Noor Al Mulla 1628

Negotiations Between Apple and Samsung

Business negotiations are deliberations that ensue from different motivating factors and

whose agenda have a common ground. Such a phenomenon brings the conflicting sides together

in the aim of seeking a lasting solution to the conflict. Often the conflicts being resolved emanate

from interests among the parties, which happen to be coinciding. As such, one party feels less

advantaged and seeks reprieve. It is a common case nowadays and it features a series of across

the table discussions, which happen to be under the watch of the court system. Therefore, both

partners have the privilege of accessing the courts in case they feel there is a breach of contact or

patent for that matter. The negotiations between apple and Samsung are a perfect example of

such a phenomenon. In this case, apple accuses Samsung of breach of its patent rights. Apple

claims that Samsung copied the look and feel of an iphone, through their galaxy brand. Filling of

the case was in 2011 when the conflict began.

The issue of business negotiations is a common phenomenon these days especially on

matters of patents and royalties. The desire to protect the unique characteristics of various

products has become a fundamental element of business negotiations nowadays. It is often

argued that in order to hold enough leverage to such a negotiation, one should commence the

negotiations way before the two parties even meet face to face on the table negotiations. Only

that way, will a given party ensure their intellectual property is well insulated. An example of

such an instances where value for a negotiation was increased outside of the table negotiation on

matters of patents and royalties the scenario where Federal Express under Fred Smith. Smith

wished to acquire Flying Tigers, which was an Asian carrier service that was undergoing tough

times but possessed far more assets than Federal Express. In order to acquire adequate leverage,

Smith started attacking the unionized workforce that was experienced at Flying Tigers. In such a
 Noor Al Mulla 1628

move, Smith provoked the management of the Asian carrier service that sought to compensate

him in the potential deal considering that it was not union free. Another literature that can be

looked at, possessing the unique traits of negotiation leverage is the Donald Trump and Leonard

Kandell case. Realizing that heading to the negotiation without leverage would cost him more, he

sought to negotiate with Tiffany & Co on air rights. While at these negotiations, Trump noted

that Tiffany had an option of purchasing the property owned by Kandell on fair market value and

thus he sought to purchase those rights from her. That way, Trump received a powerful grip in

the negotiation and could possibly acquire the property from Kandell in the case that the former

was not ready to offer him a good leasing deal. Kandell was over-powered and he had no choice

but to suffer at the expense of Trump who was superior at the negotiations. Now, the discussed

references illustrate the importance of seeking a firm ground on which a business negotiation

deal will be based. The incidences also highlight the risk of loss incurred in the case that party

neglects the need to possess enough leverage prior to the event of the negotiations.

The case on Apple and Samsung is simply a case of patents claimed to have been ignored

by Samsung regarding the intellectual property on Apple’s products. Apple continues to assert

that immediately after the release of the iphone; Samsung copied the technological aspects of the

device as well as the physical outlook and feel. They argue that, the fact that there was a

regulation in place barring any company from doing such an act, Samsung was guilty of

neglecting the responsibility of honoring trade patents. Samsung on the other hand also sued

Apple for similar charges and the on hearing the case a verdict was ruled in 2012, the following

year after the hearings had started.

The verdict by the jury was that Samsung was found guilty and liable to pay Apple over

$1 billion as damages to the neglect of patent rights owned by Apple (Lee and Pickering).
 Noor Al Mulla 1628

Samsung countered the case with an appeal that seemed to take a new twist. Proceedings were

characterized by revelations of exhibits that even included the companies’ financial records. As a

result of the magnitude of the case, motions rocked the court requesting it not to reveal some of

the confidential exhibits. Apparently, none of the conflicting parties denied the right of sealing

confidential company information; rather it was the press who were filing for motions to unseal

such documents. The reason behind the media interest was the fact that the case received more

attention than any business negation had ever received before. In fact, the case came is referred

to as the patent negotiation trial of the century.

The negotiations between the two parties were unique in the sense that neither of the two

parties opposed to the alternative party’s request for relief. They argue that the exclusive nature

of their businesses would adversely affect their operations in the case that some of the

information relayed in court was unsealed. Nevertheless, the possibility of a consensus is beyond

hand as the case also reveals a continued legal battle where none of the parties is willing to

pursue a solution to the predicament facing them. If anything, it is clear that the two companies

seek to prove superiority in their own respective ways.

I think that the case is two sided and thus difficult to judge. The fact that both parties

possess leverage in the case implies the two parties are almost on equal negotiating grounds.

However, the two parties are not oriented at looking for a solution, rather, it is apparent that the

duel surpasses the patent rights case from which it was started. Furthermore, the two companies

would have easily achieved a consensus because the two parties had a previous relationship

where Samsung is Apple’s biggest supplier (Staff). That is not the case; however, as interrelated

court cases continue to dominate the negotiations. None of the parties is ready to quit just yet and

this explains the use of awkward methods in an attempt to win the case. I think the two
 Noor Al Mulla 1628

companies do not a court case to determine their relationship, a fair off the court negotiation is

sure to resolve the predicaments suffered by the two.

As time goes on, chances achieving a resolution diminish as the members of the

negotiation are bound to feel that they have spent too much time already to quit. Therefore,

chances of cooperation in negotiating a fair deal are reduced and the problem continues to haunt

them inhibiting both of their full potentials.

 Noor Al Mulla 1628

Works Cited

Lee, Wlliam F and Wilmer Cutler Pickering. "APPLE INC., v SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS

CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, ." United States Court of Appeal For the

Federal Circuit (2012): 3-15.

Staff, Pon. "Apple and Samsung: A Dispute Between Business Negotiators." Harvard Law

School (2012): 1.