apple legal
Latest
Apple and Samsung agree to drop legal disputes in all jurisdictions outside the U.S.
It's increasingly starting to look that Apple's obsession with taking Samsung to task for allegedly copying the iPhone may be starting to wane. Originally reported by Bloomberg, news broke on Tuesday evening that Apple and Samsung have agreed to end all of their legal disputes in all jurisdictions save for the United States. While Apple's legal battle in the U.S. has garnered the most attention, Apple and Samsung have been duking it out in jurisdictions across the globe for over three years now. With only the U.S. in play now, legal claims have been dropped in the following countries: Australia, Japan, France, Italy, South Korea, the Netherlands, the U.K., and Germany. A joint statement from Apple and Samsung reads in part: Apple and Samsung have agreed to drop all litigation between the two companies outside the United States. This agreement does not involve any licensing arrangements, and the companies are continuing to pursue the existing cases in U.S. courts. Overall, the announcement lends itself towards the belief that the worst of the legal battles between the two companies is behind us. Recall that Apple has already taken Samsung to court twice in the U.S., emerging victorious in both instances. In August of 2012, Apple was awarded nearly $1 billion in damages. This past summer, a jury awarded Apple $120 million in damages. Note, though, that with both cases winding their way through the appeals process, Samsung has yet to actually hand over a dime to Apple. Despite legal posturing from both companies, court documents have revealed that Apple and Samsung have engaged in high level settlement talks in the past. Ultimately, though, the companies were unable to reach mutually agreeable terms with respect to royalty rates.
Judge Denise Cote isn't happy with Apple's $450 million e-book settlement agreement
Apple agreed two weeks ago to a conditional $450 million settlement with plaintiffs over allegations that it colluded with book publishers to artificially raise the price of e-books. Under terms of the settlement, Apple will only have to pay the full amount if its appeal of U.S. District Judge Denise Cote's original ruling proves unsuccessful. The $450 million figure is of course much lower than the $840 million originally sought by plaintiffs, but hey, it's why it's called a settlement. But, surprise surprise, there's one person who seems to have a problem with the settlement agreement -- Judge Denise Cote. Last week, Cote explained during a teleconference that she found the settlement agreement troubling. Why? Because if her original decision is partially reversed or if a new trial is warranted, Apple will only have to fork over $70 million. If the decision is reversed outright, Apple won't be on the hook for anything at all. Cote also added that she's not too thrilled that Apple's potential $450 million settlement payout isn't subject to interest during the appeals process. Reuters reports: Speaking on a teleconference, Cote questioned if that would be fair and what might happen if the appeals court reversed her ruling on a minor issue. She also took issue with the lack of any requirement for Apple to pay interest while the appeals go forward. "I'm concerned about the terms of the settlement," she said. What really seems to be the issue here, I think, is that Cote seemingly has a personal vendetta against Apple. Cote's stance on Apple's alleged culpability is clear and her behavior during the e-book trial, I think, reflected an overwhelming amount of anti-Apple bias. So more than being worried about her ruling being overturned on a technicality, she seems troubled by the fact that Apple won't be punished to the extent she was hoping. If attorneys for 33 U.S. states deemed the settlement agreement to be fair, it shouldn't really matter if Cote herself is troubled by it. If Cote's decision is outright overturned, why then should Apple still be on the hook for damages? It's really a bizarre thing for Cote to be "troubled" by and hardly the response one would expect from a truly impartial adjudicator.
