econintersect.com
  • 토토사이트
    • 카지노사이트
    • 도박사이트
    • 룰렛 사이트
    • 라이브카지노
    • 바카라사이트
    • 안전카지노
  • 경제
  • 파이낸스
  • 정치
  • 투자
No Result
View All Result
  • 토토사이트
    • 카지노사이트
    • 도박사이트
    • 룰렛 사이트
    • 라이브카지노
    • 바카라사이트
    • 안전카지노
  • 경제
  • 파이낸스
  • 정치
  • 투자
No Result
View All Result
econintersect.com
No Result
View All Result

Apple: Not Quite Total Victory over Samsung

admin by admin
8월 25, 2012
in 미분류
0
0
SHARES
0
VIEWS

smart-phoneSMALLEconintersect:  Court decisions in the U.S. and Korea have fully supported and completely faulted Samsung in their suit and counter suit cases over patent rights covering the technology and design of the iPhone.  The most recent decision came Friday afternoon in San Fransisco when a jury found that Samsung smartphones “wilfully” violated Apple patents.  The jury awarded more than $1 billion in damages to Apple.  The verdict also found that none of Samsung’s patents had been infringed by the American firm.  According to Stanford law professor Mark Lemley, quoted by the Financial Times, the result was “sweeping” and was a new record award for intellectual law cases.

Earlier Friday (24 August 2012), a Korean court returned a mixed verdict.  In that decision Apple was found to be in violation of Samsung’s wireless technology patents.  Samsung was found to have infringed on screen operation functions that were patented by Apple.  Both parties were ordered to pay limited damages.

According to the Associated Press (Washington Post):

The Seoul Central District Court ruling called for a partial ban on products from both companies, though the verdict did not affect the latest-generation phones — Apple’s iPhone 4S or Samsung’s Galaxy S III — or the newest iPad.

According to the Associated Press, products that must be removed from stores in South Korea are older models.  Named products were iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 4, the original iPad and the iPad 2.  Samsung was ordered to remove an older model smart phone, the Galaxy S II, from store shelves.

The Korean decision was considered by some to be a “home court advantage” result for “home boy” Samsung, although it could also be viewed as Solomonic in nature.

These were the first two countries out of a total on nine to resolve patent dispute cases between Apple and Samsung.  For each country the results may differ from others because the local patent laws apply and the sequence of patent filings may not be the same for all countries.  The timing (dates) of filing processes are an important factor in determining patent precedents.

Of the two results, the one in California is easily the most dramatic, both because of the size of the U.S. market and the relative dominance of the results favoring Apple.  Apple does not have a big market position in South Korea.

Bloomberg ran the headline:

Samsung Found to Infringe Most Apple Mobile Patents

 

This may be somewhat misleading because the very first line of the article states that Samsung was found to have infringed six of the seven Apple patents that were subject of the case.  Econintersect expects that Apple (and Samsung as well) have considerably more than seven moblie technology patents.  All those other patents were not a part of this case.

However, this was an historic case.  The Financial Times quoted Prof. Mark Lemley, Stanford Law School:

“There is no larger patent verdict that has survived appeal,” he said, referring to two bigger awards that were later reduced. “One of the things about the sweeping nature of the win is it’s awfully hard to imagine the federal circuit reversing on all these issues … The whole trial, Samsung was on the defensive.”

There are now a number of questions about the status of other smartphone products that also use Google’s Android operating system, as did the Samsung products found in violation of Apple patents.  Observers feel that it could have a dampening effect on the efforts of technology companies to compete with the iPhone, to the detriment of creating new products using the Google operating system.

The technology and design features that were found to violate Apple patents were unrelated to the operating systems.  They were look, feel and function features such as shape of the phones – the way the corners were rounded, the form of the glass front on the phones, touch screen operating functions and app icons.  Apple claimed these features were copied to confuse customers into being unable to distinguish between Apple and Samsung phones.

The San Fransisco jury found that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab tablet product did not infringe on Apple patents, according to the Financial Times.

According to Reuters, the verdict could lead to a ban on related Samsung products in the U.S.

apple-and-samsung-smart-phones-with-caption

The phones pictured above are newer models than the ones cited in the law suits settled today.

John Lounsbury

Sources:

  • Jury awards $1bn patent victory to Apple (TimBradshaw, Financial Times, 25, August 2012)
  • Apple triumphs over Samsung, awarded over $1 billion damages (Gerry Shih, Reuters, 24 2012)
  • South Korean court rules Samsung didn’t copy Apple’s iPhone design, but both infringed patents (Associated Press, Washington Post, 23 August 2012)
  • Samsung Found to Infringe Most Apple Mobile Patents (Joel Rosenblatt, Bloomberg, 24 August 2012)
Previous Post

Dollar Gains on Bottom Fishing

Next Post

GOP Looks at Plank of Gold

Related Posts

Bitcoin Is Finally Trading Perfectly Like 'Digital Gold'
Economics

Bitcoin Is Finally Trading Perfectly Like ‘Digital Gold’

by admin
Namibia Will Regulate And Not Ban Crypto With New Law
Finance

Namibia Will Regulate And Not Ban Crypto With New Law

by admin
6,746 ETH Valued At $12M Was Just Burned
Economics

6,746 ETH Valued At $12M Was Just Burned

by admin
Bitcoin Is Steady Above $29,000 Awaiting US NFP Figures
Economics

Bitcoin: What Next After Consolidation Ends?

by admin
US Government Offloads Another 8,200 Bitcoin – On-chain Data
Economics

US Government Offloads Another 8,200 Bitcoin – On-chain Data

by admin
Next Post

GOP Looks at Plank of Gold

답글 남기기 응답 취소

이메일 주소는 공개되지 않습니다. 필수 필드는 *로 표시됩니다

Browse by Category

  • Business
  • Econ Intersect News
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Uncategorized

Browse by Tags

adoption altcoins bank banking banks Binance Bitcoin Bitcoin market blockchain BTC BTC price business China crypto crypto adoption cryptocurrency crypto exchange crypto market crypto regulation decentralized finance DeFi Elon Musk ETH Ethereum Europe Federal Reserve finance FTX inflation investment market analysis Metaverse NFT nonfungible tokens oil market price analysis recession regulation Russia stock market technology Tesla the UK the US Twitter

Categories

  • Business
  • Econ Intersect News
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Uncategorized

© Copyright 2024 EconIntersect

No Result
View All Result
  • 토토사이트
    • 카지노사이트
    • 도박사이트
    • 룰렛 사이트
    • 라이브카지노
    • 바카라사이트
    • 안전카지노
  • 경제
  • 파이낸스
  • 정치
  • 투자

© Copyright 2024 EconIntersect