Samsung Promises to Fight on in Internal Memo, Seeks to Overturn Galaxy Tab Injunction

[MacRumors]

With Samsung having already issued a public statement following the $1 billion verdict against the company in its patent and trade dress dispute with Apple, the company has now published its internal memo to employees about the issue, noting that it will continue to fight on through all available means until it wins its case.

Certainly, we are very disappointed by the verdict at the US District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA), and it is regrettable that the verdict has caused concern amongst our employees, as well as our loyal customers.

However, the judge's final ruling remains, along with a number of other procedures. We will continue to do our utmost until our arguments have been accepted.

The statement also takes a direct stab at Apple in suggesting that it will be impossible to win the "hearts and minds of consumers" by focusing on patent law abuse rather than innovation, as it believes Apple has done.

History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth, when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation.

We trust that the consumers and the market will side with those who prioritize innovation over litigation, and we will prove this beyond doubt.

Reuters also notes that Samsung has filed a motion seeking to overturn the preliminary injunction barring U.S. sales of its Galaxy Tab 10.1. Samsung argues that the jury found no infringement of the design patent cited in the injunction, and thus it is also seeking compensation for the effects of the injunction in requesting that Apple's $2.6 million bond be held. Apple will be arguing that the jury was incorrect in its ruling of non-infringement and that Judge Lucy Koh should overrule that decision.

Article Link: Samsung Promises to Fight on in Internal Memo, Seeks to Overturn Galaxy Tab Injunction

 

[GeekLawyer]

What a farce. But, I suppose, what else could they say to their employees?

"Uhm, yes, we copied Apple and were caught red-handed. But don't worry, we have some nifty innovations of our own to bring to the market. We just need three years and several billion dollars in R&D investment first."

 

[autrefois]

In other words -- For those who thought the decision might bring a stop to the endless news about this...think again.

 

[nrose101]

Instead of focusing on fighting to clear there name in a wrong they clearly did they should focus more on creating their own technology...

On the other hand maybe they know they aren't capable coming up with something original and secretly know they can only copy things to survive.

 

[nagromme]

There are definitely some consumers who will side with Samsung here, simply because some people will always side against Apple in all matters and ask questions later. But very few, and mainly limited to Android supporters who refuse to look at the specifics of the case. Apple has ALREADY won the hearts and minds of consumers as a group. And in a month, most people won’t even remember this case the way we tech-heads might.

And there are many consumers who don’t realize that (last I saw—new data would be welcome) Apple gets sued more than they sue others, that some suits actually have merits (this one was not about “rectangles”) and that Apple can hardly decide to be the one device maker that rolls over and won’t use the legal system.

But I’m not sure there are any consumers who would see Samsung copying Apple as an example of “innovation,” and who’d want to fight for LESS variety and choice in the market!

To look at the phone and tablet market today—ALL of which, from Android to Microsoft, was inspired by Apple’s revolution and would not be as it is without Apple—and then say Apple’s not an innovator but Samsung/Android are, is just blatantly absurd. (But Microsoft has taken Apple’s path and done something original with it—proof it can be done!)

 

[randomnut]

"We trust that the consumers and the market will side with those who prioritize innovation over litigation, and we will prove this beyond doubt."

Err that document where Samsung shamelessly detailed every little aspect of iOS they wanted to copy because theirs was completely insufficient basically meant its curtains for any of ther arguments.

So then Samsung given you have been found by your own documents to be ripping others off, who exactly is innovating then?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

And there are many consumers who don’t realize that (last I saw—new data would be welcome) Apple gets sued more than they sue others, that some suits actually have merits (this one was not about “rectangles”) and that Apple can hardly decide to be the one device maker that rolls over and won’t use the legal system.

Just going to point out that Apple opened the can of worms so it will take the heat. Apple refused to cross licence it patents and wanted the same low rate others paid on FRAND that were cross licencing. Apple also does not have any patents in the FRAND pool.

Apple is sued a lot because they are not paying up and then they are suing with Craptents. Apple is the worlds largest patent troll. Only differences is this troll has things that can be fired back on.

 

[kdarling]

Err that document where Samsung shamelessly detailed every little aspect of iOS they wanted to copy because theirs was completely insufficient basically meant its curtains for any of ther arguments.

That review document was not about direct copying. It was about looking for areas of improvement.

So then Samsung given you have been found by your own documents to be ripping others off, who exactly is innovating then?

Likewise, Apple's own internal documents revealed that their Senior VP for iOS used a 7" Tab, and decided that Apple needed to get into that market because the experience on the Samsung product was actually pretty good.



They're both the same idea: you look at your competition to improve your own products.