Apple faces California class-action suit over alleged labor violations
Apple is facing yet another class-action lawsuit, this time from a group of employees in the State of California. The suit was filed initially in 2011 by four people who worked in Apple's retail and corporate operations, alleging that the company violated California Labor Code by not providing "timely" meal and rest breaks or final paychecks. On Monday, the suit was certified as a class action, which widens the pool of potential plaintiffs significantly. The case documents (embedded below) show that the accusations range from working for five hours without a break to being released with a 72-hour notice period and getting a final paycheck two days late after the end of that period. No demand has been made for settlement at this time, but it could prove to be costly for Apple. TUAW sister site TechCrunch reached out to Tyler Belong, a lawyer with San Diego-based Hogue & Belong, who noted that "Apple now faces claims of meal period, rest period and final pay violations affecting approximately 20,000 current and former Apple employees." Felczer - Fourth Amended Complaint
Apple conditionally agrees to $450 million settlement in e-book price fixing suit
Apple's ongoing e-book antitrust saga has been nothing short of a headache. Accused of colluding with publishers to artificially raise the price of e-books, Apple had the opportunity to settle the matter early on and avoid a trial altogether. But as Tim Cook explained, Apple felt it did nothing wrong and wasn't going to cop to something it didn't do. For Apple, it was a matter of principle. And now that principled stance looks like it's going to cost Apple to the tune of almost half a billion dollars. Reuters reports that Apple yesterday agreed to pay a cool $450 million to consumers and States in order to settle class action charges stemming from alleged price fixing. That's a lot of dough, but still decidedly less than the $840 million plaintiffs were seeking. The hefty payout, however, is contingent upon the outcome of Apple's current appeal. The settlement, which would provide $400 million for consumers, is conditioned on the outcome of a pending appeal of a New York federal judge's ruling last year that Apple was liable for violating antitrust laws. A ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York reversing the judge could, under the settlement, [would] either reduce the amount Apple pays to $70 million, with $50 million for consumers, or eliminate payments altogether. Apple's statement regarding its potential payout reads as follows: Apple did not conspire to fix ebook pricing, and we will continue to fight those allegations on appeal. We did nothing wrong and we believe a fair assessment of the facts will show it. The iBooks Store has been good for consumers and the publishing industry as a whole, from well-known authors to first-time novelists. As we wait for the court to hear our appeal, we have agreed to a settlement which is contingent on the outcome of the appeal. If we are vindicated by the appeals court, no settlement will be paid. Of course, Apple certainly has money to spare (and then some), but one can only imagine that they'd like to put this whole e-book price fixing scandal behind them once and for all. Recall that Apple's trial with the DOJ last year resulted in Judge Denise Cote assigning Apple an external monitor who Apple quickly accused of overstepping his bounds and charging exorbitant fees.
Apple found not guilty in lawsuit over video streaming
The patent infringement lawsuit began in 2010, when a Israel-based company called Emblaze went after Apple. The patent in question related to real-time broadcasting and Emblaze claimed that Apple was using the technology without a license. Friday, according to Bloomberg News, a jury swiftly rendered a "not guilty" verdict. Emblaze claimed that Apple pushed organizations like Major League Baseball (for MLB At Bat) and ESPN to use Apple streaming technology, which Emblaze claimed to own. The jury found that the preponderance of evidence didn't prove that Apple infringed on the Emblaze patent. Apple attorney Mark Fowler told the jury that Emblaze was an example of a failed company that targeted Apple due to its success. The case was heard in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose, California. The trial began on July 1.
Judge: Apple may not use term "patent troll" in court
Apple and Hawaii-based GPNE Corp are preparing for a legal battle that's being heard by judge Lucy Koh, who has instituted a "no name-calling" rule. Specifically, Judge Koh has told Apple's attorneys that they may not refer to GPNE Corp as "patent troll" or "privateer" or "bandit" while in front of a jury. Additionally, they may not tell a jury that GPNE is engaged in a "shakedown" or "playing the lawsuit lottery." This is ironic, as GPNE appears to be the very definition of "patent troll." It manufactures nothing, and appears that is only "product" is making licensing demands for its patents. As of this writing, its website features the following four "news" items: April 8, 2014 GPNE Corp. enters into license agreement with CVS Pharmacy, Inc. April 1, 2014 GPNE Corp. enters into license agreement with The Kroger Co. March 25, 2014 GPNE Corp. enters into license agreement with ID Systems, Inc. March 14, 2014 GPNE Corp. enters into license agreement with Stanley Steemer International, Inc. As for its beef with Apple, GPNE claims the iPad infringes on old patents on transmitting data over a network.
Judge has reservations about Apple's settlement in anti-poaching suit
Judge Lucy Koh has some reservations regarding the recent settlement agreement Apple and a number of other tech companies reached as part of a class action suit regarding anti-poaching agreements. As part of the settlement, the companies involved agreed to pay class members US$324.5 million to be divided up among them -- about 64,000 individuals in total. That's ostensibly a hefty sum, but comes out to about $5,000 per plaintiff. It also pales in comparison to the $3 billion amount plaintiffs were hoping to secure with a trial. Now comes word via Reuters that Koh, who must approve all terms of the settlement, isn't necessarily sure the proposed deal is a fair one for the plaintiffs. At a court hearing on Thursday, Koh said the plaintiffs had leverage going into trial against the defendants, given the strength of the evidence in the case. Several emails showed Apple's late co-founder Steve Jobs, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and some of their Silicon Valley rivals hatching plans to enforce their no-poaching agreement. "I just have concerns about whether this is really fair to the class," Koh said, adding that she had not made a decision about whether to approve the deal. Recall that the origin of the suit stems from under the table agreements Apple and other tech companies like Intel, Google, and Adobe adhered to whereby they each agreed not to recruit employees from one another. The ensuing lawsuit alleged that these agreements worked to reduce employee negotiating power, ultimately lowering the salaries affected employees might have otherwise earned. As for Koh's statement that the plaintiffs in the case had significant leverage, that's hard to dispute. Court documents over the past year or so relayed a number of incriminating emails from executives like Steve Jobs. In one particularly noteworthy example, it was revealed that Jobs angrily called Google co-founder Sergey Brin after discovering Google's efforts to recruit members from Apple's Safari team.
Following $119 million judgement, Apple seeks retrial and injunction against Samsung products
In the wake of its nearly $120 million judgement against Samsung, Apple continues to go on the attack. In a motion filed this past Friday, Apple argues for a retrial on the damages amount. Recall that at the outset of Apple and Samsung's second California litigation, Apple was seeking upwards of $2 billion. What's more, Apple is also seeking a permanent injunction against Samsung's accused products that were found to infringe upon Apple's patents, which include the slide-to-unlock feature and data detectors. Some of the more notable products at issue include the Galaxy Nexus and the Galaxy S II. Further, Apple seeks an injunction against any current and future Samsung products which implement Apple's aforementioned patents. But as Florian Mueller points out, Apple has never had much luck in securing injunctions against Samsung in the U.S. So while Apple argues that it will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction isn't granted, it doesn't appear likely that Apple will attain the injunction it seeks, especially in light of the fact that Samsung can easily code around Apple's patents. Cleverly, though, Apple argues that an injunction should be granted precisely because Samsung can so easily update its software so as to not infringe. In fact, Samsung represented at trial that it now has non-infringing alternatives ready to go for the '647 patent, which would require "less than a day" to implement. Samsung also represented that it has existing non-infringing alternatives to the '172 and '721 patents-including in its "best selling" Galaxy S III phone. Given these representations, Samsung cannot legitimately contend that it would suffer any harm from Apple's narrow proposed injunction, which merely prohibits Samsung from using infringing features that it claims to have already designed around-and that, according to Samsung, would be quick and easy to implement. A redacted version of Apple's motion for a permanent injunction can be viewed below. Lastly, and as we indicated previously, it doesn't seem that Apple and Samsung will be reaching any type of settlement deal anytime soon. 14-05-24 Public Version of Apple Motion for Permanent Injunction Against Samsung by Florian Mueller
Dutch appeals court upholds Apple injunction against Samsung Galaxy smartphones
Re/Code points us to the fact that Apple on Tuesday was granted a "modest" victory in its ongoing and global legal battle against Samsung. Specifically, a court in the Netherlands upheld a lower court's ruling which banned the sale of Galaxy S II and Galaxy Ace smartphones. The court found that the aforementioned products infringe upon Apple's rubber branding patent, otherwise known as inertial scrolling. While the ruling is ostensibly good news for Apple, the products at issue highlight the ongoing challenge Apple faces in taking its battle against Samsung to the courtroom. The Galaxy S II was first released in May of 2011 while the Galaxy Ace was released in March of 2011. So while Apple has an injunction intact, the products at issue are over three years old at this point and are wholly irrelevant in today's smartphone market. Indeed, litigating over products that are no longer popular remains a frustrating problem for Apple in the U.S. as well. Tim Cook addressed this notion himself last summer when he appeared at a Senate hearing to discuss Apple's tax practices. "I actually think that we require much more work on IP in this country," Cook explained. Cook specifically mentioned that traversing through the U.S. court system can often take years, which is a problem because the pace of technological advancement moves much faster. I think the U.S. Court system is currently structured in such a way that tech companies aren't getting the intellectual property protection they need. Our cycles are fast, the court system is very long and the foreign competitors in the US can quickly take IP and use it and ship products with it and they're to the next product as well. I would love to see conversations between countries and see protections between IP globally. For us, our intellectual property is so important, I would love the system to be strengthened in order to protect it.
Apple hit with lawsuit over disappearing iMessages for iPhone to Android switchers
Well, that sure didn't take long. Shortly after we highlighted how a number of iPhone to Android converts are no longer receiving text messages sent from other iPhones, Apple has been slapped with a lawsuit over the matter. Bloomberg reports that a frustrated Android user filed suit against Apple late last week in San Jose. The suit seeks class action status and alleges that consumers who decide to switch from Apple's ecosystem to Android are being "penalized and unable to obtain the full benefits of their wireless-service contracts." The text-messaging lawsuit, which seeks class-action status and undetermined damages, claims Apple failed to disclose that switching to a device other than one running on Apple's iOS operating system would result in the interference. The suit is based on contractual interference and unfair competition laws. Unquestionably, not receiving text messages has to be a terribly frustrating experience. According to a widely circulated blogpost from Lifehacker Editor-in-Chief Adam Pash, Apple is aware of the problem and is working, albeit unsuccessfully, to come up with a solution. One suggestion to hopefully help iPhone to Android users avoid this predicament altogether is to deactivate iMessage before switching over to Android. Barring that, some fixes that have reported worked for some affected users include the following: Deregister your phone number from iMessage by going to Settings > Messages and turning iMessage off Go to https://supportprofile.apple.com/MySupportProfile.do. Next, log in and click on "edit products." Lastly, click on the "x" to the right of the product and click "unregister." Sign out of your App Store account on any device where it may be open Go to https://appleid.apple.com and change your password If none of these solutions alleviate the problem, your last resort is to call 1-800-My-Apple and ask them to deactivate iMessage for you. According to one TUAW reader, doing so will result in Apple sending you a verification code and "revoking your certificate" in the iMessage system.
Apple sued over patents more than any other company last year
In 2013 there were 6,092 patent-infringement lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Courts, a 12.4 percent increase from the 5,418 filed in 2012. These numbers come from a new study out by Lex Machina, a California based legal analytics company, that show patent cases filed in U.S. District Courts have doubled since 2008. So what was the company being sued for alleged patent infringement last year? Why, it was Apple Inc. with 59 lawsuits filed against it. In the number two spot was Amazon, which was hit with 50 suits, while AT&T and Google took third and fourth place with 45 and 39 patent suits filed against them respectively. Interestingly out of the 6,092 patent-infringement suits filed last year, just 10 companies were responsible for nearly 13 percent of all suits filed; each of those three companies are patent-licensing firms. Of the plaintiffs with the most patents asserted in cases opened during 2013, the second and third most litigious plaintiffs were Intellectual Ventures I and Intellectual Ventures II. Fans of the NPR program This American Life may remember Intellectual Ventures as being one of the main focuses of their patent troll exposés "When Patents Attack" and "When Patents Attack Part Two." If you've ever wanted to know more about the wild world of patent troll lawsuits, these two radio programs are an invaluable resource for learning the basics without having to go to law school.
