:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/14039676/DSC_4098-hero.1419972920.jpg)
Samsung took quite the blow in its case against Apple last week when the jury awarded nearly every decision in Apple's favor. In addition to the public statement Samsung released after the decision was announced, the Korean company quickly issued an internal memo to its employees. Unsurprisingly, Samsung reiterates its stance that it does not agree with the jury's decision, and that it feels "that the consumers and the market will side with those who prioritize innovation over litigation."
"...they had been one of our most important customers."
Apple has long used Samsung components in its products, and Samsung is quick to point this out in the top of its memo to employees. Of note, it states that Apple "had been one of our most important customers," implying that the two companies might not be working together anymore. We find that a bit hard to believe, as Samsung components are found in nearly every device Apple makes, but the statement is there nonetheless.
You can read Samsung's memo to its employees in full below.
We initially proposed to negotiate with Apple instead of going to court, as they had been one of our most important customers. However, Apple pressed on with a lawsuit, and we have had little choice but to counter-sue, so that we can protect our company.
Certainly, we are very disappointed by the verdict at the US District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA), and it is regrettable that the verdict has caused concern amongst our employees, as well as our loyal customers.
However, the judge’s final ruling remains, along with a number of other procedures. We will continue to do our utmost until our arguments have been accepted.
The NDCA verdict starkly contrasts decisions made by courts in a number of other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, and Korea, which have previously ruled that we did not copy Apple’s designs. These courts also recognized our arguments concerning our standards patents.
History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth, when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation.
We trust that the consumers and the market will side with those who prioritize innovation over litigation, and we will prove this beyond doubt.
