Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Business
25 November 2013updated 22 Oct 2020 3:55pm

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

What features are Samsung ruled to have copied?

By Heidi Vella

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?

Select and enter your email address Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. Your new guide to the best writing on ideas, politics, books and culture each weekend - from the New Statesman. A weekly newsletter helping you fit together the pieces of the global economic slowdown. A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. The New Statesman’s weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.
  • Administration / Office
  • Arts and Culture
  • Board Member
  • Business / Corporate Services
  • Client / Customer Services
  • Communications
  • Construction, Works, Engineering
  • Education, Curriculum and Teaching
  • Environment, Conservation and NRM
  • Facility / Grounds Management and Maintenance
  • Finance Management
  • Health - Medical and Nursing Management
  • HR, Training and Organisational Development
  • Information and Communications Technology
  • Information Services, Statistics, Records, Archives
  • Infrastructure Management - Transport, Utilities
  • Legal Officers and Practitioners
  • Librarians and Library Management
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • OH&S, Risk Management
  • Operations Management
  • Planning, Policy, Strategy
  • Printing, Design, Publishing, Web
  • Projects, Programs and Advisors
  • Property, Assets and Fleet Management
  • Public Relations and Media
  • Purchasing and Procurement
  • Quality Management
  • Science and Technical Research and Development
  • Security and Law Enforcement
  • Service Delivery
  • Sport and Recreation
  • Travel, Accommodation, Tourism
  • Wellbeing, Community / Social Services
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.

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.