Apple to Court: “Samsung owes us $180 million more!”

Posted by
Last Updated on

In 2012, Samsung was found guilty of infringing Apple’s patents on five smartphones. Two weeks ago, Sammy finally agreed to pay Apple the long awaited $548 million in accordance with the courts verdict. However, the Big Apple is now demanding that the South Korean tech giant pays an additional $180 million as interest accrued between 2012 and 2015. Apple has filed the new motion on Wednesday 23rd of December, 2015 in a US District Court in California.

Apple skylight

It is still not clear which Samsung phones Apple is seeking infringement rights upon and that’s because a majority of the documents are sealed from public viewing at the moment. Here is a quote from The Verge:

Samsung still claims that the 2012 verdict was incorrect, and it’s asked the US Supreme Court to review the evidence and help remedy the country’s patent system in the process. If the Supreme Court picks up the case, it could force a retrial and may potentially reshape how design patent cases are handled in the future.

Is this a case of greed? At this point, I think Apple and Samsung should just organize a football match or a boxing bout to settle this long lasting quarrel. Merry Christmas, Samsung 🙂

5 comments

  1. Great. If you can’t compete technologically, cripple financially. The evil behemoth.

    Is this a case of greed?

    Is the Pope catholic? Of course greed is first nature to Apple

    Mtschew..

  2. There’s something missing from this write-up. Has Samsung paid the settlement in full since 2012, or has it been dragged out during the intervening years? If the latter is the case, in particular if the case is still being dragged out in the courts via appeals or hoping for a retrial, then maybe Apple has a point.

  3. then Apple’s stance is perfectly normal. when someone withholds funds from you, you have a right to interest accruable to the principal for the period of time the funds were withheld for

  4. They would request for a stay of justice. That should had put all earlier judgement on hold till supreme court decide

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *