The results are in, and it’s a massive win for Apple against Samsung. At least, for now.
First off, there will be appeals, of course – there always are. It’s highly unlikely Apple will see the full damages – and they’ve annoyed a major supplier into the bargain.
But before Apple fans get too excited, this little tiff could have some serious downsides for Apple.
- The iPad and iPhone 4 aren’t protected: point 13 of the verdict states that
Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s unregistered trade dresses are protectable?
Answer: Apple has proven only the iPhone 3G trade dress protectable. No on Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress and Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress.
and that could prove a problem in the long run. Make it look like the iPhone 3, you’re in trouble – iPhone 4, you’re fine.
- Apple lost the wireless patent claims.
26. Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsung’s asserted utility patent claims are invalid?
So for the next version, they’re going to have to licence. And that’s going to mean they need to make a deal with Samsung, otherwise they will have a case of wilful infringement on their hands. And while Samsung might not be entitled to any damages in this case, that’s probably to avoid penalising both sides, and is probably reflect in the fact that Apple got less than half what they asked for.
Oh, not enough for you? How about this bombshell then?
None of this case was about Android
This was about how the Samsung phones looked, the design of the cases, their custom icons packaged onto Android. What it didn’t cover was Android itself.
And that, in turn, means that it has no direct effect on the Motorola situation. Of course, Apple already lost their claim against Motorola, and now it’s Motorola’s turn. Unfortunately, perhaps, for Google, their lawyers are the same ones Samsung used in their case, but the issues for Apple are even more deadly – they want an injunction on just about everything Apple produce.
Now, you may argue that Samsung couldn’t win in an American court against an American company, in the same way Apple couldn’t have won against Samsung in South Korea (although in South Korea, A href=”https://www.droid-life.com/2012/08/24/apple-vs-samsung-case-in-korea-finds-everyone-guilty-devices-from-both-sides-banned-from-sale/”>everyone was guilty). But we’re now talking about two American companies, in an American court.
So what about an indirect effect? Well, indirectly, of course, it might just influence the ITC. Those who live by the sword are proverbially said to die by it as well, are they not?