IndexWhat was this case for?What do the organizations argue for?What licenses were violated?How much did it take?Add the cash included?Response of the organizations to this ?A part of Google is involved?Apple did not sue Google?Observers on both sidesConclusion: who won?For what reason? For the most recent case, Apple filed a lawsuit against Samsung on February 8, 2012, accusing it of violating certain licenses. Samsung then filed counterclaims against Apple. In Apple's original lawsuit, the organization alleged that Samsung "methodically duplicated Apple's creative innovation and products, highlights, and blueprints and flooded markets with invading devices with the ultimate goal of usurping a slice of the cake from Apple". the preliminaries will begin on March 31. The whole dispute started when Apple documented a lawsuit against Samsung in April 2011, blaming its opponent for duplicating the look of its iPhones and iPads. Samsung responded to trial, and the case went to pretrial in August 2012. A nine-man jury favored Apple on most of its patent infringement claims against Samsung. This is a $1 Apple reward. 05 billion in damages, substantially less than the 2 dollars. 75 billion sought by the Cupertino, California organization. Samsung, which had sought $421 million in its countersuit, got nothing. However, in March 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh held another pretrial proceeding to recalculate some of the damages for the case, coming in at $450. 5 million discount on the first sentence against Samsung. In November a jury awarded Apple an extra $290. 5 million in damages, bringing the total damages to $930 million. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay What do organizations stand for? Mac argued, as he had previously, that he encountered a great deal of work and risk building the major iPhones and iPads. Samsung, then, argued that Apple was attempting to harm the rivalry by focusing on it for cause. It also claims that Apple has violated a portion of its licenses. “Without the ability to sustain its licensed innovation rights, Samsung would not have the ability to deliver on the broad promise of innovative work that has allowed it to pioneer changes across a broad range of advancements,” he said. the organization stated in a court filing. in April 2012. Which licenses were replicated? In the most recent case there were seven licenses in question: five held by Apple and two by Samsung. Apple blamed Samsung for violating US licenses no. 5, 946, 647; 6, 847, 959; 7, 761, 414; 8, 046, 721; and 8, 074, 172. All identify with programming highlights, for example, fast connections for '647, general appearance for '959, base adjustment for '414, slide to open for '721 and programmed word solution for '172. Overall, Apple said the licenses increase convenience and make the user interface even more appealing. Samsung, therefore, had blamed Apple for violating US licenses no. 6, 226, 449 and 5, 579, 239. The '449 patent, which Samsung acquired from Hitachi, includes the camera and organizer pairing utility. The '239 patent, also obtained by Samsung, covers the utility of video transmission, and the Korean organization accused Apple's FaceTime of infringing the innovation. Which licenses were violated? The jury found that mostof the devices reported by Samsung infringed Apple's '647 "fast connections" patent, but none infringed the '959 "widespread search" patent or the '414 "foundation synchronization" patent. Results were mixed for the '721 "swipe to open" patent, with some Samsung gadgets, for example the Galaxy Nexus, proving intrusive and others not. Judge Koh, in a preliminary ruling, had officially ruled that Samsung had infringed the '172 "programmed speech review" patent, and the jury essentially found damages. Which gadgets have been invaded? Samsung Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy S2, Galaxy S2 Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S2 Skyrocket and Stratosphere have invaded Apple's '172 patent. These gadgets, as well as the Galaxy Note 2, Galaxy S3 and Galaxy Tab 2 (10.1), also infringed Apple's '647 patent. Samsung Admire, Galaxy Nexus and Stratosphere were found to encroach on Apple's 721 patent. Macintosh's iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPod Touch (fifth era, 2012), and iPod Touch (fourth era, 2011) were found to encroach on Samsung's '449 patent. To understand which licenses each Samsung device is accused of infringing (indicated by an How long did this happen? The case began March 31 with jury selection and concluded May 5. The Court was in session on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays during the April term, with organizations allowed a total of 52 long filing periods, three long open-dispute periods, and four long closed periods. The jury began its deliberations late on April 29th. He reached a decision by the end of the day on May 2, however Judge Koh reviewed the jury on May 5 to recalculate one of the damages figures. Add up the cash included? The jury asked Samsung to pay $119. 