Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/law/1616883-buss-low
https://studentshare.org/law/1616883-buss-low.
The case involved Apple and Samsung in the argument of products manufactory. The jury found Samsung guilty of willfully infringing Apple patents. Apple requested to triple the compensation, but the lawyers defended the claim. Apple requested the court to prevent Samsung to ship products infringing Apple’s patents. The court decision favored Apple.
Samsung penalty served as a deterrent effect to worn other companies trying to manufacture products similar to their competitor. The court ruling that Samsung should compensate Apple for damages was right since Samsung had made a profit from Apple's products (Wingfield, p. 4). Apple did not make the products for their competitors to flagrantly copy but for delighting their customers. I strongly agree with the court's decision. Each company should use skills but not copy other company’s product.
The ruling served as a warning to Samsung and other companies trying to copy their competitor’s products.
Read More