Just last week we heard about how Samsung was itching to get the details on the HTC-Apple deal. Unfortunately, when we originally got word of the HTC-Apple agreement it was specifically stated that the details would not be released publicly and would stay confidential. So, did Samsung get an answer? They most certainly did! The answer they received was YES!!
Samsung lawyers got the "go ahead" to view the details on the agreement, which I happen to find very interesting. If it was so confidential, you wouldn't think anyone would be able to access that information. However, Samsung has broken that barrier.
Samsung specifically requested the details, because they want to view the patent information that goes with the agreement. Why? Samsung feels that the patents in the agreement could be ones that "overlap" with already previous patents involved the several suits Samsung already has with Apple.
Samsung's lawyers released the following statement in regards to the 391 and 915 patents that are in question:
"This license has direct bearing on the question of irreparable harm and whether monetary remedies are adequate."
Since the trial in California Samsung is doing everything possible have the verdict reversed, especially since it requires them to pay Apple a huge fee. So this is definitely good news for Samsung!
It would seem that the details will only be released to the attorneys and no other eyes will have an opportunity to see the details. Judge Grewal made the following statement:
"Many third parties to this case have had their licensing agreements disclosed -- without any redaction of financial terms -- subject to an Attorneys-Eyes-Only designation because the confidential financial terms were clearly relevant to the dispute between Apple and Samsung. HTC is not entitled to special treatment, especially when it has recognized the general sufficiency of the protective order and the integrity of Samsung's outside counsel."
Apple and Samsung are due back in court December 6, and I'm sure we are all wondering if the same verdict will hold up this time. Do you think the details of this agreement will have any precedence in the hearing on December 6?