By Kim Yoo-chul
The latest ruling in Korea about the Samsung-Apple dispute has paved the way for the Korean electronics giant to break away from its copycat image as the Seoul court ruled that Samsung did not copy the design of iProducts.
``Financial damages are just a very small thing. What the ruling means Samsung didn’t copy the looks and feels of Apple i-devices.
The ruling signifies Apple’s claim that consumers confuse devices from the companies is groundless,’’ said a senior Samsung executive by telephone, Friday.
Apple has raised the issue of the so-called ``consumer confusion.’’ According to Apple, consumers buy Samsung’s Galaxy line of devices because the Samsung products are almost similar to the designs of Apple’s i-devices.
Earlier in the morning, the local court ordered Apple to pay 40 million won to Samsung Electronics over an infringement of two Samsung-owned wireless patents, while Samsung was ordered to pay 25 million won to Apple.
In the United States, Apple is seeking a $2.75 billion or some 3.11 trillion won damages from Samsung, while the Korean tech heavyweight is asking its biggest business client to pay $422 million or some 477.5 billion won in royalties that the firm claims its’ owned for Apple’s infringement of two patents covering mobile technology standards and three utility patents.
During the trial in California, Apple insisted consumers buy Samsung Galaxy products because the products simply copied the design of Apple’s iPhone and iPad. Apple thought that this confused consumers.
In the California trial, the nine U.S. jurors have decided to spend an extra hour before their ruling. August 24 marks the second day of deliberations about the biggest technology disputes in a history.
In Korea, the court admitted there are some similarities in rectangular surface designs between Samsung and Apple smartphones, however, the Seoul Central District Court ruled the similarities aren’t the critical factor when people are choosing devices.
The local court also stressed that a surface design is just one factor before consumers make a decision about whether or not to make a purchase because the court believes there are many factors such as mobile software, specifications, applications and pricing before an actual purchase is made by a consumer.
``The local ruling is well in line with Samsung’s consistent stance that ‘consumers do make choice, not make mistakes’,’’ said another Samsung executive, asking not to be identified. The local court denied accepting a simple Apple’s design patent.
Also, Samsung secured powerful evidence to ask Apple pay more in royalties for using Samsung-owned wireless patents because the Seoul court rejected Apple’s claim that Samsung patents are essential and standard ones.
Samsung is asking Apple to pay 2.4 percent in royalties for each Apple devices, however, Apple believes the request doesn’t make any sense as the Cupertino-based firm thinks Samsung-owned wireless patents should be treated as essential ones that should be widely used by other handset manufacturers with paying less than $1.
Referring to Samsung’s earlier commitment for FRAND principles decades ago, Apple is resisting paying more than $1 in return for using Samsung-owned wireless patents. FRAND stands for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.
``Although it was tough for essential wireless patents to be granted as patents because of FRAND principles, the local court accepted the Samsung request. Should Apple sign a cross-licensing deal with Samsung in wireless patents,’’ said Chung Woo-sung, a patent expert in Seoul.
Industry experts said that the ruling in Korea will have a ``minor impact’’ on nine jurors in California due to differentiation in legal systems but the jurors will refer to the court ruling here before the U.S. verdict that will come as early as Sunday.
“The ruling in Korea will have a limited impact on similar pending cases in Europe. But the Korean case could be used as a good reference for judges who oversee the Samsung-Apple case in different countries as the legal claims by both companies are virtually same as in Korea,’’ said Chung.
Samsung Electronics is the most-crucial parts supplier to Apple for use in Apple devices. This year, Apple expects to increase its buying on Samsung flat-screens and chips to $11 billion from last year’s $7.8 billion.