FirstpostEbook eBook Apple Vs Samsung

7/29/2019 FirstpostEbook eBook Apple Vs Samsung

1/51

Apple vs Samsung:

A definitive guide


2/51

The verdict

Apple victorious: Jury says Samsung ripped off iPhone 05

How Apple won its patent claims against Samsung 07

Jury felt Apple justified, but greedy: Foreman 11

Apple-Samsung verdict: Jurys quick decision sparks criticism 13

Samsungs memo to employees: Very disappointed with Apple verdict 16

Tech Wars

Apple vs Samsung: What the big fight is all about 18Apple vs Samsung: The great patent battle over rectangles 20

Mobile patent wars: Apple vs everyone else 21

The true cost of patent trolls 23

What does Apples win mean?

Why Apples win signals the beginning of the end 26

Apples victory over Samsung: How it will affect Android 28

Bad news for Googles essential patents 30

Apple-Samsung verdict: The devices that are in trouble 31

Samsungs Galaxy S II, Nexus and Tab could be banned 32

Apple patent victory: Is this exactly what Microsoft needed? 34

Can Samsung fight back?Samsung will fight US ban, could modify smartphones 37

Apples win: Only innovations can save Samsung in the future 38

Apples victory over Samsung will be short-lived 40

Table of contents
http://www.firstpost.com/


3/51

The dirtiest trial ever?

Apple, Samsungs legal strategies leave judge exasperated 44

Judge pleads for sanity, asks Apple, Samsung to settle 47

Apple scores brownie points after Samsung lies in court 48

Sneaky Samsung leaks Apples Sony-style design info to press 49

Judge dismisses frivolous Apple appeal to punish Samsung 50


4/51

The verdict


5/51

Apple Inc scored a sweeping legal victory over

Samsung on Friday as a US jury found the Korean

company had copied critical features of the hugely

popular iPhone and iPad and awarded the US

company $1.049 billion in damages.

Reuters, Aug 25, 2012

Apple victorious:

Jury says Samsung ripped off iPhone

San Jose, California: Apple Inc scored asweeping legal victory over Samsung onFriday as a US jury found the Korean

company had copied critical features of thehugely popular iPhone and iPad and awardedthe US company $1.049 billion in damages.

The verdict which came much sooner thanexpected could lead to an outright ban on

sales of key Samsung products and will likelysolidify Apples dominance of the explodingmobile computing market.

A number of companies that sell smartphones

based on Googles Android operating systemmay now face further legal challenges from Ap-ple, a company that is already among the largestand most protable in business history.

Shares in Apple, which just this week becamethe biggest company by market value in history,climbed almost 2 percent to a record high of$675 in after-hours trade.

Brian Love, a Santa Clara law school profes-sor, described it as a crushing victory for Apple:This is the best-case scenario Apple could havehoped for.


6/51

The jury deliberated for less than three daysbefore delivering the verdict on seven Applepatent claims and ve Samsung patent claims suggesting that the nine-person panel hadlittle difculty in concluding that Samsung hadcopied the iPhone and the iPad.

Billions of dollars in future sales hang in thebalance.

Apples charges that Samsung copied its designsand features are widely viewed as an attack onGoogle Inc and its Android software, whichdrives Samsungs devices and has become themost-used mobile software.

Apple and Samsung, two companies that sellmore than half the worlds smartphones and

tablets, have locked legal horns in several coun-tries this year.

Earlier on Friday, a South Korean court foundthat both companies shared blame, orderingSamsung to stop selling 10 products includingits Galaxy S II phone and banning Apple fromselling four different products, including itsiPhone 4.

But the trial on Apples home turf the worldslargest and most inuential technology market is considered the most important.

The ght began last year when Apple suedSamsung in multiple countries, accusing theSouth Korean company of slavishly copying theiPhone and iPad. Samsung countersued. Applehad sought more than $2.5 billion in damagesfrom Samsung, which has disputed that gure.

The companies are rivals, but also have a $5billion-plus supply relationship. Apple is Sam-sungs biggest customer for microprocessorsand other parts central to Apples devices.

A NEAR CLEAN SWEEP?

The US jury spent most of August in a packedfederal courtroom in San Jose just miles from

Apples headquarters in Cupertino listening

to testimony, examining evidence and watchinglawyers from both sides joust about seven Ap-ple patents, ve Samsung patents, and damageclaims.

Jurors received 100 pages of legal instructionsfrom US District Judge Lucy Koh on August 21prior to hearing the closing arguments from at-torneys.

Lawyers from both tech giants used their 25hours each of trial time to present internalemails, draw testimony from designers and ex-perts, and put on product demonstrations andmockups to convince the jury.

At times, their questions drew testimony thatoffered glimpses behind the corporate facade,

such as the margins on the iPhone and Sam-sungs sales gures in the United States.

From the beginning, Apples tactic was topresent what it thought was chronological evi-dence of Samsung copying its phone.

Juxtaposing pictures of phones from bothcompanies and internal Samsung emails thatspecically analyzed the features of the iPhone,

Apples attorneys accused Samsung of takingshortcuts after realizing it could not keep up.

Samsungs attorneys, on the other hand, main-tained Apple had no sole right to geometric de-signs such as rectangles with rounded corners.They called Apples damage claim ridiculousand urged the jury to consider that a verdictin favor of Apple could stie competition andreduce choices for consumers.

The California trial has produced its share ofdrama and heated moments. Lawyers routinely

bickered over legal matters in the jurys ab-sence, led rafts of paperwork to thwart eachothers courtroom strategy, and sometimes evenresorted to public relations tactics to make their

views known.


7/51

The vast majority of patent disputes settle before trial,

particularly between competitors. In this case,

though, the stakes were just too high - and the two

companies ultimately had very different views

of the often murky legal issues.

Dan Levine and Poornima Gupta/Reuters, Aug 27, 2012

How Apple won its patentclaims against Samsung

San Fransisco: In August 2010, just afew months after Samsung Electronicslaunched its Galaxy smartphone, a team

of Apple Inc lawyers ew to South Korea.

Apples late co-founder, Steve Jobs, had alreadytold Samsung executives at a meeting earlierthat summer that he considered the Galaxy S,

based on Googles Android operating system, anillegal copy of the iPhone. But given the exten-

sive business ties between the two companies Samsung is one of Apples key componentsuppliers a negotiated solution seemed mostlikely.

The Apple attorneys were blunt: Android is de-signed to lead companies to imitate the iPhoneproduct design and strategy, read the secondslide in their presentation.

But the meeting did not go well, according to aperson familiar with the case. Samsung attor-neys bristled at being accused of copying, andproduced a set of their own patents that theysaid Apple was using without permission.

The meeting brought to the fore a fundamentaldisagreement between the two companies, andset the stage for a bitter, multi-country patentdispute that led to Fridays US jury verdict that


8/51

Samsung had violated Apples patents. The juryawarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages, whichcould be tripled as the jury found Samsungacted willfully.

Samsung could now face a costly ban on salesof key smartphone and tablet products. Sharesin Samsung the worlds biggest technologyrm by revenue tumbled more than 7 percenton Monday, set for its biggest daily percentagedrop in nearly four years, wiping $12 billion offits market value.

Samsung says it will seek to overturn the deci-sion, and the worldwide patent battles amongtech giants are hardly over. But for now at leastthe decision in what was widely seen as a critical

case promises to re-set the competitive balancein the industry.

The vast majority of patent disputes settle be-fore trial, particularly between competitors. Inthis case, though, the stakes were just too high and the two companies ultimately had verydifferent views of the often murky legal issues.

Samsung believed its wireless communications

patents were strong and valuable, and wouldserve as a counter-weight to any Apple showingof infringement, people close to the case say.

The South Korean company also didnt believeApple could or should be allowed to claim pat-ent protection on design elements like the formof a rectangle, or the front at surface embodiedon the iPhone.

Apple, for its part, considered its feature and

design patents to be very high up on the intel-lectual property food chain and demonstrat-ing their validity was critical to a much wider

war against Android.

The two companies never came close to settlingtheir differences, according to courtroom testi-mony, trial evidence and interviews with severalsources close to the case.

And when it came to the trial, Samsungs law-yers miscalculated in arguing that a verdict forApple would harm competition in the market-place. The jurors, led by a foreman who holdshis own patent, were more persuaded by Applespleas to protect innovation. For them, it ulti-mately wasnt even a close call.

A spokesman for Samsung in Seoul had no im-mediate comment.

Cordial but adamant

Apple launched the iPhone in 2007, revolution-izing the mobile phone market. But later that

year Google, then still an ally of Apples, un-veiled the Open Handset Alliance, with the aimof distributing its Android smartphone softwareto all-comers.

Googles open approach quickly caught onamong manufacturers looking to compete with

Apple. The strategy infuriated Jobs, and by

2009 relations between the two companies hadsoured and Googles then-CEO, Eric Schmidt,left Apples board. Jobs biographer famouslyquotes him as accusing Google of grand theftand vowing to go to thermonuclear war overthe issue.

