Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Samsung versus Apple

In the case between Apple Samsung backdrop of patent infringement, design and trademarks and unfair competition, Apple has applied for and obtained permission to dissect the prototype from Samsung. The Korean company has responded by asking to see the prototypes of the upcoming iPhone and iPad.

There is a fundamental difference between these two queries: Apple wants to see prototypes of products discovered and widely known even then that Samsung wants to see prototypes of products that nobody knows anything. We notice the difference in official documents: while Apple has asked for such and such a model using names, Samsung is sticking to a very cautious "iPhone 5 or 4GS, or whatever his name. Several scholars have thus noted that if the application Apple was fairly common, the Samsung was much less and had little chance of success. It poses the question of permeability between the legal department and other branches of the conglomerate, and potential risks of industrial espionage: whereas Samsung products, although not marketed, were largely revealed by the press or by Samsung itself, those Apple has never been seen.

Justice has not yet ruled on the request of Samsung, but Apple has already responded, calling it "attempt to harass" the worst faith. The Korean firm asked Apple to provide versions of "final and trade" of the next iPhone and iPad before next June 13, which the Cupertino company has denied. Apple now refers to the division of Samsung Mobile as the "copier", claiming that the products of the Galaxy "copying technology, user interface and innovative spirit" of the iPhone and iPad. The study of the prototype from Samsung is expected to confirm that fact.

Richard J. Lutton, chief adviser for intellectual property issues at Apple, justifies the denial of his company to provide prototypes to Samsung: "Apple is recognized as one of the most secretive companies in the world". No doubt his view, the motion from Samsung is an attempt to destabilize. The procedure was reactivated on Friday; we should quickly come to the conclusions of this component.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.