In the past week Apple’s marketing chief, Phil Schiller, gave three interviews and the company sent out a new “Why iPhone” email campaign – both timed perfectly around the announcement of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone, the Galaxy S4. Some have called it out as Apple going on the defensive, others have said it's Apple on the offensive. I’m not sure that you can categorically say it’s one or the other – it doesn’t really matter much.

(more…)

The jury sitting on the Apple and Samsung trial in California has largely found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple’s intellectual property. The nine jurors unanimously came to agreement, largely finding in Apple’s favour and thus awarding Apple $1.049 billion in damages.

Apple was succesful on a number of claims it put to the jury, but not necessarily against all the phones and tablets that Apple claimed to infringe. One such claim that Apple was particularly succesful in claiming ingringement was the notorious ‘bounce-back’ patent in which the jury found every one of the accused devices infringed on – similarly with Apple’s scrolling and two finger gestures, the jury agreed that nearly all the devices did infringe the patent.

But Apple certainly wasn’t succesful on every front, and one notable area in which the jury did not agree with Apple was in regards to the claim that Samsung’s patents were invalid. In fact the jury didn’t find a single patent, on either side, was invalid.

When the verdict was read, there was minor mistake in the damages calculation that lead the jury to go back and reconsider the decision. It had arisen when Samsung pointed out that the jury had awarded damages for some devices that the jury had said didn’t infringe.

[via AllThingsD, The Verge]

Next: Injunction Hearings

Now that the jury’s verdict has been handed down, the next step will be a preliminary hearing on injunctions. Apple will have to file its requests by August 27th (this coming Monday), at which point Samsung will have two weeks to respond. The actual hearing will be held on September 20th.

[via The Verge]

Samsung Responds To Verdict

Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.

[via The Verge]

Apple Responds To Verdict

We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.

[via AllThingsD]

Tim Cook Emails Apple Employees

Today was an important day for Apple and for innovators everywhere.
Many of you have been closely following the trial against Samsung in San Jose for the past few weeks. We chose legal action very reluctantly and only after repeatedly asking Samsung to stop copying our work. For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money. It’s about values. We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. And we do this to delight our customers, not for competitors to flagrantly copy.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the jury who invested their time in listening to our story. We were thrilled to finally have the opportunity to tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than we knew.
The jury has now spoken. We applaud them for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.
I am very proud of the work that each of you do.
Today, values have won and I hope the whole world listens.
Tim

[via 9to5 Mac]

Microsoft Responds To Verdict?

Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now.

— Bill Cox (@billcox) August 24, 2012

Using Bing Local Scout on my Windows Phone to look for a place to drink a pint. Love that UI. Fresh. Unique. Different. That is all.

— Frank X. Shaw (@fxshaw) August 24, 2012

[via The Verge]

Apple has today won a preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the US, just a day before Google’s I/O conference begins. Issued by US Disctrict Judge Lucy Koh, it means that Samsung can no longer sell their tablet in the United States.

Although Samsung has a right to compete, it does not have a right to compete unfairly, by flooding the market with infringing products. While Samsung will certainly suffer lost sales from the issuance of an injunction, the hardship to Apple of having to directly compete with Samsung’s infringing products outweighs Samsung’s harm in light of the previous findings by the Court.

The judgment from Judge Koh also came before Friday’s hearing that was meant to cover the preliminary injunction. She said in her order that the strength of Apple’s case left her no choice but to grant the injunction, deciding she didn’t need to hear further arguments on the issue in Friday’s hearing. As noted by AllThingsD, she had previously denied a preliminary injunction request against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 by Apple back in December.

Once Apple fronts up with a $2.6 million bond (for Samsung if it is later ruled the injunction should not have been granted), the order will become effective. Speaking to an Apple representative, AllThingsD got a familiar statement on the matter:

“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging

[via AllThingsD]

John Biggs writes “Why Samsung Is The Next Apple”:

Then consider Samsung’s lead in cellphone sales. While many would argue that Samsung specializes in meh and me-too, 60 million cellphones sold in 2011 can’t be a fluke. This isn’t about Android or iOS or Windows Phone – it’s about Samsung making and selling millions of phones to millions of people. Samsung is mercenary. They’re happy to use anyone’s OS as long as it puts phones into boxes and boxes into shopping bags.

