For three years, Apple and Samsung have clashed on a scale almost unparalleled in enterprise history, their criminal battle costing more than one thousand million greenbacks and spanning four continents. Beginning with the wonderful secret undertaking that created the iPhone and the overdue Steve Jobs’s fury whilst Samsung—and Apple provider!—introduced out a shockingly comparable tool. Kurt Eichenwald explores the Korean employer’s patent infringement report, among other ruthless enterprise tactics, and explains why Apple might win the battles but still lose the struggle. On August 4, 2010, amid the bustle of downtown Seoul, a small institution of executives from Apple Inc.
Driven through the revolving door right into a blue-tinted, 44-tale glass tower, equipped to fire the primary shot in what could grow to be one of the bloodiest corporate wars in history. The showdown had been brewing in view that spring when Samsung released the Galaxy S, a brand new access into the telephone market. Apple had snagged one early distant place and gave it to the iPhone group at its Cupertino, California, headquarters. The designers studied it with developing disbelief.
The Galaxy S, the notion, was natural piracy. The standard look of the telephone, the display, the icons, even the box appeared the same as the iPhone’s. Patented capabilities, including “rubber-banding,” in which a display photo bounces slightly while a consumer attempts to scroll beyond the lowest, were equal. Same with “pinch to zoom,” which permits users to control photo size by pinching the thumb and forefinger collectively at the display. And on and on.
Steve Jobs, Apple’s mercurial leader government, become livid. His groups had toiled for years developing a leap forward cellphone, and now, Jobs fumed, a competitor—an Apple supplier, no much less!—had stolen the design and lots of features. Jobs and Tim Cook, his chief operating officer, had spoken with Samsung president Jay Y. Lee in July to specific their concern approximately the similarities of the two telephones but obtained no first-rate response. After weeks of sensitive dancing, smiling requests, and impatient urgings, Jobs decided to take the gloves off. Hence the meeting in Seoul.
The Apple executives had been escorted to a convention room high within the Samsung Electronics Building, in which they had been greeted via approximately half of a dozen Korean engineers and lawyers. Dr. Seungho Ahn, a Samsung vice chairman, was in fee, consistent with court information and those who attended the assembly. After some pleasantries, Chip Lutton, then Apple’s associate popular counsel for highbrow belongings, took the ground and placed up a PowerPoint slide with the title “Samsung’s Use of Apple Patents in Smartphones.” Then he went into a number of the similarities he was taken into consideration, particularly outrageous. However, the Samsung executives showed no reaction. So Lutton decided to be blunt.“Exactly what I stated,” Lutton insisted. “You copied the iPhone. The similarities are completely beyond the opportunity of coincidence.”
Ahn might have none of it. “How dare you assert that,” he snapped. “How dare you accuse us of that!” He paused, then stated, “We’ve been constructing cellular phones forever. We have our very own patents, and Apple might be violating a number of those.”The message became clear. If Apple executives pursued a claim towards Samsung for stealing the iPhone, Samsung might come properly returned at them with a theft claim of its own. The war strains were drawn. In the months and years that observed, Apple and Samsung would clash on a scale almost unheard of within the commercial enterprise global, costing the 2 organizations greater than a thousand million greenbacks and engendering tens of millions of pages of legal papers, a couple of verdicts and rulings, and more hearings. Ut that can be Samsung’s motive all alongside.
According to various courtroom facts and those who have labored with Samsung, ignoring competition’ patents isn’t unusual for the Korean employer. And once it’s caught, it launches into the same type of tactics used within the Apple case: countersue, put off, lose, put off, enchantment, and then, while defeat is drawing close, settle. “They never met a patent they didn’t assume they could like to apply, regardless of who it belongs to,” says Sam Baxter, a patent lawyer who once treated a case for Samsung. “I represented [the Swedish telecommunications company] Ericsson, and they couldn’t lie if their lives relied on it, and I represented Samsung and that they couldn’t tell the fact if their lives depended on it.”