 

[bonaccij]

There are definitely some consumers who will side with Samsung here, simply because some people will always side against Apple in all matters and ask questions later. But very few, and mainly limited to Android supporters who refuse to look at the specifics of the case. Apple has ALREADY won the hearts and minds of consumers as a group. And in a month, most people won’t even remember this case the way we tech-heads might.

And there are many consumers who don’t realize that (last I saw—new data would be welcome) Apple gets sued more than they sue others, that some suits actually have merits (this one was not about “rectangles”) and that Apple can hardly decide to be the one device maker that rolls over and won’t use the legal system.

But I’m not sure there are any consumers who would see Samsung copying Apple as an example of “innovation,” and who’d want to fight for LESS variety and choice in the market!

To look at the phone and tablet market today—ALL of which, from Android to Microsoft, was inspired by Apple’s revolution and would not be as it is without Apple—and then say Apple’s not an innovator but Samsung/Android are, is just blatantly absurd. (But Microsoft has taken Apple’s path and done something original with it—proof it can be done!)

And to add to that - Microsoft's willingness to license certain Apple IP in order to continue innovation in the tablet arena speaks mountains as how valid Apple's IP actually is. It would be difficult to argue with anyone who had actually followed the case and read the evidence as presented that the jury should have or could have decided any other way.

 

[pubwvj]

The real question is how long until Samsung has dug its hole deep enough that Apple fills in the hole, buys up the plummeting Samsung stock and turns Samsung into one of Apple's manufacturing division. For Apple this is a petty cash transaction.

 

[nick_elt]

They should try them in a saudi court. Then chop their hands off for stealing.

 

[Will do good]

The statement also takes a direct stab at Apple in suggesting that it will be impossible to win the "hearts and minds of consumers" by focusing on patent law abuse rather than innovation, as it believes Apple has done.

What a bunch of BS. For a company that's known for stealing other people ideas.
Did they laugh when they try to write that?

 

[pubwvj]

They're both the same idea: you look at your competition to improve your own products.

There is a big difference between looking at other products on the market and copying to such a detail that the products appear identical to consumers which creates confusion in the market place.

 

[b33g33]

Hearts & Minds

You win the hearts and minds of the consumers by creating superior products that provide a best of breed ownership experience and pair that up with good customer support with a dash of solid reliability to achieve customer satisfaction and loyalty.

The only issues I've ever had with Apple products are the closed ecosystem and the relatively high price of entry. I do feel that this is mostly offset by the fact that most Apple products are far more reliable than the competition and continue to be supported by Apple for a longer lifetime.

My iPhone 3Gs is still working perfectly after 3 years and is capable of running the latest OS from Apple. I'll probably upgrade to the new hardware in September but will, more than likely, hand the 3Gs over to someone else to use. Compare that to my last Samsung 'smartphone' (WinMobile + Keyboard) that basically started breaking down after 2 years or my Lenovo 'Tablet' that started leaking bonding glue through the screen after 2 years of use.

Blatantly copying market leaders and undercutting them to sell product to the lowest common denominator doesn't make you a fan favorite Samsung. Suck it up and actually consider doing something innovative and interesting for a change.

 

[kdarling]

There is a big difference between looking at other products on the market and copying to such a detail that the products appear identical to consumers which creates confusion in the market place.

I agree with your premise, and I think Samsung could've avoided a lot of pain by not doing things like initially using rounded icon backgrounds... prior art by themselves, of course... on some screens.

I politely disagree about the confusion that was actually caused in this case.

I don't think anyone walked into a store determined to buy an Apple product and, by themselves, bought a Samsung because they were confused by the normally hidden app drawer screen or by packaging (asuming boxes were even visible). The law does not protect people who don't at least look at the brand.

It's far, far more likely that a salesperson talked them into buying a non-Apple item, in order to get more commission.

This wasn't a case about buyer confusion. It was about using the same visual cues to make a product more attractive on its own; cues that Apple (rightfully) claims as their own when combined in almost exactly the same way.

 

[KdParker]

And the saga continues....

Not sure that most consumers really care about patent infringments.

However, if you get the others guys product off the shelves, then we don't really have to care since only the winners product will be available.

That being said, wouldn't Samsung been better off just paying for the rights to use the patents? If the ruling stands, I think MS will be posed to gain some market share and Samsung's expense. (Second to Apple's gain - obviously)

 

[samcraig]

What a farce. But, I suppose, what else could they say to their employees?

I don't blame them any more or less than the PR "memo" sent by Apple to its employees. And if the verdict were different - I still would blame either company for rallying their own troops.

Hardly a farce.

 

[kdarling]

Someone here brought up a very interesting question the other day:

If the award was about compensating Apple for lost sales, then why were devices that were NOT available on AT&T during the iPhone's long exclusivity included?

In other words, is Apple claiming that everyone on other carriers who had a Android would've moved to AT&T to get an iPhone if their Android didn't have certain visual or action cues?

We know that didn't happen. Remember, Android phones didn't even have multi-touch enabled at first.

It would seem that lost sale compensation calculations should take this "wouldn't have bought an iPhone on AT&T anyway" factor into consideration.

 

[samcraig]

Someone here brought up a very interesting question the other day:

If the award was about compensating Apple for lost sales, then why were devices that were NOT available on AT&T during the iPhone's long exclusivity included?

In other words, is Apple claiming that everyone on other carriers who had a Android would've moved to AT&T to get an iPhone if their Android didn't have certain visual or action cues?

I think not. Remember, Android phones didn't even have mulit-touch enabled at first.

It would seem that such an award should take this "wouldn't have bought an iPhone anyway on AT&T" factor into consideration.

Kdarling - good point. But were the damages just US or worldwide. Because ATT was only exclusive here in the US.

Another point I found interesting to read elsewhere is that Apple believes that they are entitled to Samsung's entire profit on the sale of these phones even though the suit was only about a handful of violations. Apparently they believe the some of a few parts = the whole phone discounting anything Samsung brought to the table. Even Samsung's own patented technology.

 

[KdParker]

I agree with your premise, and I think Samsung could've avoided a lot of pain by not doing things like initially using rounded icon backgrounds... prior art by themselves, of course... on some screens.

I politely disagree about the confusion that was actually caused in this case.

I don't think anyone walked into a store determined to buy an Apple product and, by themselves, bought a Samsung because they were confused by the normally hidden app drawer screen or by packaging (asuming boxes were even visible). The law does not protect people who don't at least look at the brand.

It's far, far more likely that a salesperson talked them into buying a non-Apple item, in order to get more commission.

This wasn't a case about buyer confusion. It was about using the same visual cues to make a product more attractive on its own; cues that Apple (rightfully) claims as their own when combined in almost exactly the same way.

Agreed, but if the phones/tablets didn't have the same look and feel then the salesman wouldn't have been able to talk the consumer into getting and 'iPhone/iPad like' android product.

And you are spot about the higher commissions driving the salespersons. I had the a hardest time getting a phone for my kid back in January from Verizon stores. Everyone kept trying to steer me towards android phones.

 

[ixodes]

This is just another (expected) chapter in the ongoing saga of: "Apple sued the crap out of us and we are ANGRY".

This is one story that's going to go on and on and on... Piles of money wasted, Apple continues to look like the bully. All for naught.

If Apple would have simply focused on what they do best, and continued to innovate and compete on the open market, they would have dominated even more than they do today.

Being bigger, stronger, and classier than the rest, Apple was in the catbird seat.

Then they stupidly flew out into the traffic and now they've begun a full scale war. Can they win it? Of course... but why?

It proves nothing more than they have the most money, the most influence and the biggest nastiest pit bull attorneys.

There's always more than one way to approach a problem. Sadly Apple stooped to the lowest level, hungry for a street fight.

 

[BJMRamage]

I politely disagree about the confusion that was actually caused in this case.

I don't think anyone walked into a store determined to buy an Apple product and, by themselves, bought a Samsung because they were confused by the normally hidden app drawer screen or by packaging (asuming boxes were even visible). The law does not protect people who don't at least look at the brand.

i know first-hand that there is confusion. maybe just elderly, but have been told to help fix something as we have the same phones...they had Samsung phones. wife had this happen at work too. we tell them they have a smartphone (and a samsung) NOT an iPhone.

now, were these people guided/misinformed by a salesman? perhaps. but the idea is some people still think they have an iphone when they don't.

----------

oh, and I had a nice time buying our iPhones at Radio Shack...the guy didn't care what phones we got and when i said I have a Mac and would be buying the iphone he suggested my wife get an iphone to have the same ecosystem.

But I know some people HATE the thought that Radio Shack/The Shack can sell Apple products.

 

[beegee675]

What about Samsung as an Apple supplier?

Haven't read anything how Samsung's response relates to their position as a supplier for Apple...
BG

 

[wkadamsjr]

History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth, when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation.

We trust that the consumers and the market will side with those who prioritize innovation over litigation, and we will prove this beyond doubt.

1. Obviously they have never met Apple supporters.
2. When has Samsung ever innovated in the mobile phone market?

 

[jayducharme]

Apple refused to cross licence it patents and wanted the same low rate others paid on FRAND that were cross licencing.

No, Apple was quite willing to license its patents and MS took them up on it. Samsung didn't.