Apple, Samsung CEOs to hold last-minute lawsuit settlement talks
Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook will once again sit down with Samsung's CEO in an effort to reach a settlement in their ongoing patent infringement case before the jury begins deliberations.
Citing a person familiar with the matter, Bloomberg reported on Monday that Cook is set to engage with Samsung CEO Kwon Oh Hyun in private talks on the telephone. Lawyers representing Apple and Samsung will report on the outcome of those talks to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh.
Cook last met with the CEO of Samsung in May, but no resolution came about from those discussions and the trial between the two parties started in late July. Cook last spoke with Geesung Choi, president and chief executive of Samsung's digital media division, while the latest talks are said to involve Oh Hyun, the company's new CEO.
Oh Hyun was named chief executive of Samsung in June, and was immediately viewed as an Apple-friendly choice. Some industry watchers felt Samsung's choice of Oh Hyun was a sign that the Korean electronics maker was attempting to retain Apple as a customer for parts like mobile processors, flash memory and displays, even though Apple and Samsung remain bitter rivals.
The latest last-ditch talks between Apple and Samsung come as jurors in the California trial are awaiting a streamlined work sheet that will allow them to potentially enter a verdict in the patent infringement suit. Both Apple and Samsung have accused the other of violating patented inventions related to product design, software development and wireless communications standards.
Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook.
If a resolution cannot be reached in the talks between Cook and Oh Hyun, deliberations are expected to begin with the jury as soon as Tuesday.
Koh asked both parties to discuss a settlement last week, saying it was "time for peace." But lawyers representing each side made a joint filing on Saturday stating they had failed to narrow their dispute through those last-minute discussions.
Koh had hoped the parties would at least narrow their claims if a complete out-of-court settlement could not be reached. She felt a winnowing of claims would make it easier for jurors to come to a decision in the complex case.
Citing a person familiar with the matter, Bloomberg reported on Monday that Cook is set to engage with Samsung CEO Kwon Oh Hyun in private talks on the telephone. Lawyers representing Apple and Samsung will report on the outcome of those talks to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh.
Cook last met with the CEO of Samsung in May, but no resolution came about from those discussions and the trial between the two parties started in late July. Cook last spoke with Geesung Choi, president and chief executive of Samsung's digital media division, while the latest talks are said to involve Oh Hyun, the company's new CEO.
Oh Hyun was named chief executive of Samsung in June, and was immediately viewed as an Apple-friendly choice. Some industry watchers felt Samsung's choice of Oh Hyun was a sign that the Korean electronics maker was attempting to retain Apple as a customer for parts like mobile processors, flash memory and displays, even though Apple and Samsung remain bitter rivals.
The latest last-ditch talks between Apple and Samsung come as jurors in the California trial are awaiting a streamlined work sheet that will allow them to potentially enter a verdict in the patent infringement suit. Both Apple and Samsung have accused the other of violating patented inventions related to product design, software development and wireless communications standards.
Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook.
If a resolution cannot be reached in the talks between Cook and Oh Hyun, deliberations are expected to begin with the jury as soon as Tuesday.
Koh asked both parties to discuss a settlement last week, saying it was "time for peace." But lawyers representing each side made a joint filing on Saturday stating they had failed to narrow their dispute through those last-minute discussions.
Koh had hoped the parties would at least narrow their claims if a complete out-of-court settlement could not be reached. She felt a winnowing of claims would make it easier for jurors to come to a decision in the complex case.
Comments
Samsung's long-term success should be it's CEOs primary concern. If they know they're in the wrong here, there shouldn't be too much of a hit to honour or ego in taking this approach and they can move on by empowering their designers to blaze new trails.
I really hope that this can get settled out of court. Let's face it, both sides have at least a couple of valid arguements, although personally I do feel that a select few Samsung products, not all of the ones listed in this case, do come a little too close to copying. But I think cross-licensing would be the best solution here. Apple doesn't lose face if they can get a good deal on some of Samsung's patents, and Samsung could save face and hopefully retain some of Apple's production demands in their factories.
