FirstpostEbook Ebook Apple Vs Samsung

A definitive guide
Apple vs Samsung:
Table of contents
The verdict
Apple victorious: Jury says Samsung ripped off iPhone How Apple won its patent claims against Samsung Jury felt Apple justified, but greedy: Foreman Apple-Samsung verdict: Jurys quick decision sparks criticism Samsungs memo to employees: Very disappointed with Apple verdict 05 07 11 13 16
Tech Wars
Apple vs Samsung: What the big fight is all about Apple vs Samsung: The great patent battle over rectangles Mobile patent wars: Apple vs everyone else The true cost of patent trolls 18 20 21 23
What does Apples win mean?

Why Apples win signals the beginning of the end Apples victory over Samsung: How it will affect Android Bad news for Googles essential patents Apple-Samsung verdict: The devices that are in trouble Samsungs Galaxy S II, Nexus and Tab could be banned Apple patent victory: Is this exactly what Microsoft needed? 26 28 30 31 32 34
Can Samsung fight back?

Samsung will fight US ban, could modify smartphones Apples win: Only innovations can save Samsung in the future Apples victory over Samsung will be short-lived 37 38 40
Copyright 2012 Firstpost
The dirtiest trial ever?

Apple, Samsungs legal strategies leave judge exasperated Judge pleads for sanity, asks Apple, Samsung to settle Apple scores brownie points after Samsung lies in court Sneaky Samsung leaks Apples Sony-style design info to press Judge dismisses frivolous Apple appeal to punish Samsung 44 47 48 49 50
The verdict
Apple victorious: Jury says Samsung ripped off iPhone

Apple Inc scored a sweeping legal victory over Samsung on Friday as a US jury found the Korean company had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad and awarded the US company $1.049 billion in damages.
Reuters, Aug 25, 2012
an Jose, California: Apple Inc scored a sweeping legal victory over Samsung on Friday as a US jury found the Korean company had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad and awarded the US company $1.049 billion in damages. The verdict which came much sooner than expected could lead to an outright ban on sales of key Samsung products and will likely solidify Apples dominance of the exploding mobile computing market. A number of companies that sell smartphones
based on Googles Android operating system may now face further legal challenges from Apple, a company that is already among the largest and most profitable in business history. Shares in Apple, which just this week became the biggest company by market value in history, climbed almost 2 percent to a record high of $675 in after-hours trade. Brian Love, a Santa Clara law school professor, described it as a crushing victory for Apple: This is the best-case scenario Apple could have hoped for.
The jury deliberated for less than three days before delivering the verdict on seven Apple patent claims and five Samsung patent claims suggesting that the nine-person panel had little difficulty in concluding that Samsung had copied the iPhone and the iPad. Billions of dollars in future sales hang in the balance. Apples charges that Samsung copied its designs and features are widely viewed as an attack on Google Inc and its Android software, which drives Samsungs devices and has become the most-used mobile software. Apple and Samsung, two companies that sell more than half the worlds smartphones and tablets, have locked legal horns in several countries this year. Earlier on Friday, a South Korean court found that both companies shared blame, ordering Samsung to stop selling 10 products including its Galaxy S II phone and banning Apple from selling four different products, including its iPhone 4. But the trial on Apples home turf the worlds largest and most influential technology market is considered the most important. The fight began last year when Apple sued Samsung in multiple countries, accusing the South Korean company of slavishly copying the iPhone and iPad. Samsung countersued. Apple had sought more than $2.5 billion in damages from Samsung, which has disputed that figure. The companies are rivals, but also have a $5 billion-plus supply relationship. Apple is Samsungs biggest customer for microprocessors and other parts central to Apples devices. A NEAR CLEAN SWEEP? The US jury spent most of August in a packed federal courtroom in San Jose just miles from Apples headquarters in Cupertino listening
to testimony, examining evidence and watching lawyers from both sides joust about seven Apple patents, five Samsung patents, and damage claims. Jurors received 100 pages of legal instructions from US District Judge Lucy Koh on August 21 prior to hearing the closing arguments from attorneys. Lawyers from both tech giants used their 25 hours each of trial time to present internal emails, draw testimony from designers and experts, and put on product demonstrations and mockups to convince the jury. At times, their questions drew testimony that offered glimpses behind the corporate facade, such as the margins on the iPhone and Samsungs sales figures in the United States. From the beginning, Apples tactic was to present what it thought was chronological evidence of Samsung copying its phone. Juxtaposing pictures of phones from both companies and internal Samsung emails that specifically analyzed the features of the iPhone, Apples attorneys accused Samsung of taking shortcuts after realizing it could not keep up. Samsungs attorneys, on the other hand, maintained Apple had no sole right to geometric designs such as rectangles with rounded corners. They called Apples damage claim ridiculous and urged the jury to consider that a verdict in favor of Apple could stifle competition and reduce choices for consumers. The California trial has produced its share of drama and heated moments. Lawyers routinely bickered over legal matters in the jurys absence, filed rafts of paperwork to thwart each others courtroom strategy, and sometimes even resorted to public relations tactics to make their views known.
How Apple won its patent
claims against Samsung

The vast majority of patent disputes settle before trial, particularly between competitors. In this case, though, the stakes were just too high - and the two companies ultimately had very different views of the often murky legal issues.
Dan Levine and Poornima Gupta/Reuters, Aug 27, 2012
an Fransisco: In August 2010, just a few months after Samsung Electronics launched its Galaxy smartphone, a team of Apple Inc lawyers flew to South Korea.
The Apple attorneys were blunt: Android is designed to lead companies to imitate the iPhone product design and strategy, read the second slide in their presentation. But the meeting did not go well, according to a person familiar with the case. Samsung attorneys bristled at being accused of copying, and produced a set of their own patents that they said Apple was using without permission. The meeting brought to the fore a fundamental disagreement between the two companies, and set the stage for a bitter, multi-country patent dispute that led to Fridays US jury verdict that
Apples late co-founder, Steve Jobs, had already told Samsung executives at a meeting earlier that summer that he considered the Galaxy S, based on Googles Android operating system, an illegal copy of the iPhone. But given the extensive business ties between the two companies Samsung is one of Apples key component suppliers a negotiated solution seemed most likely.
Samsung had violated Apples patents. The jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages, which could be tripled as the jury found Samsung acted willfully. Samsung could now face a costly ban on sales of key smartphone and tablet products. Shares in Samsung the worlds biggest technology firm by revenue tumbled more than 7 percent on Monday, set for its biggest daily percentage drop in nearly four years, wiping $12 billion off its market value.
The two companies never came close to settling their differences, according to courtroom testimony, trial evidence and interviews with several sources close to the case. And when it came to the trial, Samsungs lawyers miscalculated in arguing that a verdict for Apple would harm competition in the marketplace. The jurors, led by a foreman who holds his own patent, were more persuaded by Apples pleas to protect innovation. For them, it ultimately wasnt even a close call. A spokesman for Samsung in Seoul had no immediate comment. Cordial but adamant Apple launched the iPhone in 2007, revolutionizing the mobile phone market. But later that year Google, then still an ally of Apples, unveiled the Open Handset Alliance, with the aim of distributing its Android smartphone software to all-comers. Googles open approach quickly caught on among manufacturers looking to compete with Apple. The strategy infuriated Jobs, and by 2009 relations between the two companies had soured and Googles then-CEO, Eric Schmidt, left Apples board. Jobs biographer famously quotes him as accusing Google of grand theft and vowing to go to thermonuclear war over the issue. In January 2010, Taiwanese phone manufacturer HTC Corplaunched a touch screen, Androidbased smartphone that sported features very similar to the iPhone. Apple sued in March of that year, and the Android smartphone patent wars were on. HTC, though, was a minor player compared with Samsung. After the cordial but failed August 2010 meeting, attorneys from Apple and Samsung talked in a series of meetings both in South Korea, California and elsewhere in the United States. Apples attorneys set to work putting a price tag on a royalty demand. By October 2010, they had concluded that Samsung should pay $24
Samsung says it will seek to overturn the decision, and the worldwide patent battles among tech giants are hardly over. But for now at least the decision in what was widely seen as a critical case promises to re-set the competitive balance in the industry. The vast majority of patent disputes settle before trial, particularly between competitors. In this case, though, the stakes were just too high and the two companies ultimately had very different views of the often murky legal issues. Samsung believed its wireless communications patents were strong and valuable, and would serve as a counter-weight to any Apple showing of infringement, people close to the case say. The South Korean company also didnt believe Apple could or should be allowed to claim patent protection on design elements like the form of a rectangle, or the front flat surface embodied on the iPhone. Apple, for its part, considered its feature and design patents to be very high up on the intellectual property food chain and demonstrating their validity was critical to a much wider war against Android.
per smartphone, and $32 per tablet. Based on Samsungs own estimation of its profits, Apples royalty payments would effectively wipe out more than half of Samsungs margins on any phone priced less than $450. And, Apples offer wouldnt have covered the unique user experience patents Apple holds dear. We made that clear, said Apple licensing chief Boris Teksler. By the end of 2010, the meetings stopped as the two sides were too far apart. Viewed as Rip-off Apple hoped its relationship with Samsung would make filing an actual lawsuit unnecessary. Yet instead of wilting under Apples pressure, Samsung instead pressed its own patent claims, including a critical one relating to how mobile products send and receive information over wireless networks. Samsung eventually would request a 2.4 percent royalty on those patents, or $14.40 per device. But Samsung had committed to license its wireless patents on fair terms to competitors over the years, in exchange for the technology becoming part of the industry standard. Courts have generally been reluctant to bar companies from using such standards essential patents, and thus they are often less valuable than other types of intellectual property. Then, in early 2011, Samsung released the Galaxy Tab 10.1. To Apple, it was a clear rip-off of the iPad, and showed Samsung had no intention of modifying its products. Apple sued Samsung in a San Jose, California federal court in April 2011, saying the Korean company slavishly copied its designs. Samsung quickly counter sued, and the dispute bled into at least 10 courts around the world, including Australia and South Korea. Over the next year, outside law firms hired by both companies racked up thousands of billable hours around the world, but no decisive rulings threatened either side. Jobs passed away in October 2011, and Cook carried on the litigation,
filed reluctantly, he said. Until recently it had mostly been a see-saw battle. Apple largely succeeded in thwarting HTC. But earlier this year a federal judge in Chicago threw out a case pitting Apple against Googles Motorola Mobility unit, saying neither side could prove damages.
For Apple, the California lawsuit against Samsung took on even more urgency as it sought to prove the basic validity of its iPhone and iPad patent claims. It scored its first serious victory in the San Jose court when US District Judge Lucy Koh issued two sales bans: one against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, and the other against the Galaxy Nexus phone. In her ruling on the tablet, Koh said Samsung had the right to compete, but does not have right to compete unfairly. Yet Koh repeatedly urged the two sides to settle. Last month, Cook and his Samsung counterpart Choi Gee-sung participated in one last mediation in an attempt to stave off the impending US trial. They couldnt agree. Besides the dispute over the standards essential patents, Samsung believes it has a stronger patent portfolio than Apple when it comes to next-generation technology like 4G. OUT OF TIME The trial began on July 30. Apple presented top executives who testified in coherent narratives, and revealed damaging internal Samsung documents that showed the company modifying its products to be more like the iPhone.
Samsungs case was far less slick. Koh gave both sides 25 hours of trial time, but Samsung lawyers used up too much time in the beginning and couldnt cross examine some Apple witnesses towards the end. Samsung employees testified through interpreters, or in video depositions that alienated jurors. Instead of witnesses, they sent you lawyers, Apple attorney Harold McElhinny said during his closing argument. And while Samsungs own patents were a major part of behind-the-scenes negotiations, at trial its lawyers struggled to present them on an equal footing with Apples intuitively comprehensible design and feature patents. Samsung could have opted for a separate trial on its patents, but declined. Its lawyers may have believed that placing its own allegations in front of the same jury would balance out any toxic impact from breaches of Apple patents.
It didnt work. Samsung violated six of Apples patents, the jury said. Whether damages will be tripled is a decision for Koh in the coming weeks. Samsung asked for up to $399 million on its standards patents. It got nothing. Samsung has vowed to keep fighting. It could get an appeals court to delay any potential sales ban, which would give it time to bring new, modified products to the market. But barring a reversal on appeal, Apple now has a clear verdict: how it values its intellectual property is more than just a theory. The case in US District Court, Northern District of California, is Apple Inc v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, 11-1846.
but greedy: Foreman

In an interview on Saturday, jury foreman Velvin Hogan, 67, said Apples arguments about the need to protect innovation were persuasive in the jury room.
Reuters, Aug 26, 2012 urors felt Samsung Electronics Co Ltd should pay significant damages in the landmark patent trial against Apple Inc, even though they viewed Apples demands as too high, according to the foreman. Apple won a sweeping victory against Samsung on Friday in a federal courtroom in San Jose, California. A nine-member jury found the Korean company had infringed on several Apple features and design patents and awarded the iPhone maker
Jury felt Apple justified,
$1.05 billion in damages, which could be tripled because the jury also decided the Korean firm had acted willfully. Apple said it intends to seek sales bans against Samsung mobile products, which Samsung will oppose. In an interview on Saturday, jury foreman Velvin Hogan, 67, said Apples arguments about the need to protect innovation were persuasive in the jury room. He also said video testimony from senior Samsung executives made it absoCopyright 2012 Firstpost
lutely clear to them that the infringement was purposeful. We didnt want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone elses intellectual property, Hogan told Reuters a day after the verdict. However, Hogan said Apples damages demand of up to $2.75 billion were extraordinarily high, partly because it was unclear whether Apple had enough component supply to sell more phones even if it had wanted to. FIGURING DAMAGES Apples damages expert testified that Samsung earned margins of roughly 35.5 percent on the products at issue in the lawsuit, on $8.16 billion in revenue. However, Hogan said they thought Apples percentage did not properly take into account many other costs identified by Samsung. Samsungs damages expert testified the margin should be closer to 12 percent, and the jury picked a number slightly above that, Hogan said. We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist, Hogan said. We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable.
Hogan worked as an engineer for decades before he retired, and holds a patent of his own. He said jurors were able to complete their deliberations in less than three days much faster than legal experts had predicted because a few had engineering and legal experience, which helped with the complex issues in play. Once they determined Apples patents were valid, jurors evaluated every single device separately, he said. We didnt just go into a room and start pitching cards into a hat, he said. At one point during the second day of deliberations, jurors turned off the lights in the room to settle a debate about the potential influence screen brightness might have on Apples graphics interface. Their verdict: Apples designs were unique. All of us feel we were fair, that we can stand by our verdict and that we have a clear conscience in that we were totally not biased one way or another, Hogan said. The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is Apple Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, No. 11-1846.
Jurys quick decision sparks criticism

In an interview on Saturday, jury foreman Velvin Hogan, 67, said Apples arguments about the need to protect innovation were persuasive in the jury room.
Paul Elias/Associated Press, Aug 27, 2012
Apple-Samsung verdict:
an Jose, California: The youngest juror, a 24-year-old whose favourite court attire was T-shirts bearing the names of rock bands, chose a Beatles sweatshirt for Fridays dramatic unveiling of the $1.049 billion verdict in favor of computer titan Apple Inc. One of the oldest was a retired electrical engineer who, as foreman, signed the unanimous verdict that South Koreas Samsung Electronics Co copied Apples patented technology for the iPhone and iPad. Among the other seven jurors were a homemaker, a bicycle shop manager and a US
Navy veteran. The decision Friday by this panel of people from many walks of Silicon Valley life was one that experts say could dramatically alter the future of computer tablet and phone design if the verdict stands. But the case also is part of a trend that has accompanied an explosion in the number of patent infringement cases, especially in the technology sector. Increasingly, these highly complex disputes are
being decided by juries, rather than judges, and the juries tend to issue more generous awards for patent violations. That has companies on the receiving end of successful patent infringement lawsuits crying foul and calling for reform in the patent system, but it also has some legal experts questioning whether ordinary citizens should be rendering verdicts and fixing damages in such high-stakes, highly technical cases. Thats a great question and its the subject of a fair amount of current debate, said Notre Dame University law professor Mark McKenna. Deliberations in the Apple v Samsung battle were far more challenging than most. The jury was confronted with hundreds of questions on a 20-page verdict form that was more complicated than a US tax return. They had in the jury room more than two dozen electronic devices at issue, 12 patents to decipher and 109-pages of instructions from the judge on rendering a verdict. This case is unmanageable for a jury, Robin Feldman, an intellectual property professor at the University of California Hastings Law School, said before the verdict. There are more than 100 pages of jury instructions. I dont give that much reading to my law students. They cant possible digest it. The trial is evidence of a patent system that is out of control, Feldman said. No matter what happens in this trial, I think people will need to step back and ask whether weve gone too far in the intellectual property system. Apple filed suit in April 2011, accusing Samsung of essentially selling illegal knockoffs of its popular iPhones and iPads. Apple demanded $2.5 billion in damages and an order barring US sales of the Samsung products in question. Samsung countered with its own claims, accusing Apple of using wireless technology it owned. The jury rejected Samsungs claims and refused to award Apple the maximum amount demanded, finding that fewer Samsung products violated Apples patent than alleged.
The jury arrived at its verdict after less than three days of deliberations, far swifter than many experts thought in view of the many complex issues. The foreman, Velvin Hogan, a 67-year-old electrical engineer, told the San Jose Mercury News on Saturday that the panel was methodical. We didnt whiz through this, said Hogan, who relied on his own experience patenting inventions. We took it very seriously. Hogan, who does not own Apple products, said the first task was to determine if Apples patents were valid. Using his own experience getting a patent, Hogan said he had a revelation on first night of deliberations while watching television. I was thinking about the patents, and thought, If this were my patent, could I defend it? Hogan recalled. Once I answered that question as yes, it changed how I looked at things. The jury did not completely grant Apples demand for at least $2.5 billion, Hogan said, but they wanted to send a message to the industry at large that patent infringing is not the right thing to do, not just Samsung. Although the jurors all promised to weigh the evidence fairly, jury consultant Ellen Brickman said Samsung started out the underdog for several reasons. Apple is based just 10 miles (16 kilometers) from the courthouse, jurors have a predisposition to side with patent holders, and Samsung is a foreign-based company fighting a domestic outfit during tough economic times. Finally, she noted that many Americans view Apple and its late founder Steve Jobs as legendary innovators. Apple changed the world when it came to computers. Apple changed the world when it came to phones, she said. Samsung has vowed to fight the case all the way to the US.Supreme Court. It will first ask the trial judge to toss the verdict. Failing that, Samsung will appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington DC, a specialised court that hears nearly all patent appeals. Apple itself benefited from a judge last year reversing a jurys verdict in a patent trial in Tyler, Texas. A jury had awarded software company
Mirror Worlds $625.5 million after concluding Apple infringed three patents related to how documents are displayed on computer screens. Mirror Worlds may have painted an appealing picture for the jury, but it failed to lay a solid foundation sufficient to support important elements it was required to establish under the law, US District Judge Leonard Davis wrote in April 2011 in tossing out the jurys verdict.
ing patents in computer hardware/electronics, software and telecommunications. That was an increase from 77 filed during the previous five years.
Losing companies often appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which received 432 cases from the federal district courts in the 12-month period ending March 2011. The court reported that it reversed 19 percent of those cases, without differentiating between bench The number of jury trials, as opposed to bench trials versus jury trials. trials presided over exclusively by a judge, has The purpose of the patent system is to encourgreatly increased in the last 20 years, a 2011 PriceWaterhouseCoopers study concluded. It age innovation, but the system is still too often exploited in pursuit of other goals, Steven found that only 14 percent of patent trials were Zipperstein, the chief legal officer of Blackberry held before juries in 1980, 25 percent in 1990 phone maker Research in Motion Ltd., said in a and nearly 60 percent since 2000. statement earlier this month. This case clearly The consultants attributed that dramatic rise highlights the significant need for continuing policy reform to help reduce the amount of in part to a tendency of juries to award higher resources wasted on unwarranted patent litigadamages than judges. The average jury award tion, he said. was a little more than $10 million during the last decade while the average award after a Zipperstein was responding to US District bench trial was barely more than $1 million. Judge James Ware tossing out a $147.2 million jury verdict against Ontario, Canada-based RIM Both sides must agree in order to have a case after a monthlong patent trial in San Francisco. decided by a judge rather than a jury. The number of patent suits in the technology sector has soared in recent years. PriceWaterhouseCoopers reported that 182 lawsuits were filed between 2006 and 2010 involvThe judge said the clear weight of the evidence couldnt support the jurys verdict that RIM used the patented technology of New Jerseybased software maker Mformation Technologies.
Very disappointed with Apple verdict
Samsungs memo to employees:

FP Staff, Aug 27, 2012 We initially proposed to negotiate with Apple instead of going to court, as they had been one of our most important customers. However, Apple pressed on with a lawsuit, and we have had little choice but to counter-sue, so that we can protect our company. Certainly, we are very disappointed by the verdict at the US District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA), and it is regrettable that the verdict has caused concern amongst our employees, as well as our loyal customers. However, the judges final ruling remains, along with a number of other procedures. We will continue to do our utmost until our arguments have been accepted. The NDCA verdict starkly contrasts decisions made by courts in a number of other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, and Korea, which have previously ruled that we did not copy Apples designs. These courts also recognized our arguments concerning our standards patents.
amsung is clearly disappointed after having lost a major patent battle to Apple in San Jose, California. The jury ruled that the South-Korean firm did indeed violate Apples patents and fined the company $1.049 bn as damages. For more on the Apple vs Samsung saga you can click here. In a private internal memo to the companys employees, which Samsung has now posted on its global website, the company seems to be reaching out to consumers and is milking its claim of being wronged for all its worth.
The memo was originally published in Korean, according to the Wall Street Journal, but then Samsungs spokespersons denied the existence of any such memo. The memo was later put up online in English. Heres the complete memo: On Friday, August 24, 2012, the jury verdict in our trial against Apple was announced at the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The following is an internal memo that reflects Samsungs position regarding the verdict:
History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth, when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation. We trust that the consumers and the market will side with those who prioritise innovation over litigation, and we will prove this beyond doubt.
Tech Wars
Apple vs Samsung: What the big fight is all about

Apple-Samsung are set for a showing in one of the most watched patent trials today in San Jose, California. Heres a look at what the big fight is all about.
FP Staff, Jul 30, 2012 pple-Samsung are set for a showing in one of the most watched patent trials today in San Jose, California. The trial could decide the future of the smartphone and tablet industry as Apple has accused Samsung of slavishly copying the design of its prized iPad and iPhone. Both sides have engaged in allegations and counter-allegations in courts across the world. A German court has already banned Samsungs Galaxy Tab 7.7 in Europe while a UK court ruled that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 was not as a
cool as the iPad and therefore not a copy. Apple was asked to publish an ad on its site stating the same. Heres a look at what each side is accusing the other of: Apples arguments Apple claims that Samsung has violated three of its patents: actionable linking, slide-to-unlock, and touchscreen word suggestion. If found guilty, Samsung would be forced to remove
these features from its devices. Apple also claims that Samsung ripped the feel of the iPhone, meaning the rectangular shape with rounded corners. The Cupertino-based, giant wants more than $2.5 billion in damages from Samsung for these alleged violations. Apple has more arsenal to back up its claims that Samsung ripped off its designs intentionally. According to tech website, AllThingsD it seems Apple is going to use Samsungs own office documents to prove that Google had told them that the design was too close to the iPad. The report states, In February 2010, Google told Samsung that Samsungs P1 and P3 tablets (Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1) were too similar to the iPad and demanded distinguishable design vis--vis the iPad for the P3. In 2011, Samsungs own Product Design Group noted that it is regrettable that the Galaxy S looks similar to older iPhone models. Essentially Apple claims to be the original inventor behind the idea, the design and the features of the iPhone. Samsung in Apples eyes is just a rip-off and needs to be banned. US judge Lucy Koh has already granted Apple a pre-trial injunction banning the sales of Samsung Gal-
axy Tablets 10.1 in the US. The Galaxy Nexus smartphone has also been pulled of the shelves. Theres a very strong indication that the trial could go Apples way. Samsungs Argument The South Korean tech giant is not going to give up without a fight. Samsung has accused Apple of copying the design for the iPhone from Sony. MacWorld reports that according to internal Apple documents submitted to a California court on Wednesday, these reveal that Apple relied heavily on Samsungs design. The documents were filed to the US District Court in San Jose by lawyers for Samsung as part of an ongoing lawsuit with Apple over patent infringement. Samsung has also claimed that Apple violated patents on mobile communications systems, as well as features like taking a photo on a phone and seamlessly emailing it. The Apple-Samsung trial might look like a fight between two big, bad corporate kings who are unwilling to compromise, but the truth is that if either side gets a win, the people who will suffer the most will be consumers. If Samsungs devices are banned, consumers can say goodbye to choice.
he patent trial of the century is on in San Jose, California as Apple and Samsung are fighting over who stole what. It might sound like a chicken and egg situation for most people but there are billions of dollars at stake in this court-room battle. Apple has reportedly said that Samsung owes them $2.52 billion in damages.
over rectangles T
FP Staff, Jul 31, 2012 that are revealed look suspiciously like the current Sony Xperia smartphones. The gallery does reveal that Apple seems to have tinkered with quite a few shapes from squares to rectangles before settling on the current one. In an interview to Wired, Kevin Packingham, Samsungs Chief Product Officer, is quoted as saying Were fighting with Apple over rectangles. Sadly, it is true: they are fighting over a rectangle. But remember Samsung has also said that Apple stole the iPhone design from Sony in the first place. As far as iPads go the report from AllThingsD shows, that iPads with square corners and iPads with round corners were considered. Earlier filings showed Apple considering a kickstand for the iPad. Apple claims Samsung slavishly copied the design of the iPad for its Galaxy Tab 10.1. This device has already been banned in the US under a pre-trial injuction. As far as Samsung is concerned The Verge has reported that the South Korean firm is working on an 11.8-inch tablet with Retina Display and two potential Windows 8 smartphones. This is again based on evidence submitted in the court. The Windows 8 smartphone is an interesting turn of events, especially since much of Samsungs success has been due to Googles OS, Android. Samsung might appear to be a cheap, Apple copy-cat and the US jury might even rule against them. But theres no doubt that Samsung has given Apple some serious competition as far as smartphones and tablets are concerned. Should Apple win, its biggest competitor will be out of the market, thus giving the Cupertino-based tech-giant an unfair monopoly in the US.
The great patent battle
Apple vs Samsung:
The jury has been chosen and the trial will last nearly four weeks. Not only the media but tech enthusiasts have sufficient reason to follow the trial closely. Quite recently theres been a been a spate of documents leaked from the trial which reveal a lot about the products at the two companies. AllThingsD has an entire gallery of pictures which reveals some very interesting designs for the early iPhone. It needs to be remembered that Apple has alleged that Samsung stole the feel of its iPhone by producing a similar device which has a rectangular shape with rounded corners. Interestingly some of the early iPhone designs
Mobile patent wars:

Apple vs everyone else
Mobile technology has been a hotbed of patent litigation in recent years, with Apple Inc , Microsoft Corp , HTC Corp, Motorola, Samsung Electronics Co Ltdand Nokia locked in legal battles over the property rights.
Reuters, Jul 05, 2012
obile technology has been a hotbed of patent litigation in recent years, with Apple Inc , Microsoft Corp , HTC Corp, Motorola, Samsung Electronics Co Ltdand Nokia locked in legal battles over the property rights to scrolling on multitouch screens, product designs and in lawsuits aimed at Google Incs Android the operating system on mobile devices.
In Steve Jobs posthumous biography, he was quoted as saying that Google ripped off the iPhone, a nd he w as willing to go thermonuclear on the Android operating system. His battle has continued beyond his death. Here is where the major US cases stand :
NOKIA VS APPLE In October 2009, Finnish handset maker Nokia Corp sued Apple Inc in US District Court in Delaware over alleged infringement of its wireless standards. T he iPhone maker countersued and kept the two embroiled in litigation for a year and a half. In June 2011, Apple agreed to pay an undisclosed sum as part of a settlement agreement and royalties for the use of parts of Nokias patents. However, Nokias business has faltered as it continues to struggle in the smartphone market, with its stock tumbling to all-time lows in 2012. APPLE VS ANDROID Apple initiated the war against Android in March 2010 when it sued T aiwans HTC Corpover 20 patents dealing with user interface and its operating system. Along with its federal lawsuit, Apple filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission, again targeting the Android software behind HTCs smartphones. The International Trade Commission issued an injunction in late 2011 to halt i mports of HTCs infringing smartphones the One X and the EVO 4G LTE starting in April. Shipments of the two smartphones to the United States were delayed. A pple has filed at least two additional complaints with the International Trade Commission dema nding emergency action against more than 25 HTC devices.
Over the past 14 months, HTC shares have slumped 72 percent, while Apple shares have gained 65 percent. In May, the US District Court in Delaware ordered HTC and Apple to meet and discuss a potential s ettlement on 28 August. Motorola Mobility entered the battlefield in October 2010 when it filed a suit against Apple in what was widely considered a pre-emptive strike. Apple countersued the same month. However, Judge Richard Posner in Chicago canceled the trial that was set to occur in June, and rejected each sides injunction requests. Motorola was acquired by Google in May 2012. South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co Ltd found its way to US court in April 2011 when Apple claimed the manufacturer infringed on patents with some Galaxy phones and tablets, which use the Android system. Samsung countersued, and the two companies have become entangled in more than 20 cases in 10 countries. US District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, g ranted pretrial injunctions against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the Galaxy Nexus phone last week, just days after Posner rejected Apples injunction request against Motorola. Samsung is appealing both injunctions. A trial on the patent infringement claims related to the Tab 10.1 and other phones is scheduled for July 30.
The true cost of patent trolls

