The California trial between Samsung and Apple is now headed for a scheduled start in late June, after the companies could find "no clear agreement," a Samsung official told The Korea Times. Both companies reportedly held firm in their respective beliefs, as Samsung believes Apple should pay royalties for using wireless transmission technology, while Apple believes Samsung copied the design of its iPhone and iPad.
The lack of resolution is not surprising to onlookers, as the discussions involving Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook and Samsung CEO Choi Gee-sung were court-ordered. The two took part in discussions on Monday and Tuesday of this week in San Francisco, Calif.
A similar outcome occurred last year, when Oracle's Larry Ellison and Google's Larry Page took part in a court-ordered mediation. No settlement was reached in that case either, and the case eventually went to trial.
Though the discussions with Apple have concluded, Samsung CEO Choi and Shin Jong-kyun, the company's mobile division chief, remain in the U.S. and are reportedly inspecting the company's stateside operations before returning to their home country of South Korea.
Experts have said that thus far, there has not been much of an incentive for Apple to settle its patent infringement dispute with Samsung, as the iPhone maker has yet to lose an infringement claim lodged by Samsung. Instead, Apple has earned a handful of victories and won infringements barring the sale of various Samsung products around the world.
Apple hopes to find even more success in the courtroom with a new injunction filed last week in the U.S. against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1. An injunction against the device would not likely be a major financial issue for Samsung, which previously redesigned the device in Germany to avoid infringement. But it would be a publicity win for Apple, which has asserted that Samsung has illegally copied the look and feel of its popular iPhone and iPad product lineups.
43 Comments
Of course they didn't! Why on earth would Apple be interested in "agreements" when they could just as easily get what they want out of a trial?
To what advantage is it to Apple to offer concessions, especially at this very point in the company's amazing performance? Apple is set to own the next 5-7 years in consumer tech. There is no reason to not push their legal concerns as hard as possible. Consumers are on board, Apple has the money and the experience, etc. Why bother negotiating with the competition? Just so you can chip away at your own level of differentiation? Differentiation is the rarest commodity in this turkey of an industry that Apple has turned on its head. To give *any* of that away via patent concessions or licensing agreements is madness. The only reason Apple is a force today (and a key reason for their unparalleled success) *is* a level of differentiation that no one else has employed or has been able to.
Time to carry out Steve Job's wishes of "going nuclear"?
Wow. What a surprise.
Of course they didn't! Why on earth would Apple be interested in "agreements" when they could just as easily get what they want out of a trial?
To what advantage is it to Apple to offer concessions, especially at this very point in the company's amazing performance? Apple is set to own the next 5-7 years in consumer tech. There is no reason to not push their legal concerns as hard as possible. Consumers are on board, Apple has the money and the experience, etc. Why bother negotiating with the competition? Just so you can chip away at your own level of differentiation? Differentiation is the rarest commodity in this turkey of an industry that Apple has turned on its head. To give *any* of that away via patent concessions or licensing agreements is madness. The only reason Apple is a force today (and a key reason for their unparalleled success) *is* a level of differentiation that no one else has employed or has been able to.
Couldn't have put it better. Be it a Kia or a few years back, Lexus / Toyota copying a BMW or Mercedes design or some cigarette lighter maker in Japan 40 years ago copying Ronson's design I am personally sick and tiered of this Asian MO of simply making what the west designs only cheaper (which easy in many cases if you are just copying). It's about time some company stood up to them.
Of course they didn't! Why on earth would Apple be interested in "agreements" when they could just as easily get what they want out of a trial?
To what advantage is it to Apple to offer concessions, especially at this very point in the company's amazing performance? Apple is set to own the next 5-7 years in consumer tech. There is no reason to not push their legal concerns as hard as possible. Consumers are on board, Apple has the money and the experience, etc. Why bother negotiating with the competition? Just so you can chip away at your own level of differentiation? Differentiation is the rarest commodity in this turkey of an industry that Apple has turned on its head. To give *any* of that away via patent concessions or licensing agreements is madness. The only reason Apple is a force today (and a key reason for their unparalleled success) *is* a level of differentiation that no one else has employed or has been able to.
Well put. There may be agreements and compromises to be made on such things as wireless transmission technology, but when it comes to hardware and software design (as in the aesthetic qualities and the resultant user experience), it is a different story.