The world’s two giant mobile phone manufacturing companies Samsung and Apple are wrangling in a bitter court battle with each other in 11 countries including America, Japan, South Korea, Australia, France, Germany and a number of EU countries. Analysts have dubbed the underlying trade war as a clash of titans. This is a complicated cobweb of suing and counter-suing. The battle ensued in April when renowned American company Apple claimed that Smartphone model Galaxy S 2 manufactured by its North Korean rival Samsung is in fact the ‘slavish’ copy of their Apple iPhone 4 and pleaded the court for an injunction on the sale of Galaxy in EU countries.
Specifications: The specifications of both touch screen smart phones are more tempting and indulgent. After getting a confirmation from gadget sites, both Samsung Galaxy S2 and Apple iPhone 4 provide head-to-head on the basis of technical specifications. Samsung Galaxy S2 has dimensions of 125.3 x 66.1 x 8.49mm, 117g which looks quite similar to that of Apple iPhone 4 dimensions i.e. 115.2 x 58.7 x 9.3mm, 137g. While comparing screen display then Samsung galaxy S2 has 4.27-inch, 800x480px and Super plus AMOLED screen whereas Apple iPhone has 3.5-inch, 960x640px, LCD with IPS. Here it is pertinent to note that the price of Samsung galaxy S2 is cheaper than Apple iPhone 4. Moreover, after noticing all details features of both Smartphones, it is Samsung galaxy S2 which is thinner, faster and more powerful to take pictures and videos on a wide display screen.
When elephants clash, it is the grass which is crushed. In this clash of titans, the consumers are likely to bear the fall out. Litigation is hurting the global consumers in a sense that this unhealthy trend will slow down the growth of the mobile phone industry in terms of innovations that is always favouring the consumers who are better equipped with state of the art technology at competitive prices.
Out of court settlement? A well defined option to settle the complex situation is an out of court settlement where one party makes appropriate payment to the other. But keeping in view the litigants’ eagerness to continue the court battle, this option is unlikely in the near future. “Apple’s interim blockage of Samsung sale in Australia is a little unique in the sense that this stuff usually ends up getting settled with money,” said Michael Morgan, senior analyst for mobile devices at , New York. has sued over patent infringement related to smartphones and tablets in several countries, including the United States, with Samsung counter-suing. The court agreement recently reached by Apple and Samsung in Australia calls for Samsung to stop sales and advertising for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 until the lawsuit is resolved or the court says sales can continue. In this context, Apple has agreed to pay Samsung an unspecified amount if it looses the lawsuit. One thing is clear; the patent infringement suits have become a reality in the mobile phone industry today. “Patents are going to become more and more valuable going forward, which speaks to how competitive this space has become – companies are using every tool in their arsenals,” Mr. Morgan said. He is of the view that “The value of intellectual property in mobile at the current moment is rising quickly and reaching a bubble.
Some ‘loyal consumers’ (on both sides) expressed their dismay over news about the conflict between Samsung versus Apple. Both handset manufacturers are leading manufacturers with a fascinating variety of consumer products and a legal tangle of this sort is an unfortunate progress. Thus, many consumers are looking forward to the continuation of news about Samsung versus Apple updates. A fair number of consumers think that they will be the natural beneficiaries of the trade war between the two companies who have a massive prevalence in the global markets.
Is Apple buying from Samsung? Yet there is another interesting aspect of the story. According to Brooke Crothers, Apple is still getting key parts for its from Samsung. Those key parts include the ‘s expected main processor, the A5, as well as system memory and flash memory—components that together make up the electronic core. (It is to be remembered that patent infringement suit by Apple is only focused on the design and shape of the set and not about the interior components). Sources who track the chip industry say that Apple must stick with Samsung for the time being. Some rumors had claimed that Apple would switch to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) for a so-called “shrink” (smaller version) of the A5 for the iPhone 5. That’s simply not doable, sources tell CNET. TSMC has not perfected the advanced manufacturing processes needed to make an A5 for the iPhone and, maybe more importantly, it’s prohibitively difficult to jump to a different manufacturer for the same chip design. “They don’t have a choice. They can’t switch [from Samsung] at this stage,” said one source, familiar with the dynamics of the cell phone chip industry supply chain, referring to the A5.
Advertising, as we know, provides wings to the products in the consumer market. But they became a matter of contention in this conflict. Alastair Stevenson says that following a series of heated exchanges between makers, Apple and Galaxy series makers , the UK’s Standards Authority ruled in Apple’s favour, confirming the 4 is the world’s thinnest smartphone. The dispute between Apple and arose when Apple continued to advertise its iPhone 4 as the world’s thinnest smartphone even after Samsung’s Galaxy S2 came out. According to the claims made by Samsung, the Galaxy S2 was thinner, measuring a mere 8.71 mm in thickness, compared to the Apple iPhone which measured in at 9.3 mm. The dispute escalated after Apple alleged that the Apple iPhone 4 was still thinner technically than the Galaxy S2 as at its thickest point the iPhone 4 was smaller than the Galaxy S2 which houses a 9.91 mm “hump.”
The lawyer dilemma: So far, the is full of acrimony and controversy at all levels and there’s no détente in sight. According to Foss Patent’s website, Samsung has asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to disqualify at least some or potentially even all of Apple’s outside lawyers from the case, citing concerns over a conflict of interest and the treatment of privileged and confidential information gathered in the past. The gist of it is that Samsung wants the recently-founded barred from the case because at least five of its lawyers — including one of its founders, Kenneth Bridges — previously represented Samsung while they were with another firm, . Samsung then goes on to argue that this fact “taints all attorneys at Bridges & Mavrakakis through imputation”. But not enough; Samsung additionally demands that Apple’s two other law firms involved with this federal lawsuit ( and ) “provide affidavits confirming they have not received any Samsung confidential information from attorneys at Bridges & Mavrakakis” while those firms were coordinating Apple’s representation so far or, absent such assurance, be disqualified as well.
This case is going to become a glaring precedent for the manufacturing companies as well as law firms representing the two parties. The geographical boundaries are also going to play a significant role as the cases of similar nature will eventually spread to over a dozen of countries. It will definitely have a far reaching impact on the companies involved in the global marketing of products and services.
Samsung versus Apple: awaiting verdict
