After presiding over multiple patent litigation cases between these two tech giants, Judge Lucy Koh became informed that the CEO's of both companies would actually come together with a mediator and try to come to settlements on their own. This came after Koh's court actually asked that these companies try to reach a settlement before their next major trial on March 31 in San Jose.
Early media reports actually stated that these companies did in fact meet but that the CEO's were unable to reach a settlement after their first session, probably an outcome that most could have predicted. However, the lines of communication have apparently not been cut. The companies actually are continuing to talk (with a mediator of course). Both companies have made statements that they are willing to do this for however long it takes.
What makes this difficult, is the fact that this is not just a state matter, but a global dispute. Each company has a plan for a certain geographic area and it becomes hard to generalize an overarching plan for all different areas. Therefore, it appears that the companies will require even more guidance from courts, which tells us that we should not expect an agreement in the near future. It is likely that the March lawsuit, and possibly subsequent lawsuits, will indeed occur. Nonetheless, if the companies can come up with a settlement anytime in the next 5 years, both companies will be spared precious time and money as the smartphone industry reaches new heights.
(Information obtained from http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/apple-samsung-confirm-failure-of.html)
Early media reports actually stated that these companies did in fact meet but that the CEO's were unable to reach a settlement after their first session, probably an outcome that most could have predicted. However, the lines of communication have apparently not been cut. The companies actually are continuing to talk (with a mediator of course). Both companies have made statements that they are willing to do this for however long it takes.
What makes this difficult, is the fact that this is not just a state matter, but a global dispute. Each company has a plan for a certain geographic area and it becomes hard to generalize an overarching plan for all different areas. Therefore, it appears that the companies will require even more guidance from courts, which tells us that we should not expect an agreement in the near future. It is likely that the March lawsuit, and possibly subsequent lawsuits, will indeed occur. Nonetheless, if the companies can come up with a settlement anytime in the next 5 years, both companies will be spared precious time and money as the smartphone industry reaches new heights.
(Information obtained from http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/apple-samsung-confirm-failure-of.html)
It is nice to hear that despite all the disputes, the CEOs of Apple and Samsung are making an effort to reach a settlement. Although this may take a long while, since every compromise each side makes can be worth billions of dollars in revenue, it is still a venue for the two CEO to communicate. Eventually, regardless of how the case turns out, should an agreement not be met, the communication could still improve the ties between the companies even if they are direct competitors.
ReplyDeleteI think having a mediator resolve the issue is the best way to go about this problem. Precedent examples have shown that if the courts were to issue a landmark decision which could have major implications financial implications for a company (especially an American one), that the executive branch would step in and reverse their ruling, essentially wiping out months of arguing, lawyers fees, and decision making (like what happened when President Obama overturned the ruling against Apple). However, if the two CEOs are able to reach an agreement, the government will not need to get involved and they can reach an amicable settlement which would not alienate one company (aka Samsung in the Apple vs. Samsung case where President Obama overruled the ruling in the Courts).
ReplyDeleteSettlements are nice, but to settle a difference, in opinions must be settled as well. That means coming to an agreement. Coming to an agreement would mean somebody has to shell out money as a result of patent infringement damages. A company would probably go to court if they think that they have not infringed on any patents, and win the battle, rather than settle and lose money that they otherwise would not had to have paid out. More importantly, settling could also point to a sign of weakness for the company, and therefore they might rather want to go to court to delay the process by which they would be forced to pay for patent infringement. So, even though the CEOs says they want to come to agreement, I'm not really sure how much that is a public stunt for media, more than it is the honest truth. I would be glad and optimistic though if they are being frank about this.
ReplyDelete