Google Finally Responds To Apple Versus Samsung Verdict

A jury in the US doled out a whopping $US1.05 billion fine to Samsung over the weekend for what it deemed to be infringement on several of Apple's patents and both company's responded with the right level of anger (in Samsung's case) and glee (in Apple's case). But what did Google have to say? Now we know.

The search giant kept itself at an arm's length from the trial for a few days, despite the fact that all of Samsung's infringing products run on Google's Android operating system.

The Verge now has Google's full statement:

The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don't relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players - including newcomers - are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don't want anything to limit that.

Make of that what you will. [The Verge]


Comments

    Collaboration is the best way forward. Not suing your 'partners'. Samsung supplies several key components to Apple for their products, as most of you probably know. If they could collaborate, imagine what they could create?

      Samsung had the opportunity to 'partner' with Apple by licensing their intellectual property. They decided not to. HTC and others did, they're not being sued.

        The requested licensing was absurd. Apple can charge what they want, but the amounts they were requested ruled out the possibility of a partnership.

          Why, then, have other companies using Android managed it?

        yeah we apple demand $40 per phone from you because of pinch to zoom and bounce back scrolling, but we will pay you 5 cents for the crucial gsm chip.

          Bob, do you have any evidence to support this claim?

            It was $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet (which is a huge chuck of the profit per phone) and it no doubt covered more than pinch to zoom and bouncy scroll but http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/13/apple_licensing_deal_samsung_2010/ talks about it. I can't find much on the price of the gsm licence (it's not something companies advertise) but due to it being vital it's licensed at a cheap price so smaller companies can still compete.

              Apple dun wish anyone to follow what their are using, simple reason~!
              why dun samsung just come out something from ground, not using any existing "wow" factor from Ms or apple

      Collaboration can lead to great things, but too easily leads to mediocrity :) Imagine if USA and Russia had decided to collaborate instead of compete!

        Then we wouldn't of stock piled hundreds of nuclear weapons, scared generations of people, and might already be on mars.

          Competition does wonders - we might only be just getting jet engines, radar and the computer if it wasnt for WWII

            There are other factors that drive technological advancement, but you raise a good point. Competition is the key, but innovation wont happen if you don't share and copy. None of that would of been invented if some god like power prevented the opposition ever copying the first country with a weapon. There would of been no need to develop a faster or more powerful weapon at an accelerated rate (we would of stopped at swords or something) . If you can have competition and collaboration (like you see in the automotive industry) then you could get some really good stuff.

        one less Rocky movie?

          + 1

          haha :D

      What they COULD create would be amazing...
      What they would create is a monopoly in which everything is extremely overpriced, and new features withheld for later releases in order to make more profit, and release a "revolutionary" device each year.

    I actually wonder why a case as technically complicated as this one has clearly been, that it has been heard by a jury, with often clearly limited technical knowledge. And how did the jury determine that Apple lost a billion dollars because of a few aspects inherent in the way a device looked or worked?

    Did they have clear evidence that a rectangle with rounded corners, or a finger gesture, were the prime reasons that people purchased a Samsung over an Apple? And how many people actually made their purchasing decision based on these aspects? And is the billion dollars the actual profit forgone by Apple? Did the jury understand the destinction between profit and revenue?

      No what happened was the foreman of the jury was a patent holder himself, (he patented the idea for a home theatre pc / tivo 4 years after the tivo came out) and rather than reading all the facts he skipped over it by saying that he would explain to the jury how patents work and how prior art works. So it's really a bunch of technically inept people led astray by some one with his own opinion in how the patent system should work (so he can go and sue tivo)

        No what happened was the foreman of the jury was a patent holder himself, (he patented the idea for a home theatre pc / tivo 4 years after the tivo came out) and rather than reading all the facts he skipped over it by saying that he would explain to the jury how patents work and how prior art works. So it’s really a bunch of technically inept people led astray by some one with his own opinion in how the patent system should work (so he can go and sue tivo)

          Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

            Hi marioPS,
            Here is his patent, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7352953 . Tivo started limited public testing in 1998 (google it if you don't believe me) . and gorlak has reports on how he led the jury and skipped parts of the brief, justifying it by his own explanation http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 .

      They didn't. They ignored the jury instructions that said that damages are not supposed to punish, merely to compensate for losses. To quote the foreman; "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
      http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2012082510525390

        Thanks for the link, a very interesting read. This is likely to be a historic case, in more ways than one.

      One of the jurors have come out and openly admitted that the figures were decided upon to punish Samsung. Not to compensate Apple as the $$$'s should be based on.

      http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

        Yup, typical American jury. These people would would be great for making you rich if you fell over a crack in a pathway or choked on a peanut.
        Perhaps we should start calling them geniuses instead of the schulbs working in Apple retail?

