Apple lawyers claim Samsung lawyer's 'jihadist' comparisons are making talks difficult, Samsung says Apple's being difficult

Apple and Samsung were revealed to be in fresh settlement talks to put these billion-dollar lawsuits behind them, but it turns out that talking smack about each other over the past few years whilst being engaged in said lawsuits has made things, shall we say… difficult. In fact, judging by the tone of statements issued by both lawyers to the court that ordered, one might think they don't even want this to work and just want to spend the next decade litigating. Anything's possible, we suppose.

But what we really have here is more or less manufactured outrage. Apple's statement to the court expressed their anger over how Samsung's lead attorney referred to Apple as "jihadist" in one interview, and in another said the long-running trials were "Apple's Vietnam" (excepting that Apple has come out victorious in the majority of cases).

Samsung, on the other hand, claims that Apple has been "posturing about Apple's purported trial victories and demanding that Samsung agree to various conditions" before continuing resolution talks.

For these lawyers, these statements and posturing are just that — statements and posturing. They're highly trained and highly paid professionals (not to mention adults) with the ability to put aside this sort of nonsense and publicity. If they really wanted to get down to brass tacks and start talking numbers, they'd be doing just that instead of complaining to the court about what amounts to smack talk and insults. The court had little choice but to send them back to an arbitration attempt, but we wouldn't be surprised to see the lawyers of Apple and Samsung squaring off yet again in a San Jose courtroom in the relatively near future.

The question is, what's left to gain at this point?

Source: US District Court [Scribd]; Via: The Verge


Reader comments

Apple lawyers claim Samsung lawyer's 'jihadist' comparisons are making talks difficult, Samsung says Apple's being difficult


Are these in-house lawyers or outside firms? If outside firms then what do you expect? They want to stretch this thing out as long as possible so they can keep billing.

If you're a lawyer for Apple or Samsung then quite a bit of money is what's left to be had.

Posted via Android Central App

They're not in-house. They have both hired top-billing big shot trial lawyers. Apple has Harold McElhinny Samsung has Charles Verhoeven both from big law firms and are likely billing between $1000-$1500/hour. It's common practice for experienced trial lawyers to charge more for in-court time, and $2500-$3000 is possible. Apple spent $32 mil. on attorney's fees in its case against Motorola Mobility. These Samsung cases are absolutely in the hundreds of millions in legal fees - on both sides. Considering how much is still left - Apple and Samsung will both spend $1 bil. on attorney's fees.

What motivation would they have to put a full stop on these proceedings and their continued billable hours?

Posted via Android Central App

Lmao, the lawyers are just getting rich off of this. It's not even in their best interests to settle this outside of court.

Posted via Android Central App

"excepting that Apple has come out victorious in the majority of cases"

Say WHAT?? What planet are you living on? They won a few on their home turf but they've been laughed out if the courts everywhere else, with few exceptions.

Posted via Android Central App

Samsung “being difficult” about lawsuit negotiations is pretty funny coming from Apple when you take into consideration that Apple wanted the whole insane 40 dollar for each device Samsung sold while the patents in that case wasn't even worth more than 1-2 dollar max for each device sold by Samsung.

So i'm not so sure it's Samsung that is the company that is being difficult to do negotiations with here. I think it's Apple that is extremely hard to do negotiations with when they requires totally insane and ridiculous things for their agreements.

How about that Apple?

Haven't you (Apple) been thinking about how freaking stupid and ridiculous your requirements are that you want different brands to accept before you goes into an agreement?

Maybe there is a damn good reason why no one want's to go into an agreement with you (Apple) as long as they aren't forced to do so via the courts?

To think...I wanted to be a corporate lawyer then decided against it.

Now here I am stripping a Ford Escort apart...

You probably got the better end of the deal. You get to say you accomplished something. Unless you like whining, and sounding entitled.

This is still a thing? Personally, I'd like to see some other company come out on top because of this. While Sammy and Apple are bickering, some underdog comes in, and takes over the market. LG is *not so* quietly making a big push with their G line of phones. And there seems to be quite a bit of buzz about the G3. I don't think we are going to see the same buzz generated about the S5/M8 prime. And Motorola seems to be taking the world (or at least the US) by storm with their mid/low end phones (Moto G/E). Sammy could easily lose quite a bit of market share to these two firms.

I'm just waiting for the U.S Supreme court to either hear or deny hearing the case, then it will be officially over, in the U.S anyways. Legal battles will probably rage on in other countries after they've reached the final appeal in the U.S, but it least it's one step closer to being over with, until another case pops up and it starts all over again.

Actually the Vietnam War analogy is very apt.. The US won on the battlefield pretty much every battle but they lost the war. That is pretty much an apt description of how Apple is faring, winning courtroom victories while watching Samsung and Android get stronger and stronger.