Apple vs. Samsung 2012

VS

Apple Inc. of the U.S. and Samsung Electronics Co. of South Korea are embroiled in legal battles in 10 nations over intellectual property, spanning dozens of cases. Here are details of some of the bigger legal fights:

• In the U.S., Apple scored a major victory on Aug. 24 when a jury found Samsung had “willfully” copied Apple’s iPhone and iPad, and awarded Apple $1 billion in damages. Apple is now requesting eight Samsung products be banned from the U.S. market. A hearing was rescheduled for Dec. 6 2012.
• In South Korea, the court on Aug. 24 dismissed Apple’s claim that Samsung copied the look and feel of the iPhone and the iPad in a ruling widely seen as a victory for Samsung. Still, the judges issued bans on some Samsung and Apple products. It found that Apple illegally used Samsung’s wireless technology while Samsung violated Apple’s patent related to the way mobile devices notify users when an image reaches to the end.
• In Japan, the Tokyo District Court denied Apple’s claim on Aug. 31 2012 that Samsung infringed upon Apple’s patent to have mobile devices and personal computers “synchronize” or share data with each other. Other cases in Japan are still pending.
• In Germany, a Dusseldorf court said in July 2012 Samsung’s Galaxy Tap 7.7 imitated Apple’s design in an “unacceptable manner” and ordered European sales stopped. But the court said another Samsung tablet computer no longer infringed Apple’s iPad patents or designs after making enough changes. Other cases are still pending.
• In Australia, Samsung became free to sell its Galaxy tablet computers after the country’s highest court dismissed Apple’s appeal in December 2011. But separate legal battles are ongoing over various patents.

Origin

Apple sued its component supplier Samsung, alleging in a 38-page federal complaint on April 15, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that several of Samsung’s Android phones and tablets, including the Nexus S, Epic 4G, Galaxy S 4G, and the Samsung Galaxy Tab, infringed on Apple’s intellectual property: its patents, trademarks, user interface and style. Apple’s complaint included specific federal claims for patent infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, as well as state-level claims for unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and unjust enrichment.

Apple’s evidence submitted to the court included side-by-side image comparisons of iPhone 3GS and i9000 Galaxy S to illustrate the alleged similarities in packaging and icons for apps. However, the images were later found to have been tampered with in order to make the dimensions and features of the two different products seem more similar, and counsel for Samsung accused Apple of submitting misleading evidence to the court.

Samsung counter-sued Apple on April 22, 2011, filing federal complaints in courts in Seoul, Tokyo and Mannheim, Germany, alleging Apple infringed Samsung’s patents for mobile-communications technologies.[16] By summer, Samsung also filed suits against Apple in the British High Court of Justice, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington D.C., all in June 2011.

Appeal in cards

Parthasarathy shome committee – GAAR 2012

CB

Scope of the Terms of Reference of the Expert Committee Headed by Dr. Parthasarathi Shome on Gaar Expanded to Include all Non-Resident Tax Payers Instead of Only FIIs:

The Standing Committee on Finance has presented its report on Current Economic Situation and Policy Options to Parliament on August 30, 2012. The Committee has inter alia found that the investment climate in the country has suffered serious setback and investors confidence has been hit mainly because of the concerns over the impact of retrospective tax laws and new General Anti Avoidance Rules(GAAR).

The Government had constituted an Expert Committee headed by Dr. Parthasarathi Shome on GAAR on July 13, 2012. The Committee has now submitted its draft report, which has been placed in public domain on September 1, 2012 for seeking suggestions/opinion of the various stakeholders.

The Government had earlier on August 6, 2012 also requested the Expert Committee to examine the applicability of the amendment on taxation of non-resident transfer of assets where the underlying asset is in India, in the context of Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) operating in India purely for portfolio investment. It has now been decided to expand the scope of the Terms of Reference of the Committee to include all non-resident tax payers instead of only FIIs.

The terms of reference of the Committee are:

1.    Receive comments from stakeholders and the general public on the draft GAAR guidelines which have been published by the Government on its website.

2.    Vet and rework the guidelines based on this feedback and publish the second draft of the GAAR guidelines for comments and consultations.

3.    Undertake widespread consultations on the second draft GAAR guidelines.

4.    Finalise the GAAR guidelines and a roadmap for implementation and submit these to the government.

The Committee is mandated to work to the following time schedule:

1.    Receive comments from stakeholders and general public till end-July 2012.

2.    Vet and rework the guidelines based on this feedback and publish the second draft GAAR guidelines by 31 August 2012.

3.    Finalise the GAAR guidelines and a roadmap for implementation and submit these to the government by 30 September 2012.

The Committee, chaired by Dr. Parthasarathi Shome, has submitted its draft report after analysis of the GAAR provisions and noting the concerns expressed by various shareholders. The draft report has recommended certain amendments in the Income-tax Act, 1961; guidelines to be prescribed under the Income-tax Rules, 1962; circular to clarify GAAR provisions along with illustrations; and other measures to improve tax administration specifically oriented towards GAAR matters.

GAAR

Union Cabinet approved the Launch of Satellite to study Mars

The Union Cabinet on 3 August 2012 gave its consent to the launch of satellite to the Mars proposed in 2013. The Cabinet decision came following a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The Department of Space had sent a proposal to the Union Cabinet, in which it had sought government’s permission to launch a satellite to study Mars, also called Red Planet. The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) is expected to launch a Mars Orbiter in November 2013 with a 25kg scientific payload.

The Mars mission will be launched by ISRO’s advanced Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV). The objective of the mission is to study the climate, geology, origin, evolution and sustainability of life on the planet.  If the ISRO fails to launch the Mars Mission next year, other opportunites are available in 2016 and 2018.

India has undertaken the massive space project with the help of United States, Russia, Europe, Japan and China.  The mission is estimated to cost the government exchequer about 450 crore rupees. An initial allocation of 125 crore rupees was already made in the budget 2012-13.