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?
Apple need to innovate more and may be quicker. This is best way to prove it is leader and most innovative organization. Samsung will as usual follow copy Apple innovations.
One thing is missing - common sense! These high tech firms have totally outmanouvered by these lawyers. Why would they fall easily to their tricks and irrational media cast over patents infringment? Like i said sometimes - sorting out this unuseful fights to the benefits of few, they should settle it without lawyers' involvement.
Well said Ashish. Corporate lawyers are just making money out of the cases. I won't say that companies should stop filing cases but they should save energy for building their brands and fighting only for fundamental matters.
This law doesn't sound doing any justice to any company. It is a method to launch a war against your business opponent. So what I'd a design has been copied. Companies have enough designers to make a new design as well. The competition will not stop if designs are stopped being copied. I don't think this would happen but I recommend that patent laws are reconsidered themselves.
As suggested by you Bolaji, it is time that both companies should sit together and solve the problem. An Alternate Dispute Resolution committee should be formed and Samsung should pay some % of the billion dollar claim and gain a right to market its galaxy note in all regions. It is more about an ego issue currently rather than core business reason.
These cases are always confusing and that is why the lawyers drive Bentleys. Unfortunately the tech companies just budget for these actions and drag everything out as long as possible.
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