Read More Articles :
- Samsung Galaxy 5: The Definitive Review
- The Samsung Tocco Lite Embedded With Impressive Applications
- Samsung F210 – the Music Player Combined With HandyCam
- How Samsung gained the cellphone wars – then blew it
- Mobile Security Should Focus on Data, Not Devices
Samsung executives say that the pattern of match-countersuit criticized by a few outsiders misrepresents the fact of the agency’s technique to patent problems. Because it’s far one of the largest patent holders globally, the organization often unearths others in the technology enterprise who have taken its intellectual property. Still, it chooses now not to record proceedings to venture those movements. However, as soon as Samsung itself issued, the executives say, it’ll use countersuits as a part of a defense approach. With the Apple litigation, the combat isn’t over—beginning statements for the maximum latest patent lawsuit, which asserts that 22 more Samsung merchandise ripped off Apple, had been heard in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, California, on April 1.
While both sides have grown weary of the litigation, courtroom-ordered agreement talks have failed. The most current attempt befell in February, but the two sides quickly stated to the courtroom that they couldn’t remedy the dispute on their personal.No count number the monetary outcome; Apple can also nicely emerge from the prison wrangling as the loser. Two juries have located that Samsung did a plot indeed to scouse borrow the iPhone’s appearance and generation, that is why a California jury, in 2012, provided Apple more than a billion dollars in damages from Samsung (decreased to $890 million in overdue 2013 after the judge determined that some of the calculations had been faulty).
But, because the litigation drags on, Samsung has grabbed and growing percentage of the marketplace (currently 31 percentage versus Apple’s 15.6 percentage), now not handiest through pumping out “Apple-ish, simplest less expensive” era however by way of growing its very own revolutionary capabilities and merchandise.“[Samsung] transitioned to a higher degree of competition than they were at that time, and I suppose a part of that changed into a result of them having to combat this warfare with Apple,” a former senior Apple executive says.
It was surely simply another page from the Samsung playbook, often used earlier than When some other organization introduces a breakthrough technology, muscle in with much less expensive versions of the identical product. And the method had labored, helping the Samsung Group develop from almost nothing into an international behemoth. Samsung was founded in 1938 by using Lee Byung-Chul, a college dropout and the son of a rich Korean landowning circle of relatives. When Lee became 26, he used his inheritance to open a rice mill, but the enterprise quickly failed. So it was on to a new endeavor, a small fish-and-produce exporting concern that Lee named Samsung (Korean for “three stars”). Over the years that observed, Lee accelerated into brewing and then, starting in 1953, added a sugar-refining organization, a wool fabric subsidiary, and more than one insurance agency.
For years, there has been nothing on this conglomerate to hint that Samsung would input the patron-electronics enterprise. In 1969, it shaped Samsung-Sanyo Electronics, which a yr later commenced manufacturing black-and-white televisions—an previous product selected partially due to the fact the business enterprise didn’t have the era to make shade units. By the early 1990s, although the employer appeared like an also-ran after the financial growth in Japan had pushed that country’s companies, consisting of Sony, to the vanguard of the generation global; for those even aware of it, Samsung had a reputation for churning out inferior products and reasonably-priced knockoffs.
Still, some Samsung executives noticed a course for reinforcing profits by boldly and illegally solving charges with competitors in a number of their pinnacle businesses. The first products acknowledged to had been the focal point of one of Samsung’s important rate-fixing conspiracies had been cathode-ray tubes (C.R.T.’s), which have been once the technological fashionable for televisions and pc video display units. According to investigators in the U.S. And Europe, the scheme became quite established: competitors secretly were given together in what they knew as “Glass Meetings” at accommodations and inns around the arena—in South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, and at the least 8 other nations.
At the same time, some of the meetings concerned the maximum senior executives as others had been for lower-level operational managers. The executives occasionally held what they called “Green Meetings,” characterized via rounds of golf, all through which the co-conspirators agreed to raise charges and reduce manufacturing to acquire better income than could had been possible had they certainly competed with one another. The scheme changed into, sooner or later, exposed. Over the direction of 2011 and 2012, Samsung was fined $32 million within the U.S., $21.5 million in South Korea, and $197 million with the European Commission’s aid.
The success of the C.R.T. Conspiracy apparently sparked comparable schemes. By 1998 the marketplace for L.C.D.’s—a more modern generation that used the liquid crystal to create the image and competed directly with the C.R.T.—was taking off. So in November, a Samsung manager spoke with representatives from the organization’s competitors, Sharp and Hitachi. They all agreed to elevate L.C.D. Charges, in line with investigators. The supervisor exceeded the interesting information on to a senior Samsung executive and the L.C.D. Conspiracy grew.
In 2001, the president of Samsung’s semiconductor department, Lee Yoon-woo, proposed to executives at another competitor, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, that they increase the already rigged price for one kind of L.C.D. Technology, prosecutors stated. The scheme changed into formalized in the course of “Crystal Meetings.” Again, the executives amassed in motels and on golf courses to set fees illegally.
But by 2006, the L.C.D. Jig changed into up. Rumors started circulating a number of the conspirators that one of the sufferers in their crime—a corporation they mentioned by way of the code call NYer—suspected that the providers were rigging prices. And Samsung executives possibly feared that NYer ought to spark crook research by way of the U.S. Government; after all, NYer—in reality, Apple Inc.—became quite effective. Samsung ran to the Justice Department under an antitrust leniency software and ratted out its co-conspirators. But that didn’t lessen the ache plenty—the company becomes still forced to payloads of hundreds of thousands of greenbacks to settle claims against it using kingdom legal professionals widespread and direct consumers of L.C.D.’s.
The choice to fees as much as the L.C.D. The scheme might not be driven just using Apple’s suspicions. Samsung became already in law enforcement’s points of interest: someday earlier, a co-conspirator in every other criminal charge-solving conspiracy had given up Samsung. That scheme, starting in 1999, concerned Samsung’s massive commercial enterprise for dynamic random-get entry to memory, or DRAM, which is utilized in computer memories. In 2005, after it turned into caught, Samsung agreed to pay $300 million in fines to the U.S. Authorities. Six of its executives pleaded responsibly and agreed to serve 7 to 14 months in American prisons.
Since the fee-fixing scandals, Samsung executives declare, the corporation has followed important new rules to deal with capability criminal and ethics troubles. “Samsung has made outstanding advancements in addressing compliance issues,” says Jaehwan Chi, government vice president of global prison affairs and compliance. “We now have a sturdy company compliance enterprise, with a committed body of workers of legal professionals, a set of clear guidelines and processes, companywide schooling and reporting systems. As a result, each single considered one of our employees nowadays, whether they’re within the Americas, Asia, or Africa, are given compliance schooling on an annual basis.”
Still, the testimonies of misconduct at Samsung all through the years before the one’s modifications concerned more than fee-fixing. In 2007, its former top felony officer, Kim Yong-Chul, who made his call as a celebrity prosecutor in South Korea earlier than becoming a Samsung member, blew the whistle on what he stated become huge corruption on the company. He accused senior executives of undertaking bribery, money-laundering, evidence tampering, stealing as a good deal as $9 billion, and different crimes. In essence, Kim, who later wrote an e-book approximately his allegations, contended that Samsung became one of the most corrupt agencies inside the international.
In the beginning, Crook’s research in Korea ensued, specializing in Kim’s allegation that Samsung executives maintained a slush fund to bribe politicians, judges, and prosecutors. In January 2008, government investigators raided the house and office of Lee Kun-hee, the chairman of Samsung, who was eventually convicted of dodging some $37 million in taxes. He was given a three-yr suspended sentence and ordered to pay $89 million in fines. Ayr and a 1/2 later, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak pardoned Lee.
And what of the bribery claims? Korean prosecutors declared that they might find no evidence substantiating Kim’s allegations—willpower that bowled over the previous standard recommend, considering he had become over a listing of different prosecutors whom he said he, in my opinion, helped Samsung bribe. Moreover, a Korean lawmaker claimed that Samsung had as soon as provided her a golfing bag stuffed with coins, and a former presidential aide stated the organization had given him a cash gift of $5, four hundred, which he back. Kim published his e-book in 2010, announcing he desired to depart a file of his accusations. Samsung spoke back to the e-book’s allegations via labeling it nothing but “excrement.”
Then there may be Samsung’s countersuing approach; that’s a prison, however unattractive. At the start of 2010, the shareholder letter from Samsung Electronics’ president and chief government Geesung Choi glistened with proper news. The preceding 12 months had been an extraordinary success, Choi stated. Despite stiff competition, Samsung had come to be the primary organization inside Korea’s history to post income extra than $86 billion while concurrently accomplishing some $9.Four billion in working earnings. Choi trumpeted Samsung’s commitment to innovation. “We maintained the 2nd place within the wide variety of our U.S. Registered patients in 2009, exceeding 3,611, and solidified our foundation to reinforce our next technology generation.”
