Edible Apple

Samsung may be standing up tall in public following their loss to Apple last week, but investors aren’t necessarily on the same page. Shares of Samsung dropped rather precipitously in early morning trading, marking the company’s largest one-day decline in nearly four years.

CNET reports:

Shares of Samsung were off 6.98 percent in early morning trading, down 89,000 South Korean Wan ($78.38) to 1.19 million SKW ($1,043.88). It was the company’s largest decline since October 2008. The heavily weighted Samsung brought the South Korean Kospi down 0.6 percent.

Now what would be particularly problematic for Samsung is if injunctions on its accused products follow. Indeed, a number of Samsung products currently on the market infringe upon some of the patents Apple successfully asserted at trial.

Meanwhile, Samsung released the following internal memo regarding its loss to Apple, alleging that it is the company that prioritizes innovation over litigation.

We initially proposed to negotiate with Apple instead of going to court, as they had been one of our most important customers. However, Apple pressed on with a lawsuit, and we have had little choice but to counter-sue, so that we can protect our company.

Certainly, we are very disappointed by the verdict at the US District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA), and it is regrettable that the verdict has caused concern amongst our employees, as well as our loyal customers.

However, the judge’s final ruling remains, along with a number of other procedures. We will continue to do our utmost until our arguments have been accepted.

The NDCA verdict starkly contrasts decisions made by courts in a number of other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, and Korea, which have previously ruled that we did not copy Apple’s designs. These courts also recognized our arguments concerning our standards patents.

History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth, when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation.

We trust that the consumers and the market will side with those who prioritize innovation over litigation, and we will prove this beyond doubt.