Printed from http://www.electronista.com

Apple CEO Tim Cook comments on Samsung victory

updated 11:47 am EDT, Sun August 26, 2012

Full statement says victory proves 'stealing isn't right'

Apple has made public a full statement from CEO Tim Cook on the victory Apple scored earlier this week against Samsung, winning a billion-dollar damages award (which could be tripled under US law to a possible $3 billion) and gaining a clear and unequivocal verdict that Samsung indeed "slavishly copied" Apple's innovations in many of its devices.

Parts of the statement had been issued earlier by an Apple spokesperson, but in Cook's memo he says the lawsuit wasn't about patents or money as much as it was about "values." He called the victory "an important day for Apple and innovators everywhere" and said that the company brought the suit "very reluctantly and only after repeatedly asking Samsung to stop copying our work."

The full statement reads as follows:

Team:

Today was an important day for Apple and for innovators everywhere.

Many of you have been closely following the trial against Samsung in San Jose for the past few weeks. We chose legal action very reluctantly and only after repeatedly asking Samsung to stop copying our work.

For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money. It's about values. We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. And we do this to delight our customers, not for competitors to flagrantly copy.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the jury who invested their time in listening to our story. We were thrilled to finally have the opportunity to tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung's copying went far deeper than we knew.

The jury has now spoken. We applaud them for finding Samsung's behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right.

I am very proud of the work that each of you do.

Today, values have won and I hope the whole world listens.

Tim



By Electronista Staff
Post tools:

TAGS :

toggle

Comments

  1. Stuke

    Junior Member

    Joined: 02-11-05

    Hear, hear. Congratulations Apple for finally being recognized as the innovator you truly are! :)

  1. LatinKimchi

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: 08-25-12

    Indeed a very sad day for innovation and consumer choice.
    Samsung should stop wasting time in its quixotic quest for fairness or justice in such a prehistoric trademark/patent landscape.





    Instead, it should patent Samsung's library of previous mobile shapes and widgets it has already launched. Under this Apple created IP environment, Apple may be limited to only rectangle shaped phones, Motorola to flip phones, Nokia to candy bar phones, and Samsung to oval shaped phones....





    Is this really the win for innovation and "values" that Cook is preaching or simple hypocrisy to cover its real intent to make money out of brainwashing consumers.

    Everything is a re-arrangement of previously produced work.
    Steve Jobs and Apple never invented the touch screen only phone nor the rounded corner rectangle phone.
    If Samsung patented the rectangle TV shape, would everyone need to make oval shaped TV'S?????
    If Levi's had patented the pre washed jeans look, would 7 or other brands be limited to solid colours only????

  1. besson3c

    Clinically Insane

    Joined: 03-03-01

    Originally Posted by LatinKimchiView Post


    Indeed a very sad day for innovation and consumer choice.
    Samsung should stop wasting time in its quixotic quest for fairness or justice in such a prehistoric trademark/patent landscape.
    Instead, it should patent Samsung's library of previous mobile shapes and widgets it has already launched. Under this Apple created IP environment, Apple may be limited to only rectangle shaped phones, Motorola to flip phones, Nokia to candy bar phones, and Samsung to oval shaped phones....
    Is this really the win for innovation and "values" that Cook is preaching or simple hypocrisy to cover its real intent to make money out of brainwashing consumers.
    Everything is a re-arrangement of previously produced work.
    Steve Jobs and Apple never invented the touch screen only phone nor the rounded corner rectangle phone.
    If Samsung patented the rectangle TV shape, would everyone need to make oval shaped TV'S?????
    If Levi's had patented the pre washed jeans look, would 7 or other brands be limited to solid colours only????



    This is an interesting debate.

    Yes it is true that very little technology is actually new, it all comes from someplace, but at times I'd say that the way technology has been synthesized and meshed together can create a new thing, much like the whole principle behind new media. The iPhone should be given rightful credit as the first device to synthesize a number of concepts together into the first generation phone, which really represented something new at the time in its totality. The first generation iOS was an improvement upon other mobile OSes of the time and not just a straight up borrow/steal.

    What becomes interesting is when you create another mashup and compare one mashup to the other. I think the iPhone represented enough newness in its totality that should have been recognized as a thing that could stand on its own and be worthy of its own patents, but this is obviously a tricky thing to define.

    However, if you go down the path that you are going down here, no mashups should ever be allowed to exist on their own, since nothing is actually new. We live in a world of mashups, I don't think you can do that.

  1. LatinKimchi

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: 08-25-12

    iOS is truly and hands down the innovation of the decade if not century. No argument here. So no comments in the bounce back feature IP component.







    However, the main component of this litigation was looks. The look of the rectangle with rounded corners and the look of the icons. This was in no way innovative, nor new, and in my opinion nothing that can be trademarked as it would be like trademarking rectangle tv's, long pants, picture frames that are square.... restrictive.


    How is it that Apple is not found guilty of violating Samsung's IP because it is considered FRAND but a standard rectangle shape cannot be used in mobile phones??