        Thanks for those links, this gives me a bit more confidence that we'll see a more fair outcome
        from my reading, the u.s patent system is a real joke and things like shonky verdicts and abuse are common
        hopefully whatever the outcome of this case, it might lead to an overhaul of sorts of the system

      Ia that a rhetorical question? Do you need to have a look at the cv's of the jury before you can trust their verdict?

      If Apple were really concered that they lost some money from me when I bought my Galaxy S2, I hope they know that I had not intention and never will have any intentions on buying an Apple product. I never have had any intentions before this and this "judgement" won't change the fact. I bought my phone based on the specs and not on how "pretty" it is.

    okay Markd imagining... so basically no cold war, no build up of nukes no billions of dollars wasted on arms that never got used.

      but maybe no moon landing! Competition has always driven progress (though of course yes, usually at a terrible cost!).

        mind you in this case, I dont think apple is a company its possible to collaborate with anyway, the core mindset and design values of companies like samsung are so different, it'd never work

    This is a great result for consumers as it will drive innovation for smartphones and stop companies copying tried and tested designs. I still always use Android as Apple lacks the openness of Android.
    This result only makes the ios system more closed and will drive Google to come up new and interesting designs.

      It will dive the wrong kind of innovation, these big companies will now spend their resources trying to come up with the next slide to unlock instead of a super duper lte 5g or something. Would you prefer to wok your ass off coming up with a way to get data over the air at twice the rate and be paid 5 cents per unit, or a simple gui function that could get you a billion?

        Maybe samaung should have done all the hard work first, If they wanted to replicate apple's success. All they did is make some hardware with the same specs as iphone, picked up some free software and provided a cheaper phone. Now the free software has bitten them back. I wonder If google is going to pay Samsung 1 billion for some copied features.

          They have invented many hardware parts of the modern phone, not just built them; and apple has stolen plenty from android (care to go back to changing your icon layout with itunes instead of a long hold finger press). Nobody wins except the lawyers when you play these stupid games, and even if a company did it would only make things worse off.

            Mac took the mouse and GUI from Xerox originally... back when a Mac was a Mac. Now a Mac is a poorly-built INTEL with a messed up version of FreeBSD. As for Galaxy vs. iPhone, I know enough people who've owned both... iPhones fall to pieces fast (yes they're NOT gentle to their phones) while their Galaxy units are working after over a year of abuse. That trial was a farce.

          This coming from someone calling himself tech guy. Do the research first please. the hardware you referred to that Samsung allegedly "picked up", including chipsets, processors, memory modules and such have "Samsung " emblazoned on them, enforced by some patent that samsung had for inventing the stuff. The phone specs are of course at par or the same because the a5 came from samsung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A5 , i hate using wikis but im in a rush). I hate being a one sided prick in terms of this as my profession calls for impartiality but this case just had me raising my eyebrows to the extent of feeling numb up my forehead. crap i wasted a five minutes of my time.

    This comment has been deemed inappropriate and has been deleted.

    So does this mean iPhone users have to go back to using iTunes to change their App lay out... you know cause Android hand the hold a rearrange thing first.

      no when apple does it, it's being innovative; when samsung does it, it's stealing.

        I had never seen a smartphone that just worked the way the iPhone did. So yes it's innovation. By the time google did the same in android it was copying cos the iPhone had already done it better first.

          Polish isn't innovation. It's like saying i'm the only one allowed to make fast cars because i made the first one, so no one else should try. I don't even know why you lot care it's not like this extra billion is going to make apple any more 'innovative', unless it's jealousy.

      errr, you don't have to use iTunes to change your app layout. It's been there ios 3 (or 2)?

    It's no coincidence that apple is a US firm and they came on the top in a US trial. Not the first time this has happened or the last time it will happen. Don't expect the same outcomes in other trails around the globe. Mind you I don't profess to be a patent lawyer - and the thing is, to make a good judgement in such a trial you really have to be...

      Agree. I truly believe that the verdict will be different outside of US.

    How many of the jury had apple shares?

      Probably none when the case started..... check their portfolio now?? (jk)
      Apple may not pay dividends (or did they this last quarter??) but they may know how to thank their supporters.. (not customers, they are business, not family)

    so when is the antitrust lawsuit coming to Apple iPhone? only the europeans can save us now.

    Up till now I've been an iPhone fan & user. Dislike Apple's arrogant attitude on using patents for mere design features (which should merely be protected under Trade Dressing) rather than what patents really should be used for - genuine scientific inventions - so goodbye Apple iPhone for me - going to make my next phone (at the end of this current contract) a Samsung! May more people do the same, & show Apple what they think of their trying to monopolise the market. Knowledge has always built on previous knowledge & new designs & features have always been inspired by previous designs & features - just look at the art world in general!

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now