A jury’s conclusion that Samsung stole the innovative technology used by Apple to create its revolutionary iPhone and iPad could mean fewer smartphone options for consumers to choose from, analysts said.
Apple Inc’s US$1 billion legal victory sends a warning to other companies manufacturing similar devices, the biggest marketplace threat to Apple.
A federal jury’s found on Friday that Seoul-based Samsung stole Apple’s technology to make and market smartphones using Google’s Android software.
“Some of these device makers might end up saying: ‘We love Android, but we really don’t want to fight with Apple anymore,’” said Christopher Marlett, chief executive of MDB Capital Group, an investment bank specializing in intellectual property. “I think it may ultimately come down to Google having to indemnify these guys, if it wants them to continue using Android.”
That is if the verdict stands. Samsung, the global leader among smartphone makers, vowed to fight. Its lawyers told the judge it intended to ask her to toss out the verdict.
“This decision should not be allowed to stand, because it would discourage innovation and limit the rights of consumers to make choices for themselves,” Samsung lead lawyer John Quinn said.
He argued that the judge or an appeals court should overturn the verdict.
Apple lawyers plan to formally demand that Samsung pull its most popular cellphones and computer tablets from the US market. They also can ask the judge to triple the damages from US$1.05 billion to US$3 billion.
US District Judge Lucy Koh will decide those issues, along with Samsung’s demand she overturn the jury’s verdict, in several weeks. Quinn said Samsung would appeal if the judge refuses to toss out the decision.
Apple filed its patent infringement lawsuit in April last year and engaged the country’s highest-paid patent lawyers to demand US$2.5 billion from its top smartphone competitor. Samsung fired back with its own lawsuit seeking US$399 million.
The jury on Friday rejected all Samsung’s claims against Apple, but also decided against some of Apple’s claims involving the two dozen Samsung devices at issue.
It found that several Samsung products illegally used such Apple creations as the “bounce-back” feature when a user scrolls to an end image and the ability to zoom text with a tap of a finger.
The US case was the latest skirmish in a global legal battle between the two tech titans. Its outcome is likely to have a ripple effect on the smartphone market. Other device makers relying on Android, the mobile operating system that Google has given for free to Samsung and other phone makers, may be more reluctant to use the software and risk getting dragged into court.
‘CRISIS OF DESIGN’
During closing arguments, Apple attorney Harold McElhinny claimed Samsung had a “crisis of design” after the 2007 launch of the iPhone and executives were determined to cash in illegally on the success of the revolutionary device.
Samsung’s lawyers countered that it was legally giving consumers what they want: smartphones with big screens. They said Samsung did not violate Apple’s patents and alleged innovations claimed by Apple were created by other companies.
Samsung said after the verdict that it was “unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners.”
“This is by no means the final word in this case,” Quinn said in a statement. “Patent law should not be twisted so as to give one company a monopoly over the shape of smartphones.”
The jurors’ determination that Samsung took Apple’s ideas probably matters more to the companies than the monetary damages, Marlett said.
“I don’t know if US$1 billion is hugely significant to Apple or Samsung,” Marlett said. “There is a social cost here. As a company, you don’t want to be known as someone who steals from someone else. I am sure Samsung wants to be known as an innovator, especially since a lot of Asian companies have become known for copying the designs of innovators.”
Apple and Samsung combined account for more than half of global smartphone sales. Samsung has sold 22.7 million smartphones and tablets that Apple claimed uses its technology. McElhinny said those devices accounted for US$8.16 billion in sales since June 2010.
Samsung’s Galaxy line of phones run on Android and ISI Group analysts viewed the verdict as a blow to Android as much as Samsung.
If Android lose any ground in the mobile computing market, that would hurt Google, too. That is because Google relies on Android to drive mobile traffic to its search engine and services to sell more advertising.
‘THERMO-NUCLEAR WAR’
Google entered the smartphone market while its then-CEO Eric Schmidt was on Apple’s board, infuriating Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, who considered Android to be a blatant rip-off of the iPhone’s innovations.
After shoving Schmidt off Apple’s board, Jobs vowed that Apple would resort to “thermonuclear war” to destroy Android and its allies.
The Apple-Samsung trial came after each side filed a blizzard of legal motions and refused advisories by the judge to settle the dispute out of court. Legal experts and Wall Street analysts had viewed Samsung as the trial’s underdog. Apple’s headquarters is just 16km from the San Jose courthouse and jurors were picked from the heart of Silicon Valley, where Jobs is a revered technological pioneer.
A verdict came after less than three days of deliberations, surprising observers who expected longer deliberations because of the case’s complexity.
While the issues were complex, patent expert Alexander Poltorak has said the case would likely boil down to whether jurors believed Samsung’s products look and feel like Apple’s iPhone and iPad.
Samsung’s lawyers argued many of Apple’s innovation claims were either obvious concepts or ideas stolen from Sony Corp and others. Experts called that line of argument a high-risk strategy because of Apple’s reputation as an innovator.
Apple’s lawyers argued there is almost no difference between Samsung products and those of Apple and presented internal Samsung documents they said showed it copied Apple designs. Samsung lawyers insisted that several other companies and inventors had developed much of the Apple technology at issue.
Apple and Samsung have filed similar lawsuits in South Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, France and Australia.
“This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims,” Samsung said in its statement.
Samsung won a home court ruling earlier on Friday in the global patent battle against Apple. Judges in Seoul said Samsung did not copy the look and feel of the iPhone and ruled that Apple infringed on Samsung’s wireless technology.
However, like the jury in California, South Korean judges said Samsung violated Apple’s technology behind the “bounce-back” feature. Both sides were ordered to pay limited damages.
The Seoul ruling was a rare victory for Samsung in its arguments that Apple has infringed on its wireless technology patents. Samsung’s claims previously were shot down by courts in Europe, where judges ruled that Samsung patents must be licensed under fair terms to competitors.
The US case is one of about 50 lawsuits among myriad telecommunications companies jockeying for position in the burgeoning US$219 billion market for computer tablets and smartphones.
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS