updated 02:04 pm EDT, Mon August 27, 2012
Memo points out different decisions in other countries
Following the considerable defeat handed it last Friday, Samsung has issued an internal memo reassuring its employees and reaffirming its commitment to continue the fight against Apple. The note was revealed today in a post on Samsung Tomorrow Global, and its language is decidedly less defiant than the initial statement Samsung issued Friday evening. The internal memo, like that previous statement, makes no mention of an appeal. It does point out, though, that there are a number of steps left in the legal process, and it seems likely that appeal will prove to be one of those steps. The memo's contents are reproduced in their entirety below.
On Friday, August 24, 2012, the jury verdict in our trial against Apple was announced at the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The following is an internal memo that reflects Samsung's position regarding the verdict:
We initially proposed to negotiate with Apple instead of going to court, as they had been one of our most important customers. However, Apple pressed on with a lawsuit, and we have had little choice but to counter-sue, so that we can protect our company.
Certainly, we are very disappointed by the verdict at the US District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA), and it is regrettable that the verdict has caused concern amongst our employees, as well as our loyal customers.
However, the judge’s final ruling remains, along with a number of other procedures. We will continue to do our utmost until our arguments have been accepted.
The NDCA verdict starkly contrasts decisions made by courts in a number of other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, and Korea, which have previously ruled that we did not copy Apple’s designs. These courts also recognized our arguments concerning our standards patents.
History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth, when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation.
We trust that the consumers and the market will side with those who prioritize innovation over litigation, and we will prove this beyond doubt.