Apple-Samsung are set for a showing in one of the most watched patent trials today in San Jose, California. Heres a look at what the big fight is all about.
Suw Charman-Anderson new study from researchers at Boston University estimates that the total cost to defendants of patent troll lawsuits was $500 mn over ten years from 1990 to 2010. It seems that hardly a day goes by without a new story of patent litigation hitting the headlines. Many of these stories cover the tech giants, like Apple, Samsung, Google, Oracle or Microsoft, suing each other in an endless, tedious merrygo-round of backbiting and playground insults. But other cases involve patent trolls, or companies that licence patents without producing any goods. These companies, also called non-
practicing entities, buy up patents and then lie in wait until they spot a product using technologies that may infringe their patent. They then sue. Researchers James Bessen, Jennifer Ford and Michael Meurer used changes in a defendants stock price at the time a lawsuit was announced to estimate its impact on the companys wealth, after taking into account general market trends and random factors affecting the individual stock. They found that half a trillion dollars was lost to defendants over the study period, with losses over the last four years averaging at
$80 bn per year. Most of the companies in the study were in the tech sector with a heavy investment in R&D and the litigation was focused primarily on software patents. Says the paper: To the extent that this litigation represents an unavoidable business cost to technology developers, it reduces the profits that these firms make on their technology investments. That is, these lawsuits substantially reduce their incentives to innovate. The research also found that: [V]ery little of this loss of wealth represents a transfer to inventors. This suggests that the loss of incentives to the defendant firms is not matched by an increase in incentives to other inventors. If this doesnt raise a massive red flag to legislators in the US and around the world, I dont know what will. Patents were supposed to help promote innovation, but as weve seen in recent years, they are instead being used as a blunt weapon to beat innovation to death. Software patents are particularly bad, in part because the US Patent Office has been granting overly broad patents. The whole point of a patent is that it should only be granted to an original, non-obvious innovation, ie no one should have done it before (no prior art), and no one
should have a Well, duh! moment when looking at the alleged innovation. The failure of the USPO to take prior art properly into account is being addressed by Article One Partners, a research company that offers a bounty of $5,000 for prior art which invalidates patents being used against its clients. Some of those patents are being held by trolls such as Lodsys, who recently went after app developers. The cost of patent trolls such as Lodsys and Intellectual Ventures isnt, of course, just the cost to the defendant of lawyers and payouts. Theres also the cost of employee time, redesign costs and even losses incurred from having to drop a product completely. Using stock price changes takes this into account, as much as is possible, in a way that simply looking at legal costs and payouts would not. But, because this research only takes into account the cost of cases brought by non-practicing entities, it doesnt begin to touch on the damage wrought by the tech giants patent wars, happening on the international stage. Personally, Id rather software and business process patents were abolished, and that companies focused on simply producing better products than their competitors. All that these lawsuits achieve is to line the pockets of lawyers, reduce choice for consumers and increase costs.
What does Apples win mean?
the beginning of the end

Apples victory in its patent battle may be short-lived. Customer choice has reduced, and in future the focus will be on Apples monopoly, and how to end it
R Jagannathan, Aug 25, 2012 pples clear victory in its patent battle with Samsung in the US is a huge shortterm loss for consumers everywhere. It could also mark the zenith of Apples trajectory in the technology battle, from where it can only go down. Samsung has emphasised the loss to consumers after its defeat, while Apple has talked about the gain for the American patent system and innovation. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in-between. The loss for consumers is temporary, since the
Why Apples win signals
rivals will now redouble their efforts to beat Apple ensuring innovation and better products. But there is no denying the short-term loss to consumers who will surely be irritated by this. Since it is now more or less established that Samsung copied some key design features of Apples iconic phones and tablets, a lot of money will change hands between the two companies, and between companies and future consumers. Apples rivals will have to invest more in innovation which means higher costs for everyone.
Samsung will have to fork out $1.05 billion to Apple, but the customers of both Apple and Android devices will end up paying more for their products: the old premium in the case for Apple products will get reinforced, and users of the latter will pay higher prices as other device manufacturers pay Apple more licensing technology they already use. If Apple had lost its case, the opposite would have happened. It would have had to lower prices and margins to retain and grow market share. Instead, in the near future, as several Samsung and Android devices go off the market, the consumer will also see a shortage of choice (see the list of Samsung phones that will be impacted by the verdict here). This means a gain for Apple in terms of market share and profits as the sharp rise in its share prices after the verdict indicates. But, with this verdict, Apple has probably peaked in terms of popularity. From here it can only look down the mountain. Heres why. First, the world does not like monopoly. It likes choice and competition. The verdict has the effect of reducing choice and competition. This means the losers will now band together more often to beat Apple in whichever way they can. Apple has thus put itself in the same category that Microsoft saw itself in around 10-15 years ago, when everybody from consumers to antitrust activists went after its operating systems monopoly. Second, Apple has sometimes been using patents and patent litigation not for really safeguarding breakthrough innovation, but to stall and delay competitors as this verdict by Judge Richard Posner in an earlier Apple versus Motorola case notes (read here). Tim Worstall, a technology writer, wrote in his Forbes.com column that over-wide (patent) issuances are being used to restrict invention and innovation in subsequent rounds of technological development. As an example, there cannot be that many outside Apple itself who really believe that the European case against Samsung over the Galaxy Tablet is really about design patents. The general assumption is that
its about keeping a competing product off the market by any means possible. For long enough that it doesnt get a foothold in said market. Third, Apple deliberately designs its products to ensure that things we take for granted like USB ports, and slots for SIM cards are different in Apple products. Thus, once a customer buys Apple products, she is forced to upgrade within the same range. It is very difficult to shift from one brand to another even though they may offer the same benefits. This is not to say Apple is the only guilty party, but that consumers dont like it one bit. Interoperability and compatibility (for example, the ability to easily move an address-book from one phone to another) should be mandated by law and companies like Apple or Blackberry are currently able to lock-in customers only because regulators in a slowdown have lost the appetite to force companies to think about them. The more dominant concern is to avoid deflating the one sector that is still booming technology. Hence the hands-off policy on Apple. Trying to create separate standards for separate devices is not a viable long-term strategy for any company even though it gives you super-high profits in the short run. Sony tried to do that with some of its products (Betamax, etc) and lost it place in the Sun. When companies try to design products that will exclude other peoples add-ons and ability to develop things that can connect to it, rival (open) platforms will emerge to challenge this monopoly. Hence Android, Chrome, et al. Apples closed architecture and tendency to use patents to protect its monopoly in some product areas is an open invitation to the world to gang up against it and create alternatives. This is why I think Apples dominance has peaked. The San Jose courts verdict will mark the beginning of its decline unless it migrates to more open systems and chooses to cooperate with rivals as much as it wants to compete with them. Co-opetition is the key to Apples longevity as a market favourite, not monopoly.
How it will affect Android

The Apple vs Samsung trial in San Jose, California, has seen Apple come out on top with Samsung being fined $1 bn. So what does the verdict means for Android users and other manufacturers who also use Googles OS?
FP Staff, Aug 25, 2012 he Apple vs Samsung trial in San Jose, California, has seen Apple come out on top with the jury ruling in their favour. The South-Korean tech giant will now have to pay around $1.049 billion in damages to Apple. But what does the verdict mean for Android users and other manufacturers who use the operating system? The news is likely to cause some consternation
Apples victory over Samsung:
for manufacturers like HTC and Motorola, who are already locked in legal battles with Apple. Sales of HTCs flagship smartphone, One X, were delayed in the US in May due to Apples patent claims. Three key user interface (UI) features where Apple won patents claims are: Pinch to Zoom, rubber band effect when scrolling to bottom of page, and Double-tapping the screen to zoom in. More on the specific patents here.
As this post at ZDNet points out, These UI features are present all through Android, so either Google must fight these separately or get rid of them in future versions. That would make the OS less appealing. Samsungs latest devices have, of course, moved on from these features which is why the Galaxy SIII was not a part of this trial. But theres no denying that this verdict will also affect the Android user interface. Androids manufacturer Google has not given any official response on the trial. But its unlikely that Google could face a direct lawsuit from Apple. As this Wall Street Journal article points out, This has potential implications for Android, but if the verdict stands under appeal then I think it is more likely that Apple will go after the handset makers rather than take on Google directly, said Van Baker, an analyst at the research firm Gartner. Apples business is about hardware devices so they will try to stop other devices that they believe copy their products. Now that Samsung has been found guilty of infringing Apples patent, its likely that Samsung will have to go in for a licensing deal with Apple for these particular features. Other device manufacturers could end up doing the same as well to avoid paying billions in lawsuit damages. Or they could move to Windows 8 which some think isnt affected because Microsoft went for a tile interface instead of icons. According to Wired, this could mean that your
Android device would start cost more. The result will likely be an increase in costs to Android users because of licensing fees to Apple, Houston-based intellectual property lawyer Steve Mitby told Wired. In laymans terms: expect Android phones to cost more. This will drive many Android consumers over to Apple. Next to Samsung, the biggest loser today is Google. But theres no doubt that currently Android is the king of the smartphone world. Even with Apples patent victory, theres no denying that Google will probably work harder to innovate so as to ensure that future OSs dont face any such issues. As things stand, according to an IDC report, Android ran on 68 percent of the smartphones shipped worldwide for the April-June quarter in 2012. Apple was a distant second with 17 percent market share. With Android firmly in the lead, theres also a good chance that the future patent war could be between Apple and Google itself. To know which devices will be affected, click here. To know what the jury said, click here. To know what Samsung said post the trial, click here. To know what Apple said on their victory, click here.
for Googles essential patents

