An internal memo regarding the jury verdict in California was released on Samsung’s Global Blog.  The memo reflects the company’s position on the verdict and vows to counter-sue for the protection of the company.  It also indicates that Samsung tried to negotiate with Apple in order to avoid going to court and out of the relationship that Apple had as one of Samsung’s “most import customers”.  Samsung also positions with the hope that innovation will trump this litigation.

Wall Street definitely took notice with Samsung losing 7% in Seoul Trading in the wake of the judgment.  In the meantime, Apple hit new highs yet again, at one point as high as $680.87 and a cap of $638.3 billion.

The memo is reproduced here:

On Friday, August 24, 2012, the jury verdict in our trial against Apple was announced at the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The following is an internal memo that reflects Samsung’s position regarding the verdict:

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.