispute.
Shortly after Apple filed its suit in the US, Samsung filed a complaint in South Korea against Apple for allegedly breaching its telecommunications patents.
The battle is all the more complex as Apple and Samsung are not only competitors in the fast-growing global market for smartphones and tablet computers, but also have a close business relationship.
"This is going to go on and on and on," said Barney Loehnis, head of mobile for Asia at public relations firm Ogilvy. "This will never change because the sorts of patents that they're fighting over are such a fundamental essence of using these devices that they're always going to be leapfrogging one over the other."
Samsung, the world's biggest manufacturer of memory chips and liquid crystal displays, supplies some of the key components that go into Apple products, including mobile chips that work as a brain of the iPhone and the iPad.
The South Korean firm overtook Apple in less than three years in smartphone markets.
In the second quarter of this year, Samsung sold 50.2m units of smartphones, nearly twice as much as Apple's 26m units, according to IDC.
Despite the ruling that is widely seen as Samsung's victory, Samsung's share fell 0.9% in Seoul.
Japan judge dismisses Apple suit against Samsung
