Analysis of the Apple Inc. vs. Samsung Electronics Co. case cash included?Organizations' response to this?Part of Google in this?Apple didn't sue Google?Observers on both sidesConclusion: Who won?What was the point of this case? For the most recent case, Apple documented a lawsuit against Samsung on February 8, 2012, accusing it of having encroached on a few licenses. Samsung then documented counterclaims against Apple. In Apple's unique lawsuit, the organization said Samsung "methodically duplicated Apple's creative innovation and products, strengths and features, and flooded markets with invasive gadgets with the end goal to usurp a piece of the pie from Apple " Judge Lucy Koh ordered the preliminaries should begin on March 31. The whole row began when Apple documented a lawsuit against Samsung in April 2011, accusing its opponent of duplicating the look and feel of its iPhones and iPads. Samsung countersued, and the case moved to pretrial in August 2012. A nine-man jury favored Apple on many of its patent encroachment claims against Samsung. It's a $1 Apple Reward. 05 billion in damages, significantly less than the 2.75 billion sought by the Cupertino, California, organization. Samsung, which had asked for $421 million in its countersuit, got nothing. Regardless, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in March 2013 held another pretrial to recalculate part of the damages caused by the situation, reaching $450. 5 million reduction on the first judgment against Samsung. In November, a jury awarded Apple an additional $290. 5 million in damages, bringing the total damages to $930 million. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay on What Do Organizations Support? Mac argued, as it had before, that it took a lot of work and risk to build the mainline iPhone and iPad. Samsung then argued that Apple was trying to damage the rivalry by focusing on it for the lawsuit. He also claims that Apple has encroached on part of his licenses. “Without the ability to enforce its licensed innovation rights, Samsung would not be able to deliver on the broad promise of innovative work that has allowed it to pave the way for various changes across a wide range of advancements” , the organization said in a statement. in April 2012. Which licenses were replicated? Seven licenses were at issue in the most recent case: five held by Apple and two by Samsung. Apple criticized Samsung for encroaching on US licenses Nos. 5, 946, 647; 6, 847, 959; 7, 761, 414; 8,046,721; and 8,074, 172. All identify with programming strengths, for example, quick connects for '647, general search for '959, basic adjustment for '414, swipe to open for '721 and a word solution scheduled for '172. . Overall, Apple claimed that the licenses improve convenience and make the user interface even more attractive. Samsung then accused Apple of having encroached on American licenses Nos. 6, 226, 449 and 5, 579, 239. The '449 patent, which Samsung acquired from Hitachi, includes the utility of a device photo and an organizer. The '239 patent, which Samsung also obtained, covers the utility of video transmission, and the Korean company has accused Apple's FaceTime ofencroached on technology. Which licenses have been encroached on? The jury found that the majority of the devices denounced by Samsung infringed on Apple's '647 patent "quick connections", but that none infringed on the '959 patent "general tracking" or on the '414 patent "synchronization basic". Results have been mixed for the '721 "slide-to-open" patent, with some Samsung gadgets, for example the Galaxy Nexus, encroaching, and others not. Judge Koh, in a pre-trial ruling, had officially ruled that Samsung had infringed on the '172 "programmed word review" patent, and the jury had essentially found damages. Which gadget was hacked? The Samsung Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy S2, Galaxy S2 Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S2 Skyrocket and Stratosphere have infringed on Apple's '172 patent. These gadgets – along with the Galaxy Note 2, Galaxy S3, and Galaxy Tab 2 (10.1) – also infringed on Apple's '647 patent. The Samsung Admire, Galaxy Nexus and Stratosphere were found to infringe on Apple's 721 patent. The Macintosh iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPod Touch (fifth generation, 2012), and iPod Touch (fourth generation, 2011) were found to infringe on Samsung's '449 patent. To understand which licenses each Samsung device is accused of infringing on (signified by an X) and which licenses the jury ultimately decided Samsung had violated (signified by an asterisk X*), refer to the diagram below. How far did it take? The case began March 31 with jury selection and concluded May 5. The court sat on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays during the month of April, with the organizations authorizing a total of 52 extended reporting periods, three extended opening periods, and four extended closing periods. The jury began its reflections late in the day of April 29. He made a decision late in the day on May 2, but Judge Koh looked back at the jury on May 5 to recalculate one of the damage figures. The jury asked Samsung to pay $119. 6 million for encroaching on three of Apple's five licenses, significantly less than the 2 dollars. The iPhone producer had asked for 2 billion. In the meantime, Apple was asked to pay Samsung $158,400 for encroaching on one of the Korean organization's two licenses. Samsung had asked for $6. $2 million in damages, and he claimed that if he had encroached on the majority of Apple's licenses, he only owed $38. 4 million. While the organizations sought damages, the case was about more than money. What is really at issue is the mobile phone market. Macintosh currently gets 66% of its deals from the iPhone and iPad; Samsung, based in South Korea, is the world's largest maker of cell phones; and both must continue to dominate the market. Organizations' response to this? Apple said Friday, following the ruling: "The current decision reinforces what courts around the world have actually found: that Samsung stole our thoughts and duplicated our products in an unwavering manner. We are fighting to protect the diligent work that is dedicated to the most expensive products like the iPhone, which our representatives dedicate their lives to describing and conveying to our customers " Samsung said on Monday, following the jury's recalculation: "We agree with the choice. of the jury to reject Apple's horribly misrepresented damages guarantee, although we are disappointed by the encroachment finding, we are convinced that for the second time in the United States, Apple has encroached on Samsung's licenses. It's our long history of development and duty of purchasing decision that have driven us to becometoday the pioneer of the multi-purpose sector. ".Part of Google in this? Samsung claimed during prelims that most of Apple's strengths, Apple said, were an element of Android, Google's portable operating system that powers Apple's gadgets. Samsung all licenses except one, called "slide to open", are integrated into Android, the Korean organization said, accusing Apple of attacking Android Apple argued that the preliminary encroachment of. patent had nothing to do with Android It turned out at first, however, that Google was helping Samsung with its coverage for two licenses, '414 for the base association and '959 for the overall licenses. used by Apple specifically target Android's strengths created by Google, including the Google search box and Gmail. Target alternative licenses include those that can be modified by handset creators or by the Android open source network. confirmed that Samsung did not infringe on the '414 and '959 licenses but rather that it violated Apple's three different licenses. The jury said Google did not consider encroachment or harm in its choice, but it trusted Apple and Google were hoping to fight specifically rather than include phone makers, e.g. Samsung . “I think if you really think that Google is something that is causing all of this, as I think everyone has seen, don't avoid the real problem,” said Tom Dunham, president of the jury and head of programming at IBM who resigned. . "The truth is that Apple has intellectual property rights that they have invested in. So does Samsung. So does Google. Give the courts the chance to choose, but a simpler methodology could be considered." Apple didn't sue Google? Suing Google wouldn't get Apple far since Google doesn't make its own phones or tablets and gives up its framework for nothing. Instead, Apple has sued organizations that offer physical devices using Android, a competitor to Apple's iOS mobile operating system. Specifically, Apple hopes that Samsung has a system in place to duplicate its products and thus undermine Apple's ratings. For Apple, it is less demanding to point the finger at phone makers who generate revenue and profit from Android phones, unlike Google, which simply generates revenue in a roundabout way through advertising and mobile administrations. It's also easier to show an iPhone using a Galaxy gadget, demonstrating the similarities and describing how the iPhone came to be before other competing cell phones. Work had begun on Android before the iPhone launched, making it harder to sway a jury that Google was a copycat. Overall, these claims are part of a broader effort by Apple to halt the power of Android, which has long surpassed iOS as the predominant portable operating system. Apple isn't just looking for harm; he needs phones banned from the deal. Legal experts say Apple could negotiate more damages and perhaps gain a higher advantage by suing many cell phone makers than by simply going after Google. “It's significantly more viable to sue gadget producers because their incremental benefit per gadget is small compared to the benefit Google gets from getting close to your eyes,” said Chris Marlett, CEO of MDB Capital Group, a venture capital bank that maintains an innovation database..