In January 2010, Taiwanese phone manufactur-er HTC Corplaunched a touch screen, Android-

based smartphone that sported features very

similar to the iPhone. Apple sued in March ofthat year, and the Android smartphone patentwars were on.

HTC, though, was a minor player comparedwith Samsung.

After the cordial but failed August 2010 meet-ing, attorneys from Apple and Samsung talkedin a series of meetings both in South Korea,California and elsewhere in the United States.

Apples attorneys set to work putting a pricetag on a royalty demand. By October 2010, theyhad concluded that Samsung should pay $24


9/51

per smartphone, and $32 per tablet. Based onSamsungs own estimation of its prots, Applesroyalty payments would effectively wipe outmore than half of Samsungs margins on anyphone priced less than $450.

And, Apples offer wouldnt have covered theunique user experience patents Apple holdsdear. We made that clear, said Apple licensingchief Boris Teksler.

By the end of 2010, the meetings stopped as thetwo sides were too far apart.

Viewed as Rip-off

Apple hoped its relationship with Samsungwould make ling an actual lawsuit unneces-

sary. Yet instead of wilting under Apples pres-sure, Samsung instead pressed its own patentclaims, including a critical one relating to howmobile products send and receive informationover wireless networks.

Samsung eventually would request a 2.4 percentroyalty on those patents, or $14.40 per device.

But Samsung had committed to license its

wireless patents on fair terms to competitorsover the years, in exchange for the technology

becoming part of the industry standard. Courtshave generally been reluctant to bar companiesfrom using such standards essential patents,and thus they are often less valuable than othertypes of intellectual property.

Then, in early 2011, Samsung released the Gal-axy Tab 10.1. To Apple, it was a clear rip-off of

the iPad, and showed Samsung had no intentionof modifying its products.

Apple sued Samsung in a San Jose, Californiafederal court in April 2011, saying the Koreancompany slavishly copied its designs. Sam-sung quickly counter sued, and the dispute bledinto at least 10 courts around the world, includ-ing Australia and South Korea.

Over the next year, outside law rms hired by

both companies racked up thousands of billablehours around the world, but no decisive rulingsthreatened either side. Jobs passed away in Oc-tober 2011, and Cook carried on the litigation,

led reluctantly, he said.

Until recently it had mostly been a see-saw bat-tle. Apple largely succeeded in thwarting HTC.But earlier this year a federal judge in Chicagothrew out a case pitting Apple against GooglesMotorola Mobility unit, saying neither sidecould prove damages.

For Apple, the California lawsuit against Sam-sung took on even more urgency as it sought toprove the basic validity of its iPhone and iPadpatent claims.

It scored its rst serious victory in the San Josecourt when US District Judge Lucy Koh issuedtwo sales bans: one against the Galaxy Tab 10.1,

and the other against the Galaxy Nexus phone.In her ruling on the tablet, Koh said Samsunghad the right to compete, but does not haveright to compete unfairly.

Yet Koh repeatedly urged the two sides to settle.Last month, Cook and his Samsung counterpartChoi Gee-sung participated in one last media-tion in an attempt to stave off the impending UStrial.

They couldnt agree. Besides the dispute overthe standards essential patents, Samsung

believes it has a stronger patent portfolio thanApple when it comes to next-generation tech-nology like 4G.

OUT OF TIME

The trial began on July 30. Apple presented topexecutives who testied in coherent narratives,

and revealed damaging internal Samsung docu-ments that showed the company modifying itsproducts to be more like the iPhone.


10/51

Samsungs case was far less slick. Koh gaveboth sides 25 hours of trial time, but Samsunglawyers used up too much time in the begin-ning and couldnt cross examine some Apple

witnesses towards the end. Samsung employeestestied through interpreters, or in video depo-sitions that alienated jurors.

Instead of witnesses, they sent you lawyers,Apple attorney Harold McElhinny said duringhis closing argument.

And while Samsungs own patents were a ma-jor part of behind-the-scenes negotiations, attrial its lawyers struggled to present them on anequal footing with Apples intuitively compre-hensible design and feature patents.

Samsung could have opted for a separate trialon its patents, but declined. Its lawyers mayhave believed that placing its own allegationsin front of the same jury would balance out anytoxic impact from breaches of Apple patents.

It didnt work. Samsung violated six of Applespatents, the jury said. Whether damages will

be tripled is a decision for Koh in the comingweeks.

Samsung asked for up to $399 million on itsstandards patents. It got nothing.

Samsung has vowed to keep ghting. It couldget an appeals court to delay any potential sales

ban, which would give it time to bring new,modied products to the market.

But barring a reversal on appeal, Apple nowhas a clear verdict: how it values its intellectualproperty is more than just a theory.

The case in US District Court, Northern District

of California, is Apple Inc v Samsung Electron-ics Co Ltd et al, 11-1846.


11/51

In an interview on Saturday, jury foreman Velvin

Hogan, 67, said Apples arguments about the

need to protect innovation were persuasive

in the jury room.


Jurors felt Samsung Electronics Co Ltdshould pay signicant damages in thelandmark patent trial against Apple Inc,

even though they viewed Apples demands astoo high, according to the foreman.

Apple won a sweeping victory against Samsungon Friday in a federal courtroom in San Jose,

California.

A nine-member jury found the Korean companyhad infringed on several Apple features anddesign patents and awarded the iPhone maker

$1.05 billion in damages, which could be tripledbecause the jury also decided the Korean rmhad acted willfully.

Apple said it intends to seek sales bans againstSamsung mobile products, which Samsung willoppose.

In an interview on Saturday, jury foremanVelvin Hogan, 67, said Apples arguments aboutthe need to protect innovation were persuasivein the jury room. He also said video testimonyfrom senior Samsung executives made it abso-

Jury felt Apple justified,

but greedy: Foreman


12/51

lutely clear to them that the infringement waspurposeful.

We didnt want to give carte blanche to a com-pany, by any name, to infringe someone elsesintellectual property, Hogan told Reuters a dayafter the verdict.

However, Hogan said Apples damages demandof up to $2.75 billion were extraordinarilyhigh, partly because it was unclear whether Ap-ple had enough component supply to sell morephones even if it had wanted to.

FIGURING DAMAGES

Apples damages expert testied that Samsungearned margins of roughly 35.5 percent on the

products at issue in the lawsuit, on $8.16 billionin revenue. However, Hogan said they thought

Apples percentage did not properly take intoaccount many other costs identied by Sam-sung.

Samsungs damages expert testied the mar-gin should be closer to 12 percent, and the jurypicked a number slightly above that, Hogansaid.

We wanted to make sure the message we sentwas not just a slap on the wrist, Hogan said.We wanted to make sure it was sufcientlyhigh to be painful, but not unreasonable.

Hogan worked as an engineer for decades be-fore he retired, and holds a patent of his own.He said jurors were able to complete their de-liberations in less than three days much fasterthan legal experts had predicted because a fewhad engineering and legal experience, whichhelped with the complex issues in play.

Once they determined Apples patents werevalid, jurors evaluated every single device sepa-rately, he said.

We didnt just go into a room and start pitch-ing cards into a hat, he said.

At one point during the second day of delibera-tions, jurors turned off the lights in the roomto settle a debate about the potential inuence

screen brightness might have on Apples graph-ics interface. Their verdict: Apples designs wereunique.

All of us feel we were fair, that we can stand byour verdict and that we have a clear consciencein that we were totally not biased one way oranother, Hogan said.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern Dis-

trict of California, is Apple Inc v. Samsung Elec-tronics Co Ltd et al, No. 11-1846.


13/51

In an interview on Saturday, jury foreman Velvin

Hogan, 67, said Apples arguments about the

need to protect innovation were persuasive

in the jury room.

Paul Elias/Associated Press, Aug 27, 2012

Apple-Samsung verdict:Jurys quick decision sparks criticism

San Jose, California: The youngest juror, a24-year-old whose favourite court attire

was T-shirts bearing the names of rockbands, chose a Beatles sweatshirt for Fridaysdramatic unveiling of the $1.049 billion verdictin favor of computer titan Apple Inc. One of theoldest was a retired electrical engineer who, as

foreman, signed the unanimous verdict thatSouth Koreas Samsung Electronics Co copied

Apples patented technology for the iPhoneand iPad. Among the other seven jurors were ahomemaker, a bicycle shop manager and a US

Navy veteran.

The decision Friday by this panel of people frommany walks of Silicon Valley life was one thatexperts say could dramatically alter the future ofcomputer tablet and phone design if the verdictstands. But the case also is part of a trend that

has accompanied an explosion in the numberof patent infringement cases, especially in thetechnology sector.

Increasingly, these highly complex disputes are


14/51

being decided by juries, rather than judges, andthe juries tend to issue more generous awardsfor patent violations.

That has companies on the receiving end ofsuccessful patent infringement lawsuits cryingfoul and calling for reform in the patent system,

but it also has some legal experts questioningwhether ordinary citizens should be renderingverdicts and xing damages in such high-stakes,highly technical cases.

Thats a great question and its the subjectof a fair amount of current debate, said NotreDame University law professor Mark McKenna.