he Apple-Samsung verdict has sparked speculation on as to what Apples victory means for Google and its popular OS, Android. Samsung might be the smartphone manufacturer that ended up paying the price for patent infringement but as far as Apple is concerned, the problem began with Google and Android.
Bad news
FP Staff, Aug 28, 2012
big and the essential patent argument failed. According to this analysis piece in Reuters by Alison Frankel, Essential patents are adopted by the bodies that set international standards for developing technology. Everyone has to use them, which is why holders of standard-essential patents must agree to license their intellectual property on fair and non-discriminatory terms. So how does the essential patents bit worry Google? As the Reuters report mentions, Googles $12.5 bn acquisition of Motorola Mobility also meant a fair share of patents for the searchengine giant. Google would have hoped for licensing deals on these patents, some of which are essential patents. But now, following the judgement its doubtful that these patents will help Google protect Android. According to this LA Times report, the value of these Motorola patents is still debatable. It quotes analyst Roger Entner as saying, The Motorola patents are valuable on the basic technology front, not the design front. Motorola was a notoriously weak software developer and a lot of the patents that Apple has cited are exactly in that weak spot, he said. Samsung claimed Apple infringed on technological patents of Samsung and lost on those counts. I dont think the Motorola patents will help Google a lot. Overall it looks like Googles Motorola acquisition wont help it win the patent war, which is likely to become more complicated as smartphone technology evolves.
With Apple winning decisively, the bigger worry for Google could be around the question of essential patents, a point where Samsung failed to prove infringement on part of Apple. In the trial, Samsung had also counter-sued Apple stating that the Cupertino-based tech giant infringed on several of Samsungs patents some of which are essential to its devices, such as standard wireless technology. But the jury disagreed and said Apples use of those technologies in the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, iPad 2 and iPod Touch, didnt qualify as infringement. Nor were they seen as standard essential patents. Basically Apple won
The devices that are in trouble

FP Staff, Aug 25, 2012 he grand tech trial that saw Apple take patents were just plain crazy. on Samsung for ripping off its products, has finally come to an end. And Apple, Pinch to zoom, one finger scroll, and can claim vindication after a jury said that Sam- zoom navigation aka Patent 915: Except sung did infringe on Apples patents and has for Galaxy Ace, Intercept, and Replenish, every been fined $1.049 billion, even though two-days other Samsung device was found to be infringis an awfully short time given the 100 pages of ing on this patent. judicial instruction. Tap to zoom which is Patent 163: Again Samsung is very likely to file an appeal against only a few Samsung devices escaped. These this decision and perhaps the counter-filing were Captivate, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G, will drag on for years, and years, but Apple has Transform and Vibrant. Everything else was an drawn big blood. infringement.
Apple-Samsung verdict:
Apple had accused Samsung of ripping off the feel of its iPhone and iPad among various other patent violations. The jury rejected all of Samsungs claims against Apple. The jury also upheld all of Apples patents. The implications therefore are substantial. Many Samsung devices are affected by the verdict. According to Mashable, the devices are: Galaxy S, Galaxy S II, Nexus S, Mesmerize, Vibrant, Fascinate, Skyrocket, Continuum, Prevail, Infuse, Gem, Mesmerize, Indulge, Replenish, Epic 4G Touch, Droid Charge and Nexus S smartphones and the Galaxy Tab and Tab 10.1 tablets. The bounce back scrolling feature: This one went to Apple in a big way. According to TechCrunch: Samsung was found to have infringed on patents for 381 bounce back scrolling functionality on all devices. Major loss for Samsung. The design patent: Now remember this fight was also to extent about rectangles with rounded corners with Apple stating that Samsung had stolen its design. According to CNet, the jury has found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apples design and utility patents. This applies to some of Samsungs products and not all. So much for Samsung saying that some of Apples
The jury also ruled that Samsung was wilful in its infringement. But there were two consistencies in the jurys decision. These were noticed after Apple and Samsungs re-read the forms. Judge Lucy Koh then ask the jury to go back on those two points. According to TechCrunch these were over the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Intercept smartphone. In case of the Tab, the jury award $220,000 in damages but didnt formally note any instances of patent infringement or inducement. In case of the Intercept no infringement was noted but Samsung was asked to shell out shell out over $2 million over this error. Thankfully this bought down the damages for Samsung from $1,051,855,000 to $1,049,343,540. Yes those numbers are real. So basically Apple won pretty much everything and Samsung had come out looking like a major rip-off. But the war is not over. The Verge reports that both sides will now file for a preliminary trial injunction, which is set for 20 September. That will decide the fate as to which products will face the ban. For Apple this sets up the stage for what might well become the biggest tech domination in decades to come and for Samsung, the hit will be felt across many markets revenue and device sales.
and Tab could be banned
Samsungs Galaxy S II, Nexus
Galaxy S II and the iPhone: Galaxy S II was found to be infringing on Apples patents. Reuters
Galaxy Nexus: This device was also found guilty of infringing on Apples patents and could be banned. Reuters
Galaxy Tablet 10.1: Galaxy Tab 10.1 could now face a permanent ban in the US. The tab was already banned in the US thanks to a pre-trial injunction. Reuters
Is this exactly what Microsoft needed?

Apple Incs decisive triumph over Samsung Electronics could open the door for Microsoft Corp to finally hop on board the mobile boom as manufacturers of Androidbased smartphones and tablets weigh their legal risks.
Reuters, Aug 26, 2012 pple Incs decisive triumph over Samsung Electronics in the most closely watched patent trial in years could open the door for Microsoft Corp to finally hop on board the mobile boom as manufacturers of Android-based smartphones and tablets weigh their legal risks. Microsoft sounded a challenge to Apple and Samsung in July when it took the wraps off its Surface tablet, a showcase for the revamped Windows software that it hopes will pave the way for its entry into the mobile space.
Apple patent victory:
from Apple. The California companys battle with Samsung was in large measure a proxy war against Google Incs Android software, which is used by many manufacturers to run its mobile devices. The verdict could empower Apple to file more such lawsuits. Some of the other manufacturers of Android products like ourselves are prepared to face similar lawsuits from Apple, a senior executive with a major Chinese mobile maker told Reuters on condition of anonymity as he is not authorized to talk to the media. The Apple-Samsung lawsuit has given us some reference point on our future innovation. Well focus on developing our own unique user interface based on the Android platform. Even though the bulk of our shipments run on Android, the trend is to diversify into other products running on Windows, the executive added, predicting that the percentage of Windows-based smartphone shipments would increase significantly, from less than 10 percent now to around a third over the next few years. CONSUMER APPEAL Windows 8 and Windows RT a version of the software made for the ARM Holdings chip designs that are employed in the vast majority of phones and tablets ship in October.
It remains to be seen if the new touchscreenfriendly and cloud computing-ready Windows 8 can prove a serious rival to Android, the worlds most-used mobile software, or Apples iOS. But mobile industry executives who had been cautiously considering Windows as an alternative to Googles Android say Fridays ruling that Samsung had copied Apples designs and software features had intensified their interest in a Microsoft alternative. The key reason: fear of patent lawsuits
Some analysts are skeptical that Microsoft can produce a device that the mobile consumer will love. Microsoft has been the beneficiary of this whole fight as the other non-Android option, said Ron Laurie, a Silicon Valley-based specialist in IP and investment banking and co-founder of Inflexion Point Strategy. But safety (from lawsuits) by itself is not enough. You have to appeal to consumers. And so far the market has seen that consumers want phones and tablets that look like Apples devices, he added. Hardware manufacturers, mostly based in East Asia and known in tech industry jargon as original equipment manufacturers or OEMs, are weighing their options. From an OEM perspective, the verdict alone, and certainly an injunction on sales of any kind, levels the playing field between Android and Windows Phone, said IDC analyst Al Hilwa. At this point, the two platforms would have to fight on features and developer ecosystems to win. Wall Street thinks Microsoft still stands a chance of reclaiming its former glory, with investors citing a promising pipeline for 2013. But they will want hard reasons to pay more than $30 for a stock that hasnt traded above that for any extended period of time since 2000. The verdict in Apple-Samsung was closely watched at Microsofts headquarters in Redmond, Washington. Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now, tweeted a clearly enthusiastic Bill Cox, senior marketing communications director for the firms phone division, soon after Fridays verdict. HOMEGROWN OPERATING SYSTEMS Asian manufacturers now need to invest in further customization of the Android platform, much as Amazon.com Inc has done with its Kindle Fire device, industry officials say.
ZTE and Huawei, Chinas two largest handset makers, declined comment. Both have announced plans to launch Windows-based phones to supplement their Android products. Smaller Android phone makers like (Taiwans) HTC, (Googles) Motorola and Sony will have challenging times ahead, said Seo Won-Seok, a Seoul-based analyst at Korea Investment & Securities. Theyll face increasing production costs and rising entry barrier to the Android ecosystem. They now face a great risk of similar litigation from Apple. Manufacturers may also look at other mobile operating systems beyond Windows, analysts said. Samsung, for example, also has phones that use proprietary software called Bada. Chinese manufacturers also have the option of homegrown operating systems such as those developed by Baidu and Alibaba, but Jane Wang, a Beijing-based analyst from Ovum, doubted they would be adopted in a big way because the ecosystem of applications and services around them remains limited. Chinese handset makers are a practical bunch in that they will weigh the costs and benefits when coming up with products running on a different operating system, said Wang, It may not be worth their while. Some manufacturers are particularly exposed. The smartphone portfolio of Koreas LG Electronics Inc, for example, is entirely composed of Android devices, leaving it vulnerable should Apple take legal action against it. And HTC, once the Android market leader, has also struggled in lawsuits with Apple and lacks its own strong patent portfolio, making it vulnerable to further legal challenges. It has tried to rebuild market share with new models, the One series, that incorporate high-level photography functions and audio technology from U.S. firm Beats, in which it bought a stake. For all these manufacturers its a risk management game, said Andrew Milroy, Singaporebased vice president of Frost and Sullivan, a consulting company. They dont want to put all their eggs in one basket.
Can Samsung fight back?
Samsung will fight US ban, could modify smartphones

Samsung has vowed to fight the prospect of a ban in the US against eight of its smartphones. Judge Lucy Koh has set 6 December as the date for Apples injunction hearing against Samsung smartphones.
amsung has vowed to fight the prospect of a ban in the US against eight of its smartphones. Judge Lucy Koh has set 6 December as the date for Apples injunction hearing against Samsung smartphones. The South-Korean firm says it is open to altering devices as well.
Charge, Galaxy Prevail. The Galaxy S II is a flagship smartphone for Samsung and a ban could have huge implications for the South-Korean firm. The Wall Street Journal reports that Samsung responded on Tuesday with a one-sentence press statement. We will take all necessary measures to ensure the availability of our products in the US market. The report also said that A Samsung spokesman said the companys options included filing to stop the injunction, appealing if the judge grants it and modifying products. The company is also in talks with wireless carriers to remove the features that infringe Apples patents. Samsung will probably have to modify its devices if a ban is granted. The question is this: will it remove the infringing features or will it update the OS completely? If so Galaxy S II could get an upgrade to Android 4.1, Jelly Bean, ahead of the Galaxy S III. Meanwhile, 20 September will decide if the injunction against Galaxy Tablet 10.1 should remain. Theres a good chance that this ban wont hold as the jury ruled that the 10.1 Tablet was not an Apple iPad rip-off.
According to news reports yesterday Apple has submitted a list of 8 Samsung smartphones which it wants banned with immediate effect. While Apples lawsuit encompassed 28 devices, many of those accused products are no longer widely available in the worlds largest mobile market. The smartphones include: Galaxy S II 4G, Galaxy S II (AT&T variant), Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S II (T-Mobile Variant), Galaxy S II Epic 4G (Sprint Variant), Galaxy S Showcase, Droid
save Samsung in the future

A US jurys $1 billion verdict against Samsung for what rival Apple claimed was the illegal copying of its iPhone and iPad designs signals a turning point for the South Korean electronics giant known for adapting the innovations of others and nimbly executing production.
Only innovations can
Apples win:
Youkyung Lee/Associated Press , Aug 29, 2012 more challenging and time-consuming than the shortcuts Samsung used to take. The case shows that Samsung is still inadequate in soft(ware) area, such as designs and patents, MS Hwang, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Samsung Securities, said in a commentary. Samsung Electronics Co has a top-heavy command structure that centers on the founding family. At the apex is 70-year-old Lee Kun-hee, who inherited the mantle from his father, Samsung founder Lee Byung-chull, in 1987. The strict hierarchy has enabled speedy and bold investment and swift execution. That, plus the ability to build on the innovations of others, like Sony Corp has helped Samsung become the worlds largest maker of televisions, memory chips, liquid crystal display panels and now smartphones.
eoul, South Korea: A US jurys $1 billion verdict against Samsung for what rival Apple claimed was the illegal copying of its iPhone and iPad designs signals a turning point for the South Korean electronics giant known for its prowess in adapting the innovations of others and nimbly executing production. The verdict not only jolted the world of global gadgetry but also likely sparked some soulsearching in Suwon, South Korea, where the family-run Samsung conglomerate is based. The worlds top seller of smartphones finds itself in the post-iPhone reality, where the decades-long practice of industry mimicry now can mean a bruising legal challenge. And so Samsung finds itself in a position of having to recreate itself as an innovator, not an imitator. But the switch, experts say, will be much
Its path is reminiscent of many Japanese companies, like Canon Inc and Nikon Corp., which started out by copying European designs and then became innovators and pace-setters in the 1960s and 70s. It is impossible to be an innovator from the beginning, said Chang Sea-jin, a professor at National University of Singapore. If you dont have a technology, imitating more advanced companies is the easiest way to catch up. Samsung has long been regarded as a fast follower imitating or licensing technologies and then competing by lowering costs, improving quality and adding functions. It overcame its belated entry into the memory chip business in 1983 with efficient mass production and investments. Today, Samsung supplies about 30 percent of the chips that go into electronic gadgets. In the early 2000s, Samsung claimed leadership in the global television industry. But when Apple released its cutting-edge iPhone in 2007, Samsung employees were likely too pressed to catch up to scrutinise possible patent encroachments. South Koreas idea of intellectual property is also less strict than that in the US, Chang said, and speedy execution is highly valued at Samsung. Still, Samsung outsold Apple this year in smartphones by offering more variety, including lowend phones for price-conscious consumers. Last Friday, a jury in San Jose, California, ruled that Samsung went too far in copying the iPhone and the iPad. It awarded Apple $1.05 billion, while a judge considers whether to ban sales of eight Samsung products in the US Samsung has vowed to appeal. Samsungs stocks plunged 7.5 percent in Seoul on the first trading day after the verdict, costing $12 billion in market value. Samsung has vowed to appeal, but unsuccessful legal battles against Apple in a host of other countries means that Samsung has few choices other than to create its own design identity.
In the past few years, Samsung has been investing in design, not only in mobile phones, but also in televisions and home appliances. But the results were not near the level of revolutionizing the look and feel of a consumer electronics product or the way consumers interact with technology. Bill Fischer, a professor at International Institute for Management Development in Lausanne, Switzerland, says Samsung still has not breached the divide between itself and consumer electronics companies such as Apple and Sony. They tend to take bigger risks regarding products brought to market, and they try to become creators of revolutionary new technologies, such as iPods, smartphones and Sonys Walkman music player, Fischer said in an email to The Associated Press. This is a different mentality. The choices that Samsung has made so far are not choices conducive to growing the sort of design and customer-centricity that has long made Apple unique, he said. That does not necessarily mean that Samsung must become another Apple. Samsung, which supplies mobile processors that work as a brain in the iPhone and the iPad, as well as displays and memory chips to Apple, reaches far and deep into the areas that Apple does not especially in electronics hardware manufacturing. Innovation does not necessarily mean an entire change. Doing better than the present and doing better than others are also innovation, said Lee Myoung-woo, who once led Samsungs consumer electronics businesses in the U.S. and is a professor at Hanyang University in Seoul. Even if other companies are not breaking away too far from the rules that Apple made with the iPhone, other companies can come up with product innovation in the areas that Apple didnt see, Lee said. He cited the Galaxy Note as an example, a smartphone with an overblown screen that became popular.
will be short-lived
Samsungs skill as a fast executioner - quick to match others innovations - would likely mean tweaked, non-patent infringing devices would be on the market soon after any ban came into place.
Miyoung Kim/Reuters, Aug 25, 2012
Apples victory over Samsung
eoul: Defeat in a bitter patent wrangle with Apple Inc, its smartphone rival and biggest customer, will dent Samsung Electronics Cos $21 billion cash-pile, but could actually help cement its leadership in the global smartphone market.
quick to match others innovations would likely mean tweaked, non-patent infringing devices would be on the market soon after any ban came into place. Samsung has already made some design changes to new products since the litigation first started more than a year ago, said Seo Wonseok, an analyst at Korea Investment & Securities. With the ruling, they are now more likely to make further changes or they could simply decide to raise product prices to cover patentrelated payments. Also, Apples demands for Samsung to pay it a royalty on its phone sales could hit rival phones using Googles Android operating system more than it hits Samsung. If anything, the blaze of publicity from the high-profile, high-stakes US litigation has made Samsungs brand more recognisable. CONTRADICTING VERDICTS
A US court has ordered Samsung which sold around 50 million phones in April-June, almost twice the number of iPhones to pay $1.05 billion damages, after ruling that the South Korean firm infringed on some Apple patents.
While the verdict was a big win for Apple, the damages are less than half the $2.5 billion compensation it sought although that could yet be increased by the judge and are just 1.5 percent of annual revenues from Samsungs telecoms business. That phone and tablet business is the powerhouse behind Samsungs growth, earning around 70 percent of total profit. The group had net profit of $4.5 billion in April-June. Samsung could also see its popular Galaxy smartphone banned from sale in the United States. But its skill as a fast executioner
The California jury had only begun deliberating on Wednesday after a complex weeks-long trial. Fridays verdict on seven Apple patent claims and five Samsung patent claims suggests the nine-person panel had little difficulty in concluding that Samsung had copied some features of Apples iPhone and iPad. It could lead to an outright ban on sales of key Samsung products, with Apple saying it planned to file for a sales injunction within seven days and the judge in the case setting a hearing on September 20. Because the jury found wilful infringement,
Apple could seek triple damages. The US ruling, read out to a packed federal courtroom in San Jose, just miles from Apples headquarters, came less than 24 hours after a Seoul court found that while the iPhone and Galaxy look very similar Samsung hadnt violated Apples design.
underdog in the US case, the sweeping nature of Apples victory was something of a surprise, with many analysts having expected a mixed ruling.
Concerns over potential reputational damage, the short-term cash hit and the impact on billions of dollars of business with Apple had knocked as much as 5 percent off Samsungs Samsung issued a defiant response to the US shares this week in the run-up to the verdict. decision, which it called a loss for the American But the stock is still up nearly 50 percent since consumer, indicating the legal tussle is far from Apple filed its accusations. over. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apples claims, Samsung said in a statement. Nomura analyst CW Chung, speaking before the verdict, predicted it could take many years for Apple and Samsung to settle the case whatever the result of this round, leaving the two firmly in control of the $200 billion-plus global smartphone market. The litigation may end up with both parties entering a cross-licensing agreement, which should enable them to build a higher patent wall in the smartphone market, said Chung. This would have a positive impact on the share prices of Samsung and Apple, while posing a substantial threat to other competitors. Based on the damages ruling, Samsung is asked to pay Apple around $10 royalty per phone, a move seen aimed at slowing rival phones that run on Android which account for more than two-thirds of the global market. If Apple were to pursue similar legal challenges against other Android manufacturers that could squeeze profit margins as smartphone prices decline in a growing market reinforcing the dominance of Samsung, one of the few with big enough margins to absorb the extra cost. Handset competitors using Android include Taiwans HTC Corp, LG Electronics, Googles Motorola, Sony Corp and some Chinese brands. WIN SOME, LOSE SOME? Although Samsung had been viewed as the
Samsung has previously been able to move nimbly to release model upgrades by the time courts have ruled certain products infringed Apple patents and retire patent-infringing models from its line-up. It has skirted around those rulings with a few engineering tweaks and has also made some bold design changes to differentiate its devices from Apples. The impact on Samsung will be quite limited, as affected models are mostly legacy products and its new products did make some design changes to avoid potential litigation, said DJ Jung, representative patent attorney for SU Intellectual Property. Still its a sweeping loss in the most important market. Its inevitable that Samsungs brand will be negatively affected Samsung could be perceived as a copycat. Even though Samsungs flagship Galaxy S III phone was not involved in the trial, the jury validated Apples patents on features and design elements that Apple could then try to wield against that product.
It is possible Apple would not have to seek an entirely new trial against the S III, but rather include it in a contempt proceeding which moves much faster, said Nick Rodelli, a lawyer and adviser to institutional investors for CFRA Research in Maryland. Seoul-based Jung predicted further appeals and fresh suits against newer products as the rivals continue to clash in court. Its going to be a very drawn-out battle, he said. They will keep suing each other, appeal against unfavourable verdicts and bring in new products because the stakes are too high. They dont want to lose their initiative in the fast-moving smartphone market. OUTSIDE THE BOX In a research note before the verdict, UBS analysts said an Apple win could, in the longrun, hurt the US firm as the real threat is not a competitor beating Apple at its own game, but instead changing the game. The likelihood of Apple being leapfrogged or a rival creating a new category (of device) is greater if they have to think out of the box. If they just copy Apple, like Coke, Apple can claim to be the real thing.
Samsung also looks to be staying ahead of the curve by reviving the stylus function, derided by Apples Steve Jobs, in its latest tablets and by creating the hybrid phone-cum-tablet, or phablet, category, with its 5.3-inch Note. Apple, which has largely stood by its original form and design, is taking note, with speculation that the next iPhone will have a bigger screen and new iPads may be smaller. In China, set to become the worlds biggest smartphone market this year, Samsung has almost twice Apples market share, and the iPhone slipped to fourth in the market in AprilJune, overtaken by both Lenovo Group Ltd and ZTE Corp, according to latest data from industry research firm IDC. Despite, or because of, the publicity from the US case, and more than a dozen pending cases elsewhere around the globe, the Samsung brand has gained recognition as an equal to Apple rather than merely a supplier. In a recent Campaign Asia-Pacific brand ranking, Samsung came top ahead of secondplaced Apple.
The dirtiest trial ever?
leave judge exasperated

