3 ms·
It's interesting that at the same time as coming to an agreement to partly settle, they're disputing whether Samsung should be reimbursed if the court reverses
by jfoster 11y ago
It's interesting that at the same time as coming to an agreement to partly settle, they're disputing whether Samsung should be reimbursed if the court reverses the partial judgement. This might be as simple as the two companies agreeing to publicly disagree on that point. My previous impression of this type of situation was that the companies involved would be more rigid about the terms of settlement. Another possibility is that neither of them can decide, and that reimbursement part is actually up to the court.
- sergers 11y agothere was a partial final judgement that samsung has to pay a certain amount, and were denied not having them pay. so the statement is. samsung forking over certain amount to apple apple receiving a certain amount. samsung still thinks it doesnt owe a cent(especially since atleast one patent has been invalidated already and possibly a 2nd one now) and says its owed the money back if they win appeal. likely taking to supreme court (requested whole trial reviews). apple noted it doesnt think samsung should get any money back if the courts change their mind. a bit more info: http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/12/samsung-announces-payment-of-548.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/12/samsung-announces-payment... samsung paid while still saying they are in the right, i believe they "settled" to avoid any fines and continued device blocks.