Previously we have witnessed the growing tension between the manufacturing giants Apple and Samsung. This accrued tremendously after various developments surfaced up in conjunction with the Apple vs. Samsung cases. It looked like the matter was laid to rest by these competitive forces; however this battle has been highlighted again with the reigniting set of lowdowns that are associated with both of them.
With reports from various tidings, it is suggested that this conflict is being disputed near Apple’s home turf in San Jose, California. Based on the disclosures, it is construed that Apple has managed to present alleged accusations on Google. This is in relation with the improperly withholding potentially incriminating information. Along these lines, it seems that the Judge Paul S. Grewal has been requested to lay an agreement and force Google to dish out the necessitated source code information i.e., pertaining to the specific flagship mobile OS.
Furthermore, it is understood that Apple has accused the Big G in reference to the lack of transparency with respect to documents which were initially requested by Apple. Additionally, this procedure was based on a plan manifested in the order of pretrial information sharing.
Along these lines, we have presented to this second trial which is currently active in the same San Jose court. The previous one was last year and had been conducted by the Judge Lucy Koh. Moreover, the decision statement from the hearing was that Apple received $1.05 billion in damages the last time. It is unstated, but it is self-explanatory that even though that specific amount was reduced by half on appeal; the inferential perspective is that this specific instance has done very little to ease tensions between Apple and the Android based giants.
Based on the lowdowns from Matthew Warren, the lawyer representing both Google and Samsung,; it is regarded that Apple’s previous decision to warden off from the case before was a strategized aspect. This is due to the fact that at the moment Google is responsible as a third-party applicant to the case rather than a direct respondent. Hence, the Big G isn’t understood to possess the same rights.
Therefore as the developments aggrandize and as the situations strikes a claim to enforce a battle mode, these interesting set of developments are surely to gaze many more eyeballs in reference to this case.