However, the realist in me says that this will go down to the jury, and regardless of which side they choose to "win" this case will drag on for a couple more years in appeals and counter-suits.
They should seriously settle. By the time Case Reviews, Appeals, Appeal reviews, etc will end in this case, multitude of years would have passed and legal fees itself would be greater than any potential award to any party.
2.5 billion will do no good to Apple balance sheet nor 500 million to Samsung's. Samsung has moved away from Apple designs from nexus and s3, and they are still competitive as per recent sales figures, quarterly revenues and profits.
Apple has achieved what it wanted. If by any chance, Apple loses this case, hell will break loose with copy cat products sprouting everywhere.
Apple should understand that message is already delivered to Android camp. By stretching this case, they risk many things, a, Risk of patents being held invalid b, Risk of scope of patents getting too narrowed to avoid copy cat products c, Risk of very less damage award. It will have an opposite effect of what Apple wants.
That's a really big IF.
Well, they certainly won't settle now.
Judge Koh has cancelled the jury instruction about Samsung deleting e-mails. Samsung argued that since Apple also deleted some e-mails that they both get the same instructions. Apple will appeal, of course, but they won't know the results of that until after they talk. So Samsung probably feels in a stronger position now.
I know Apple has failed to produce some e-mails, but Samsung is worse in this regard. Personally, I don't see how Judge Koh could give an "equal" instruction to the jury when the severity of their e-mail preservation is different.
My guess is she'll reverse the order, or maybe say something like "both parties have failed to produce e-mails, and the ratio is 80:20 for Samsung". This way the jury is advised that both sides have deleted e-mails, but that Samsung has deleted far more.
Otherwise Apple will have a great reason to appeal if they lose this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit
They should seriously settle. By the time Case Reviews, Appeals, Appeal reviews, etc will end in this case, multitude of years would have passed and legal fees itself would be greater than any potential award to any party.
2.5 billion will do no good to Apple balance sheet nor 500 million to Samsung's. Samsung has moved away from Apple designs from nexus and s3, and they are still competitive as per recent sales figures, quarterly revenues and profits.
Apple has achieved what it wanted. If by any chance, Apple loses this case, hell will break loose with copy cat products sprouting everywhere.
Apple should understand that message is already delivered to Android camp. By stretching this case, they risk many things, a, Risk of patents being held invalid b, Risk of scope of patents getting too narrowed to avoid copy cat products c, Risk of very less damage award. It will have an opposite effect of what Apple wants.
Apple need a win to protect themselves against the cases Google brought against them via Motorola.
Cook should not back down, Samsung have more to lose.
Wilful infringement = triple damages = $7.5 Billion and the withdrawing of $10 Billion a year in component purchases would be a huge hit to Samsung.
Cook needs to show that Apple aren't the walkovers they were in the early nineties, when Microsoft almost crushed the life out of them, Apple are back and they mean serious business.
Hard to believe there wasn't a confidentiality agreement negotiated between Apple and Samsung's chips and displays division by Tim Cook and Kwon Oh Hyun, the man who ran that division and who is now Samsung CEO.
Settle? Samsung will settle only if the jury goes against them decisively. Anybody who has done business in places like China, India, Korea, Russian, Brazil, etc should understand how most of the folks there operate. Agreements do not mean anything... they are meant to be broken. Courts take forever to resolve the issues. Even if one owns land and even office/dwelling, squatters can move in and it difficult to evict them. That is why many joint ventures in that part of the world fail... they foreign partners gets stiffed by the local guy.
I am just surprised the smart folks at Apple, starting with Cook, single sourced so many components like the CPU just from one manufacturer like Samsung. They continue doing this while fighting Samsung in court. Worst, when Apple buys components from Samsung, they are financing the plants, lowering the average costs, etc with economies of scale. The next batch of stuff that Samsung orders for its phones will cost even less that what Apple pays. When they order the parts like the A class CPUs, they give Samsung the circuit/logic diagram many months before the product comes to market. Duh... what do you think the "valued partner", Samsung does with the info?
I can see why Apple does biz with Samsung: short, intermediate term profits. It would cost more do the business by outsourcing from the likes of Intel, IBM, etc. Apple could fab the critical parts like the CPU. It would be able to retain the competitive advantage. Cook is over rated and certainly does not deserve the >500-600+M pay package. A lot of folks in that company contribute to the innovation and success of the company. Apple is will to pay $Ms to some bloke from Dixon's who promptly wants to fire retail staff at the Apple Stores. Oh, the stores are very profitable and well run... certainly better than the dumps that Dixon owns.
I guess I just need to be happy with the stock price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjitMD
Settle? Samsung will settle only if the jury goes against them decisively. Anybody who has done business in places like China, India, Korea, Russian, Brazil, etc should understand how most of the folks there operate. Agreements do not mean anything... they are meant to be broken. Courts take forever to resolve the issues. Even if one owns land and even office/dwelling, squatters can move in and it difficult to evict them. That is why many joint ventures in that part of the world fail... they foreign partners gets stiffed by the local guy.
I am just surprised the smart folks at Apple, starting with Cook, single sourced so many components like the CPU just from one manufacturer like Samsung. They continue doing this while fighting Samsung in court. Worst, when Apple buys components from Samsung, they are financing the plants, lowering the average costs, etc with economies of scale. The next batch of stuff that Samsung orders for its phones will cost even less that what Apple pays. When they order the parts like the A class CPUs, they give Samsung the circuit/logic diagram many months before the product comes to market. Duh... what do you think the "valued partner", Samsung does with the info?
I can see why Apple does biz with Samsung: short, intermediate term profits. It would cost more do the business by outsourcing from the likes of Intel, IBM, etc. Apple could fab the critical parts like the CPU. It would be able to retain the competitive advantage. Cook is over rated and certainly does not deserve the >500-600+M pay package. A lot of folks in that company contribute to the innovation and success of the company. Apple is will to pay $Ms to some bloke from Dixon's who promptly wants to fire retail staff at the Apple Stores. Oh, the stores are very profitable and well run... certainly better than the dumps that Dixon owns.
I guess I just need to be happy with the stock price.
most of the circuitry in the A class CPU's is designed by Samsung
until apple makes their own CPU from scratch they have to buy from samsung
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apple need a win to protect themselves against the cases Google brought against them via Motorola.
Cook should not back down, Samsung have more to lose.
Wilful infringement = triple damages = $7.5 Billion and the withdrawing of $10 Billion a year in component purchases would be a huge hit to Samsung.
Cook needs to show that Apple aren't the walkovers they were in the early nineties, when Microsoft almost crushed the life out of them, Apple are back and they mean serious business.
This kind of pipe dream is good to have, but it just won't happen.
Even if Apple won this trial and the appeal, the damage will be much less than people here dreamed of. Plus, unlike Samsung, Motorola/HTC phones are not as much a carbon-copy as the iPhone, and Google constantly update the Android software to avoid the infringement claims, it'll be even harder to nail those other guys unlike Samsung.
Wrong. Much of the circuitry in the Ax CPUs is designed by ARM and another large chunk is licensed from the GPU provider. Apple designed a portion itself, as well. Samsung had little (if anything) to do with the design of the Ax CPUs.
Also not true. There are other foundries which can make the CPU for Apple. In some cases, there might be a tradeoff in features and/or price, but it's certainly possible. And if Apple waves a big enough carrot, they might even be able to interest Intel - which would eliminate both of those concerns.
Judge Koh screwed Apple with her jury instructions, either because she's more interested in how she herself comes across in the trial than she is in getting a jury verdict that actually just... or because she thinks screwing Apple forces them to the bargaining counter. Either way, it was a sad moment for the American judicial system.
Maybe not as much as you would think. Samsung will want to save face in the settlement; they have now created their own brand which is actually different than the products they have infringed on in the past. A Galaxy S3 does not look like any Apple products (although it does look like what Apple would do if they were to make a 5" screen phone...). A non-cloning agreement would suit all parties well, and any settlement that is made would reinforce Apple's position in dealing with their mutual competitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Wrong. Much of the circuitry in the Ax CPUs is designed by ARM and another large chunk is licensed from the GPU provider. Apple designed a portion itself, as well. Samsung had little (if anything) to do with the design of the Ax CPUs.
You're wrong here. Apple's A4 was a direct tweaking of Samsung's reference design S5PC110, aka Hummingbird. While yes, both processors will be ARM 8 compliant, several studies show the the cores are identical. So actually yes, Samsung had everything to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Wrong. Much of the circuitry in the Ax CPUs is designed by ARM and another large chunk is licensed from the GPU provider. Apple designed a portion itself, as well. Samsung had little (if anything) to do with the design of the Ax CPUs.
Also not true. There are other foundries which can make the CPU for Apple. In some cases, there might be a tradeoff in features and/or price, but it's certainly possible. And if Apple waves a big enough carrot, they might even be able to interest Intel - which would eliminate both of those concerns.
Samsung engaged a company called Inrinsity which helped them come up with the Hummingbird SOC, which was announced a full year before the A4, which x-rays showed was near identical, implying Apple asked for a few custom mods to the Samsung design. Apple were so taken with the Hummingbird they then bought Intrinsity.
Since then, Samsung have come up with the Exynos line of processors, which are cutting edge. Samsung recently announced the worlds first ARM A15 based mobile processor SOC: http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/Exynos/products5dual.html
Sure Samsung get a lot of the basic design from ARM, but then so does just about everyone who designs or makes a mobile Processor, including Apple. Trying to spin it so as to give the impression Apple has vast chip design expertise and Samsung none is laughable.
What do think - Samsung just take ready made designs from ARM, with no further design input required, sticks them in a machine and hey presto, cutting edge SOC's come out the other end? if so, you must be smoking crack, as Judge Koh would say.
This continual denial that Samsung is anything but one of the worlds foremost technology companies reminds me of US auto makers who insisted the Japanese could never make decent cars.
Could both men please bring only interpreters, and lock their lawyers and corporate cheerleaders outside the room?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apple need a win to protect themselves against the cases Google brought against them via Motorola.
Cook should not back down, Samsung have more to lose.
Wilful infringement = triple damages = $7.5 Billion and the withdrawing of $10 Billion a year in component purchases would be a huge hit to Samsung.
Cook needs to show that Apple aren't the walkovers they were in the early nineties, when Microsoft almost crushed the life out of them, Apple are back and they mean serious business.
Agreed. If Apple truly believes in why it started this in the first place, it should unrelentingly stay the course. Either put the copyists out to pasture for good -- the dollar sum of compensatory damages is irrelevant -- or take it on the chin. Either way, it will be an unambiguous signal of what to do next, instead of the "let's hold hands and get to finish line" nonsense which merely kicks the can down the road.
Given all that has transpired, I believe strongly that Samsung will be swatted down like a fly by this jury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smack416
These two companies are so closely tied together Apple should be able to gain from Samsung a public acknowledgment and large settlement, along with a cross-licensing agreement (similar to the one with Microsoft, where they're not allowed to clone Apple's products) in exchange for Apple's continued reliance on Samsung for future parts.
Samsung's long-term success should be it's CEOs primary concern. If they know they're in the wrong here, there shouldn't be too much of a hit to honour or ego in taking this approach and they can move on by empowering their designers to blaze new trails.
I think that Samsung has "slavishly copied" Apple's products, but I agree with this 100%. +1