Street artist claims Apple ripped off his inspirational slogan
A well-known New York City street artist named James De La Vega (no relation to Ralph) recently sent a cease-and-desist letter to Apple demanding that the company stop using the tagline "You're more powerful than you think" in its commercials. The NY Daily News reports: James De La Vega says he's been using the phrase, "You are more powerful than you think," for almost a decade as part of his "Become Your Dream" series. The Cornell University grad with a degree in fine arts has chalked his slogans onto sidewalks, painted them into murals and even incorporated them into a graffiti motif that designer Tory Burch used recently for a line of handbags and fashion accessories. Apple's use of the allegedly trademarked phrase is rather new; it appears at the end of the company's recent iPhone 5s commercial -- appropriately titled "powerful", and also on a new page on Apple's website dedicated to interesting and creative iPhone use cases. The C&D letter articulates that Apple's commercial operates to mislead consumers into thinking that De La Vega himself endorses the company's products. Given the localized nature of De La Vega's work, not to mention the fact that the phrase itself doesn't appear to be all that new or unique, I'm not sure that De La Vega has much of a leg to stand on. If anything, the slogan itself seems markedly similar to this much more famous quote from Marianne Williams: "Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure..." De La Vega, though, claims that the phrase in question is so closely associated to him that a company that sells inspirational magnets even asked him for permission to use the phrase on one of their products. The complaint asks that Apple stop using the phrase and acknowledge that De La Vega is the proper owner of the trademark. De La Vega is also seeking a settlement deal from the affair. "Words are weapons," De La Vega explains. "This is my way of building a movement. [Apple] should pay me because I created it and they've used it to create national excitement about a product and huge profits for themselves."
Samsung's business strategy detailed: Copy, counter-sue, and delay
Earlier this week, Kurt Eichenwald of Vanity Fair published an incredibly in-depth article highlighting many of the hurdles Apple has had to deal with in taking Samsung to court. Suffice it to say, Samsung is not your run-of-the-mill litigant. It doesn't shy away from court room battles, and indeed, it isn't afraid to use the drawn out process of litigation as a business strategy, and an effective one at that. According to various court records and people who have worked with Samsung, ignoring competitors' patents is not uncommon for the Korean company. And once it's caught it launches into the same sort of tactics used in the Apple case: countersue, delay, lose, delay, appeal, and then, when defeat is approaching, settle. "They never met a patent they didn't think they might like to use, no matter who it belongs to," says Sam Baxter, a patent lawyer who once handled a case for Samsung. "I represented [the Swedish telecommunications company] Ericsson, and they couldn't lie if their lives depended on it, and I represented Samsung and they couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it." For anyone that has closely followed the ongoing saga that is the Apple/Samsung litigation, Samsung's willingness to bend and sometimes break the rules will likely not come as a surprise. Recall that during Apple and Samsung's first California litigation, Apple accused Samsung of purposefully destroying "vast quantities" of evidence. Over and above that, Apple, in its motion at the time, pointed out that Samsung had, in the past, been sanctioned for similar evidence-destroying behavior. The entire Vanity Fair piece is a rather scathing indictment of Samsung's moral code. More specifically, it paints a portrait of a company whose executives curiously find themselves entangled in "bribery, money-laundering, evidence tampering" and more. Again, the article does an able job of highlighting Samsung's admittedly successful strategy of copying competitors and simply letting the bureaucracy of the legal system delay any resolution. Apple, in this regard, is not unique. Samsung has had similar tussles with other companies, including Sharp and Pioneer, particularly in the TV business.
The TUAW Daily Update Podcast for May 6, 2014
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get some the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the player at the top of the page. The Daily Update has been moved to a new podcast host in the past few days. Current listeners should delete the old podcast subscription and subscribe to the new feed in the iTunes Store here.
Samsung plans to appeal recent $120 million damages award; wants it lowered to "zero"
Samsung has finally commented on the $120 million it's been ordered to pay Apple for infringing upon their IP. The company's response, not surprisingly, is that they plan on fighting and appealing the judgement. Bloomberg, citing lead Samsung lawyer John Quinn, reports that Samsung believes that the damages award is not substantiated by evidence and that the company will fight to reduce the damages award down to zero. Of course we're pleased that the jury awarded Apple 6 percent of what they were asking for. But even that can't stand, because Apple kept out all the real world evidence and didn't produce anything to substitute for it, so you have a verdict that's unsupported by evidence -– and that's just one of its problems. Samsung's law firm, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, has proven, if anything else, that they are tenacious and are not willing to go down without a fight. Indeed, Samsung hasn't yet paid Apple the nearly $1 billion in damages stemming from its Summer 2012 trial with Apple as the company continues to appeal the judgement. As for the most recent $120 million damages award, we reported earlier this week that 85% of that total can be traced back to Apple's "Data Tapping" patent.
Apple's Data Tapping patent accounted for 85% of its damages award
A jury on Monday finalized Apple's damages award, leaving the company's original $119 million figure intact. While Apple at trial asserted five patents, the jury determined that Samsung's products infringed upon three of them. And from those three, one patent in particular accounted for the vast majority of Apple's damages award. Patent 5,946,647, otherwise known as the '647 patent, was initially filed in 1996 and encapsulates a feature known as "Data Tapping." The patent describes a method by which a device can detect certain types of data -- i.e dates, URLs, phone numbers, addresses etc. -- and subsequently present users with a list of clickable actions. For instance, say you receive a text that says, "Let's meet for lunch next Thursday." iOS is able to detect the data structure "next Thursday", underline it, and subsequently allow users to tap on the string whereupon they can create a calendar event for that day. As another quick example, let's say you receive an email with an embedded phone number. iOS detects the presence of a phone number and presents users with the following options when they tap the string. It's a rather nifty iOS feature, and a valuable one at that. Of the $119.6 million awarded to Apple, 85% of that amount ($102 million) resulted from Samsung products infringing upon the '647 patent. Also worth noting is that if you look at the damages award on a product by product basis, the Galaxy S2 and S3 are largely responsible for the bulk of the damages Samsung now owes Apple.
Jury leaves Apple's $119 million damages award intact
After a jury last week found that a number of Samsung products infringed upon Apple's patents, Apple was awarded $119.6 million in damages. Not too long afterwards, Apple's legal team discovered that damages connected to one infringing Samsung device had not been included in the final tally. Consequently, the jury reconvened earlier today to reach a firm and final figure. The result? Still a hefty $119.6 million. As it turns out, the jury added $4 million in damages for the one infringing device it initially left out but also subtracted $4 million in damages connected to another device. Ina Fried of Re/Code reports: It took the jury a little over two hours to reallocate its damages award. The panel raised the amount owed for some products, but lowered the amount for others, basically leaving things where they stood initially. Both sides are expected to appeal various parts of the case, including the verdict. All in all, it's arguably a bittersweet victory for Apple given that the nearly $120 million in damages is markedly less than the $2 billion that the company was aiming for.
Google will not cover Samsung's damages amount
During Apple and Samsung's recent trial, it was revealed that Google agreed to help foot the bill for Samsung's legal costs and indemnify the company for any damages connected to two specific Apple patents at issue in the case -- patent '959 which pertains to Unified Search and patent '414 which pertains to asynchronous data synchronization. But as it turns out, the jury found that none of Samsung's accused products infringed upon the aforementioned patents. As a result, Samsung alone will be on the hook for the entirety of the damages amount. As for the patents Apple successfully wielded against Samsung, the jury found that all of the accused Samsung products infringed upon Apple's '647 patent. The '647 patent covers "Data Tapping" and encapsulates functionality wherein certain types of data such as URLs and phone numbers become actionable links. The jury further found that some of Samsung's accused products infringed upon Apple's '721 patent which covers "slide to unlock" functionality. Lastly, Judge Lucy Koh ruled before the trial even started that Samsung's products infringed upon Apple's '172 patent which details a method for providing word recommendations while a user is typing. As we reported last week, the jury in the Apple/Samsung case awarded Apple $119.6 million in damages. That amount, however, will be adjusted upwards after Apple attorneys discovered that damages from an infringing Samsung product hadn't been added to the final amount.
Apple comments on patent win as final judgement amount looms
Late on Friday, news broke that the jury in Apple and Samsung's second California litigation had reached a verdict. When the dust settled, the jury found that Samsung had in fact infringed upon a number of Apple patents, subsequently awarding the company $119.6 million in damages. The jury also found that Apple infringed upon one of Samsung's asserted patents, tacking on a $158,400 damages amount in the process. In the wake of the jury's findings, Apple issued a statement to Re/Code applauding the ruling: We are grateful to the jury and the court for their service. Today's ruling reinforces what courts around the world have already found: that Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products. We are fighting to defend the hard work that goes into beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees devote their lives to designing and delivering for our customers. Note, though, that a final damages amount hasn't yet been reached because Apple's legal team, in going over documents from the jury, found that damages from an infringing Samsung product hadn't been added to the final tally. As a result, the jury will reconvene on Monday morning to determine just how much Apple is owed. Whatever the final judgement comes out to, it will still be a far cry from the $2 billion Apple was seeking and significantly less than the nearly $900 million Apple secured during its first California legal tussle with Samsung. At the time of this writing, neither Samsung or Google have issued statements regarding the jury's findings.
As trial concludes, Samsung states: "We don't think we owe Apple a nickel"
With Apple and Samsung's second California trial coming to an end, both sides this week presented their closing arguments to the jury. Whereas the first trial between the two tech giants was rife with behind the scenes info detailing the origins of the iPhone, not to mention a slew of fascinating iPhone prototypes, this trial was a bit less sensational. Nonetheless, a whole lot is at stake with Apple seeking upwards of $2.2 billion in damages. And highlighting just how far apart the two companies are in that regard, Samsung contends that if it owes anything at all, $7 million is a more appropriate estimate. According to the Wall Street Journal, Samsung's star lawyer John Quin explained to the jury during closing arguments, "We don't think we owe Apple a nickel. They'll be dancing in the streets of California if you give them $100 million." Recall that during the first California trial, a jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages, a figure which was later reduced to a still formidable $930 million. As for the content of each sides closing arguments, the themes were similar to what we've been hearing over the past few weeks. While Apple asserts that Samsung purposefully copied some of the iPhone's key features in an effort to boost its own smartphone sales, Samsung argues that Android engineers at Google were working on certain software features before the iPhone popularized them. And as for the patents at issue -- which you can read about in-depth over here -- Samsung argues that they, in and of themselves, aren't even compelling enough as to influence a consumer's purchasing decision. In other words, Samsung is essentially saying that Apple's asserted patents aren't really that special or important. Driving the point home, Samsung stressed during the trial, and again during its closing argument, that a few of the patented features at issue were never on the iPhone to begin with. How then, Samsung asked, could these patents be worth over $2 billion? "You can't copy if it's not there", Samsung's attorneys emphasized. The WSJ adds: Continuing its strategy during the trial, Apple in closing arguments recapped a broad story about Samsung's copying and asserted the need for justice for the company and its inventors. Samsung reiterated a narrower reading of patents, making a case that individual patents are a small part of a modern smartphone or tablet computer. As for the particulars of Apple's closing argument, Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny reiterated Apple's oft-repeated claim that the iPhone was a revolutionary product that Samsung just swooped in on and copied without any consideration of intellectual property rights. "Where was Samsung before the iPhone?" McElhinny asked the jury. "You know the answer to that one. They didn't even have a smartphone." And now, the onus is on the jury to render a verdict in either direction. Should Apple come out on top, it will be particularly interesting to see how Apple's damages award stacks up to the $2 billion it's seeking. For a full blow by blow account of each side's closing argument, Re/Code has a solid recap that's worth checking out.
