back to article Koh YEAH! Apple, Samsung finally settle iPhone patent crusade

Apple and Samsung appear to have once and for all settled their years-long smartphone patents squabble. The two sides mercifully signaled a truce this week in a filing to the US Northern District Court of Lucy Koh, the US district court judge unfortunate enough to have presided over the entire seven-year legal ordeal. " …

  1. Mark 85 Silver badge

    Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

    This battle is over, but about the war?

  2. SVV Silver badge

    Steve Jobs vowed to launch the legal equivalent of "thermonuclear war" against Samsung

    Neither side won, and the cost was enormous, with the end result being a big pile of nothing, so the polo necked visionary was proved right yet again.

    1. Mark 65

      Re: Steve Jobs vowed to launch the legal equivalent of "thermonuclear war" against Samsung

      Neither side won? I thought I read in the article that Apple received $500+m. Probably covers their legal fees and doubles Samsung's. That's a win, not to mention getting phones banned from sale.

      1. DougS Silver badge

        Re: Steve Jobs vowed to launch the legal equivalent of "thermonuclear war" against Samsung

        They received $500+ million from the first suit, and had been awarded another $500+ million from this one, which one would assume Samsung would pay as part of the settlement since the prospect of reducing it through appeal had become rather remote.

        A billion dollars obviously more than pays for Apple's legal fees, even at the crazy fees these teams must charge, but if Steve Jobs was still around I don't think he'd consider it a "win". The real lasting legacy is that companies may be a bit more wary about being in a position where they may be sued for violation of a design patent, since while the Supreme Court puts some limits on their value, a jury may still assign a rather substantial value to them (about 50% of Samsung's profit from the phones at issue, in this case)

      2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: Steve Jobs vowed to launch the legal equivalent of "thermonuclear war" against Samsung

        Neither side won?

        The war? Definitely not. Winning the war would have been making a significant change in the way Samsung phones are designed and/or Android. Apple successfully collected some pocket change, without in any way impeding the Android steamroller.

        1. bazza Silver badge

          Re: Steve Jobs vowed to launch the legal equivalent of "thermonuclear war" against Samsung

          Indeed, and arguably they have both been caught napping as phones are increasingly a commodity item which is driving prices down, and no amount of notching or blinging can save it. Arguing about rounded corners is stupid when the Chinese are undercutting your market position.

      3. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        Re: phones banned ...

        The law moves really slowly. By the time any phones got close to being banned they were end of life with new versions already on sale.

      4. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

        Re: Steve Jobs vowed to launch the legal equivalent of "thermonuclear war" against Samsung

        Neither side won? I thought I read in the article that Apple received $500+m. Probably covers their legal fees and doubles Samsung's. That's a win, not to mention getting phones banned from sale.

        It depends how you define "won". Yes, Apple trousered a healthy amount of cash, but in doing so they demonstrated behaviour which a lot of people would regard as twattish. Apple won financially, but I don't think there are many who would say that they scored a clean moral victory.

    2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: Neither side won?

      The lawyers won big time.

      Remember there is a cost to using glass to the edge of the device, four rows of icons and the colour black. For Samsung, the cost was about $500M. For Apple, the cost was in increase in the price of Samsung displays. For Apple customers the cost was inferior displays from other manufacturers.

      (The rectangle with rounded corners and photo-shopped aspect ratio was a case heard in the UK and the UK enforced its ruling on the rest of Europe)

      1. DougS Silver badge

        @Flocke Kroes

        For Apple, the cost was in increase in the price of Samsung displays. For Apple customers the cost was inferior displays from other manufacturers.

        On what do you base your assertion that Samsung hiked the price they were charging Apple for displays? And what "inferior displays" are you saying they used??

  3. Ian Emery Silver badge

    But, but.....

    But how are the lawyers going to keep their babies in Gucci disposable nappies ($12,000 each) now??

    1. My other car WAS an IAV Stryker
      Paris Hilton

      Re: But, but.....

      Should have used this --->

      To answer your question, the lawyers can F*** OFF because NO ONE CARES (except for other high-falutin' types).

    2. Eddy Ito Silver badge

      Re: But, but.....

      Nappies? Come now, their kids are probably working on their third phablet.

  4. Jyve

    Self inflicted

    That Apple still has to go back to Samsung for so many parts of their phones, and Samsung will crank up the cost of those components to cover some of the loses here, Apple really must at one point have realised that this was a stupid way to try and get a discount.

    I'm sure that's why Jobs started, but the moment the lawyers took over, it escalated into this mess we say, and though Samsung 'lost' the case, there was still plenty of evidence showing that Samsung threw designs at the wall and saw what stuck, they'd been making phones for a long time before Apple turned up asking for help/parts to make their phone, and Apple did exactly the same things they accused Samsung of, ie, looking at other products and copying/refining them, but then going the extra mile to patent it.

    The moment in the case it was shown Apple had photoshopped a Samsung device to make it look more like iOS was the moment the case should have been thrown out. Then that initial settlement being found against devices the case said didn't infringe?

    Samsung were screwed from the start. I'm still not understanding how the Judge was allowed to run this case after having worked on Patents/IP issues for Apple before in the past. That there was a risk she herself could be called as a witness at some point was just crazy and should never been allowed to happen.

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Self inflicted

      Apparently.... Apple has turned to LG for a big chunk of the OLED displays for the next iPhones. This dilutes Samsungs stranglehold over Apple. Perhaps the thing that settled the case was Apple saying to Samsung, 'how about zero OLED panels for the next 5 years? Now do you want to settle?"

      Pure speculation naturally. Time for a Beer or three (Firebird Best Bitter) and to watch the footy.

  5. deltamind

    Finally! the battle is over.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019