So you have two superlatives: biggest phone manufacturer and biggest TV manufacturer. Add in some tablets, some washing machines, and some acceptable software and you have a real and vibrant ecosystem. The next year will bring plenty of efforts to bring streaming media into the home, but the guy who is already there will win.

John Biggs surely has been to CES more times than I have (actually, I never have) and he knows this industry, but he’s plain wrong. On several fronts. John is looking at the problem from the tech nerd’s perspective — the one that considers gadgets alone, and probably tech specs, the most important factor in the ecosystem equation.

There are many issues with this way of thinking. First: “some acceptable software” and “some washing machines” alongside mobile devices and TVs are not enough to build a “real and vibrant ecosystem”. It’s a start — though we could argue on the washing machines — but it takes a lot more. Ask Apple, who’s the company Biggs is comparing Samsung to, that is been building an ecosystem and devices for more than 10 years and yet sometimes still struggles to keep it all together. Ask Google, who still can’t get their social act together after all these years spent indexing people’s search results and web behavior.

Samsung is huge. It’s a huge company with a huge array of devices in a variegated catalogue of different hardware. But it takes an awful lot of software to build ecosystems, and TouchWiz is a laughable foundation for a “real and vibrant” ecosystem.

Second, it takes experience. Apple and Google (and Microsoft, too) have been building ecosystems of apps, services and users for years. It’s not just the software itself, as in the operating system that runs on computers and smartphones. Does Samsung sell songs? Do they host millions of user accounts? Do they facilitate digital purchases thanks to a system that has millions of credit cards on file? Do they run the most popular email web service in the world?

The answer is they don’t, but they sell a lot of Galaxy S units, Smart TVs and consumer devices. Yet in the popular line that Biggs mentions, the smartphones, they don’t completely own the experience: for as much as they customize Android with their UI “innovations”, the OS is still being made and maintained by someone else. Samsung may be selling millions of smartphones and they’re undoubtedly on track for a successful 2012 with televisions, but I just don’t see how the millions of devices Samsung is selling now can nurture a vibrant ecosystem with just some acceptable software and washing machines.

Is there any doubt that owning the experience is key to building a real ecosystem?

Apple, Google and Amazon seem to agree with me. Also worth remembering: Samsung comes from an OEM perspective that’s always generally used software by others, or at least never fully committed to building real ecosystems with its own code. The three companies above have been preferring the integrated approach as of late, with only some exceptions (Google has its own OSes but lacks hardware; Amazon is doing its own hardware but still forks Android).

Third: Apple — which I mention because Biggs compared it to Samsung — doesn’t just sell millions of devices, build and own its software ecosystem and nurture customer lock-in (as loyalty is apparently defined these days) — they also have a direct, strong relationship with customers through a retail presence worldwide. The importance of retail stores in relation to the ecosystem can never be stressed enough — it’s overlooked sometimes, so I’ll just link to the actual numbers again. Retail stores have become the link between software ecosystems (which are intangible) and the real world, which is made of people. Does Samsung have any plans about that? They’re doing something, and they also have good taste in icons.

Last, I could illustrate the theory on Samsung doing pretty well as long as Apple designs great things, but I’ll just make the facts speak for themselves (again).

It takes years to build an ecosystem. And I don’t see how we can write Samsung “will be the next Apple” just yet.

There have been a lot of twists and turns in the Apple and Samsung legal battle and the latest milestone saw a US judge deny Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction to stop sales of some Galaxy devices in the US. What this means is that Samsung can continue to sell all their Galaxy devices in the US for the time being. Interestingly, Judge Lucy Koh noted that Apple will likely succeed in proving that Samsung’s Galaxy products infringe Apple’s patents, but she didn’t grant the injunction because it wasn’t demonstrated that it would cause irreparable harm to Apple if the Galaxy products stayed on sale.

The Verge got a statement from Samsung on the ruling:

Samsung welcomes today’s ruling denying Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction. This ruling confirms our long-held view that Apple’s arguments lack merit. In particular, the court has recognized that Samsung has raised substantial questions about the validity of certain Apple design patents. We are confident that we can demonstrate the distinctiveness of Samsung’s mobile devices when the case goes to trial next year. We will continue to assert our intellectual property rights and defend against Apple’s claims to ensure our continued ability to provide innovative mobile products to consumers.

It was also revealed yesterday that Apple had given some work-around options to Samsung for how they could side-step their iPhone and iPad design patents. Matt Macari from The Verge has an excellent article that covers the issue in great depth and clarity. In short, Apple had to make a list of alternative design choices to make the argument that Samsung did have other choices when designing their smartphones and tablets and they chose to emulate Apple instead. Some of the alternatives Apple made include:

• Front surface that isn’t black
• Display screens that aren’t centred on the front face and have substantial lateral borders.
• No front bezel
• Front surface that isn’t entirely flat
• Cluttered appearance

[The Verge (1) (2)]

Between quality control issues at LG Display that were finally reported as resolved in September, and the ongoing patent litigations between Apple and Samsung, Sharp could become the next display vendor for Apple’s iPads.

When the iPad 2 launched in March, Apple quickly turned to Samsung and Chimei Innnolux as customers complained of light leakage around the bezel of LG-based displays. For much of the year, a combination of quality control issues and late shipments had Apple turning to these other manufacturers to pick up the slack. At the end of August, LG Display finally shipped its due quota of four million panels. The iPad 2 didn’t begin shipping on time until after July. While LG Display expects supply shipments to return to normal, the failures of LG Display to correct its manufacturing issues on time and the untrustworthiness of Samsung would have Apple looking for alternatives. Sharp could be the premium candidate for future iPad displays, such as next year’s rumored Retina Display for the iPad 3.

According the Wall Street Journal, Sharp has reported they’ll begin mass-producing smaller displays at the Kameyama No. 2 plant in Mie Prefecture by the end of the year, a plant previously used solely for the production of TV panels. WSJ reports that Sharp already supplies displays for Apple’s iPhones, and that they could become the premier supplier next year with the introduction of newer models. Apple’s alleged investments in Sharp’s panel manufacturing facilities in Japan lend some additional credence to this claim.

Samsung Chief Operating Officer and President Lee Jae-yong said in October he had discussions with Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook about extending Samsung’s deal to supply parts to Apple through 2013-2014.

Component deals in a competitive market, however, may keep Samsung in the loop. With proof of manufacturing capability and the technology already in place, Samsung is still a critical component of Apple’s supply chain. At the end of the fourth fiscal quarter in September, Apple reported 11.1 million iPads sold compared to 4.2 million iPads sold just a year ago.

[via WSJ]

Samsung today filed for a preliminary injunction against the iPhone 4S in Australia and Japan. This is the latest development in the complex legal battle between Apple and Samsung which has spread across the world since Apple originally revealed it was suing Samsung over the “look and feel” of it’s Galaxy devices.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Japan filing (which is also attempting to halt sales of the iPhone 4 and iPad 2) cites infringements in technology and user interface patents, whilst in Australia Samsung is claiming that Apple has infringed on patents related to wireless telecommunication standards. The move comes after Samsung was dealt a blow in Australia last week, with the preliminary injunction against its Galaxy Tab 10.1 was upheld. A Samsung spokesperson said that this latest legal action is them “now counterattacking Apple again”.

Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents believes that the attack on the iPhone 4S in Australia  is “doomed to fail” because the patents Samsung is using in the filing are related to 3 patents declared as essential to the 3G telecommunications network. As he explains, it would be unlikely that an Australian judge would take a significantly different approach as occurred last week in the Netherlands:

…a Dutch judge already made it clear that Samsung can’t seek an injunction based on such patents, and I’d be extremely surprised if an Australian judge took a different perspective on FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing commitments… The odds are very long against Samsung overcoming all of Apple’s defenses.

Speaking on the situation in Japan, FOSS Patents says it is less clear what will happen as Samsung’s filing there also relates to user interface patents that “are presumably not subject to FRAND licensed commitments”. This means Samsung could seek injunctions on them and it would be up to Apple to contest their validity. The patents apparently relate to “the display of a flight mode icon, the utilization of homescreen space, and an app store menu structure”.

[Via The Wall Street Journal, FOSS Patents]