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?
In my opinion such disputes are not beneficial for the end users because single company will have monopoly over the market and thus the price competition will disappear
Well I think such disputes are good for the market as a whole as competition exists when the disputes get stronger. Companies (opponents in courts) try to throw out each other off the market by many strategies only surely being price cut downs. Too much harmony among companies mean that they agree to maintain higher prices and end-user suffers.
Do you think that such disputes are beneficial for the users as they give rise to the competition or there are no implications for the users?
@WaqasAltaf, In my opinion such disputes are not beneficial for the end users because single company will have monopoly over the market and thus the price competition will disappear. Moreover there are mixed opinion on whether Samsung really violated any Apple IP, so in the end its all matter of perception.
Isn't it time these two companies got together for some serious discussions that will hopefully end this charade?
@Bolaji, thanks for the post. I strongly feel that both the companies should discuss this and this matter but unfortunately the current competition in smartphone/Tablet market is so intense that neither of the companies would like to concede defeat.
WaqasAltaf, You are right. These lawsuits are not being driven by lawyers. The companies are happy to go to court, believing their argument would convince a jury or judge and result in the achievement of their objectives, whatever those may be.
WaqasAltaf, The direct answer to your question is that these patent disputes are not in the interest of consumers. Many companies are locked in fear because they are worried patent trolls will come after them at the faintest whiff of a patent violation. Many of such alleged patent violations are so vague any firm could fall victim. In fact, just the threat of lawsuit alone is enough to halt production of some products.
There is a question. Do you think that such disputes are beneficial for the users as they give rise to the competition or there are no implications for the users?
@ Wale
I won't say that this would bring an end to the fights but certainly this agreement (if it happens) will be seen as an example in the technology industry and future disputes will be dealt in the like manner.
Right from the beginning - both should have opted to settle this matter without going to courts. Do you ever think this would put a permanent stop to patents fights in technlogy industry?
Actually the wars are not irrational nor are these big companies' executives so innocent to fall into the lawyers' trap. There is a financial benefit involved if the company files and wins the case; if it looses, the cost is not very high unless the defendant files a counter case.
If cases are filed, due to legal complexities, the companies cannot fight it out on their own; lawyers are needed.
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