Apple heats up legal battle against Samsung with new ITC complaint
Apple has filed a U.S. trade complaint against Samsung in hopes of blocking the import of the company's Galaxy S phone and Galaxy Tab touchscreen tablet as the legal dispute between the two companies ramps up.
The new filing comes days after the Cupertino, Calif.-based company asked a federal court to bring sales of the aforementioned devices to a standstill in the U.S. The complaint was lodged with the U.S. International Trade Commission on Tuesday, countering patent infringement claims made by Samsung to the ITC last week in an attempt to block imports of Apple?s iPhone and iPad.
?Samsung has followed each of Apple?s groundbreaking products with imitation products that incorporate Apple?s technology and distinctive design,? Apple wrote in the complaint. If the commission decides to pursue an investigation, the case will be heard in 15 to 18 months.
Apple and Samsung began their legal dispute back in April when Apple accused the Korean electronics giant of copying the look and feel of its devices. The disagreement has since spread to courts in four countries (1, 2). During the case?s proceedings, Apple was granted a request to see copies of Samsung?s unreleased products, while a counter-claim from Samsung was denied.
In addition to competing with the company in the smartphone and tablet markets, Samsung serves as one of Apple?s key component partners, supplying chips for most of their leading products. Given the two close partnership between the two companies, some analysts have been surprised by the intensity of their legal disagreement.
?It has become very public and very ugly, very quickly,? Bloomberg reported Gleacher & Co. analyst Brian Marshall as saying. ?They?re just going after each other?s throats.?
Marshall believes that an import ban on Samsung?s devices is doubtful and predicts that both companies will eventually reach a settlement and cross-licensing deal. According to the analyst, Apple ?may not have a choice? in licensing its intellectual property to Samsung, which has a number of patents Apple needs.
As tensions between the two companies have mounted, some have speculated that Apple plans to reduce its reliance on its rival. Recent rumors suggest the iPhone maker will go with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company instead of Samsung for its ?A6? chip in 2012. Meanwhile, Samsung is restructuring its component operations and could be planning to spin off its semiconductor and LCD business to avoid a conflict of interest.
The new filing comes days after the Cupertino, Calif.-based company asked a federal court to bring sales of the aforementioned devices to a standstill in the U.S. The complaint was lodged with the U.S. International Trade Commission on Tuesday, countering patent infringement claims made by Samsung to the ITC last week in an attempt to block imports of Apple?s iPhone and iPad.
?Samsung has followed each of Apple?s groundbreaking products with imitation products that incorporate Apple?s technology and distinctive design,? Apple wrote in the complaint. If the commission decides to pursue an investigation, the case will be heard in 15 to 18 months.
Apple and Samsung began their legal dispute back in April when Apple accused the Korean electronics giant of copying the look and feel of its devices. The disagreement has since spread to courts in four countries (1, 2). During the case?s proceedings, Apple was granted a request to see copies of Samsung?s unreleased products, while a counter-claim from Samsung was denied.
In addition to competing with the company in the smartphone and tablet markets, Samsung serves as one of Apple?s key component partners, supplying chips for most of their leading products. Given the two close partnership between the two companies, some analysts have been surprised by the intensity of their legal disagreement.
?It has become very public and very ugly, very quickly,? Bloomberg reported Gleacher & Co. analyst Brian Marshall as saying. ?They?re just going after each other?s throats.?
Marshall believes that an import ban on Samsung?s devices is doubtful and predicts that both companies will eventually reach a settlement and cross-licensing deal. According to the analyst, Apple ?may not have a choice? in licensing its intellectual property to Samsung, which has a number of patents Apple needs.
As tensions between the two companies have mounted, some have speculated that Apple plans to reduce its reliance on its rival. Recent rumors suggest the iPhone maker will go with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company instead of Samsung for its ?A6? chip in 2012. Meanwhile, Samsung is restructuring its component operations and could be planning to spin off its semiconductor and LCD business to avoid a conflict of interest.
Comments
I still don't understand Apple motives here. Do they honestly think they will be successful in their efforts? What am I missing?
Specifically what they are asking for here? Probably not, but It's all part of the overall process.
I'm actually surprised to see absolutely no source material in the forums?
Does Apple insider have their own team of journalists that report (first hand) about these events?
