Apple, Samsung agree to mediate California patent dispute
In a joint statement filed to a California district court on Monday, Apple and Samsung announced an agreement to participate in court-supervised mediation of their years-long patent dispute.
Attorneys representing Apple and Samsung said in an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) statement lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that they are willing to enter mediation talks covering settlement terms relating to the first Apple v. Samsung patent trial. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero will preside over the discussions in November.
Apple is currently fighting for a total of $548 million in damages connected to its first court win, a sum eroded by retrials and successful appeals from Samsung.
Apple and Samsung CEOs previously agreed to court-supervised mediation before the first jury trial in 2012 and again ahead of a second trial in 2014, but both meetings fell short of achieving an amicable resolution.
Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit this month ruled Apple is entitled to block sales of handsets found to infringe on patented technology. The appeal stems from Judge Koh's initial ruling that afforded Apple damages and royalties for Samsung's unauthorized use of protected inventions, but not product embargoes.
Attorneys representing Apple and Samsung said in an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) statement lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that they are willing to enter mediation talks covering settlement terms relating to the first Apple v. Samsung patent trial. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero will preside over the discussions in November.
The decision to mediate comes as Apple v. Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh heads into the case's second damages retrial tentatively scheduled for March or April of 2016. Next year's action will be the third jury trial in the original Apple v. Samsung saga that in 2012 found Samsung accountable for $1.05 billion in damages for infringing on Apple patents. It will also be the fourth action to be heard by Judge Koh as part of Apple and Samsung's larger court struggle.Pursuant to the September 18, 2015, Case Management Order (Dkt. No. 3289), the parties jointly submit this update on alternative dispute resolution. The parties are willing to mediate with Judge Spero with a settlement conference deadline of November 15, 2015, and are conferring on scheduling.
Apple is currently fighting for a total of $548 million in damages connected to its first court win, a sum eroded by retrials and successful appeals from Samsung.
Apple and Samsung CEOs previously agreed to court-supervised mediation before the first jury trial in 2012 and again ahead of a second trial in 2014, but both meetings fell short of achieving an amicable resolution.
Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit this month ruled Apple is entitled to block sales of handsets found to infringe on patented technology. The appeal stems from Judge Koh's initial ruling that afforded Apple damages and royalties for Samsung's unauthorized use of protected inventions, but not product embargoes.
Comments
Sammy: Apple, pay us what you owe.
Apple: we don't owe you anything
Sammy: we don't owe you anything
Apple: yes, you owe 1 billion
Sammy: yes, you owe 1 billion
Apple: are you repeating what we say.
Sammy: are you repeating what we say.
Apple: stop that
Sammy: stop that
Hey gang! I just saw a Samsung commercial - it said, "The next Big Thing is here'!!!
So, I guess they've heard about the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus...
Can the next lawsuit be far behind...?
Of course that's probably what the lawyers say too!
Interesting development. I wonder if it relates to the appellate court ruling that said that Apple should have been able to get an injunction. Perhaps they will agree to a cross-licensing deal on future technology.
Dream on KPOM. Dream on. I sincerely doubt Apple will agree to a cross-licensing deal on future technology with Samsung. Samsung would mass produce every Apple idea as fast as it could to beat Apple to market with its own technologies. Why would Apple want to share technologies with a company like that?
Apple would never agree to licensing its technology. Why should it? It's their intellectual property and there are plenty of other companies it could give its business to or even build their own fabs if it came right down to it.
Sammy needs Apple's fab business. Got to think this plays a part.
Doesn't Apple need Samsungs fab process as well to stay cutting edge in terms of performance and battery life for the cutting edge ARM chips that Apple designs?
Samsungs fab process is generally the most advanced compared to others like TSMC who is always seems to be a few nano meters behind.
Same with Intel, they are at the top of the game in their respective processes as well as far as I can tell.
Seems like Apple would want the best most advanced chips they can get their hands on. Right now those chips seem to be from Samsung and Intel. Not TSMC and Qualcomm and AMD.
Globally it seems Samsung can sell enough chips in their own Samsung branded devices alone that it is enough to keep their furnaces burning with or without Apple. And the entire PC market still needs the kinds of chips that Intel makes. Regardless of how badly either company is tanking lately.
Anyway I apologize if that comes across as a rant. I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, just trying to make some sense of it all. And I want the best possible products.
I'm wondering if Apple will need sammy's chip business in the future though. When chips reach 60nm in size will sammy's %10 smaller chips make a difference? They can just dump Sammy at that point right?*
*this area is not my expertise. Just thinking here...
I'm wondering if Apple will need sammy's chip business in the future though. When chips reach 60nm in size will sammy's %10 smaller chips make a difference? They can just dump Sammy at that point right?*
*this area is not my expertise. Just thinking here...
This is clearly not my area of expertise either.
After reading a little bit more about TSMC it appears they have more capacity than anyone else.
But Apple may pay a price in both cost and loss of control if they decide to cut out Samsung completely. Without Samsung in the Apple game, Apple is left with one fewer competitor to squeeze TSMC for the chips they need at the moment. That might give TSMC more control at the table than Apple would prefer.
It appears smart for Apple to continue to pit them against each other for the best price and product. Regardless how many people feel about Samsung or what might be going on in the courts with other matters, Apple may be best served to continue using some Samsung parts.
Both TSMC and Samsung want in on the Apple gravy train. But even without Apple, TSMC has plenty to do making chips for Qualcomm, Nvidia, AMD, and others. Of course Samsung has plenty of devices and products of their own making for their own chips, let alone whoever else.
Again, I'm just a non-expert. I'm sure I am plenty wrong about enough here to be corrected.
I don't disagree, Apple like to have multiple options for sure. I have to wonder if push came to shove who needs who more in that specific question though. Who financially suffers most if Apple did stop all use of Samsung? Not saying they would but I wonder how the numbers play out if it happened?
It's not a dissimilar situation to the old 'does Apple need Google or Google need Apple' question. iOS 9 seems to have started the opening of the door to the answer to that one. It has been a long time coming and I suspect Google's income will drop as more and more ad blocking in iOS 9 occurs. My wife commented last night 'I can now use CNN again on my iPad, it isn't jumping all over the place! Why is that' , I hadn't told her I had added AdBlock to her iPad.
I don't disagree, Apple like to have multiple options for sure. I have to wonder if push came to shove who needs who more in that specific question though. Who financially suffers most if Apple did stop all use of Samsung? Not saying they would but I wonder how the numbers play out if it happened?
It's not a dissimilar situation to the old 'does Apple need Google or Google need Apple' question. iOS 9 seems to have started the opening of the door to the answer to that one. It has been a long time coming and I suspect Google's income will drop as more and more ad blocking in iOS 9 occurs. My wife commented last night 'I can now use CNN again on my iPad, it isn't jumping all over the place! Why is that' , I hadn't told her I had added AdBlock to her iPad.
I like your AdBlock story. I can't agree more with how improved browsing is now. Its like a breath of fresh air.
It will be interesting to see how all of this stuff plays out with both the hardware vendors and the advertisers as they scramble around.
Isn't it the other way around?
Read other posts on that comment ... we elaborated.
Your use of the word 'fab' is what sparked discussion.
Would never make financial sense unless Apple sold chips to everyone.