Deliberations in the Apple v Samsung battlewere far more challenging than most. The jury

was confronted with hundreds of questions ona 20-page verdict form that was more compli-cated than a US tax return. They had in the juryroom more than two dozen electronic devicesat issue, 12 patents to decipher and 109-pagesof instructions from the judge on rendering a

verdict.

This case is unmanageable for a jury, RobinFeldman, an intellectual property professor

at the University of California Hastings LawSchool, said before the verdict. There are morethan 100 pages of jury instructions. I dont givethat much reading to my law students. Theycant possible digest it.

The trial is evidence of a patent system that isout of control, Feldman said. No matter whathappens in this trial, I think people will need tostep back and ask whether weve gone too far in

the intellectual property system.

Apple led suit in April 2011, accusing Sam-sung of essentially selling illegal knockoffs of itspopular iPhones and iPads. Apple demanded$2.5 billion in damages and an order barringUS sales of the Samsung products in question.Samsung countered with its own claims, accus-ing Apple of using wireless technology it owned.

The jury rejected Samsungs claims and refused

to award Apple the maximum amount demand-ed, nding that fewer Samsung products vio-lated Apples patent than alleged.

The jury arrived at its verdict after less thanthree days of deliberations, far swifter thanmany experts thought in view of the many com-plex issues.

The foreman, Velvin Hogan, a 67-year-old elec-trical engineer, told the San Jose Mercury Newson Saturday that the panel was methodical. Wedidnt whiz through this, said Hogan, who re-lied on his own experience patenting inventions.We took it very seriously.

Hogan, who does not own Apple products, saidthe rst task was to determine if Apples patents

were valid. Using his own experience getting apatent, Hogan said he had a revelation on rstnight of deliberations while watching television.I was thinking about the patents, and thought,

If this were my patent, could I defend it?Hogan recalled. Once I answered that questionas yes, it changed how I looked at things.

The jury did not completely grant Apples de-mand for at least $2.5 billion, Hogan said, butthey wanted to send a message to the industryat large that patent infringing is not the rightthing to do, not just Samsung.

Although the jurors all promised to weigh theevidence fairly, jury consultant Ellen Brick-man said Samsung started out the underdog forseveral reasons. Apple is based just 10 miles (16kilometers) from the courthouse, jurors have apredisposition to side with patent holders, andSamsung is a foreign-based company ghting adomestic outt during tough economic times.

Finally, she noted that many Americans view

Apple and its late founder Steve Jobs as leg-endary innovators. Apple changed the worldwhen it came to computers. Apple changed theworld when it came to phones, she said.

Samsung has vowed to ght the case all the wayto the US.Supreme Court. It will rst ask thetrial judge to toss the verdict. Failing that, Sam-sung will appeal to the Court of Appeals for theFederal Circuit in Washington DC, a specialisedcourt that hears nearly all patent appeals.

Apple itself beneted from a judge last year re-versing a jurys verdict in a patent trial in Tyler,Texas. A jury had awarded software company


15/51

Mirror Worlds $625.5 million after concludingApple infringed three patents related to howdocuments are displayed on computer screens.

Mirror Worlds may have painted an appealingpicture for the jury, but it failed to lay a solidfoundation sufcient to support important ele-ments it was required to establish under thelaw, US District Judge Leonard Davis wrote in

April 2011 in tossing out the jurys verdict.

The number of jury trials, as opposed to benchtrials presided over exclusively by a judge, hasgreatly increased in the last 20 years, a 2011PriceWaterhouseCoopers study concluded. Itfound that only 14 percent of patent trials wereheld before juries in 1980, 25 percent in 1990and nearly 60 percent since 2000.

The consultants attributed that dramatic risein part to a tendency of juries to award higherdamages than judges. The average jury award

was a little more than $10 million during thelast decade while the average award after a

bench trial was barely more than $1 million.

Both sides must agree in order to have a casedecided by a judge rather than a jury.

The number of patent suits in the technologysector has soared in recent years.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers reported that 182 law-suits were led between 2006 and 2010 involv-

ing patents in computer hardware/electronics,software and telecommunications. That was anincrease from 77 led during the previous ve

years.

Losing companies often appeal to the Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit, which received432 cases from the federal district courts in the12-month period ending March 2011. The courtreported that it reversed 19 percent of thosecases, without differentiating between benchtrials versus jury trials.

The purpose of the patent system is to encour-age innovation, but the system is still too oftenexploited in pursuit of other goals, StevenZipperstein, the chief legal ofcer of Blackberryphone maker Research in Motion Ltd., said in a

statement earlier this month. This case clearlyhighlights the signicant need for continuingpolicy reform to help reduce the amount ofresources wasted on unwarranted patent litiga-tion, he said.

Zipperstein was responding to US DistrictJudge James Ware tossing out a $147.2 million

jury verdict against Ontario, Canada-based RIMafter a monthlong patent trial in San Francisco.

The judge said the clear weight of the evidencecouldnt support the jurys verdict that RIMused the patented technology of New Jersey-

based software maker Mformation Technolo-gies.


16/51

Samsungs memo to employees:Very disappointed with Apple verdict

Samsung is clearly disappointed after hav-

ing lost a major patent battle to Apple inSan Jose, California. The jury ruled that

the South-Korean rm did indeed violate Ap-ples patents and ned the company $1.049 bnas damages. For more on the Apple vs Samsungsaga you can click here.

In a private internal memo to the companysemployees, which Samsung has now postedon its global website, the company seems to be

reaching out to consumers and is milking itsclaim of being wronged for all its worth.

The memo was originally published in Korean,according to the Wall Street Journal, but thenSamsungs spokespersons denied the existenceof any such memo. The memo was later put up

online in English.

Heres the complete memo:

On Friday, August 24, 2012, the jury verdict inour trial against Apple was announced at theUS District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia. The following is an internal memothat reects Samsungs position regarding theverdict:

We initially proposed to negotiate with Apple

instead of going to court, as they had been oneof our most important customers. However,

Apple pressed on with a lawsuit, and we havehad little choice but to counter-sue, so that wecan protect our company.

Certainly, we are very disappointed by theverdict at the US District Court for the North-ern District of California (NDCA), and it isregrettable that the verdict has caused concern

amongst our employees, as well as our loyalcustomers.

However, the judges nal ruling remains,along with a number of other procedures. Wewill continue to do our utmost until our argu-ments have been accepted.

The NDCA verdict starkly contrasts decisionsmade by courts in a number of other countries,such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,Germany, and Korea, which have previouslyruled that we did not copy Apples designs.These courts also recognized our argumentsconcerning our standards patents.

History has shown there has yet to be a compa-ny that has won the hearts and minds of con-sumers and achieved continuous growth, whenits primary means to competition has been theoutright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of

innovation.

We trust that the consumers and the marketwill side with those who prioritise innovationover litigation, and we will prove this beyonddoubt.

FP Staff, Aug 27, 2012
http://www.firstpost.com/tag/apple-vs-samsung?section=2http://www.firstpost.com/tag/apple-vs-samsung?section=2http://www.firstpost.com/


17/51

Tech Wars


18/51

Apple-Samsung are set for a showing in one of

the most watched patent trials today in San Jose,

California. Heres a look at what the big ght

is all about.

FP Staff, Jul 30, 2012

Apple-Samsung are set for a showing inone of the most watched patent trialstoday in San Jose, California. The trial

could decide the future of the smartphone andtablet industry as Apple has accused Samsungof slavishly copying the design of its prized iPadand iPhone.

Both sides have engaged in allegations andcounter-allegations in courts across the world.

A German court has already banned SamsungsGalaxy Tab 7.7 in Europe while a UK court ruledthat the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 was not as a

cool as the iPad and therefore not a copy. Applewas asked to publish an ad on its site stating thesame.

Heres a look at what each side is accusing theother of:

Apples arguments

Apple claims that Samsung has violated three ofits patents: actionable linking, slide-to-unlock,and touchscreen word suggestion. If foundguilty, Samsung would be forced to remove

Apple vs Samsung:What the big fight is all about


19/51

these features from its devices.

Apple also claims that Samsung ripped the feelof the iPhone, meaning the rectangular shape

with rounded corners. The Cupertino-based,giant wants more than $2.5 billion in damagesfrom Samsung for these alleged violations.

Apple has more arsenal to back up its claimsthat Samsung ripped off its designs intention-ally. According to tech website, AllThingsD itseems Apple is going to use Samsungs ownofce documents to prove that Google had toldthem that the design was too close to the iPad.

The report states,

In February 2010, Google told Samsung that

Samsungs P1 and P3 tablets (Galaxy Taband Galaxy Tab 10.1) were too similar to theiPad and demanded distinguishable designvis--vis the iPad for the P3.

In 2011, Samsungs own Product Design Groupnoted that it is regrettable that the Galaxy Slooks similar to older iPhone models.

Essentially Apple claims to be the original in-

ventor behind the idea, the design and the fea-tures of the iPhone. Samsung in Apples eyes is

just a rip-off and needs to be banned. US judgeLucy Koh has already granted Apple a pre-trialinjunction banning the sales of Samsung Gal-

axy Tablets 10.1 in the US. The Galaxy Nexussmartphone has also been pulled of the shelves.Theres a very strong indication that the trialcould go Apples way.

Samsungs Argument

The South Korean tech giant is not going to giveup without a ght.

Samsung has accused Apple of copying thedesign for the iPhone from Sony. MacWorldreports that according to internal Apple docu-ments submitted to a California court on

Wednesday, these reveal that Apple relied heav-ily on Samsungs design. The documents wereled to the US District Court in San Jose by law-

yers for Samsung as part of an ongoing lawsuit

with Apple over patent infringement.

Samsung has also claimed that Apple violatedpatents on mobile communications systems, as

well as features like taking a photo on a phoneand seamlessly emailing it.

The Apple-Samsung trial might look like a ghtbetween two big, bad corporate kings who areunwilling to compromise, but the truth is that if

either side gets a win, the people who will suf-fer the most will be consumers. If Samsungsdevices are banned, consumers can say goodbyeto choice.


20/51

Apple vs Samsung:

The great patent battle

over rectanglesT he patent trial of the century is on in SanJose, California as Apple and Samsungare ghting over who stole what. It mightsound like a chicken and egg situation for mostpeople but there are billions of dollars at stakein this court-room battle. Apple has reportedlysaid that Samsung owes them $2.52 billion indamages.

The jury has been chosen and the trial will lastnearly four weeks. Not only the media but tech

enthusiasts have sufcient reason to follow thetrial closely. Quite recently theres been a been aspate of documents leaked from the trial whichreveal a lot about the products at the two com-panies.

AllThingsD has an entire gallery of pictureswhich reveals some very interesting designs forthe early iPhone. It needs to be rememberedthat Apple has alleged that Samsung stole thefeel of its iPhone by producing a similar device

which has a rectangular shape with roundedcorners.

Interestingly some of the early iPhone designs

that are revealed look suspiciously like the cur-rent Sony Xperia smartphones. The gallery doesreveal that Apple seems to have tinkered withquite a few shapes from squares to rectangles

before settling on the current one.

In an interview to Wired, Kevin Packingham,Samsungs Chief Product Ofcer, is quoted assaying Were ghting with Apple over rectan-

gles.

Sadly, it is true: they are ghting over a rectan-gle. But remember Samsung has also said that

Apple stole the iPhone design from Sony in therst place.

As far as iPads go the report fromAllThingsDshows, that iPads with square corners andiPads with round corners were considered.

Earlier lings showed Apple considering akickstand for the iPad. Apple claims Samsungslavishly copied the design of the iPad for itsGalaxy Tab 10.1. This device has already been

banned in the US under a pre-trial injuction.

As far as Samsung is concerned The Verge hasreported that the South Korean rm is workingon an 11.8-inch tablet with Retina Display andtwo potential Windows 8 smartphones. This is

again based on evidence submitted in the court.The Windows 8 smartphone is an interestingturn of events, especially since much of Sam-sungs success has been due to Googles OS,

Android.

Samsung might appear to be a cheap, Ap-ple copy-cat and the US jury might even ruleagainst them. But theres no doubt that Sam-sung has given Apple some serious competitionas far as smartphones and tablets are con-

cerned. Should Apple win, its biggest competi-tor will be out of the market, thus giving theCupertino-based tech-giant an unfair monopolyin the US.

FP Staff, Jul 31, 2012
http://allthingsd.com/20120729/court-case-offers-rare-glimpse-at-dozen-of-iphone-and-ipad-prototype-designs/#slideshow-1-36http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/07/samsung-chief-product-officer-q-and-a/http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/30/3205118/samsung-p10-11-8-inch-retina-tablethttp://www.theverge.com/2012/7/30/3205118/samsung-p10-11-8-inch-retina-tablethttp://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/07/samsung-chief-product-officer-q-and-a/http://allthingsd.com/20120729/court-case-offers-rare-glimpse-at-dozen-of-iphone-and-ipad-prototype-designs/#slideshow-1-36http://www.firstpost.com/


21/51

Mobile technology has been a hotbed of patent

litigation in recent years, with Apple Inc ,

Microsoft Corp , HTC Corp, Motorola, Samsung

Electronics Co Ltdand Nokia locked in legalbattles over the property rights.

Reuters, Jul 05, 2012

Mobile technology has been a hotbedof patent litigation in recent years,

with Apple Inc , Microsoft Corp ,HTC Corp, Motorola, Samsung Electronics

Co Ltdand Nokia locked in legal battles overthe property rights to scrolling on multitouchscreens, product designs and in lawsuitsaimed at Google Incs Android the operatingsystem on mobile devices.

In Steve Jobs posthumous biography, he wasquoted as saying that Google ripped off theiPhone, a nd he w as willing to go thermonu-clear on the Android operating system.

His battle has continued beyond his death.

Here is where the major US cases stand :

Mobile patent wars:Apple vs everyone else


22/51

NOKIA VS APPLE

In October 2009, Finnish handset maker No-kia Corp sued Apple Inc in US District Court inDelaware over alleged infringement of its wire-less standards. T he iPhone maker countersuedand kept the two embroiled in litigation for a

year and a half.

In June 2011, Apple agreed to pay an undis-closed sum as part of a settlement agreementand royalties for the use of parts of Nokiaspatents. However, Nokias business has falteredas it continues to struggle in the smartphonemarket, with its stock tumbling to all-time lowsin 2012.

APPLE VS ANDROID

Apple initiated the war against Android inMarch 2010 when it sued T aiwans HTC Cor-pover 20 patents dealing with user interface andits operating system. Along with its federal law-suit, Apple led a complaint with the US Inter-national Trade Commission, again targeting the

Android software behind HTCs smartphones.

The International Trade Commission issued an

injunction in late 2011 to halt i mports of HTCsinfringing smartphones the One X and theEVO 4G LTE starting in April. Shipments ofthe two smartphones to the United States weredelayed. A pple has led at least two additionalcomplaints with the International Trade Com-mission dema nding emergency action againstmore than 25 HTC devices.

Over the past 14 months, HTC shares haveslumped 72 percent, while Apple shares havegained 65 percent.

In May, the US District Court in Delawareordered HTC and Apple to meet and discuss apotential s ettlement on 28 August.

Motorola Mobility entered the battleeld inOctober 2010 when it led a suit against Applein what was widely considered a pre-emptivestrike. Apple countersued the same month.

However, Judge Richard Posner in Chicagocanceled the trial that was set to occur in June,and rejected each sides injunction requests.Motorola was acquired by Google in May 2012.

South Korea-based Samsung Electronics CoLtd found its way to US court in April 2011

when Apple claimed the manufacturer infringedon patents with some Galaxy phones and tab-lets, which use the Android system. Samsungcountersued, and the two companies have

become entangled in more than 20 cases in 10countries.

US District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Cali-

fornia, g ranted pretrial injunctions against theGalaxy Tab 10.1 and the Galaxy Nexus phonelast week, just days after Posner rejected Applesinjunction request against Motorola.

Samsung is appealing both injunctions. A trialon the patent infringement claims related to theTab 10.1 and other phones is scheduled for July30.


23/51

Apple-Samsung are set for a showing in one of

the most watched patent trials today in

San Jose, California. Heres a look at what

the big ght is all about.

Suw Charman-Anderson

The true cost of patent trolls

Anew study from researchers at BostonUniversity estimates that the total costto defendants of patent troll lawsuits was

$500 mn over ten years from 1990 to 2010.

It seems that hardly a day goes by without a newstory of patent litigation hitting the headlines.Many of these stories cover the tech giants, like

Apple, Samsung, Google, Oracle or Microsoft,

suing each other in an endless, tedious merry-go-round of backbiting and playground insults.But other cases involve patent trolls, or com-panies that licence patents without producingany goods. These companies, also called non-

practicing entities, buy up patents and then liein wait until they spot a product using technolo-gies that may infringe their patent. They thensue.

Researchers James Bessen, Jennifer Ford andMichael Meurer used changes in a defendantsstock price at the time a lawsuit was announcedto estimate its impact on the companys wealth,

after taking into account general market trendsand random factors affecting the individualstock. They found that half a trillion dollars

was lost to defendants over the study period,with losses over the last four years averaging at


24/51

$80 bn per year.

Most of the companies in the study were in thetech sector with a heavy investment in R&D andthe litigation was focused primarily on softwarepatents. Says the paper:

To the extent that this litigation represents anunavoidable business cost to technology de-velopers, it reduces the prots that these rmsmake on their technology investments. That is,these lawsuits substantially reduce their incen-tives to innovate.

The research also found that:

[V]ery little of this loss of wealth represents atransfer to inventors. This suggests that the

loss of incentives to the defendant rms is notmatched by an increase in incentives to otherinventors.

If this doesnt raise a massive red ag to legis-lators in the US and around the world, I dontknow what will. Patents were supposed to helppromote innovation, but as weve seen in recent

years, they are instead being used as a bluntweapon to beat innovation to death.

