Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Tech News > HTC has no plans to settle with Apple says chairwoman

HTC has no plans to settle with Apple says chairwoman
Thread Tools
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2012, 02:49 AM
 
HTC chairwoman Cher Wang has said that HTC has no plans to settle its outstanding lawsuits with Apple. Her comments follow Apple's overwhelming win against Samsung in a Californian court last week. Wang's comments are also set against a prevailing view that the most important aspect of Apple's win were that the patents it tested in the trial were upheld by the jury, while Samsung's standards-essential patents used in its countersuit were deemed to have been uninfringed by Apple in its products.

"Samsung's defeat does not mean that Google Inc's Android camp is defeated," Wang reports the Taipei Times. Although Wang is publicly taking a tough stance on the issue, the $1 billion damages bill that Samsung is required to pay Apple (subject to the verdict being upheld) is likely to give any Android OEM taking on Apple in the U.S. court system second thoughts. In the case of HTC, its countersuit is reliant on the same failed approach that Samsung attempted to use against Apple in its use of standards-essential patents. Moreover, its attempts at using this strategy are hanging by a thread. It only has two patents left in its arsenal, after some were knocked out by the ITC and others were withdrawn by the company itself. Apple has countersued HTC under U.S. antitrust laws for attempting to force Apple to pay a higher than typical rate for its standards-essential technologies. It has also already had products banned from sale in the U.S., which were only cleared to ship after it implemented a software workaround. Furthermore, with HTC's One range of handsets failing to capture significant market share away from either Samsung or Apple, its financial position continues to weaken considerably. After seeing massive plunges in profit in consecutive quarters, it can ill-afford a substantial payout to Apple if their current dispute heads to a jury.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2012, 03:57 AM
 
In most Asian cultures, losing face is almost the most important thing in life to avoid. Hence they find it almost impossible to admit to having made a mistake, so they make hardball comments such as this. This really is a clash of cultures as well as of legal systems, companies and personalities. If they cannot adapt, they will ultimately fail in Western markets.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2012, 04:04 AM
 
The $1 billion (or maybe more) fine really scare the crap out of everyone including Google/Motorola beside Asian companies. Samsung is lucky enough to get works from Apple to pay the bill. LOL.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: pacific northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2012, 05:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by coffeetime View Post
The $1 billion (or maybe more) fine really scare the crap out of everyone including Google/Motorola beside Asian companies. Samsung is lucky enough to get works from Apple to pay the bill. LOL.
Those are two different Samsung divisions/companies and one might not be able to financially support the other. Samsung's phone division is the one that's been hit while Samsung's computer parts manufacturing division is on good terms with Apple and enjoys financial success--at least until Apple goes nuclear on the entire company, ala Google.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2012, 08:19 AM
 
Nor should they settle. The jury in the Apple v. Samsung case did Apple no favors by doing such a horrible job. They refused to read the jury instructions, did an incredibly sloppy job (they awarded $2 million in damages for one item that they said was not an infringement!), rushed through the whole process, and even admitted that they had already made their minds up two days into the trial. Worst of all the jury foreman was biased and lied to the other jurors about how to figure out if prior art is acceptable and the patents valid. Hint: it is and they aren't, respectively.

This kind of behavior is an embarrassment to the entire judicial system.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2012, 08:48 AM
 
Love the astroturf! Back in reality, Samsung still lost big, and by extension, so did Google. Their bolshevik theories of "Your technologies are everybody's, but ours are ours!" just don't hold up to legal scrutiny. Protections of inventions are built in to the constitution, and that hasn't been amended away yet.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2011
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2012, 10:02 AM
 
Quick question to HTC...
Where was your "Innovation" before the iPhone arrival?
To the general public... Did anybody hear about a smartphone from HTC before the iPhone? or at least some body heard of a company called "HTC" before the iPhone?
And last, for those claiming that the jury refuse to read the instructions... it is true they didn't read those instructions, Judge Lucy did read all the instructions to them.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:06 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2