We are just a few weeks away from the second major Apple v. Samsung trial to happen in Northern California, but we still haven't wrapped up the first one. Why does Samsung think they should get a re-trial of the last re-trial, and what does the judge think of all of this?
It's the intellectual property world we live in: companies that do nothing but buy and sell patents try to get rich quick in court by bullying the actual innovators and technology leaders. When one of these patent trolls files a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against Apple over technology that was originally invented for car phones, is it a sign that the problem has really gone too far?
A few days ago, Google and Samsung announced a surprising 10-year global patent licensing agreement. Mostly it was surprising because Samsung suing Google for patent infringement is about as likely as you suing your parents for patent infringement. So why bother? To attempt to make Apple look bad, and thereby prove the point that nothing is going to change anytime soon.
Google formed with an internal motto of "Don't Be Evil" in response to the perceived business practices of Microsoft, and then proceeded over the years to manipulate customer data (see what Google does when you search) and force software on users (see how you are already signed up for Google+) much like Redmond. Now the Mountain View company is taking hypocrisy to a new level with their latest lawsuit against the Apple- and Microsoft-led Rockstar Consortium. Ah, the irony!
Now that Apple has proven in court that Samsung slavishly copied the iPhone, and proved it twice, we have approached the part of the event where everyone scrambles to figure out who owes what part of the bill. Like two people on a blind date gone bad, Apple and Samsung both want to go home without paying any more than they have to. Here's hoping they just use one credit card for the bill, because people who give the waiter a handful of plastic to ring up separate amounts are totally annoying. Don't do that. So, what's the damage? Read on.
An electrical engineer filed a lawsuit against Apple in California, claiming that he invented the smartphone and Apple was infringing on his idea. The jury sided with Apple, but it wasn't as clear-cut as you might think. Was this another case of a patent troll trying to score big against Apple, or was it a case of a deep-pocketed corporate behemoth crushing the little guy? Read on.
The jury reached a verdict this afternoon in the "Groundhog Day" retrial between Apple and Samsung, and the decision hits Samsung's bank account hard. The ruling brings the total amount Samsung owes Apple fairly close to the original amount the jury decided upon last summer, give or take a hundred million. And despite all the numbers flying around, the biggest story coming out of this courtroom is possibly what the jurors ate for lunch. Read on.
In August of 2012, a jury awarded Apple over $1 billion in a lawsuit against Samsung. That decision was just the beginning. Now, both companies are squaring off in the courtroom again for the first of three major showdowns that will take place over the next few months. These trials could bring the end of the Patent Wars, or they could spawn and endless sea of appeals and retrials. One question that should be answered rather soon: How much of that $1 billion will Samsung have to pay Apple, anyway?
Samsung and Apple have been dueling in the courtroom for several years now, and the so-called Patent Wars continue without any apparent end. For the first time, however, one company is going to have to watch while a bunch of its products are stripped from store shelves and blocked by customs. And that company is not Apple. This is likely to be a fairly traumatic event for Samsung; will it be enough to bring them to the negotiating table?
When Tim Cook led the big Apple Event last month announcing the new iPhone 5c and iPhone 5s, a lot of comparisons to his predecessor were made. Almost universally, it was declared once again that Tim Cook lacks whatever magic Steve Jobs had on stage. However, perhaps Tim Cook will do a better job of not breaking future patents with his lack of stagecraft; sometimes the ability to project a powerful "reality distortion field" has unintended consequences.