Table of Contents
Was this the case?
You know what they claim?
Which licenses were violated?
Add cash to the total?
What is the response of the organizations?
Google has a portion of this?
Apple didn’t sue Google?
Each side’s observers
Conclusion: Who did you win?
Was this the case?
Apple sued Samsung for infringing on a few licensing rights. Samsung then filed counterclaims to Apple. Apple filed a unique suit claiming that Samsung “has methodically copied Apple’s creative ideas and items, highlights, or outlines, and has inundated markets with encroaching technology with the end goal to seize some of Apple’s market share.” Judge Lucy Koh requested that the preliminary begin on March 31. Apple began the whole dispute in April 2011 when it filed suit against Samsung. It blamed its opponent for copying its iPhones, iPads, and other devices. Samsung countered with a lawsuit that went to preliminary in August 2012. A jury of nine men found in favor Apple, based on more patent encroachment cases against Samsung. It awarded Apple $1. The $2.05 billion was significantly lower than the 05. Cupertino in California sought 75 billion. Samsung, which demanded $421 million as countersuit funds, didn’t receive anything. US District Court Judge Lucy Koh organized a second preliminary in March 2013 for recalculation of some damages to the situation. It was worth $450. Samsung was convicted in the second case. In November, a jury awarded Apple $290 more. Apple was awarded an additional $290 by a jury in November for the additional harms. This brings the total harms to $930 millions.
Mac claimed that it was subject to a lot more work and risk in order build the iPad and iPhone. Samsung claimed that Apple was trying tamper with rivalry and focusing on it as a suit. The company also claims that Apple has encroached on a portion its licenses. In April 2012, the organization stated in court records that Samsung wouldn’t be able to protect its license innovation rights. Which licenses were duplicated? The latest case involved seven licenses, five belonging to Apple and two belonging to Samsung. Apple blamed Samsung, accusing it of encroaching on US license Nos. Five million nine hundred forty-six thousand six hundred forty-seven; six million eight hundred forty-seven thousand nine hundred fifty-nine; seven million seven hundred sixty-one thousand four hundred fourteen; eight million forty-six thousand seven hundred twenty-one; and eight million seventy-four thousand one hundred seventy-two. All of these highlights are programming highlights. Apple claimed that licensing facilitates convenience and makes UIs more engaging. Samsung was then accused of invading US licensing Nos. Six, two hundred twenty-six, four hundred forty-nine and five thousand, five hundred seventy-nine, two hundred thirty-nine. Hitachi granted Samsung the ‘449 Patent, which covers usefulness of organizer associations and camera. Samsung was also granted the ‘239 Patent, which covers video transmission utility. The Korean organisation blamed Apple’s FaceTime on encroaching this innovation. Which licenses were infringed? The jury determined that Samsung’s denounced contraptions infringed Apple’s patent on 647 “fast connectivity”, yet none infringed Apple’s patent on 959 “widespread chase” or the patent on 414 “foundation to synchronize”. The ‘721 patent “slide-to-open” was mixed. Some Samsung gadgets, such as the Galaxy Nexus were found to infringe, while others did not. Judge Koh had made an official decision that Samsung infringed the 172 “programmed-word revision” patent. This was essentially the verdict of the jury. Which gadget was encroached upon? Apple’s patent ‘172 was encroached upon by the Samsung Admire, Galaxy Nexus and Galaxy Note. These gadgets, along with the Galaxy Tab 2 (10. 1) – also infringed Apple’s ‘647 Patent. Apple’s 721 Patent was found to be infringed by Stratosphere, Galaxy Nexus, Samsung Admire and Galaxy Nexus. The ‘449 patent was encroached by Samsung’s iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and iPhone 5S. Below is an outline of the licenses that each Samsung gadget was found to have infringed on Samsung’s ‘449 patent.
How long did this take? The jury was chosen and the case began on March 31. It ended on May 5. The court was in session Mondays through Fridays from March 31 to May 5. The jury chose the jurors and the case ended on May 5. The jury began thinking late on April 29. The jury reached a verdict by the end of May 2. Judge Koh reviewed them May 5, however, to recalculate the harms figures.
Add cash to the equation? Samsung was asked by the jury for $119. 6 million to encroach on three of Apple’s five licences. This is significantly less than the $2. 2 billion as requested by the iPhone manufacturer. Apple was then asked to pay Samsung $158,400 in order to encroach on one of two Korean licenses. Samsung had requested $6. 2 million in damages. Samsung had requested $6. 4 million. The case involved more than just cash, even though the organizations asked for harms. The market for cell phones is what’s really at stake. Macintosh gets 66% from the iPhone or iPad. South Korea’s Samsung is the biggest cell phone maker in the world. Both need to keep dominating the market.
What was the response of organisations to this? Apple responded to this Friday. We are fighting hard to protect the careful work that goes in to the most valuable items such as iPhones. Our representatives dedicate their lives lining and communicating information to our clients. Samsung responded to Monday’s jury review by saying: “We are happy that the jury has voted to reject Apple’s grossly misrepresented harms warranty. Despite our disillusionment at the finding that Apple had encroached Samsung’s patents, we were vindicated. Our long history of innovation and our duty to the buyer has made us the leader in this versatile business.
