According to a new antitrust lawsuit that was filed yesterday, Google is said to be violating antitrust laws by maintaining an illegal monopoly — not only on Internet search but mobile search as well. This has supposedly affected the search market adversely while inflating the cost of devices of competing companies.
The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for Northern California. It accuses the Mountain View company of using Android as a way to maintain the monopoly through secret agreements with device makers. These agreements require companies to load Google’s suite of apps onto their devices. Known as Mobile Application Distribution Agreements or MADAs, the agreements have been made with mostly all Android vendors. These agreements essentially help partners facing lawsuits of their own in funding, technical support and other assistance.
The jury in the Apple v. Samsung case is set to make a ruling (again) about whether Samsung infringed Apple’s patents and if Samsung really owes Apple 2 billion dollars in damages. To try to get some additional information before deciding, the jurors asked for more information about what Steve Jobs said when he decided to prosecute Samsung, as well as if Google was ever mentioned in his conversations. While Google isn’t directly involved in the case, one of the devices included in this trial (the Galaxy Nexus) ran stock Android software that was claimed to violate one of Apple’s patents, and Google has brought forward some employees to defend Samsung. Read more
As we all know, Apple and Samsung have been in court for a couple of years now because Apple claims that Samsung has infringed on numerous mobile device patents. The device in question for this one is Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus, which we all know is part of Google’s Nexus program. In a nutshell, Apple claims that Samsung has copied the iPhone and demands more than $2 billion in “damages,” while Samsung, on the other hand, claims Apple has infringed on no such thing. After Samsung concluded its defense, it even claimed that Apple themselves has infringed on Samsung’s patents.
Samsung’s main defense is also that the Galaxy Nexus employed Google’s Android OS and that they had nothing to do with the software side of the Galaxy Nexus device. Seems like we’re going to have these kind of court battles for more years to come at this rate, right? If you wish to look more into this trial, hit up the source link for more info and updates. Also, let us know your opinion on this matter, do you think Apple should be taking Google to court instead of Samsung considering it’s their OS that Apple is angry about?
The ongoing lawsuit between Apple and Samsung has hit yet another speed bump. This one will really slow things down. The jurors have 53 pages of instructions to analyze before reaching a verdict. At stake is the proof of damages and the amount being rewarded. Judge Lucy Koh made it clear to the jurors that “It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case.” Taking as much time as necessary to reach the proper verdict is the goal (as it is in any case). Read more
It is safe to assume that Google’s best interest is to assist partners when they head into court, especially against Apple. That is exactly what the company is going to do with Apple going after Samsung. Not only will Google be defending Samsung and taking some blame, but Google is going to cover some of Samsung’s costs in the event Apple wins. Read more
In the Apple v. Samsung trial currently underway, one of the issues Samsung is arguing is that Apple has grossly over-exaggerated their damages claim. Apple is asking for more than $2 billion in damages based on the alleged violation of five patents. New York University professor Tulin Erdem was brought in late last week as an expert witness on Samsung’s behalf to counter Apple’s own expert regarding the amount of damages. Read more
Late last week, Hiroshi Lockheimer, Google VP of engineering for Android, took the stand for the Samsung vs Apple trial. Of course this trial is all about copying Apple, and Lockheimer argued that they never tried to copy Apple’s iOS. Not only that, many of the Android’s software features were created before Apple did.
“We liked to have our own identity; we liked to have our own ideas,” Lockheimer said. “We were very passionate about what we were doing, and it was important that we have our own ideas.”
In the latest bit of interesting information about the history of the development of Android, as is being revealed during the current Apple v. Samsung trial, we get confirmation that Android was originally designed for phones with a physical keyboard. This should probably not come as a surprise as Android was being developed at a time when Blackberry devices ruled the corporate smartphone market. Apple probably considers this to be helpful in their claim that Android and Samsung were copying Apple’s iPhone. However, the same information suggests the Android team had already contemplated a future where touchscreens were popular. Read more
Things can get pretty ugly when two giants go toe-to-toe in court. And that is where Samsung and Apple are these days. The latest punch comes from Apple in the direction of Samsung. It turns out that Samsung did not actually sell 2 million Galaxy Tab units six weeks in 2011 as Strategy Analytics had originally reported. And with this report came the big news that Apple’s tablet market share had fallen. But now it all looks like that was untrue.
An internal report brought forward in court reveals that Samsung actually sold 1 million Galaxy Tab units for all of 2011. The same document highlights Barnes & Noble’s Nook and Amazon’s Kindle Fire tablets outselling Samsung’s Galaxy Tab. And Apple dominated the market with 17.4 million iPads sold in 2011. Samsung misled just about everyone by reporting higher Galaxy Tab sales.
No time for pocket change when it comes to Apple and Samsung’s ongoing patent trial. Today, Apple has raised its claim for the jury to go in there favor and award them $2.19 billion in damages. Apple had originally wanted around $2 billion. Read more