What Choi neglected become that Samsung had just suffered a massive defeat. Simultaneously, a courtroom in The Hague dominated that the corporation illegally copied highbrow property, infringing on patents associated with L.C.D. Flat-panel era owned with the aid of Sharp, the Japanese electronics subject. In a blow to Samsung, the court ordered that the agency halt all European imports of the products that violated the patents. Around the same time as Choi was delivering his upbeat message, American International Trade Commission started blocking off the importation of Samsung flat-display screen merchandise that used the pilfered era.
Samsung subsequently settled with Sharp.
It turned into the identical old pattern: while stuck crimson-passed, countersue, claiming Samsung simply owned the patent or another one which the plaintiff company had used. Then, because the litigation dragged on, snap up a greater percentage of the market and settle whilst Samsung imports were approximate to be barred. Sharp had filed its lawsuit in 2007; as the lawsuit performed out, Samsung built up its flat-display screen business till, by using the stop of 2009, it held 23.6 percent of the worldwide market in TV sets, while Sharp had best five. Four percentage. All in all, not a horrific outcome for Samsung.
The same element befell Pioneer, a Japanese multinational specializing in virtual amusement merchandise, which holds patents associated with plasma televisions. Samsung once again decided to apply the technology without bothering to pay for it. In 2006, Pioneer sued in federal court docket inside the Eastern District of Texas, so Samsung countersued. The Samsung claim changed into thrown out before trial. Still, one report revealed inside the litigation course changed into, in particular, damaging—a memo from a Samsung engineer mentioning explicitly that the organization became violating the Pioneer patent. A jury provided Pioneer $59 million in 2008. But with appeals and endured battles looming, the financially troubled Pioneer agreed to settle with Samsung for an undisclosed quantity in 2009. By then, it became too late. In 2010, Pioneer shut down its tv operations, tossing 10,000 human beings out of work.
Even while other agencies have commemorated competition’ patents, Samsung has used the same technology for years without royalties. For example, a small Pennsylvania company named InterDigital developed and patented technology and paid for its use beneath licensing agreements with such massive groups as Apple and LG Electronics. But for years, Samsung refused to cough up any cash, forcing InterDigital to visit the court docket to implement its patents. In 2008, shortly before the International Trade Commission was set to determine that might have banned importing several of Samsung’s most famous phones into the US, Samsung settled, agreeing to pay $four hundred million to the tiny American corporation.
Around the same time, Kodak additionally got uninterested in Samsung’s shenanigans. It filed suit towards the Korean employer, contending that it turned into stealing Kodak’s patented digital imaging generation to use in cellular telephones. Once more, Samsung countersued and agreed to pay royalties most effective after the International Trade Commission discovered Kodak. It turned into a clever business model. But the whole lot modified whilst Apple added the iPhone due to the fact Samsung wasn’t prepared for the era to develop so dramatically, so fast.
The Purple Dorm, The Purple Dorm, smelled like pizza.
Occupying a building at Apple’s headquarters in Cupertino, the Dorm—so named due to the fact the employees were there 24-7 amid the ever-present odor of rapid meals—turned into the website’s website online corporation’s maximum secretive task, code-named Project Purple. Underway considering that 2004, the attempt constituted one of all the largest gambles in the enterprise’s records: a cell cellphone with complete Internet, email features, plus several exceptional capabilities.
Executives had pitched the concept of developing a smartphone to Jobs for years, but he had remained a skeptic. There had been already such many mobile phones available on the market, manufactured by groups with plenty of revel in inside the business—Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, Ericsson—that Apple might develop something innovative to win a seat on the desk. Plus, Apple changed into the need to address carriers consisting of AT&; T, and Jobs did not need another agency dictating what his business enterprise ought to and couldn’t do. Jobs also doubted the present telephone chips and bandwidth allowed for enough speed to present users first-rate Internet access, which he was considered the key to success.
With Apple’s development of multi-touch glass, the whole lot changed. The telephone might be revolutionary. Apple layout director Jony Ive had given you contemporary mock-u.S.For future iPods, and can be used because of the springboard for the way an iPhone might look. In November 2004, Jobs gave the inexperienced mild for Apple to set apart the tablet venture and go complete force into growing the iPhone.
Secrecy, Jobs ordered, turned into Paramount. Apple has already been referred to as a good-lipped company. However, this time, the stakes had been even better. No competitor ought to know that Apple becomes approximately to assignment into the phone market because it’s then adopted dramatic redesigns of its own phones. Jobs did no longer want to compete with a shifting goal. So he issued unusual marching orders: No one will be hired from out of doors the corporation for Project Purple. No one in the organization may be instructed that Apple become growing a cell telephone. All of the paintings—layout, engineering, trying out, the entirety—might have to be performed in outstanding-comfortable, locked-down offices. Scott Forstall, a senior vice chairman, named via Jobs to go up software program improvement for the new phone, become pressured by using the restrictions to steer Apple employees to enroll in Project Purple without even telling them what it becomes.
The new crew moved into the Purple Dorm, at the start an unmarried floor, but the area quickly grew as more employees came on board. To reach sure computer labs, a person needed to skip through 4 locked doors, which opened with badge readers. Cameras stored constant watch. Right at the front door, to remind every person of the significance of secrecy, they hung a signal that said, FIGHT CLUB—a reference to the 1999 film Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club, a person within the film, says that nobody talks approximately Fight Club.
An organization of approximately 15 employees, many of whom had labored together for more than a dozen years, made up the layout team. They amassed around a kitchen table within the Dorm for brainstorming periods, tossing out thoughts after which drafting designs in sketchbooks, on free-leaf paper, on computer printouts. The ideas that survived crew-huge opinions had been surpassed on to the laptop-aided-layout organization, which sculpted the cartoon information into a PC-based version. Then on to 3-dimensional production, the tough product grew to become again over to the design team at their kitchen desk.
The procedure was used masses of times; as many as 50 attempts have been made on a single button for the phone, in line with Christopher Stringer, a commercial fashion designer on the crew. They wrestled with the details for the phone’s edge, its corners, its top, its width. One of the earliest fashions, code-named the M68, had the word “iPod” imprinted on the again, in part to disguise what the product truly turned into.
Software program engineering becomes similarly complex. Forstall and his crew sought to create the phantasm that the consumer should surely attain via the contact-screen glass to govern the content material in the back of it. Finally, with the aid of January 2007, Jobs become set to announce the brand new Apple smartphone in his keynote for the yearly Macworld change convention in San Francisco. All of us turned into looking ahead to a big announcement.
Crowds covered up outside the Moscone Center the night time before Jobs’s speech and, whilst the doorways sooner or later opened, hundreds filed in as tune from Gnarls Barkley, Coldplay, and Gorillaz filled the room. At nine:14 A.M., James Brown music started, and Jobs strode onto the level, dressed in denim. “We’re going to make some history together today!” he stated enthusiastically amid wild applause. He pointed out Macs, iPods, iTunes, and Apple TV and took multiple shots at Microsoft. At nine: a forty, he took a sip of water and cleared his throat. “This is a day I’ve been looking forward to for 2 and a half years,” he stated.
The room grew silent. No one could pass over that a big announcement was coming. “Every occasionally innovative product comes along that adjustments everything,” Jobs stated. “Today, we’re introducing 3 progressive merchandise of this elegance.” The first, he said, turned into a huge display screen iPod with contact controls: the second, a mobile smartphone. And the 1/3, a step forward Internet communications device. “An iPod, a phone, and an Internet communicator. An iPod, a telephone … ” he said. “Are you getting it? These are NOT three separate gadgets—this is one tool! And we are calling it iPhone.”
As the group cheered, the display screen in the back of Jobs lit up with the word “iPhone.” Beneath that, it read, “Apple reinvents the cellphone.” In the weeks that were observed, techies worldwide joined the hallelujah refrain, making a song the praises of Apple’s new device. But that opinion wasn’t shared using some of the longtime cellular-telephone producers, who scoffed at Apple’s tries to play with the massive boys.
“It’s sort of one greater entrant into an already bustling area with plenty of desire for consumers,” Jim Balsillie. The co-C.E.O. Of the organization that manufactures BlackBerry phones stated in a normal comment. Steve Ballmer, the C.E.O. Of Microsoft on time, become even blunter. “There’s no hazard that the iPhone goes to get any full-size marketplace percentage. No chance.” And Richard Sprague, then a Microsoft senior marketing director, stated that Apple could never meet Jobs’s prediction of 10 million gadgets sold in 2008.