Is this a part of Google? Samsung claimed in the preliminary that all of the Apple highlights it said were infringing on Android, Google’s portable operating framework that powers Samsung gadgets. All licenses except one called “slideto open”, were incorporated with Android, according to the Korean organization. Apple was blamed for attacking Android. Apple claimed the patent encroachment was not related to Android. It was discovered that Samsung was being assisted by Google in protecting its two licenses: ‘414 to match up foundations and ‘959 to pursue all inclusively. Apple used those licenses to target specific features of Android created by Google, such as Gmail and the Google search box. Alternate licences are available that allow handset creators and the Android open source community to modify certain features. The jury found Samsung had not violated Apple’s ‘414, ‘959 and ‘959 licensing. Although the jury stated that Google was not a factor in its decision for harms or encroachment, it believed Apple and Google would fight to include handset makers, such as Samsung. “It is possible that you believe that Google is the cause of this,” stated Tom Dunham, a former IBM programming employee. The truth is that Apple owns intellectual property. So does Samsung. Googles. The courts will have to decide. But, it’s worth thinking about a simpler way.
Apple didn’t sue Google? Apple didn’t sue Google. Google does not make or sell its own smartphones and tablets. Google also doesn’t give away its working structure. Apple sued companies that sell physical devices using Android, which is an opponent of Apple’s iOS flexible working framework. Apple is primarily concerned that Samsung tried to replicate its products and, in the end, undercut Apple’s evaluating. Apple is more comfortable pointing fingers at handset makers who make money and benefit from Android telephones. Google, however, only in a tangential way makes income via portable publicizing. It’s also easier to show an iPhone with a Galaxy gadget, to demonstrate its likenesses, as well as how it originated. The work on Android had been started before the iPhone was launched, which made it difficult to convince a jury of Google’s copycat status. Apple has made extensive efforts to stop Android’s rise as the leading portable operating system. Apple doesn’t just want to find harms. They need the phones to be extinguished from any agreement. According to legal experts, Apple could suffer more harm by seeking out multiple handset makers than if it simply struck at Google. “It is far more practical to sue the manufacturers of gadgets because their incremental edge per device is small compared to what Google gets by approaching you eyeballs,” Chris Marlett, CEO at MDB Capital Group, a venture banking that keeps an innovation database protected, said. “If the gadget manufacturers can’t gain a fair edge on the phones, they will be forced to leave the business.” This makes Android’s life much easier.
Both sides’ observers Phil Schiller was Apple’s head for advertising. Other Apple observers have also affirmed their support for the company, including Greg Christie, an Apple designer who invented the slide-to open iPhone; Thomas Deniau from France, who helped to build the company’s rapid connection innovation; and Justin Denison who is the chief procedure officer at Samsung Telecommunications America. Denison made his declaration via a video statement. John Hauser, a Kirin teacher of showcasing, at the MIT Sloan School of Management, was Apple’s core observer. Christopher Vellturo is a business analyst at Quantitative Ecological Solutions. Hauser was the co-author of a report that determined Apple’s protected features made Samsung’s devices more engaging. Vellturo estimated the amount of damage Apple should be expecting for Samsung’s encroachment at $2. 191 billion.
After Apple trusted the jury to make a wise decision, Samsung called some Google architects to confirm about the origins of Android and the innovations they made before Apple received its licenses. Hiroshi lockheimer, Google’s VP of Android building, stated that his company has never replicated iPhone highlights. Bjorn and Dianne Bringert, both Google Android engineers, also confirmed that the framework was a highlight. During the one-month-long preliminary, other high-ranking Samsung employees, including former Samsung Telecommunications America CEO Dale Sohn (and Todd Pendleton), remained steadfast. They confirmed that Samsung’s marketing push for the Galaxy S2 was successful, saying that the Korean company’s deals and marketing efforts – not Apple– had helped the Korean company’s position in the mobile phone showcase.
The last half of the preliminary comprised specialists that Samsung had enlisted to question Apple’s licensing and argue that Samsung didn’t intrude. David Reibstein of University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business was the lead educator of marketing. He discredited Hauser’s earlier declaration. Judith Chevalier of Yale University School of Management, a teacher of finances and fund, was enlisted to verify that Samsung’s acceptable encroachment would amount to $1. 75 for each gadget, or $38. 4 million. Apple claimed that it was entitled to $40 per gadget in encroachment. In addition, Apple lost $2 billion in benefits. 191 billion. Samsung then filed its own lawsuit against Apple for encroachment on April 21. Dan Schonfeld of the University of Illinois at Chicago is a teacher of software engineers and stated that Apple violated the 239 patent with its iPhone by connecting FaceTime to video and email. Ken Parulski is another Kodak master who claimed that Apple has infringed another Samsung patent regarding organizing video and images in organizers.
Apple employed James Storer as a specialist witness to confirm April 22 that Apple did not encroach on Samsung’s licenses. At that time, Apple called witnesses, such as Roberto Garcia or Tim Millet, engineers at Apple, to clarify about the inventions used in iPads and iPhones. Millet takes over as the senior chief ofstage design at Apple. He makes the processors for iOS gadgets. Garcia then discussed the production and use of FaceTime innovations that were accused of infringing on a Samsung trademark.
Conclusion: Who will win? This is a precarious situation. The two organizations were both found guilty of infringing on a part of each other’s licenses. They were then asked to compensate for the harms. It was not an easy win for either of the organizations, but it wasn’t as shocking as Samsung thought in 2012. The jury of mostly tech tenderfoots granted Apple less than 10 percent of its harms. This was a different message from the previous preliminary which netted Apple nearly $1 billion. Samsung is clearly relieved at the outcome, but it was still viewed as a copycat in some respects. Apple was also vindicated in some of its claims, but presumably doesn’t trust Samsung’s lack of discipline.