Essay / Analysis of the Apple Inc. vs. Samsung Electronics Co. case cash included?Organizations' response to this?Part of Google in this?Apple didn't sue Google?Observers on both sidesConclusion: Who won?What was the point of this case? For the most recent case, Apple documented a lawsuit against Samsung on February 8, 2012, accusing it of having encroached on a few licenses. Samsung then documented counterclaims against Apple. In Apple's unique lawsuit, the organization said Samsung "methodically duplicated Apple's creative innovation and products, strengths and features, and flooded markets with invasive gadgets with the end goal to usurp a piece of the pie from Apple " Judge Lucy Koh ordered the preliminaries should begin on March 31. The whole row began when Apple documented a lawsuit against Samsung in April 2011, accusing its opponent of duplicating the look and feel of its iPhones and iPads. Samsung countersued, and the case moved to pretrial in August 2012. A nine-man jury favored Apple on many of its patent encroachment claims against Samsung. It's a $1 Apple Reward. 05 billion in damages, significantly less than the 2.75 billion sought by the Cupertino, California, organization. Samsung, which had asked for $421 million in its countersuit, got nothing. Regardless, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in March 2013 held another pretrial to recalculate part of the damages caused by the situation, reaching $450. 5 million reduction on the first judgment against Samsung. In November, a jury awarded Apple an additional $290. 5 million in damages, bringing the total damages to $930 million. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay on What Do Organizations Support? Mac argued, as it had before, that it took a lot of work and risk to build the mainline iPhone and iPad. Samsung then argued that Apple was trying to damage the rivalry by focusing on it for the lawsuit. He also claims that Apple has encroached on part of his licenses. “Without the ability to enforce its licensed innovation rights, Samsung would not be able to deliver on the broad promise of innovative work that has allowed it to pave the way for various changes across a wide range of advancements” , the organization said in a statement. in April 2012. Which licenses were replicated? Seven licenses were at issue in the most recent case: five held by Apple and two by Samsung. Apple criticized Samsung for encroaching on US licenses Nos. 5, 946, 647; 6, 847, 959; 7, 761, 414; 8,046,721; and 8,074, 172. All identify with programming strengths, for example, quick connects for '647, general search for '959, basic adjustment for '414, swipe to open for '721 and a word solution scheduled for '172. . Overall, Apple claimed that the licenses improve convenience and make the user interface even more attractive. Samsung then accused Apple of having encroached on American licenses Nos. 6, 226, 449 and 5, 579, 239. The '449 patent, which Samsung acquired from Hitachi, includes the utility of a device photo and an organizer. The '239 patent, which Samsung also obtained, covers the utility of video transmission, and the Korean company has accused Apple's FaceTime ofencroached on technology. Which licenses have been encroached on? The jury found that the majority of the devices denounced by Samsung infringed on Apple's '647 patent "quick connections", but that none infringed on the '959 patent "general tracking" or on the '414 patent "synchronization basic". Results have been mixed for the '721 "slide-to-open" patent, with some Samsung gadgets, for example the Galaxy Nexus, encroaching, and others not. Judge Koh, in a pre-trial ruling, had officially ruled that Samsung had infringed on the '172 "programmed word review" patent, and the jury had essentially found damages. Which gadget was hacked? The Samsung Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy S2, Galaxy S2 Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S2 Skyrocket and Stratosphere have infringed on Apple's '172 patent. These gadgets – along with the Galaxy Note 2, Galaxy S3, and Galaxy Tab 2 (10.1) – also infringed on Apple's '647 patent. The Samsung Admire, Galaxy Nexus and Stratosphere were found to infringe on Apple's 721 patent. The Macintosh iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPod Touch (fifth generation, 2012), and iPod Touch (fourth generation, 2011) were found to infringe on Samsung's '449 patent. To understand which licenses each Samsung device is accused of infringing on (signified by an X) and which licenses the jury ultimately decided Samsung had violated (signified by an asterisk X*), refer to the diagram below. How far did it take? The case began March 31 with jury selection and concluded May 5. The court sat on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays during the month of April, with the organizations authorizing a total of 52 extended reporting periods, three extended opening periods, and four extended closing periods. The jury began its reflections late in the day of April 29. He made a decision late in the day on May 2, but Judge Koh looked back at the jury on May 5 to recalculate one of the damage figures. The jury asked Samsung to pay $119. 6 million for encroaching on three of Apple's five licenses, significantly less than the 2 dollars. The iPhone producer had asked for 2 billion. In the meantime, Apple was asked to pay Samsung $158,400 for encroaching on one of the Korean organization's two licenses. Samsung had asked for $6. $2 million in damages, and he claimed that if he had encroached on the majority of Apple's licenses, he only owed $38. 4 million. While the organizations sought damages, the case was about more than money. What is really at issue is the mobile phone market. Macintosh currently gets 66% of its deals from the iPhone and iPad; Samsung, based in South Korea, is the world's largest maker of cell phones; and both must continue to dominate the market. Organizations' response to this? Apple said Friday, following the ruling: "The current decision reinforces what courts around the world have actually found: that Samsung stole our thoughts and duplicated our products in an unwavering manner. We are fighting to protect the diligent work that is dedicated to the most expensive products like the iPhone, which our representatives dedicate their lives to describing and conveying to our customers " Samsung said on Monday, following the jury's recalculation: "We agree with the choice. of the jury to reject Apple's horribly misrepresented damages guarantee, although we are disappointed by the encroachment finding, we are convinced that for the second time in the United States, Apple has encroached on Samsung's licenses. It's our long history of development and duty of purchasing decision that have driven us to becometoday the pioneer of the multi-purpose sector. ".Part of Google in this? Samsung claimed during prelims that most of Apple's strengths, Apple said, were an element of Android, Google's portable operating system that powers Apple's gadgets. Samsung all licenses except one, called "slide to open", are integrated into Android, the Korean organization said, accusing Apple of attacking Android Apple argued that the preliminary encroachment of. patent had nothing to do with Android It turned out at first, however, that Google was helping Samsung with its coverage for two licenses, '414 for the base association and '959 for the overall licenses. used by Apple specifically target Android's strengths created by Google, including the Google search box and Gmail. Target alternative licenses include those that can be modified by handset creators or by the Android open source network. confirmed that Samsung did not infringe on the '414 and '959 licenses but rather that it violated Apple's three different licenses. The jury said Google did not consider encroachment or harm in its choice, but it trusted Apple and Google were hoping to fight specifically rather than include phone makers, e.g. Samsung . “I think if you really think that Google is something that is causing all of this, as I think everyone has seen, don't avoid the real problem,” said Tom Dunham, president of the jury and head of programming at IBM who resigned. . "The truth is that Apple has intellectual property rights that they have invested in. So does Samsung. So does Google. Give the courts the chance to choose, but a simpler methodology could be considered." Apple didn't sue Google? Suing Google wouldn't get Apple far since Google doesn't make its own phones or tablets and gives up its framework for nothing. Instead, Apple has sued organizations that offer physical devices using Android, a competitor to Apple's iOS mobile operating system. Specifically, Apple hopes that Samsung has a system in place to duplicate its products and thus undermine Apple's ratings. For Apple, it is less demanding to point the finger at phone makers who generate revenue and profit from Android phones, unlike Google, which simply generates revenue in a roundabout way through advertising and mobile administrations. It's also easier to show an iPhone using a Galaxy gadget, demonstrating the similarities and describing how the iPhone came to be before other competing cell phones. Work had begun on Android before the iPhone launched, making it harder to sway a jury that Google was a copycat. Overall, these claims are part of a broader effort by Apple to halt the power of Android, which has long surpassed iOS as the predominant portable operating system. Apple isn't just looking for harm; he needs phones banned from the deal. Legal experts say Apple could negotiate more damages and perhaps gain a higher advantage by suing many cell phone makers than by simply going after Google. “It's significantly more viable to sue gadget producers because their incremental benefit per gadget is small compared to the benefit Google gets from getting close to your eyes,” said Chris Marlett, CEO of MDB Capital Group, a venture capital bank that maintains an innovation database..

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch