A huge decision was layed down yesterday in probably the largest ongoing patent war between Apple and Samsung. Federal judge Lucy Koh, who has been overseeing much of the San Francisco-based parts of the trial rejected Apple's request to ban certain Samsung smartphones and tablets. These were devices that he been determined to infringe on various Apple patents. The same judge had previously ordered that Samsung pay damages to Apple amounting to $929 million, which is orders of magnitudes higher than most damages paid by smaller firms in similar cases. In this order, however, the judge concluded that the consumer demand was not driven by the infringing elements, which was the crux of Samsung's argument. Because of the fast-moving nature of the smartphone and tablet industries, the devices at question in the case are actually not even being sold anymore.
What I find interesting here, is that Apple tried to go in for the kill by requesting an injunction on sales for Samsung's phones and tablets. This came even though, as stated above, the devices in question would probably not even be on the market by the conclusion of the trial. I would have thought Apple would have been satisfied with the nearly $1 billion in damages that Samsung has to pay. However, I think this has to do with more than finances for both companies. Apple is trying to assert its dominance in the space, by employing expensive and aggressive litigation tactics. Although the result for this case wasn't detrimental to profits from sales, it was a huge win for Samsung in terms of morale and realizing that they can in fact survive the onslaught of Apple's litigation.
(Information obtained from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/us-apple-samsung-injunction-idUSBREA251JM20140306)
(Information obtained from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/us-apple-samsung-injunction-idUSBREA251JM20140306)
How wise is it to have the same judge constantly hear the same Apple/Samsung issues over and over again? It seems like the judge may develop some sort of bias from previous trials which may influence his/her ruling in later trials (even though the judge in the case ruled in favor of Samsung this time and in favor of Apple last time). I think it would be much better to have different judges preside over the different lawsuits and perhaps the judges could rotate through the cases they hear so they are not constantly listening to the same attorneys and can have some time to review over why they ruled the way they did before they hear a similar case again.
ReplyDeleteRoshan, you bring up a good point that patent litigation has become tool for competitors to use against each other to try to prevent sales. Patent litigation is no longer about protecting novel ideas, but more of a strategy to dominate the market. It would be great if you can add the sources of these cases/articles for us to read and learn more about them.
ReplyDeleteJega, I completely agree with you, when you say that having the same judge preside over different cases between the same companies could definitely allow room for bias. I think that it could be beneficial to have other judges for future cases between Apple and Samsung. To play devil's advocate, one possible pro to having the same judge could be that she knows the full history and therefore the lawyers for both sides wouldn't dare try and not present the whole truth.
ReplyDeleteArezu, sorry I hadn't presented the link earlier but I have updated the post with the link!