Outside the jurys presence, Apple and Samsung lawyers regularly accuse each other of unfair ambushes, dirty public relations tactics and even doctoring evidence. An exasperated judge Koh has taken to managing the trial like a school-teacher.
Dan Levine/Reuters, Aug 10, 2012
Apple, Samsungs legal strategies
an Jose, California: It was the end of a long week in court in the Apple-Samsung legal war, and Samsung attorney John Quinn was trying to block his adversary, Apple attorney Bill Lee, from showing the jury a document. As Quinn made his argument to US District Judge Lucy Koh, he slipped in a reference to Kohs pre-trial order blocking sales of some Samsung products a subject Koh had forbidden the parties from discussing in front of the jury. That was improper, said Koh. I apologise, your honour, Quinn responded.
I have a difficulty believing that was not intentional, said the judge. Koh allowed the document into evidence. But her admonishment provided the jury with a glimpse into the unusual tensions roiling beneath the lofty courtroom arguments about who might have illegally copied whose technology. Outside the jurys presence, Apple and Samsung lawyers regularly accuse each other of unfair ambushes, dirty public relations tactics and even doctoring evidence. Quinn took the extraordinary step of issuing a press release on documents that Koh barred from the trial an open display of defiance that suggested a legal strategy aimed at creating
courtroom chaos. Quinn says he intended nothing of the sort. Elite trial lawyers normally display a certain professional comity in court, but little of that is apparent in this case. An exasperated Koh has taken to managing the trial like a schoolmarm, regularly scolding her errant charges and resorting to tactics like deducting from the time they have to present evidence if they make superfluous arguments. The trial, which will determine whether Samsung violated Apple patents in creating competing smartphone and tablet-computing products, is now in its second full week, and is expected to run through the end of August. Despite some key pre-trial rulings Koh issued against Samsung, during trial itself the judge has given the jury no signals as to who she thinks is in the right. Rather Koh, a 44-year-old appointee of US President Barack Obama, appears to take the view that if the two sides would just act like grown-ups and pursue rational self-interest rather than sling mud at one another, there wouldnt be a trial at all. This week, Koh wistfully returned to a idea she first raised at a pretrial hearing over one year ago. You didnt file any objections yesterday, and I was hoping that maybe you had settled, she said. But in a case that is more about professional pride and long-term market power than money, there appears to be little basis for a settlement before the verdict. The two companies are close collaborators in many areas, as Apple is one of Samsungs biggest customers for smartphone and tablet components. Yet in court they seem determined to fight to the death. Their executives pass one another in the hallways without making eye contact. Complex business litigation in front of a jury is sometimes approached as theater, or even sport, but in this courtroom no one is having a lot of fun. Celebrity trial, Silicon Valley Style
The trial has captured the attention of the technology world in part because the stakes are so high: Apple accuses Samsung of copying the iPad and the iPhone, two of the most successful products in the history of technology. If Apple wins, it may be able to block whole categories of competitors and cement its dominance of next-generation mobile computing. The Korean firm, which is emerging as one of Apples most powerful global challengers, has counter-attacked by alleging that Apple infringed some of its key wireless technology patents. But the trial is also titillating to the technorati because of the unusual up-close-and-personal look it has provided into the secret world of Apple. Phil Schiller, Apples long-time marketing chief, stood in the hallway before testifying one day last week, making small talk as reporters looked on. Normally seen in blue jeans even during product launches one of Schillers handlers teased him about his dark suit and yellow tie. On the witness stand, Schiller talked about how Samsungs products impact ad campaigns; Apple has spent about $647 million on advertising for the iPhone since its 2007 launch, and over $457 million on the two-year-old iPad. If youre driving down the highway 55 miles an hour, you have a split second to see a phone on a billboard, Schiller said. If it looks very, very similar and is copied, whose phone was that? Earlier, Apple industrial designer Christopher Stringer took the stand, looking every bit the part in a cream-colored suit and shoulder length hair. He offered trivial details about the Apple design process people work around a kitchen table! but in the information vacuum that surrounds Apples internal workings, trivia tops nothing. The mountain of documents filed in the case over 1,600 docket entries and counting are anything but trivial, though. Detail about licensing negotiations between Apple and the South Korean company, early design ideas for the iPad, and even profit margins for the iPhone
and iPad have been revealed. (On every $499 iPad, between $115 and $160 flowed into Apples cash pile through the end of March 2012.) Koh is the first Korean-American to ever serve as a district court judge: her parents immigrated to the United States and Koh spent a good deal of her childhood in Mississippi, attending majority African-American public schools, according to a biography from Harvard Law School, her alma mater. Each day of the trial, Koh trudges to her seat holding a stack of thick binders with both hands. She keeps a close eye on the jury, at one point offering them caffeine. The judge gave Apple and Samsung 25 hours each to present their evidence, but timing the attorneys legal arguments has now become one of her favorite devices in trying to get them to conform to her standards. On Tuesday, Koh said she would allow the jury to hear about a study about consumer confusion between Apple and Samsung products. Samsung attorney Charles Verhoeven asked to reconsider. Koh started the clock, and Verhoeven ultimately convinced Koh to keep the study out. It took six minutes. Koh said she would charge each side three minutes, prompting Apple attorney Michael Jacobs to moan. If it doesnt kill you, it wont hurt you, okay? Koh said, without smiling. APPEALING TO THE LAYMAN Both companies opted to put their battle in the hands of a nine-member jury, overseen by Koh.
For Samsung, the challenge is to get jurors past any intuitive emotional response its a copy! and focus on the specific legal requirements of each patent. In other words, to get them to accept the idea that copying, by itself, is not illegal. Several of the techiest potential jurors were excluded from the panel, including an Apple employee, another from Google, and a man with over 120 patents. But there are still jurors with engineering chops, and as befits the educated population in Silicon Valley, seven out of nine have college degrees. Only one juror owns an iPhone; a few have Samsungs (but not one of its smartphones). One morning last week, Koh brought jurors into court one by one. Juror Number 6, a rail-thin young man who favors cargo shorts, flip flops and videogames, sat alone in the jury box in a courtroom packed with dark-suited lawyers and journalists clattering on their laptops. I just want to find out whether, since we were together on Tuesday afternoon, have you read or heard anything about this case? she asked. No, the juror replied simply. Kohs jury poll was also a result of Quinns tactics. Samsung had released a press statement that contained links to documents which Koh ruled could not be shown to them, and Apple accused Samsung of jury tampering. The South Korean company, generally considered the underdog in the case, only needs one holdout juror to deny Apple a win.
asks Apple, Samsung to settle