6 million for violating three of Apple's five licenses, substantially less than the $2. 2 billion requested by the iPhone manufacturer. Meanwhile, Apple was asked to pay Samsung $158,400 for violating one of the Korean organization's two licenses. Samsung had requested $6. 2 million in damages, and had argued that if he had infringed most of Apple's licenses, he would only owe $38. 4 million. While the organizations sought damages, the case wasn't just about cash. What is really in question is the cell phone market. Macintosh currently gets 66% of its sales from iPhone and iPad; Samsung, based in South Korea, is the world's largest maker of mobile phones; and both must continue to dominate the market. Organizations response to this? Apple said Friday, following the decision: "This decision reinforces what courts around the world have actually found: that Samsung has unswervingly stolen our minds and duplicated our products. We are fighting to protect the diligent work done on more expensive products like the iPhone, which our representatives give their lives to outline and pass on for our customers." Samsung said Monday, after the jury's recalculation: "We agree with the jury's choice to reject the damages guarantee. Apple's horribly misrepresented, despite the fact that we are disappointed by the conclusion of invasion, we have confirmation that for the second time in the United States, Apple has violated Samsung's licenses our long history of development and duty towards the decision of the. buyer, which has led us to become the pioneers in the versatile industry today." Any part of Google in this?Samsung argued in preliminary proceedings that most of the features that Apple said were invaded were part of Android, Google's portable operating system that powers Samsung devices. All licenses except one, called "slide to open," are integrated with Android, said the Korean organization, which blamed Apple for attacking Android. Apple argued that the preliminary patent infringement had nothing to do with Android. Early on, however, it emerged that Google was helping Samsung with its protection for two licenses, '414 for basic bundling and '959 for all-inclusive business. The licenses used by Apple specifically target Android highlights created by Google, including the Google Search box and Gmail. The target of the alternative licenses includes that it can be modified by the makers of the phone or by the Android open source network. The jury confirmed that Samsung did not violate the '414 and '959 licenses but rather that it violated Apple's three different licenses. The jury said that Google did not take into account in its choice of infringements or damages, but trusted that Apple and Google expected to fight specifically rather than including phone makers, for example Samsung. “I think if you really think Google is the cause of this, as I think everyone has noticed, don't ignore the real problem,” said jury foreman Tom Dunham, a resigning IBM programming official. . "The truth is that Apple has the intellectual property it invests in. So does Samsung. So Google it. Give the courts a choice, however a simpler methodology might be something to consider." Apple didn't sue Google? Suing Google wouldn't get Apple far since Google doesn't make its own phones or tablets and gives away its manufacturing facility for free. Rather, Apple is suing organizations that offer physical devices that run Android, an opponent of Apple's versatile iOS work system. In particular, Apple believes that Samsung has adopted a system to duplicate its products and thus weaken Apple's valuation. It's less challenging for Apple to point the finger at cell phone makers who make money and profit from Android phones, as opposed to Google, which only indirectly makes money through advertising and mobile services. It is also easier to show an iPhone next to a Galaxy device and demonstrate the similarities and describe how the iPhone came into being before other competing cell phones. Work on Android had begun before the iPhone was launched, making it harder to convince the jury that Google was a copycat. Overall, the claims are part of a broader effort by Apple to halt the strength of Android, which has long overtaken iOS as the predominant mobile operating system. Apple isn't simply seeking harm; needs phones banned from the deal. Legal experts say Apple could win more damages and possibly receive a bigger benefit by pursuing numerous cellphone makers rather than simply targeting Google. “It's definitely more feasible to sue gadget makers because their incremental benefit per gadget is low compared to the benefit Google gets from getting closer to your eyeballs,” said Chris Marlett, CEO of MDB Capital Group, a venture capital bank that maintains a protected innovation database. "Eventually, if gadget companies can't get a decent lead on phones, they will leave the phone business. This turns out to be a much more viable way to damage Android." Observers on both sides The statement..