At first, it seemed they were right. In the first nine months of fiscal 2008, income had been underneath 1/2 of what Jobs had predicted. But then—blastoff. In the very last region, Apple introduced the second one-technology version, called the iPhone 3G; demand turned into so large, it could scarcely restock the shelves rapidly sufficient. Apple bought more telephones in those three months—6.9 million devices—than it had for the previous nine. By the stop of the fourth area of financial 2009, the overall quantity of iPhones offered because its advent handed 30 million devices.
Apple, which 3 years earlier than were nothing, snagged sixteen percent of the overall market for phone sales international inside the fourth zone of 2009, placing it as the 0.33 biggest company. Meanwhile, at Samsung, nobody was popping champagne corks over the agency’s telephone sales. In that region, the company wasn’t even inside the top five. In a file by I.D.C., an enterprise studies company, Samsung’s total cellphone sales had been bundled underneath the category “Other.”
Twenty-eight executives from Samsung’s cellular-communications division crowded into the Gold Conference Room at the 10th ground of the corporation’s headquarters. It became 9:forty A.M. On February 10, 2010, a Wednesday, the meeting was referred to as to evaluate a near-crisis scenario at Samsung. The organization’s telephones were losing favor. The user revealed it changed into bad, and the iPhone—despite everything the one’s months of enterprise pooh-poohing—was blowing the doors off the barn. Samsung’s cellphone business turned robust, and it became continuing to churn out numerous designs every year.
But the organization changed into absolutely not competing with its smartphones, and Apple had now set a new direction for that business. According to an internal memo summarizing contemporaneous notes taken in the meeting, the top of the department took the floor. “[Our] best isn’t correct,” the memo charges him as saying, “perhaps because the designers are chased alongside by way of our timetable as they get such a lot of fashions completed.”
Samsung became designing too many telephones, the govt started, which without a doubt didn’t make a lot of sense if the intention becomes to provide customers with the pinnacle-notch device. “The path to enhancing Quality is to eliminate inefficient models and reduce the range of models general,” he stated. “Quantity isn’t what’s important; what’s critical is putting available on the market fashions with a high degree of perfection, one to two Excellent ones.“Influential figures outside the business enterprise come upon the iPhone, and that they factor out that ‘Samsung is drowsing off,’ ” the govt persevered. “All this time, we’ve been paying all our interest to Nokia … yet when our [user experience] is compared to the unexpected competitor Apple’s iPhone, the distinction is honestly that of Heaven and Earth.”
Samsung becomes at a crossroads. “It’s a crisis of design,” the govt said. Across Samsung, the message become heard: the agency needed to pop out with its very own “iPhone”—something stunning and clean to apply with simply that dollop of “cool”—and speedy. Emergency groups have been thrown collectively, and for 3 months, designers and engineers labored underneath huge stress. For a few employees, the work became so worrying they got only to a few hours of sleep a night.
By March 2, the company’s Product Engineering Team had finished a feature with the aid of character analysis of the iPhone, evaluating it to the Samsung cellphone beneath production. The group assembled a 132-web page report for his or her bosses, explaining in detail each way the Samsung phone fell quickly. An overall of 126 times was located where the Apple cellphone became better.
No function becomes too small for comparison. A calculator photograph might be made larger at the iPhone by rotating the tool in any path; now not so with Samsung’s. On the iPhone, the calendar characteristic for the day’s timetable became legible, the numbers on the photo of the smartphone keypad were smooth to peer, finishing a name turned into simple, the wide variety of open Web pages became displayed on the display screen, Wi-Fi connection was hooked up on an unmarried display screen, new-e-mail notices had been apparent, and so on. None of those were actual for the Samsung phones, the engineers concluded.
Bit by way of bit, the brand new version for a Samsung telephone commenced to look—and characteristic—much like the iPhone. Icons on the home screen also had rounded corners, size, and fake depth created by a reflective shine across the image. The icon for the phone feature went from being a drawing of a keypad to a, without a doubt, the same duplicate of the iPhone’s picture of a handset. The bezel with the rounded corners, the glass spreading out across the entire face of the telephone, the house button at the bottom—all of it nearly the equal.
In fact, some industry executives are involved in the similarities. Earlier, on February 15, a senior clothier at Samsung informed different employees approximately such observations from Google executives at an assembly with the Korean business enterprise—they suggested that modifications be made in positive Galaxy devices, which they idea appeared too much Apple’s iPhone and iPad. The subsequent day, a Samsung designer e-mailed others on the enterprise approximately the Google feedback. “Since it’s miles too just like Apple, make it especially specific, starting with the front side,” the message stated.