Software patents are particularly bad, in partbecause the US Patent Ofce has been grantingoverly broad patents. The whole point of a pat-ent is that it should only be granted to an origi-nal, non-obvious innovation, ie no one shouldhave done it before (no prior art), and no one

should have a Well, duh! moment when look-ing at the alleged innovation.

The failure of the USPO to take prior art prop-erly into account is being addressed by ArticleOne Partners, a research company that offers a

bounty of $5,000 for prior art which invalidatespatents being used against its clients. Some ofthose patents are being held by trolls such asLodsys, who recently went after app developers.

The cost of patent trolls such as Lodsys andIntellectual Ventures isnt, of course, just thecost to the defendant of lawyers and payouts.Theres also the cost of employee time, redesigncosts and even losses incurred from having todrop a product completely.

Using stock price changes takes this into ac-count, as much as is possible, in a way thatsimply looking at legal costs and payouts wouldnot. But, because this research only takes intoaccount the cost of cases brought by non-prac-ticing entities, it doesnt begin to touch on thedamage wrought by the tech giants patent wars,happening on the international stage.

Personally, Id rather software and business

process patents were abolished, and that com-panies focused on simply producing betterproducts than their competitors. All that theselawsuits achieve is to line the pockets of law-

yers, reduce choice for consumers and increasecosts.


25/51

What does Apples win mean?


26/51

Apples victory in its patent battle may be short-lived.

Customer choice has reduced, and in future the focus

will be on Apples monopoly, and how to end it

R Jagannathan, Aug 25, 2012

Why Apples win signalsthe beginning of the end

Apples clear victory in its patent battle

with Samsung in the US is a huge short-term loss for consumers everywhere. It

could also mark the zenith of Apples trajectoryin the technology battle, from where it can onlygo down.

Samsung has emphasised the loss to consumersafter its defeat, while Apple has talked about the

gain for the American patent system and inno-vation.

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in-between.The loss for consumers is temporary, since the

rivals will now redouble their efforts to beat Ap-ple ensuring innovation and better products.But there is no denying the short-term loss toconsumers who will surely be irritated by this.

Since it is now more or less established thatSamsung copied some key design features of

Apples iconic phones and tablets, a lot of mon-ey will change hands between the two compa-

nies, and between companies and future con-sumers. Apples rivals will have to invest morein innovation which means higher costs foreveryone.


27/51

Samsung will have to fork out $1.05 billion toApple, but the customers of both Apple andAndroid devices will end up paying more fortheir products: the old premium in the case for

Apple products will get reinforced, and users ofthe latter will pay higher prices as other devicemanufacturers pay Apple more licensing tech-nology they already use.

If Apple had lost its case, the opposite wouldhave happened. It would have had to lowerprices and margins to retain and grow marketshare.

Instead, in the near future, as several Samsungand Android devices go off the market, the con-sumer will also see a shortage of choice (see thelist of Samsung phones that will be impacted by

the verdict here). This means a gain for Apple interms of market share and prots as the sharprise in its share prices after the verdict indicates.

But, with this verdict, Apple has probably peak-ed in terms of popularity. From here it can onlylook down the mountain. Heres why.

First, the world does not like monopoly. It likeschoice and competition. The verdict has the

effect of reducing choice and competition. Thismeans the losers will now band together moreoften to beat Apple in whichever way they can.

Apple has thus put itself in the same categorythat Microsoft saw itself in around 10-15 yearsago, when everybody from consumers to anti-trust activists went after its operating systemsmonopoly.

Second, Apple has sometimes been using pat-

ents and patent litigation not for really safe-guarding breakthrough innovation, but to stalland delay competitors as this verdict by JudgeRichard Posner in an earlier Apple versus Mo-torola case notes (read here).

Tim Worstall, a technology writer, wrote in hisForbes.com column that over-wide (patent)issuances are being used to restrict inventionand innovation in subsequent rounds of tech-nological development. As an example, there

cannot be that many outside Apple itself whoreally believe that the European case againstSamsung over the Galaxy Tablet is really aboutdesign patents. The general assumption is that

its about keeping a competing product off themarket by any means possible. For long enoughthat it doesnt get a foothold in said market.

Third, Apple deliberately designs its productsto ensure that things we take for granted likeUSB ports, and slots for SIM cards are differ-ent in Apple products. Thus, once a customer

buys Apple products, she is forced to upgradewithin the same range. It is very difcult to shiftfrom one brand to another even though theymay offer the same benets.

This is not to say Apple is the only guilty party,but that consumers dont like it one bit. Inter-operability and compatibility (for example, theability to easily move an address-book from onephone to another) should be mandated by law

and companies like Apple or Blackberry arecurrently able to lock-in customers only becauseregulators in a slowdown have lost the appetiteto force companies to think about them. Themore dominant concern is to avoid deating theone sector that is still booming technology.Hence the hands-off policy on Apple.

Trying to create separate standards for separatedevices is not a viable long-term strategy for any

company even though it gives you super-highprots in the short run. Sony tried to do that

with some of its products (Betamax, etc) andlost it place in the Sun.

When companies try to design products thatwill exclude other peoples add-ons and abilityto develop things that can connect to it, rival(open) platforms will emerge to challenge thismonopoly. Hence Android, Chrome, et al.

Apples closed architecture and tendency to usepatents to protect its monopoly in some productareas is an open invitation to the world to gangup against it and create alternatives.

This is why I think Apples dominance haspeaked. The San Jose courts verdict will markthe beginning of its decline unless it migratesto more open systems and chooses to cooperate

with rivals as much as it wants to compete with

them.

Co-opetition is the key to Apples longevity as amarket favourite, not monopoly.


28/51

The Apple vs Samsung trial in San Jose, California,

has seen Apple come out on top with Samsung being

ned $1 bn. So what does the verdict means for

Android users and other manufacturers who

also use Googles OS?


The Apple vs Samsung trial in San Jose,California, has seen Apple come out ontop with the jury ruling in their favour.

The South-Korean tech giant will now have topay around $1.049 billion in damages to Apple.

But what does the verdict mean for Android us-ers and other manufacturers who use the oper-ating system?

The news is likely to cause some consternation

for manufacturers like HTC and Motorola, whoare already locked in legal battles with Apple.Sales of HTCs agship smartphone, One X,

were delayed in the US in May due to Applespatent claims.

Three key user interface (UI) features whereApple won patents claims are: Pinch to Zoom,rubber band effect when scrolling to bottom ofpage, and Double-tapping the screen to zoomin. More on the specic patents here.

Apples victory over Samsung:How it will affect Android


29/51

As this post at ZDNet points out, These UI fea-tures are present all through Android, so eitherGoogle must ght these separately or get rid ofthem in future versions. That would make theOS less appealing.

Samsungs latest devices have, of course, movedon from these features which is why the GalaxySIII was not a part of this trial. But theres nodenying that this verdict will also affect the An-droid user interface.

Androids manufacturer Google has not givenany ofcial response on the trial. But its un-likely that Google could face a direct lawsuitfrom Apple. As this Wall Street Journal articlepoints out, This has potential implications for

Android, but if the verdict stands under appeal

then I think it is more likely that Apple will goafter the handset makers rather than take onGoogle directly, said Van Baker, an analyst atthe research rm Gartner. Apples business isabout hardware devices so they will try to stopother devices that they believe copy their prod-ucts.

Now that Samsung has been found guilty ofinfringing Apples patent, its likely that Sam-

sung will have to go in for a licensing deal withApple for these particular features. Other devicemanufacturers could end up doing the same as

well to avoid paying billions in lawsuit damages.Or they could move to Windows 8 which somethink isnt affected because Microsoft went for atile interface instead of icons.

According to Wired, this could mean that your

Android device would start cost more. Theresult will likely be an increase in costs to An-droid users because of licensing fees to Apple,

Houston-based intellectual property lawyerSteve Mitby told Wired. In laymans terms:expect Android phones to cost more. This willdrive many Android consumers over to Apple.

Next to Samsung, the biggest loser today isGoogle.

But theres no doubt that currently Android isthe king of the smartphone world. Even with

Apples patent victory, theres no denying thatGoogle will probably work harder to innovate soas to ensure that future OSs dont face any suchissues.

As things stand, according to an IDC report,

Android ran on 68 percent of the smartphonesshipped worldwide for the April-June quarter in2012. Apple was a distant second with 17 per-cent market share. With Android rmly in thelead, theres also a good chance that the futurepatent war could be between Apple and Googleitself.

To know which devices will be affected, clickhere.

To know what the jury said, click here.

To know what Samsung said post the trial,click here.