  1. BLAZE_MkIV

    Professional Poster

    Joined: 02-23-00

    When considering look and feel and design, you have to consider the whole not just individual points.

    On the Samsung patents see "patent exhaustion"

  1. SwissMac

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: 08-11-06

    I see the Samsung shills are misleading the public again in the comments section.

    It has nothing to do with rounded rectangles (which Apple did not win on anyway so get your facts right) but everything to do with copying where the icons were located, how they were arranged, how they worked, the use of the pinch to zoom and tap to zoom and rubber banding scroll feature and so on. RIM and MS innovated, why can't the Samesung cheats? All they do is pay idiots to move the argument onto areas that had nothing to do with the reason they have to pay at least $1 billion damages.

    Samsung are lying cheats. That has been proven in court.

  1. LatinKimchi

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: 08-25-12

    Originally Posted by SwissMacView Post

    I see the Samsung shills are misleading the public again in the comments section.
    It has nothing to do with rounded rectangles (which Apple did not win on anyway so get your facts right) but everything to do with copying where the icons were located, how they were arranged, how they worked, the use of the pinch to zoom and tap to zoom and rubber banding scroll feature and so on. RIM and MS innovated, why can't the Samesung cheats? All they do is pay idiots to move the argument onto areas that had nothing to do with the reason they have to pay at least $1 billion damages.
    Samsung are lying cheats. That has been proven in court.



    As agreed above.. iOS hands down innovative. But check electronista's posting on the verdict.. the bezel and design element were the main part of it. Hence Apple showing images of iPhones compared to resized-to-look-like-iPhone samsung devices.

    I am not sure why you insist that Samsung does not innovate and keeps on cheating. Don't you know that a significant portion of Apple devices are made out of Samsung components?

    Also be fair. Apple brought arguments discussing whether Samsung contributed to the US economy and whether Samsung paid full taxes... The judge was also quoted as asking Apple's lawyer he might be doing crack if he thought the judge would allow for as many testimonies to delay the process...... so stop insinuating Samsung is the only one bringing irrelevant arguments....

    Let's stop drinking the Steve Jobs cool aid. Samsung is not exactly snow white innocent. But Apple is not the innovator that others are reaping off as it claims to be.

  1. OreoCookie

    Moderator

    Joined: 05-25-01

    Originally Posted by LatinKimchiView Post

    Indeed a very sad day for innovation and consumer choice.


    I think consumers will benefit from this: Samsung sells considerably more smart phones than Apple and discouraging Samsung merely copying competitor and contribute something original will lead to greater diversity amongst the devices. In any case, Samsung has moved away from pushing out iPhone-look-alikes and they're doing great financially.

    Originally Posted by LatinKimchiView Post

    Instead, it should patent Samsung's library of previous mobile shapes and widgets it has already launched. Under this Apple created IP environment, Apple may be limited to only rectangle shaped phones, Motorola to flip phones, Nokia to candy bar phones, and Samsung to oval shaped phones....


    Samsung already has a vast library of its own patents, and they have tried to use it against Apple (both »trivial« patents such as »playing music while doing something else« and FRAND patents). And Apple already had to pay similar amounts to other companies as part of IP cross license agreements (e. g. $600 million to Nokia). It's really disingenuous to single out Apple as the bad boy abusing a broken system: all tech companies are playing the same game.

  1. LatinKimchi

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: 08-25-12

    Originally Posted by OreoCookieView Post


    Samsung already has a vast library of its own patents, and they have tried to use it against Apple (both »trivial« patents such as »playing music while doing something else« and FRAND patents). And Apple already had to pay similar amounts to other companies as part of IP cross license agreements (e. g. $600 million to Nokia). It's really disingenuous to single out Apple as the bad boy abusing a broken system: all tech companies are playing the same game.



    I was making a sarcastic remark that Samsung and others should patent and trademark the phone shapes so that Apple is limited to rectangles only.
    I am not being an Apple hater but simply addressing how ridiculous the patent system is and how it has become a new source of revenue for companies that abuse this loophole.

    I agree with you that Apple is not the only "bad boy". But I think it is one of the most aggressive abusers of the loophole.

  1. besson3c

    Clinically Insane

    Joined: 03-03-01

    Originally Posted by LatinKimchiView Post



    I was making a sarcastic remark that Samsung and others should patent and trademark the phone shapes so that Apple is limited to rectangles only.
    I am not being an Apple hater but simply addressing how ridiculous the patent system is and how it has become a new source of revenue for companies that abuse this loophole.
    I agree with you that Apple is not the only "bad boy". But I think it is one of the most aggressive abusers of the loophole.



    Steve Jobs also complained about the US patent system, perhaps he would have agreed with you, perhaps Tim Cook would too. Companies like Monsanto have actually patented genes, which is kind of crazy if you ask me.

    Unfortunately, if Apple doesn't "abuse" the patent system by patenting everything under the sun, some other company will copy stuff and point to their lack of a patent as legal justification for their actions, so the entire problem is very circular. I don't think any one person can be singled out, because it is reasonable to expect that every company will protect their self-interests.

  1. LatinKimchi

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: 08-25-12

    Originally Posted by besson3cView Post


    Unfortunately, if Apple doesn't "abuse" the patent system by patenting everything under the sun, some other company will copy stuff and point to their lack of a patent as legal justification for their actions, so the entire problem is very circular. I don't think any one person can be singled out, because it is reasonable to expect that every company will protect their self-interests.



    Sadly I have to agree with you... There are too many patent trollers out there.
    Being nice would be irresponsible to the share holders. But leaders should lobby the government for changes.. I read about Apple's budget for lobbying the US government. They should include lobbying for the good of the industry and consumers as well...

    I do feel sorry for Samsung being made the example though... Just have a glance at Electronista's postings yesterday showing the line up of new tablets .. Hard to distinguish them....

  1. besson3c

    Clinically Insane

    Joined: 03-03-01

    Originally Posted by LatinKimchiView Post



    Sadly I have to agree with you... There are too many patent trollers out there.
    Being nice would be irresponsible to the share holders. But leaders should lobby the government for changes.. I read about Apple's budget for lobbying the US government. They should include lobbying for the good of the industry and consumers as well...
    I do feel sorry for Samsung being made the example though... Just have a glance at Electronista's postings yesterday showing the line up of new tablets .. Hard to distinguish them....



    You'll definitely find a lot of pro-Apple bias in here, but I wouldn't say I'm really in this camp. That being said, I honestly don't know whether to feel sorry for Samsung or not. I would have to know more about their intentions, whether they were just trying to do the best they can with their resources as the smaller company thinking what they were doing wasn't crossing any lines, thinking that they were inspired by Apple and had plans to build on their product offerings so there would be a point in the future where people no longer make direct comparisons to their stuff and Apple's stuff, or whether they just set out to flagrantly copy Apple in an attempt to cash in on the opportunity to sell their products for cheaper prices and do what the PC industry did with PC clones.

  1. Inkling

    Dedicated MacNNer

    Joined: 07-25-06

    Apple and Tim Cook shouldn't be crowing so quickly and loudly. A host of jury problems are starting to appear that could create havoc.

    The jurors seemed to have ignored the judge's instructions, because reading and understanding that would take too long, perhaps two or three days. They decided to not take into account prior art, per their own comments, because that was confusing and too much trouble. And they even tried to fine Samsung for items they're ruled not in violation--I suspect because they didn't even take the time to read their decision over a second time. This was the jury from Lazytown.

    And while most of their blunders tilted heavily toward Apple, having decided to vote in favor of Apple on the first day, again per their own comments, in their sloppiness, they found the Galaxy Tab 10.1 non-infringing, despite the fact that a court and an appeals court had ruled it infringing. That then frees Samsung to sue for damages, as here, and go on to create a host of tablets that aren't infringing because they look like this Galaxy. That virtually destroys Apple's primary reason for this lawsuit. Samsung may even decide that their Galaxy win is reason enough to consider this a victory. There's a lot more profits to be made in the tablet market than in the highly competitive smartphone market.

    Based on remarks by jurors, all these jury blunders seemed to flow from a juror who became their 'expert' and foreman because he had a patent (just one) of his own. That fits with my 'blowhard' theory for this too-quick decision and what's leaking out afterward. The unfortunate jury was dominated by one or two know-it-alls who forced the rest to do what they wanted. There was little deliberation and a host of blunders.

    What I'm now wondering is if or why either side permitted that patentee to be on the jury. People who've had some personal experience related to the issues at trial are usually excluded, so that experience cannot shape their decision. Did both Samsung (in general) and Apple (over the Galaxy) blunder badly, or did this juror/foreman withhold that information from the court?

    If the latter is true, this long, drawn-out and expensive trial could quickly become a mistrial.

    I will say one thing in favor of some of these jurors. By wondering why they weren't being shown examples of prior art in defense of Samsung, they were seeing through the wall Judge Koh erected against Samsung presenting that evidence to the jury. Her efforts to exclude that evidence on technicalities only confused the jury and perhaps contributed to their sloppiness. I can easily imaging a few of them thinking, "Well, if the court isn't allowing us to consider all the evidence in this case, why should we bother to take the time to examine the evidence that was presented. Why not just decide quickly and be done with it?" Judge Koh's haste to try and be done with it, became their haste to reach a decision. The jury, as a whole, was simply behaving like the judge.

    For more details on the jury, go to http://www.groklaw.net

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

Sponsor

Recent Reviews

Adesso Xtream S3B Bluetooth speaker

Finding a speaker purpose-built for a specific need is challenging. Even when a Bluetooth speaker can be paired with a mobile device, ...

JBL Synchros E40BT headphones

For all the different configurations of headphones on the market, it's always a tough choice for buyers to get something that is just ...

Razer Taipan mouse

The list of gaming devices is growing larger with each passing day. A large number of companies have entered the gaming input arena, a ...

Sponsor

toggle

Most Commented

 
toggle

Popular News