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?
Yes that is true. It was just my personal opinion. I feel that design is not a very complex thing to make in today's times where product designers can use all kinds of computer-assisted design techniques and it does not make a difference if designs are similar or not; the features have to be competitive. If the design patent law doesnt exist, will Apple's revenue be affected if Samsung copies the design? Whether Samsung alters the design or not is immaterial; customers will only be attracted to features rather than similarity of looks to Apple's device.
TaimoorZ, thoughtful suggestion but I doubt whether global resolution is the key. Legal experts may be required to make the complicated patents law simpler, but at this stage they are not obviously keen. The lawsuits is currently enriching the pockets of both companies legal teams. I think the only end to this saga lies between Apple and Samsung's top management. They need to call a truce. Until then the story continue.
@Anna: One of the ways to resolve this would be to settle the dispute in the country of origin where both the companies were incorporated. Unfortunately, that's not applicable in this case because Apple was formed in the US and Samsung in Korea. Perhaps some expert in law can suggest how to go about with a global resolution of this patent issue.
"This whole design patent law is not logical to me."
That is for the courts to decide, right? Based on the recent "Samsung/Apple UK judgement", we can notice that the judges are impartial in their ruling - at least outside the U.S.
" 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."
@Bolaji: Even if the companies aren't getting any monetary benefits out of the lawsuits, they're hoping to defame the competitors by their actions and aiming to hurt the reputation of the other. This seems to be the real objective to me.
It's utterly confusing to see the two companies fight over the same case and have different verdicts in different countries. I agree that the laws differ from country to country but this does not make sense. If Apple wants to sue Samsung, they'll look to sue them in a country that they think will favor their point of view. There has to be a global resolution to this issue.
"For example in case of Apple Vs Samsung the fight is not about technical features but about the looks of the device. I dont think this is real compeitition."
Agreed. This whole design patent law is not logical to me.
As far as the battle betwen Apple and Samsung is concerned, it is also a battle of ego where each company, esp Apple, is trying to maintain a status quo. $1 billion dollar compensation demand is not about gaining justice but it is about harming your competitor.
Too much harmony among companies mean that they agree to maintain higher prices and end-user suffers.
@WaqasAltaf, I am not saying companies should exist in harmony, all I am saying the competition should be genuine. For example in case of Apple Vs Samsung the fight is not about technical features but about the looks of the device. I dont think this is real compeitition.
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