To know what Apple said on their victory, clickhere.
http://www.firstpost.com/tech/apple-samsung-verdict-the-devices-that-are-in-trouble-429939.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/tech/apple-samsung-verdict-the-devices-that-are-in-trouble-429939.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/tech/big-win-for-apple-jury-says-samsung-ripped-off-iphone-fined-1-05-bn-damages-429900.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/tech/samsungs-statement-todays-verdict-is-not-a-win-for-apple-429935.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/tech/apples-statement-samsungs-copying-went-far-deeper-than-we-knew-429977.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/tech/apples-statement-samsungs-copying-went-far-deeper-than-we-knew-429977.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/tech/apples-statement-samsungs-copying-went-far-deeper-than-we-knew-429977.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/tech/apples-statement-samsungs-copying-went-far-deeper-than-we-knew-429977.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/tech/samsungs-statement-todays-verdict-is-not-a-win-for-apple-429935.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/tech/big-win-for-apple-jury-says-samsung-ripped-off-iphone-fined-1-05-bn-damages-429900.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/tech/apple-samsung-verdict-the-devices-that-are-in-trouble-429939.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/tech/apple-samsung-verdict-the-devices-that-are-in-trouble-429939.htmlhttp://www.firstpost.com/


30/51

Bad newsfor Googles essential patents


The Apple-Samsung verdict has sparkedspeculation on as to what Apples victorymeans for Google and its popular OS,

Android. Samsung might be the smartphonemanufacturer that ended up paying the pricefor patent infringement but as far as Apple isconcerned, the problem began with Google and

Android.

With Apple winning decisively, the bigger worryfor Google could be around the question of es-sential patents, a point where Samsung failed toprove infringement on part of Apple.

In the trial, Samsung had also counter-sued Ap-ple stating that the Cupertino-based tech giantinfringed on several of Samsungs patents some

of which are essential to its devices, such asstandard wireless technology.

But the jury disagreed and said Apples use ofthose technologies in the iPhone 3GS, iPhone3G, iPhone 4, iPad 2 and iPod Touch, didntqualify as infringement. Nor were they seen asstandard essential patents. Basically Apple won

big and the essential patent argument failed.

According to this analysis piece in Reuters byAlison Frankel,Essential patents are adoptedby the bodies that set international standards

for developing technology. Everyone has to usethem, which is why holders of standard-essen-tial patents must agree to license their intellec-tual property on fair and non-discriminatoryterms.

So how does the essential patents bit worryGoogle? As the Reuters report mentions, Goog-les $12.5 bn acquisition of Motorola Mobilityalso meant a fair share of patents for the search-engine giant. Google would have hoped forlicensing deals on these patents, some of whichare essential patents. But now, following the

judgement its doubtful that these patents willhelp Google protect Android.

According to this LA Times report, the valueof these Motorola patents is still debatable. Itquotes analyst Roger Entner as saying,

The Motorola patents are valuable on thebasic technology front, not the design front.

Motorola was a notoriously weak software de-veloper and a lot of the patents that Apple hascited are exactly in that weak spot, he said.Samsung claimed Apple infringed on techno-

logical patents of Samsung and lost on thosecounts. I dont think the Motorola patents willhelp Google a lot.

Overall it looks like Googles Motorola acquisi-tion wont help it win the patent war, which islikely to become more complicated as smart-phone technology evolves.


31/51

Apple-Samsung verdict:The devices that are in trouble

The grand tech trial that saw Apple take

on Samsung for ripping off its products,has nally come to an end. And Apple,

can claim vindication after a jury said that Sam-sung did infringe on Apples patents and has

been ned $1.049 billion, even though two-daysis an awfully short time given the 100 pages of

judicial instruction.

Samsung is very likely to le an appeal againstthis decision and perhaps the counter-ling

will drag on for years, and years, but Apple hasdrawn big blood.

Apple had accused Samsung of ripping off thefeel of its iPhone and iPad among various otherpatent violations.

The jury rejected all of Samsungs claimsagainst Apple. The jury also upheld all of Ap-ples patents. The implications therefore aresubstantial.

Many Samsung devices are affected by theverdict. According to Mashable, the devicesare: Galaxy S, Galaxy S II, Nexus S, Mesmerize,

Vibrant, Fascinate, Skyrocket, Continuum, Pre-vail, Infuse, Gem, Mesmerize, Indulge, Replen-ish, Epic 4G Touch, Droid Charge and Nexus Ssmartphones and the Galaxy Tab and Tab 10.1tablets.

The bounce back scrolling feature: Thisone went to Apple in a big way. According toTechCrunch: Samsung was found to have in-fringed on patents for 381 bounce back scroll-ing functionality on all devices. Major loss forSamsung.

The design patent: Now remember this ghtwas also to extent about rectangles with round-ed corners with Apple stating that Samsung

had stolen its design. According to CNet, thejury has found Samsung guilty of infringing onApples design and utility patents. This appliesto some of Samsungs products and not all. Somuch for Samsung saying that some of Apples

patents were just plain crazy.

Pinch to zoom, one nger scroll, andzoom navigation aka Patent 915: Exceptfor Galaxy Ace, Intercept, and Replenish, everyother Samsung device was found to be infring-ing on this patent.

Tap to zoom which is Patent 163: Againonly a few Samsung devices escaped. These

were Captivate, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G,

Transform and Vibrant. Everything else was aninfringement.

The jury also ruled that Samsung was wilful inits infringement. But there were two consisten-cies in the jurys decision. These were noticedafter Apple and Samsungs re-read the forms.Judge Lucy Koh then ask the jury to go back onthose two points.

According to TechCrunch these were over theGalaxy Tab 10.1 and Intercept smartphone. Incase of the Tab, the jury award $220,000 indamages but didnt formally note any instancesof patent infringement or inducement. In caseof the Intercept no infringement was noted butSamsung was asked to shell out shell out over$2 million over this error.

Thankfully this bought down the dam-ages for Samsung from $1,051,855,000 to

$1,049,343,540. Yes those numbers are real.

So basically Apple won pretty much everythingand Samsung had come out looking like a ma-

jor rip-off. But the war is not over. The Vergereports that both sides will now le for a pre-liminary trial injunction, which is set for 20September. That will decide the fate as to whichproducts will face the ban.

For Apple this sets up the stage for what mightwell become the biggest tech domination in dec-ades to come and for Samsung, the hit will befelt across many markets revenue and devicesales.



32/51

Samsungs Galaxy S II, Nexusand Tab could be banned

Galaxy S II and the iPhone: Galaxy S II was found to be infringing on Apples patents. Reuters

Galaxy Nexus: This device was also found guilty of infringing on Apples patents and could bebanned. Reuters


33/51

Galaxy Tablet 10.1: Galaxy Tab 10.1 could now face a permanent ban in the US. The tab wasalready banned in the US thanks to a pre-trial injunction. Reuters


34/51

Apple patent victory:Is this exactly what

Microsoft needed?Apple Incs decisive triumph over Samsung Electronicscould open the door for Microsoft Corp to nally hop on

board the mobile boom as manufacturers of Android-

based smartphones and tablets weigh their legal risks.


Apple Incs decisive triumph over Sam-

sung Electronics in the most closelywatched patent trial in years could open

the door for Microsoft Corp to nally hop onboard the mobile boom as manufacturers ofAndroid-based smartphones and tablets weightheir legal risks.

Microsoft sounded a challenge to Apple andSamsung in July when it took the wraps off itsSurface tablet, a showcase for the revamped

Windows software that it hopes will pave theway for its entry into the mobile space.

It remains to be seen if the new touchscreen-friendly and cloud computing-ready Windows 8can prove a serious rival to Android, the worldsmost-used mobile software, or Apples iOS. Butmobile industry executives who had been cau-tiously considering Windows as an alternativeto Googles Android say Fridays ruling thatSamsung had copied Apples designs and soft-

ware features had intensied their interest in aMicrosoft alternative.

The key reason: fear of patent lawsuits

from Apple.

The California companys battle with Sam-sung was in large measure a proxy war againstGoogle Incs Android software, which is used bymany manufacturers to run its mobile devices.The verdict could empower Apple to le moresuch lawsuits.

Some of the other manufacturers of Androidproducts like ourselves are prepared to face

similar lawsuits from Apple, a senior executivewith a major Chinese mobile maker told Reuterson condition of anonymity as he is not author-ized to talk to the media.

The Apple-Samsung lawsuit has given us somereference point on our future innovation. Wellfocus on developing our own unique user inter-face based on the Android platform.

Even though the bulk of our shipments runon Android, the trend is to diversify into otherproducts running on Windows, the execu-tive added, predicting that the percentage of

Windows-based smartphone shipments wouldincrease signicantly, from less than 10 percentnow to around a third over the next few years.

CONSUMER APPEAL

Windows 8 and Windows RT a version of thesoftware made for the ARM Holdings chip de-signs that are employed in the vast majority ofphones and tablets ship in October.


35/51

Some analysts are skeptical that Microsoft canproduce a device that the mobile consumer willlove.

Microsoft has been the beneciary of thiswhole ght as the other non-Android option,said Ron Laurie, a Silicon Valley-based special-ist in IP and investment banking and co-found-er of Inexion Point Strategy. But safety (fromlawsuits) by itself is not enough. You have toappeal to consumers.

And so far the market has seen that consumerswant phones and tablets that look like Applesdevices, he added.

Hardware manufacturers, mostly based inEast Asia and known in tech industry jargon as

original equipment manufacturers or OEMs, areweighing their options.

From an OEM perspective, the verdict alone,and certainly an injunction on sales of any kind,levels the playing eld between Android and

Windows Phone, said IDC analyst Al Hilwa.At this point, the two platforms would have toght on features and developer ecosystems to

win.

Wall Street thinks Microsoft still stands achance of reclaiming its former glory, with in-

vestors citing a promising pipeline for 2013. Butthey will want hard reasons to pay more than$30 for a stock that hasnt traded above that forany extended period of time since 2000.

The verdict in Apple-Samsung was closelywatched at Microsofts headquarters in Red-

mond, Washington.

Windows Phone is looking gooooood rightnow, tweeted a clearly enthusiastic Bill Cox,senior marketing communications director forthe rms phone division, soon after Fridays

verdict.

HOMEGROWN OPERATING SYSTEMS

Asian manufacturers now need to invest in

further customization of the Android platform,much as Amazon.com Inc has done with its Kin-dle Fire device, industry ofcials say.

ZTE and Huawei, Chinas two largest hand-set makers, declined comment. Both haveannounced plans to launch Windows-basedphones to supplement their Android products.

Smaller Android phone makers like (Taiwans)HTC, (Googles) Motorola and Sony will havechallenging times ahead, said Seo Won-Seok,a Seoul-based analyst at Korea Investment &Securities. Theyll face increasing productioncosts and rising entry barrier to the Androidecosystem. They now face a great risk of similarlitigation from Apple.

Manufacturers may also look at other mobileoperating systems beyond Windows, analystssaid. Samsung, for example, also has phonesthat use proprietary software called Bada.

Chinese manufacturers also have the option ofhomegrown operating systems such as those de-

veloped by Baidu and Alibaba, but Jane Wang,a Beijing-based analyst from Ovum, doubtedthey would be adopted in a big way because theecosystem of applications and services aroundthem remains limited.

Chinese handset makers are a practical bunch

in that they will weigh the costs and benetswhen coming up with products running on adifferent operating system, said Wang, It maynot be worth their while.

Some manufacturers are particularly exposed.The smartphone portfolio of Koreas LG Elec-tronics Inc, for example, is entirely composedof Android devices, leaving it vulnerable should

Apple take legal action against it.

And HTC, once the Android market leader, hasalso struggled in lawsuits with Apple and lacksits own strong patent portfolio, making it vul-nerable to further legal challenges. It has triedto rebuild market share with new models, theOne series, that incorporate high-level photog-raphy functions and audio technology from U.S.rm Beats, in which it bought a stake.

For all these manufacturers its a risk manage-

ment game, said Andrew Milroy, Singapore-based vice president of Frost and Sullivan, aconsulting company. They dont want to put alltheir eggs in one basket.


36/51

Can Samsung fight back?


37/51

Samsung will fight US ban,could modify smartphones

Samsung has vowed to ght the prospect of a ban in the

US against eight of its smartphones. Judge Lucy Koh hasset 6 December as the date for Apples injunction

hearing against Samsung smartphones.


Samsung has vowed to ght the prospectof a ban in the US against eight of itssmartphones. Judge Lucy Koh has set

6 December as the date for Apples injunctionhearing against Samsung smartphones. TheSouth-Korean rm says it is open to alteringdevices as well.

According to news reports yesterday Apple hassubmitted a list of 8 Samsung smartphones

which it wants banned with immediate effect.While Apples lawsuit encompassed 28 devices,many of those accused products are no longer

widely available in the worlds largest mobilemarket.

The smartphones include: Galaxy S II 4G, Gal-axy S II (AT&T variant), Galaxy S II Skyrocket,Galaxy S II (T-Mobile Variant), Galaxy S II Epic4G (Sprint Variant), Galaxy S Showcase, Droid

Charge, Galaxy Prevail. The Galaxy S II is a ag-ship smartphone for Samsung and a ban couldhave huge implications for the South-Koreanrm.

The Wall Street Journal reports thatSamsungresponded on Tuesday with a one-sentence

press statement. We will take all necessarymeasures to ensure the availability of our

products in the US market.

The report also said thatA Samsung spokes-man said the companys options included lingto stop the injunction, appealing if the judge

grants it and modifying products.

The company is also in talks with wireless carri-ers to remove the features that infringe Applespatents.

Samsung will probably have to modify its devic-es if a ban is granted. The question is this: willit remove the infringing features or will it up-date the OS completely? If so Galaxy S II could

get an upgrade to Android 4.1, Jelly Bean, aheadof the Galaxy S III.

Meanwhile, 20 September will decide if theinjunction against Galaxy Tablet 10.1 should re-main. Theres a good chance that this ban wonthold as the jury ruled that the 10.1 Tablet wasnot an Apple iPad rip-off.


38/51

A US jurys $1 billion verdict against Samsung for

what rival Apple claimed was the illegal copying of its

iPhone and iPad designs signals a turning point for the

South Korean electronics giant known for adapting the

innovations of others and nimbly executing production.Youkyung Lee/Associated Press , Aug 29, 2012

Seoul, South Korea: A US jurys $1 billion

verdict against Samsung for what rivalApple claimed was the illegal copying of

its iPhone and iPad designs signals a turningpoint for the South Korean electronics giantknown for its prowess in adapting the innova-tions of others and nimbly executing produc-

tion.

The verdict not only jolted the world of globalgadgetry but also likely sparked some soul-searching in Suwon, South Korea, where thefamily-run Samsung conglomerate is based.

The worlds top seller of smartphones ndsitself in the post-iPhone reality, where thedecades-long practice of industry mimicry nowcan mean a bruising legal challenge.

And so Samsung nds itself in a position of hav-ing to recreate itself as an innovator, not an imi-tator. But the switch, experts say, will be much

more challenging and time-consuming than theshortcuts Samsung used to take.

The case shows that Samsung is still inad-equate in soft(ware) area, such as designs andpatents, MS Hwang, a Hong Kong-based ana-lyst at Samsung Securities, said in a commen-

tary.

Samsung Electronics Co has a top-heavy com-mand structure that centers on the foundingfamily. At the apex is 70-year-old Lee Kun-hee,

who inherited the mantle from his father, Sam-sung founder Lee Byung-chull, in 1987.

The strict hierarchy has enabled speedy andbold investment and swift execution. That, plusthe ability to build on the innovations of others,like Sony Corp has helped Samsung becomethe worlds largest maker of televisions, mem-ory chips, liquid crystal display panels and nowsmartphones.

Apples win:

Only innovations cansave Samsung in the future


39/51

Its path is reminiscent of many Japanese com-panies, like Canon Inc and Nikon Corp., whichstarted out by copying European designs andthen became innovators and pace-setters in the1960s and 70s.

It is impossible to be an innovator from thebeginning, said Chang Sea-jin, a professor atNational University of Singapore. If you donthave a technology, imitating more advancedcompanies is the easiest way to catch up.

Samsung has long been regarded as a fast fol-lower imitating or licensing technologies andthen competing by lowering costs, improvingquality and adding functions.

It overcame its belated entry into the memory

chip business in 1983 with efcient mass pro-duction and investments. Today, Samsung sup-plies about 30 percent of the chips that go intoelectronic gadgets.

In the early 2000s, Samsung claimed leadershipin the global television industry.

But when Apple released its cutting-edgeiPhone in 2007, Samsung employees were likely

too pressed to catch up to scrutinise possiblepatent encroachments. South Koreas idea ofintellectual property is also less strict than thatin the US, Chang said, and speedy execution ishighly valued at Samsung.

Still, Samsung outsold Apple this year in smart-phones by offering more variety, including low-end phones for price-conscious consumers.

Last Friday, a jury in San Jose, California,ruled that Samsung went too far in copying theiPhone and the iPad. It awarded Apple $1.05

billion, while a judge considers whether to bansales of eight Samsung products in the US Sam-sung has vowed to appeal.

Samsungs stocks plunged 7.5 percent in Seoulon the rst trading day after the verdict, costing$12 billion in market value. Samsung has vowedto appeal, but unsuccessful legal battles against

Apple in a host of other countries means thatSamsung has few choices other than to create itsown design identity.

In the past few years, Samsung has been invest-ing in design, not only in mobile phones, butalso in televisions and home appliances. But theresults were not near the level of revolution-izing the look and feel of a consumer electron-ics product or the way consumers interact withtechnology.

Bill Fischer, a professor at International In-stitute for Management Development inLausanne, Switzerland, says Samsung still hasnot breached the divide between itself and con-sumer electronics companies such as Apple andSony.

They tend to take bigger risks regarding prod-ucts brought to market, and they try to becomecreators of revolutionary new technologies,

such as iPods, smartphones and Sonys Walk-man music player, Fischer said in an email toThe Associated Press. This is a different men-tality.

The choices that Samsung has made so far arenot choices conducive to growing the sort of de-sign and customer-centricity that has long made

Apple unique, he said.

That does not necessarily mean that Samsungmust become another Apple. Samsung, whichsupplies mobile processors that work as a brainin the iPhone and the iPad, as well as displaysand memory chips to Apple, reaches far anddeep into the areas that Apple does not espe-cially in electronics hardware manufacturing.

Innovation does not necessarily mean an entirechange. Doing better than the present and doing

better than others are also innovation, said LeeMyoung-woo, who once led Samsungs con-sumer electronics businesses in the U.S. and is aprofessor at Hanyang University in Seoul.

Even if other companies are not breakingaway too far from the rules that Apple made

with the iPhone, other companies can come upwith product innovation in the areas that Appledidnt see, Lee said.

He cited the Galaxy Note as an example, asmartphone with an overblown screen that be-came popular.


40/51

Apples victory over Samsung

will be short-livedSamsungs skill as a fast executioner - quick to

match others innovations - would likely meantweaked, non-patent infringing devices would be

on the market soon after any ban came into place.

Miyoung Kim/Reuters, Aug 25, 2012

Seoul: Defeat in a bitter patent wrangle

with Apple Inc, its smartphone rival andbiggest customer, will dent Samsung

Electronics Cos $21 billion cash-pile, but could

actually help cement its leadership in the globalsmartphone market.

A US court has ordered Samsung which soldaround 50 million phones in April-June, almosttwice the number of iPhones to pay $1.05 bil-lion damages, after ruling that the South Koreanrm infringed on some Apple patents.

While the verdict was a big win for Apple, thedamages are less than half the $2.5 billion com-pensation it sought although that could yet beincreased by the judge and are just 1.5 percentof annual revenues from Samsungs telecoms

business.

That phone and tablet business is the pow-erhouse behind Samsungs growth, earningaround 70 percent of total prot. The group hadnet prot of $4.5 billion in April-June.

Samsung could also see its popular Galaxysmartphone banned from sale in the UnitedStates. But its skill as a fast executioner

quick to match others innovations wouldlikely mean tweaked, non-patent infringingdevices would be on the market soon after any

ban came into place.

Samsung has already made some designchanges to new products since the litigation rststarted more than a year ago, said Seo Won-seok, an analyst at Korea Investment & Securi-ties. With the ruling, they are now more likelyto make further changes or they could simplydecide to raise product prices to cover patent-related payments.

Also, Apples demands for Samsung to pay it aroyalty on its phone sales could hit rival phonesusing Googles Android operating system morethan it hits Samsung. If anything, the blaze ofpublicity from the high-prole, high-stakes USlitigation has made Samsungs brand more rec-ognisable.

CONTRADICTING VERDICTS

The California jury had only begun deliberatingon Wednesday after a complex weeks-long trial.Fridays verdict on seven Apple patent claimsand ve Samsung patent claims suggests thenine-person panel had little difculty in con-cluding that Samsung had copied some featuresof Apples iPhone and iPad.

It could lead to an outright ban on sales of keySamsung products, with Apple saying it plannedto le for a sales injunction within seven daysand the judge in the case setting a hearing onSeptember 20.

Because the jury found wilful infringement,


41/51

Apple could seek triple damages.

The US ruling, read out to a packed federalcourtroom in San Jose, just miles from Applesheadquarters, came less than 24 hours after aSeoul court found that while the iPhone andGalaxy look very similar Samsung hadnt vio-lated Apples design.

Samsung issued a deant response to the USdecision, which it called a loss for the Americanconsumer, indicating the legal tussle is far fromover. This is not the nal word in this case orin battles being waged in courts and tribunalsaround the world, some of which have alreadyrejected many of Apples claims, Samsung saidin a statement.

Nomura analyst CW Chung, speaking before theverdict, predicted it could take many years forApple and Samsung to settle the case whateverthe result of this round, leaving the two rmlyin control of the $200 billion-plus global smart-phone market.

The litigation may end up with both partiesentering a cross-licensing agreement, whichshould enable them to build a higher patent wall

in the smartphone market, said Chung. Thiswould have a positive impact on the share pricesof Samsung and Apple, while posing a substan-tial threat to other competitors.

Based on the damages ruling, Samsung is askedto pay Apple around $10 royalty per phone, amove seen aimed at slowing rival phones thatrun on Android which account for more thantwo-thirds of the global market.

If Apple were to pursue similar legal challengesagainst other Android manufacturers that couldsqueeze prot margins as smartphone pricesdecline in a growing market reinforcing thedominance of Samsung, one of the few with bigenough margins to absorb the extra cost.

Handset competitors using Android includeTaiwans HTC Corp, LG Electronics, GooglesMotorola, Sony Corp and some Chinese brands.

WIN SOME, LOSE SOME?

Although Samsung had been viewed as the

underdog in the US case, the sweeping natureof Apples victory was something of a surprise,

with many analysts having expected a mixedruling.

Concerns over potential reputational dam-age, the short-term cash hit and the impact on

billions of dollars of business with Apple hadknocked as much as 5 percent off Samsungsshares this week in the run-up to the verdict.But the stock is still up nearly 50 percent since

Apple led its accusations.

Samsung has previously been able to move

nimbly to release model upgrades by the timecourts have ruled certain products infringed Ap-ple patents and retire patent-infringing modelsfrom its line-up. It has skirted around those rul-ings with a few engineering tweaks and has alsomade some bold design changes to differentiateits devices from Apples.

The impact on Samsung will be quite limited,as affected models are mostly legacy products

and its new products did make some designchanges to avoid potential litigation, said DJJung, representative patent attorney for SUIntellectual Property.

Still its a sweeping loss in the most im-portant market. Its inevitable that Samsungs

brand will be negatively affected Samsungcould be perceived as a copycat.

Even though Samsungs agship Galaxy S III

phone was not involved in the trial, the juryvalidated Apples patents on features and de-sign elements that Apple could then try to wieldagainst that product.


42/51

It is possible Apple would not have to seek anentirely new trial against the S III, but ratherinclude it in a contempt proceeding whichmoves much faster, said Nick Rodelli, a lawyerand adviser to institutional investors for CFRAResearch in Maryland.

Seoul-based Jung predicted further appeals andfresh suits against newer products as the rivalscontinue to clash in court.

Its going to be a very drawn-out battle, hesaid. They will keep suing each other, appealagainst unfavourable verdicts and bring in newproducts because the stakes are too high.They dont want to lose their initiative in thefast-moving smartphone market.

OUTSIDE THE BOX

In a research note before the verdict, UBSanalysts said an Apple win could, in the long-run, hurt the US rm as the real threat is not acompetitor beating Apple at its own game, butinstead changing the game.

The likelihood of Apple being leapfrogged ora rival creating a new category (of device) is

greater if they have to think out of the box. Ifthey just copy Apple, like Coke, Apple can claimto be the real thing.

Samsung also looks to be staying ahead of thecurve by reviving the stylus function, derided

by Apples Steve Jobs, in its latest tablets and bycreating the hybrid phone-cum-tablet, or phab-let, category, with its 5.3-inch Note.

Apple, which has largely stood by its originalform and design, is taking note, with specula-tion that the next iPhone will have a biggerscreen and new iPads may be smaller.

In China, set to become the worlds biggestsmartphone market this year, Samsung hasalmost twice Apples market share, and theiPhone slipped to fourth in the market in April-June, overtaken by both Lenovo Group Ltd andZTE Corp, according to latest data from indus-try research rm IDC.

Despite, or because of, the publicity from the UScase, and more than a dozen pending cases else-

where around the globe, the Samsung brand hasgained recognition as an equal to Apple ratherthan merely a supplier.

In a recent Campaign Asia-Pacic brand rank-ing, Samsung came top ahead of second-placed Apple.


43/51

The dirtiest trial ever?


44/51

Outside the jurys presence, Apple and Samsung law-

yers regularly accuse each other of unfair ambushes,

dirty public relations tactics and even doctoring

evidence. An exasperated judge Koh has taken to

managing the trial like a school-teacher.

Dan Levine/Reuters, Aug 10, 2012

Apple, Samsungs legal strategiesleave judge exasperated

San Jose, California: It was the end of along week in court in the Apple-Samsunglegal war, and Samsung attorney John

Quinn was trying to block his adversary, Appleattorney Bill Lee, from showing the jury a docu-ment.

As Quinn made his argument to US DistrictJudge Lucy Koh, he slipped in a reference toKohs pre-trial order blocking sales of someSamsung products a subject Koh had forbid-den the parties from discussing in front of the

jury.

That was improper, said Koh.

I apologise, your honour, Quinn responded.

I have a difculty believing that was not inten-tional, said the judge.

Koh allowed the document into evidence. Buther admonishment provided the jury with aglimpse into the unusual tensions roiling be-neath the lofty courtroom arguments about whomight have illegally copied whose technology.

Outside the jurys presence, Apple and Samsunglawyers regularly accuse each other of unfairambushes, dirty public relations tactics andeven doctoring evidence.

Quinn took the extraordinary step of issuinga press release on docume

FirstpostEbook eBook Apple Vs Samsung

Documents

Transcript of FirstpostEbook eBook Apple Vs Samsung