By the past month, Samsung was equipped to hold its own version of the Jobs press conference. On March 23, crowds on the Las Vegas Convention Center for the CTIA Wireless exchange show amassed inside the keynote hall. Lights bathed the degree in a sheet of blue as the attendees located their seats. Then J. K. Shin, the top of Samsung’s mobile communications unit, got here onto the stage. He spent a while speakme about the brand new reviews predicted through users of cellular phones—a not-too-subtle reference; it appeared, to the developments introduced about with Apple’s aid.
“Of course, using now, you are in all likelihood questioning I must have a new device to expose you that promises these types of new reports,” Shin said. “And I do.” He reached into the inner breast pocket of his jacket and taken out a phone. “Ladies and gentlemen, I gift to you the Samsung Galaxy S!” Shin held up the device, displaying it for the applauding crowd. Despite the previous month’s electronic mail to exchange up the advent of Samsung’s Galaxy products, it nonetheless regarded nearly the same as the iPhone. Except the name “Samsung” changed into emblazoned throughout the top.
‘We’ve been ripped off.”
Christopher Stringer, one of the iPhone designers, checked out the Galaxy S in near disbelief. All that point, he thought, all that effort trying out masses of designs, experimenting with the size of the glass, drawing specific icons and buttons, after which these guys at Samsung simply take it? But at the time, Apple had a lot of balls within the air to distract its executives from their worries about the Samsung cell phone. At a San Francisco press convention on January 27, Jobs had added the iPad—the pill that his crew had been developing earlier than they put it aside to work at the iPhone—and the product became already promoting like gangbusters.
But about a month after the Galaxy S reached the marketplace distant places, Jobs began focusing on what he considered the Korean business enterprise’s theft of Apple’s thoughts. He desired to play hardball with Samsung’s top executives. However, Tim Cook, his chief running officer, and soon-to-be successor, suggested being too aggressive simply yet. After all, Samsung becomes one of all Apple’s biggest processors, show monitors, and different gadgets. Alienating it’s placed Apple in the role of dropping components it wished for its products—including some for the iPhone and the iPad.
But after Samsung’s brush-off brought about the nerve-racking August 4 meeting in Seoul, Apple lawyer Chip Lutton informed Ahn that he anticipated a response from Samsung about Apple’s concerns. “Steve Jobs wants to hear returned and wants to hear returned speedy,” he stated. “And please don’t supply us a trendy element on patents.” The Apple team returned to Cupertino. Bruce Sewell, Apple’s fashionable recommend, briefed Jobs on what had taken place. But Jobs could slightly include himself because the look ahead to Samsung’s response wore on. “Where are they?” Jobs asked Lutton time and again as weeks surpassed without a reply from Samsung. “How is that going?”
Without much development, new meetings had been set up—one in Cupertino, one in Washington, D.C., and one extra in Seoul. At the Washington meeting, Apple’s legal professionals broached the possibility of a decision, telling the Samsung team that Jobs would be inclined to make a licensing deal underneath which the Korean organization would pay royalties on highbrow belongings that didn’t play a position in making the iPhone unique, and might stop using those patented designs and features that were special.
Conversations subsequently broke off, and Jobs grew keener and keener to take Samsung to the courtroom and fight. Cook persisted in counseling persistence, arguing that it’d be higher to have a negotiated resolution than to duke it out with an enterprise of such importance to Apple’s enterprise. Then, in overdue March 2011, Samsung added its modern-day tablet computer with a 10-inch screen. It struck Apple executives as a knockoff of the company’s 2nd model of its tablet, and they weren’t surprised: Samsung had already proclaimed that it would exchange its very own model to rival the iPad 2.
Cook’s caution becomes shoved apart. On April 15, 2011, the organization filed a federal lawsuit in California against Samsung for infringing on the patents of both the iPhone and the iPad. Samsung turned into seemingly equipped for Apple’s attack—it countersued days later in Korea, Japan, Germany, and the U.S., alleging that the American company had violated Samsung patents associated with cell communication technologies. Eventually, a ramification of fits and motions was filed by way of the groups in Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands, and a federal court in Delaware and with the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, D.C.