I suspect these information are coming from secondary sources. The least you could do is give them some credit.
Apple may have had a point once upon a time. Wherever it was, it's now lost, with the picture now becoming tiresome. They're acting more like a spoiled child IMHO..
A spoiled child that doesn't want his stuff stolen.
I still don't understand Apple motives here. Do they honestly think they will be successful in their efforts?
Yes..
They're acting more like a spoiled child IMHO..
I don't understand this analogy. In what way is Apple like a 'spoiled child'? Spoiled by whom? When?
I still don't understand Apple motives here. Do they honestly think they will be successful in their efforts? What am I missing?
Maybe they don't like people ripping off their products?
I still don't understand Apple motives here.
You have absolutely no right to make your product look so much like mine.
Do they honestly think they will be successful in their efforts?
Yes.
What am I missing?
That they've won this sort of thing in the past so well that said losing company was bankrupted.
And with MS beating at Samsung's door for $15 per Android-based handset Samsung is getting it from all angles. But that's not necessarily a bad thing as it does mean Samsung is being very successful.....
It is certainly easier than more difficult to be 'successful' if one didn't have to come up with one's own IP or spend a lot of time and resources coming up with it.
(I am not suggesting that I know anything about the specific IP issues here, just making a general observation.)
I still don't understand Apple motives here. Do they honestly think they will be successful in their efforts? What am I missing?
Patents infringed upon must be legally defended or they will become useless.
Apple may have had a point once upon a time. Wherever it was, it's now lost, with the picture now becoming tiresome. They're acting more like a spoiled child IMHO..
Don't let a lack of understanding of infringement issues get in the way of a good ole snarky comment. Ignorance is always the best policy.
I don't understand this analogy. In what way is Apple like a 'spoiled child'? Spoiled by whom? When?
The newer claims are bordering silly IMO. The Galaxy Tabs would never be confused for iPads, not even the menu screens having any similarity to the iPad's splash screen. But that appears to matter not to Apple. They're screaming "mine, mine, give it back" louder than ever. Personally it looks like they've decided on the courts as another marketing arm.
They're losing my sympathy. In the beginning I felt that had a valid complaint with certain specific phones. Just my take on it.
The newer claims are bordering silly IMO. The Galaxy Tabs would never be confused for iPads, not even the menu screens having any similarity to the iPad's splash screen. But that appears to matter not to Apple. They're screaming "mine, mine, give it back" louder than ever. Personally it looks like they've decided on the courts as another marketing arm.
They're losing my sympathy. In the beginning I felt that had a valid complaint with certain specific phones. Just my take on it.
How did you conclude that, in the case of Tabs, Apple's complaint had anything to do with "menu screens"?
The complaint talks about "technology" and "distinctive design".
Design Patents are just that.
The newer claims are bordering silly IMO. The Galaxy Tabs would never be confused for iPads, not even the menu screens having any similarity to the iPad's splash screen. But that appears to matter not to Apple. They're screaming "mine, mine, give it back" louder than ever. Personally it looks like they've decided on the courts as another marketing arm.
They're losing my sympathy. In the beginning I felt that had a valid complaint with certain specific phones. Just my take on it.
Apple is on point and showing the same focus since they started. Samsung not so much.
It is certainly easier than more difficult to be 'successful' if one didn't have to come up with one's own IP or spend a lot of time and resources coming up with it.
(I am not suggesting that I know anything about the specific IP issues here, just making a general observation.)
Sound observation. Samsung may have known from the start they can't win against Apple but factored the payout as being far less than the potential gain. That is not uncommon in business.
I totally support Apple in this battle.
Sound observation. Samsung may have known from the start they can't win against Apple but factored the payout as being far less than the potential gain. That is not uncommon in business.
So, you're sure that Samsung is guilty,
Samsung not so much.
Why is not in focus? And why does it matter for the trial?
Honestly, I think Samsung has the upper hand here. From what I've read, Samsung has patents that apple needs, and if they pull out of their component business, it would hurt Apple more than Samsung considering that a) Apple is supply-constrained as it is, and I don't think anyone else has the excess capacity to match what they were getting from Samsung, and b) Other companies would likely gobble up most, if not all, of the capacity Apple had from Samsung.