You probably already forgot about this titan fight in court, but it’s not over yet. The two tech giants have been struggling since the early days of smartphone technology, with the initial 2011 process still in progress to this day. So how is this case?
Apple’s close relations with Samsung
It all began in 2010. In question are the patents for intellectual design and software that the maker of Cupertino smartphones accuses Samsung of copying. Apple, which viewed Samsung as a “trusted partner” at the time, did not immediately sue the South Korean company – Samsung provided (and continues to provide) millions of dollars worth of screens and other components to Apple’s factories. However, when executives of the two companies failed to agree on licensing, Apple went on the offensive, accusing Samsung of “slavishly” mimicking the design of the iPhone. The company has entered patent lawsuits in dozens of countries, including Germany, Japan and the US, and Samsung has accused the iPhone maker of infringing its 3G communications patents.
Apple accuses Samsung of copying iPhone 3GS
In 2011, Apple was launched in the iPhone sales. There was still no smartphone capable of responding to the technology, look & feel and popularity that the iPhone brought to market. This Samsung launch was a cloud on the horizon, which bothered Apple for several reasons. At the time the voices were consistent in pointing out the Samsung Galaxy S (released mid-2010) as being a “copy” of the Apple pearl of the height, the iPhone 3GS. It began here a face and long judicial dispute. The coffers of both companies have endured a long process where there are still no winners but both, by costs, have already expired. Attacks and counter-attacks, with threats, injunctions to ban sales of equipment in several countries, accusations of both parties have been stuffing the story ever since.
Apple wants a billion dollars
In October 2016, a US court gave (unexpected) reason to the Cupertino giant in the patent dispute process. These include the patents associated with the slide-to-unlock feature as well as the automatic correction, as well as the function that allows you to transform information, such as the address or the mobile phone number, into links that, according to the court, have been violated by Samsung. With this court ruling, the South Korean company was obligated to pay a total of $120 million to Apple only for these patents violated. The Seoul-based company appealed to the Supreme Court at the time. This latest appeal was rejected, which left Samsung with a problem of millions at hand. Even with a court ruling and appeals to that decision, denied, the matter did not end just because the courts ruled in favour of Apple. Although the courts have ruled that Samsung infringed Apple’s patents, arguments over how the components that Samsung infringed and how much Samsung should have to pay Apple are still just now being discussed. Traditionally, damages in this type of case are paid based on the profits of the “manufactured item” – or on the product that was constructed using the patents breached. Apple is arguing that every smartphone counts as the manufactured item, while Samsung states that it is the individual components that count as the final article.
But is this relevant?
Well, this seems to be an unnecessary argument, but the difference between the two points of view is very significant if we do not see: if Apple is correct, the Apple account points to compensation of more than one billion dollars, counting on all patents violated. However, if Samsung’s argument is valid, then the damages for the components’ profits would be only $28 million. And while these numbers are determined by the company’s own calculations, it is fair to assume that the court’s number may not be far behind. Samsung has hired a specialized witness, Sam Lucente, to argue that the components could be replaced by third-party components. With this seven-year process – not including the initial steps taken by Apple to resolve the case out of court in 2010 – and with discussions about the specifics still in progress, it does not seem likely that this case will be closed soon. So, what do you think about this? Simply share all your views and thoughts in the comment section below.
