We are all too familiar with the endless patent disputes between Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) and Samsung Corp. However, a July 9 decision by a British court that Samsung's Galaxy tablets don't infringe on Apple's registered designs has gone a little too far in treating the giant manufacturer as if it were a naughty kid.
Judge Colin Birss ordered Apple to publish a notice for six consecutive months on its UK Website and in major UK newspapers saying that Samsung didn't copy designs for the iPad. So far, I have seen no "I'm sorry, Samsung" on the Apple site. And I hope I will never see such an embarrassing statement from Apple -- or any other manufacturer, for that matter. It's simply too ridiculous. The court decided last week to delay Apple's punishment, at least for a couple of months until the ruling is appealed.
As many of us had expected, Apple's attorney, Richard Hacon, appealed the decision. The appeal will be heard in October. This buys Apple some time that it might use to reach an agreement with the South Korean manufacturer.
No company on this planet likes to advertise its competitors on its Website. However, from a marketing point of view, the ruling that Samsung's tablets are unlikely to be confused with the iPad because they are not as cool is a big affirmation of the uniqueness of Apple's products. In the eyes of Judge Birss, there is no reason for Apple's claim that Samsung is a copycat.
One question that pops into my mind is what would happen if Apple decided to stop being one of Samsung's biggest customers. Billions of dollars go from Apple to Samsung. In an ideal world, it would make sense for both CEOs to sit down like adults and come to a mutually satisfying agreement. The companies have practically lost control of whose technology is whose anyway.
What could happen if the appeal were denied? I don't see Apple advertising for Samsung in any possible way. Stopping Apple's products from shipping to the UK while this issue gets settled? That sounds like a more reasonable way for Apple to keep its integrity as an enterprise that shouldn't be punished like a kid.
Was this ruling the best a judge could do, or was this a way of telling the world that the patent litigation is out of control and needs to be stopped? After all, both Apple and Samsung have been embarrassed this time by the same judge in the same court. They should join forces and spend their time and money finding better solutions to their multibillion-dollar patent problems.
Meanwhile, in the US, Apple and Samsung are continuing their $2.5 billion patent dispute in a federal court in San Jose. That is, until it's time to go back to the British court.
Firstly, I think the whole litigation process have gone potty. The courts are now challenged to keep up with these cases... In addition, generally 'patent wars' have gone bizarre. It's sometimes unnecessary. . As silly as it may sound, the judge was right to have clearly and distinctingly emphasise the uniqueness of each products in his judgement when he asserted that Apple's device is" cool". To my mind, it clearly says why ever brought this case to court? Apple and Samsung (though both business rivals) are in a unique position in the electronic technology market and even their fan base and customers are well aware of this. So both companies need to find a way to resolve this unnecessary wasting of valuable time, money and energy and focus on something else. Secondly, I blame the judicial system. It has long encouraged and tolerated unwarranted litigation claims (common sense solution is farfetched). It's high time the systems take a hard look and review the damage it's created (now that the courts are struggling to cope with the process it's created). It's no use ditching out school children's punishment afterall these cases don't come cheap!!
Anna: love your analysis, but I particularly love the word 'potty' :-) But you are right--these things don't come cheap and often boggle the mind. There is supposed to be some kind of filter for what cases actually make it to court, yet there are examples everywhere of what can only be called frivilous litigation.
Yes, there should be some sort of rational thinking when it comes to what cases should make it to court. Now, with all the money and publicity around these cases, it's easy to see why they make it to court, isn't it?
Indeed, but what makes human progress go forward? Technology is one answer, but learning from past mistakes, evolving in intelligent reasoning, and solving problems in a civilized and adult manner can help to achieve that progress, too. I don't see this happening at the moment.
"Secondly, I blame the judicial system. It has long encouraged and tolerated unwarranted litigation claims (common sense solution is farfetched). It's high time the systems take a hard look and review the damage it's created (now that the courts are struggling to cope with the process it's created). It's no use ditching out school children's punishment afterall these cases don't come cheap!!"
Exactly! This case is about hardware design. Let's simplify and let's say just design.
It's pretty obvious that at some point the tablets would become similar. In the same way the different car makes are similar, collections of defferent fashion designers are similar, jewellery design, shoe design, you name it. I can think of many examples in design where I have noticed similarities in products of different designers. However, I haven't heard any of them suing another designer. Why manufacturers have to be different?
The judicial system shouldn't allow these cases to go forward by not accepting them anymore, when obviously they judges have no solution for them other than children's punishment, which goes beyond the line of ridiculous.
Susan, I think through this court verdict Samsung is going to get a free advertisement through Apple website. I don't know why these two giants are fighting through court for silly things. Let them compete each other with technology and if they feel something great they can also patent the technology, design etc.
The tablet market has, by far, been a strong market. After the launch of the iPad by Apple in April 2010 the truth is all manufacturers are trying to produce similar devices, which is fine. All the other markets do the same. Unless someone designs a round tablet all the tablets will have something similar.
There is not too much science into tablet design, is it? The fight is silly. So silly that got a silly punishment. The whole case is silly, Jacob. The case should be dismissed, as if it would have never existed.
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