The US judge overseeing the patents case between Apple and Samsung has urged the Chief Executives of both companies to speak at least once before the jury goes into deliberation next week.
Reuters, Aug 16, 2012 US judge asked that the chief executives I see risks here for both sides, Koh said. of Apple Inc and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd speak to each other at least once on Attorneys for both companies told Koh they the phone before a jury begins deliberating next would pass along the message. week in the high-stakes patent trial between the two tech companies. Samsung continued presenting witnesses on Wednesday, including an industrial designer Its time for peace, US District Judge Lucy from South Korea who described developing the Koh said on Wednesday in a San Jose, CaliforGalaxy line of tablets. nia, federal court, just miles from Apples headquarters. Speaking through a Korean interpreter, Jin Soo Kim said he began working on a tablet in Apple and Samsung are going toe-to-toe in a October 2009, months before Apple launched patents dispute mirroring a struggle for industhe iPad in January 2010. Kim recounted the try supremacy between the rivals that control rationale behind different design choices for the more than half of worldwide smartphone sales. Galaxy Tab 10.1. The screen, for instance, was set at 10.1 inches both to maximize its size and Apple accuses Samsung of copying the design contain manufacturing costs. and some features of its iPad and iPhone, and is asking for a sales ban in addition to monetary I really enjoy what I do as a designer, Kim damages. South Koreas Samsung, which is try- said. I am proud of what I do. ing to expand in the United States, says Apple infringed several patents, including some for its Asked by Samsung attorney John Quinn whethkey wireless technology. er he copied the designs of any other company, Kim said: I have not. The US trial is now in its third week. Before the jury was brought into the courtroom on Apple attorney Harold McElhinny showed Kim Wednesday, Koh told attorneys for the compainternal Samsung emails, referring to a meeting nies that they had succeeded in raising awarebetween Samsung and Google executives. ness about the importance of their intellectual property rights. At the meeting, Google told Samsung executives they should redesign its early tablet because it Top executives from both companies had partic- too closely resembled Apples iPad, according ipated in mediation with a US magistrate judge to the February 2010 emails. Google created several times. They remained far apart shortly the Android operating system, which runs on before trial on how they viewed the value of the Samsung phones and tablets at issue in the each others patents. lawsuit.
Judge pleads for sanity,
Koh asked them to explore settlement once again.
Kim said he did not attend the Google meeting and was not briefed about it by his colleagues.
Apple scores brownie points after Samsung lies in court

amsung just doesnt know what to do to get things going their way in their ongoing patent trial against Apple in San Jose, California. Its bad enough that they annoyed judge Lucy Koh by leaking banned evidence to the press, but now theyve topped even that feat by trying to pass off a fake photo as a real one. Yes really.
make it look more like an iPhone. Samsung said a photo of an Epic Touch 4Gs icon layout that looked similar to that of the iPhone didnt look like an out-of-the-box Epic. To prove their point, Samsungs team presented its own photo showing a different layout with a large number of homescreens, a photo they claimed was taken Sunday night. Except that Samsung was totally lying. Judge Koh noticed that Samsungs comparison photos didnt have any similarities to the actual Epic 4G smartphone and said that she wasnt going to believe them. According to The Verge she asked Why does your homescreen not show the Google search box when youre telling me the phone has the Google search box?. She eventually demanded to just see the device in question herself. She then pointed out that Samsungs image featured yesterdays date clearly indicating that the photo had not been taken on Sunday as alleged. Zero marks to Samsung for trying to pull a quick one on a judge whos probably not very happy with its legal team anyway. Meanwhile AllThingsD has a 132 page document which shows how much the iPhone influenced Samsungs design. Overall it looks like Samsung isnt making anyone happy as the trial progresses.
Heres what happened: According to TechRadar, Apple showed photos of the iPhone 4 and the Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch smartphones to prove their point that Samsungs version was a rip-off from the original Apple iPhone. This is part of Apples intial argument that Samsung stole the look and feel of the iPhone. Samsung then jumped in to say that Apple had tweaked the layout of a Samsung phone to
Sneaky Samsung leaks Apples

Sony-style design info to press
amsung and Apple are busy fighting it out at one of the biggest patent trials in San Jose, California. The stakes are high and Samsungs smartphones and tablets could face a US ban if the trial goes Apples way. Apple says Samsung copied the look, feel and design of the iPhone and the iPad. Judge Lucy Koh has already granted a pre-trial injunction to Apple banning the sale of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.
The Judges exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone. The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence. Apple has now alleged that this can prejudice the jury. AllThingsD has put up the entire Samsung brief along with all the designs. You can check it out here. Should Apple be worried? Yes, since the evidence that Samsung has released is quite interesting. It shows Shin Nishibori, former Apple designer as saying that the original designs for the iPhone were based on Sonys at the request of Jonathan Ive, the lead designer behind all Apple products. Nishibori has refused to participate in the trial, even though he was subpoenaed. But Judge Koh is still not buying Samsungs arguments. According to TheNextWeb, Apple whipped out a prototype predating Nishiboris design that dated back to 2005, arguing that the Sony designs were just a riff on what it had done before. This negated Samsungs point, at least in the eyes of Judge Koh. Koh ruled that Samsung could not present evidence related to these Sony-style designs, or another prototype design that Samsung says it was working on in 2006. Overall things are certainly not looking bright for Samsung.
Youd think Samsung would try not to anger a judge but they did just that by releasing a crucial piece of evidence to the media. Samsung issued a statement to the media along with two slides showing that the iPhone design idea originated from Sony. This Sony-design theft harping on Samsungs part has not left judge Koh too happy. According to CNET, Koh wasnt pleased. She told Samsung to file a brief explaining who drafted the statement, as well as who from Samsungs legal team authorized it. Judge Koh had denied Samsung the request to present evidence that Sonys design was what inspired Apples iPhone. This was the statement Samsung issued along with the release:
Judge dismisses frivolous

Apple appeal to punish Samsung
FP Staff, Aug 3, 2012 he Apple-Samsung trial has been crazy since the day it began, and there are no signs that any form of sanity is set to prevail. Judge Koh whos had a handful to deal with since day one of the trial, has decided not to grant Apples ambitious request for her to to punish Samsungs court indiscretions by ruling in favor of Apple and stating that Samsung had violated all Apples patents. that. As explained in the Quinn declaration, Apples premise is factually unfounded and contrary to settled law. Nowhere does Apple even address, let alone refute, these points. Samsung on Tuesday issued a statement to certain sections of the media along with two slides showing that the iPhone design idea originated from Sony. This Sony-design theft idea that Samsung has been pushing as its main counterpoint to Apples claims that the South Korea company has blatantly copied the designs of its iPad and iPhone, have angered presiding Judge Lucy Koh. She had already refused Samsung the request to present this evidence during the trial. Apple then went on the offensive and requested the Court hand out emergency sanctions against Samsung for providing excluded case evidence to the media. Apple alleged this was an attempt to prejudice the jury. Emergency sanctions means that Apple was stating that since Samsung wasnt playing by the rules as they had gone on to spill the beans to the press the court should punish the South Korean giant. Apple, in its response wanted the Judge to issue an order that the South Korean company had infringed Apples phone design patents, according to a court filing by their legal team.Those are issues that the jury has been empanelled to decide. Apple called the conduct of Samsungs laywer, John Quinn egregious, because it impugned the integrity of the court. Samsung fired back in its filing, saying Apple could cite no legal precedent for the harsh punishment it sought.
According to AppleInsider, she said in a ruling: Having considered the papers submitted, and GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, the Court hereby GRANTS Samsungs Motion to Strike. Alternatively, the Court DENIES Apples request to enter a judgment finding Apples asserted design patents valid and infringed. Samsung had dismissed Apples request for emergency sanctions as frivolous at every level. It stated, Apples request is an affront to the integrity of the jury. Apple proceeds on the groundless assumption that the jury, already instructed by the Court not to read media accounts, will violate the Courts instructions and do precisely
Scan or click to download our iPad / iPhone app
iPad
iPhone
Copyright 2011-12 Firstpost All rights reserved Copyright Network18. All rights reserved.

FirstpostEbook Ebook Apple Vs Samsung

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

FirstpostEbook Ebook Apple Vs Samsung

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A definitive guide

What does Apples win mean?

Can Samsung fight back?

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

The dirtiest trial ever?

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

Apple victorious: Jury says Samsung ripped off iPhone

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

How Apple won its patent

claims against Samsung

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

but greedy: Foreman

Jury felt Apple justified,

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

Jurys quick decision sparks criticism

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

Very disappointed with Apple verdict

Samsungs memo to employees:

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

Apple vs Samsung: What the big fight is all about

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

The great patent battle

Mobile patent wars:

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

The true cost of patent trolls

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

What does Apples win mean?

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

the beginning of the end

Why Apples win signals

How it will affect Android

Apples victory over Samsung:

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

for Googles essential patents

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

The devices that are in trouble

and Tab could be banned

Samsungs Galaxy S II, Nexus

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

Is this exactly what Microsoft needed?

Apple patent victory:

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

Can Samsung fight back?

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

Samsung will fight US ban, could modify smartphones

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

save Samsung in the future

Only innovations can

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

Apples victory over Samsung

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

The dirtiest trial ever?

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

leave judge exasperated

Apple, Samsungs legal strategies

Copyright 2012 Firstpost

asks Apple, Samsung to settle

Judge pleads for sanity,

Koh asked them to explore settlement once again.

Copyright 2012 Firstpost