Six questions answered on Samsung’s $290m payout to Apple

What features are Samsung ruled to have copied?

Samsung is being forced to pay $290m to rival company, Apple, after a court ruled it copied some of the company’s features. We answer five questions on the payout.

Who made the ruling?

A jury in Silicon Valley ruled that Samsung must pay the significant sum to rival Apple for copying iPhone and iPad features in its devices – these are mostly older Samsung tablets and smartphones.

This verdict comes after a previous jury found Samsung owed Apple $1.05bn for copyright infringement – but a US District Judge found the jury miscalculated the amount Samsung must pay and so ordered a retrial.

Is this the only payment Samsung has to make to Apple?

No. The company also has to pay $550m as a result of the initial verdict. So, in total Samsung is being forced to pay Apple close to $930m in the case.

Apple’s shares were boosted by the news and they traded slightly higher today. Samsung closed down slightly earlier in the day.

What features are Samsung ruled to have copied?

It was found that Samsung infringed Apple patents such as one that allows users to "pinch and zoom" on smartphone and tablet screens.

What has Apple said about winning the case?

Apple said in a statement: "For Apple, this case has always been about more than patents and money. It has been about innovation and the hard work that goes into inventing products that people love.

"While it's impossible to put a price tag on those values, we are grateful to the jury for showing Samsung that copying has a cost."

And Samsung?

It is believed the company plans to appeal the ruling.

In court Samsung’s lawyer William Price, according to the BBC, argued "Apple doesn't own beautiful and sexy.”

He argued that Apple shouldn’t have ownership over the basic rectangle shape of smartphones.

Is this the end of the story?

No. This ruling only covers 13 of the 26 Samsung devices that Apple had argued copied its technology.

A separate trial is pending to determine whether or not current Samsung devices also violate Apple's patents. It is scheduled for March 2014.

Apple has also requested the judge consider a sales ban against all of the older Samsung models that used Apple's technology. However, the judge has previously refused to do so but a separate US Appeals Court has asked for this to be reconsidered.

Cutouts of Samsung Electronics' Galaxy Note 3 in a showroom at the company's headquarters in Seoul on November 22, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Getty
Show Hide image

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496