In March 2011, cars wearing investigators from Korea’s anti-believe regulator pulled up outdoor a Samsung facility in Suwon, approximately 25 miles south of Seoul. They have been there prepared to raid the construction, seeking out evidence of possible collusion between the corporation and wireless operators to repair cellular phones’ expenses. Before the investigators could get inside, security guards approached and refused to let them thru the door. A standoff ensued, and the investigators referred to as the police, who finally got them internal after a 30-minute delay. Curious approximately what has been going on in the plant as they cooled their heels outside, the officials seized video from internal protection cameras. What they noticed turned into nearly past perception.
Upon getting word that investigators had been outdoor, employees on the plant started destroying documents and switching computers, changing those that have been being used—and may have negative material on them—with others. A year later, Korean newspapers pronounced that the government had fined Samsung for obstructing the research at the facility. At the time, a felony group representing Apple turned into Seoul to take depositions inside the Samsung case, and they read about the standoff. From what they heard, one of the Samsung employees had even swallowed files earlier than the investigators have been allowed in. That actually didn’t bode well for Apple’s case; how the Apple lawyers stated 1/2-jokingly among themselves, could they probably compete in a criminal forum with personnel who were so loyal to the business enterprise they had been inclined to eat incriminating evidence?
By the time they headed to court, Apple had puzzled a chain of engineers and designers whose names had been on Samsung patents. Each showed that, yes, they’d developed the technical item that was the patient’s situation. But when requested to explain what was patented, a number of the employees couldn’t. Accusations of deceit and trickery spilled out into the court docket. Apple submitted a file to the courtroom showing side with the aid of side variations of the iPhone and Galaxy S; Samsung later confirmed that the Galaxy S photograph was resized to make the telephones seem even more comparable than they already had been. After personal license agreements with Nokia had been growing to become over by Apple in discovery, Samsung used the facts in its own negotiations with Nokia—a huge no-no.
There had been moments that bordered at the absurd. One of the patents invoked through Apple is an unmarried-sentence claim with diagrams for a square tool with rounded corners—no longer any particular device, simply the rectangle itself, the shape used for the iPad. But then that seeming silliness becomes nearly confirmed to be important by Samsung’s own attorneys. Simultaneously, federal judge Lucy Koh held up the iPad and Galaxy Tab 10.1 and requested a Samsung attorney if she may want to identify which turned into which. “Not at this distance, your honor,” stated the lawyer, Kathleen Sullivan, who become standing about 10 toes away.
No, you can actually declare a total victory within the international litigation wars. In South Korea, a court ruled that Apple had infringed Samsung patents simultaneously as Samsung had violated one among Apple’s. In Tokyo, a court docket rejected an Apple patent declare and ordered it to pay Samsung’s courtroom prices. In Germany, a courtroom ordered an immediate income band at the Galaxy Tab 10.1, ruling that it too intently resembled Apple’s iPad 2. In Britain, a court dominated Samsung’s favor, declaring that its drugs have been “not as cool” because of the iPad and not likely to confuse customers. A California jury observed that Samsung had violated Apple patents for the iPhone and iPad, awarding greater than one billion greenbacks in damages—an amount that the decide later ruled were miscalculated with the aid of the jury. In the talk over setting the damages, a Samsung lawyer said they had been now not disputing that the corporation had certainly taken “a few factors of Apple’s property.”
One man or woman near Apple stated that the endless fighting had been a drain at the agency, each emotionally and financially. Meanwhile, as has occurred with different cases where Samsung violated a business enterprise’s patents, it has continued to increase new and better phones all through the litigation to the point where even a few human beings who have labored with Apple say the Korean corporation is now a robust competitor on the generation and not just a copycat anymore.
Despite his role in propelling the court cases ahead, Jobs, who died in 2011, by using now, would possibly have checked out the scorched earth left behind by using the litigation and observed his very own recommendation, approximately recognizing when it is time to transport on. “I actually have regarded within the reflect every morning and requested myself: ‘If nowadays had been the last day of my life, might I need to do what I am about to do today?’ ” Jobs said in a now well-known graduation speech he gave at Stanford University in 2005. “And whenever the answer has been ‘no’ for too many days in a row, I know I need to exchange something.” After extra than 1,000 days of litigation, with any luck, one morning, quickly executives at Samsung and Apple will observe their reflection and, at lengthy remaining, hit their restrict of “no”s.