I am at a loss on how to spin this. Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) has found itself proclaiming something contrary to what it has been fighting so hard to prove these last couple of years. Namely, that rival Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Korea: SEC) violated one of its key patents.
Apparently, even Apple is not sure how to spin the story. and -- in a single public statement -- affirmed Samsung did and did not infringe the same patent.
How did Apple contort itself into such a weird position? The company was compelled to post a statement on its UK Website declaring Samsung's innocence after the UK Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's ruling that "Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001." Apple even provided links to both the lower court's ruling, as well as that of the appeal court. Samsung's "registered design is not the same as the design of the iPad," the court of appeal said.
As Apple noted in its statement, "the ruling has effect throughout the European Union." That should clear things up, right? No. In that same statement, Apple pointed out that a German court ruled in its favor on the same patent, and a California jury awarded it more than $1 billion in damages. Apple goes further:
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
I haven't found my way out of this maze. I believe many European countries must share this dilemma, except I only have to write about the development and point out how murky the entire technology patent environment has become, while the EU states must enforce conflicting rulings. What will German law enforcement officials do to satisfy a foreign court-issued ruling -- with Europe-wide implications -- that contradicts one from a local court?
And the US ruling in Apple's favor? Even that is fraying at the edges. One of the key patents relied upon by the jury that found Samsung in violation of Apple's patents in the California ruling has now been temporarily invalidated by the US Patent and Trademark Office after a second review. Naturally, Samsung is including this ruling -- which may still be overturned after further review -- in its appeal hearing. So far, Apple hasn't been able to collect its $1 billion award, or even get the Samsung products off the market.
Isn't it time these two companies got together for some serious discussions that will hopefully end this charade?
UK ruling an extra slap on the wrist for Apple: (Reuters) - Apple must re-write a statement posted on its website acknowledging that Samsung did not infringe on its registered designs for tablet computers, and place it more prominently on its homepage, a court in the UK ruled on Thursday.
The statement was deemed to be "non-compliant" with the order in a previous High Court judgment that concluded Samsung's Galaxy tablet did not infringe Apple's designs, in part because its products were "not as cool".
Bolaji does a great job of pointing out how convoluted this whole battle is and that it is now impossible to derive any conclusion from this mixed bag. At some point, I'd like to read each ruling so that I understand whether these decisions are being made as a point of law (interpreting patent laws correctly) or whether Apple or Samsung makes the better argument in court. These decisions do have implications for both patent law and the legal system as well as each business. But if it continues on like this, there will be no winner, loser or value to be taken from this whole mess. Enough already!
Government can (and is trying to) reform patent laws. The system isn't working very well right now and should be improved. In the meantime, it's left to the courts to sort out the wrangling while consumers will eventually find a way to reward the innovators rather than the ones taking advantage of the system without offering that much in innovation and noticeable product improvement.
I understand your point Taimoorz. But I still think Apple and Samsung will have to swallow their prides and resume dialogues. We've seen variations on court's ruling; it has not resolved the case.
I believe this should be taken to a higher instance. Someone in the Government should look into this before it gets uncontrollable (are we there yet?).
Companies are buying each other, only for patents... this will lead nowhere.
"I think the only end to this saga lies between Apple and Samsung's top management. They need to call a truce"
@Anna: Since it has now become a matter of pride for both the parties, I don't think that's gonna happen now. None of the two would take a backward stance at this point.
I'm sure there are numerous motives for the lawsuits and that one of the key reasons is to, as you say, "defame" the competitor. How well is that working for the two parties? I think they are at a deadlock right now and may have to start talking.
Obviously this case won't be decided by the court system. The rulings so far have been as varied as the number of smartphones in the market. The companies must resolve this by talking to each and other and negotiating an agreement. They may be going ahead with court actions to improve their individual negotiation leverage.
By moving to the core of the industry and offerings services that keep the system humming, a group within the electronics market has rendered irrelevant the question of ownership and control of the supply chain.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This