Feeds

back to article Samsung Galaxy Tab 'a harmful drug', says Apple in ban bid fail

A US court has once again denied Apple the chance to ban Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 before the case has fully played out. The fruity firm tried to get a preliminary injunction against the Android-powered tablets, citing patent infringement allegations, but Judge Lucy Koh said her California district court "currently lacks the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge
Facepalm

This will come back to haunt Apple ten times worse

They really do plan to launch a large, black, flat, rectangular device for watching moving images on, with sound, of the type Samsung has been selling for the last 10 years, and expect the shit they keep pulling now to have all been forgotten by then? Spock: "Fascinating".

34
12
WTF?

Re: This will come back to haunt Apple ten times worse

What are you on about, Flat TV designs are patented down to the position of the screws, OSD menus, etc.

There's no "karma" in the business world. Apple needs to have everything tightened down if they enter that space, regardless of their past legal battles.

1
16
Anonymous Coward

Why do people who have no financial interest, don't work for, have no connection to either Apple or Samsung get so hissy fitty over this.

The bottom line is this:

If you want an affordable tablet buy a Samsung.

If you want the best buy an iPad.

If you can't afford either of the above buy an Asus as it doubles up as a laptop and saves you money.

2
32
Anonymous Coward

Why do iFans* complain about people who have no connection to Apple or Samsung, then spew out their own "iProduct is the best" opinion like it's the last word on the subject?

37
1
Anonymous Coward

AC@ 1820

Hissy Fitty fit, I have proved my point entirely.

1
20

slight typo

let me correct a couple of minor errors

if you want an affordable buy an Asus

if you want the best buy an Asus

if you want the most popular buy an iPad 2.

if you can't afford either buy an Archos or Kindle fire (if in the USA)

10
1

So basically, the Judge thinks that apple is going to lose in the appeals, and as such isn't going to let them use the law as a corporate bludgeon.

17
0
Thumb Up

lost sale?

I would gladly buy a Samsung branded phone, contrarily I would never purchase an Apple product with or without feature X. Therefore no lost sale.

In fact Apple are making Samsung's products more appealing - after all, if they want them banned that much then they must be really good, no?

58
5
g e
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: lost sale?

Yep, it's the Apple Streisand Effect

Didn't Samsung recently thank Apple for the free publicity in Oz?

18
3
Silver badge
Gimp

Wow.

What harmful drugs are Apple on to try that line?

17
0
Unhappy

@ hplasm - Re: Wow.

Greed and lawyers.

Highly addictive stuff, that. The only working detox known is a stock crash.

19
2
Thumb Up

Re: Wow.

If crApple are so desperate that they are comparing the Samsung Tab 10.1 to a harmful mis-branded drug, then the fruity firm can treat all their own fruity products as suppositories, good thing they have patented round corners (c) (tm).

Icon: thumbs up, guess what's on the end of it. . . .

21
0
Bronze badge

Re: Wow.

Stevie was known to drop acid back in college, maybe he never stopped and the lawyers stumbled upon his stash?

6
0
Thumb Up

@hplasm -- Re: Wow.

"What harmful drugs are Apple on to try that line?"

Its own of course. Whether it's Apple, Samsung or lookalikes, it's all Electronic Heroin. So it'd not make economic sense to inject anything other than Apple homebrew--even cut as it is--compared to the best street stuff that is.

1
0

Re: Wow.

"What harmful drugs are Apple on to try that line?"

Assholeo

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Virulent

I guess the judge hasn't fully appreciated the nastiness of some of the malware spreading through those tablets. Best keep them away from the unaware public.

9
32
Bronze badge

Re: Virulent

So advise the judge to likewise forbid the sales of Microsoft OS of all versions then. No matter how many Android malware have been "discovered", neither iOS nor Windows matches Android's feature to open all the permissions cards before a user prior to installation.

Both GNU/Linux and BSD flavors have no need for it, while it would extremely useful on the Windblows OS (as well as the Invent-all-Rectangles OS) anyways.

5
2
Meh

Re: Virulent

Twat. Hard not to feed you, though...

17
0
g e
Silver badge
Holmes

Prior art va any Apple tv patent

The Sharp Aquos on my living room wall. I humbly invite Tim Crook to come and check its corners for roundness and its bezel for blackness. and it screen for screeniness.

My kids used to make noises like Apple do now. When they were about 6 months old and dropped their Pooh/Tigger/Piglet beany toy.

Mind you my kids grew up over the last ten-fifteen years, Apple didn't.

43
11

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Re: Prior art va any Apple tv patent

"Crook"? Seriously? Hopefully your kids will have grown more than you.

You're not really helping the image of Android fans.

3
30
Bronze badge

Re: Prior art va any Apple tv patent

Not an Android fan, but I approve that message.

13
1
Anonymous Coward

Judge of Korean descent siding with Samsung

Nothing to see here.

10
51
Facepalm

Re: Judge of Korean descent siding with Samsung

...because there can't possibly be another reason why the judge doesn't immediately give Apple what they want. It just has to be some foreign conspiracy.

42
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Judge of Korean descent siding with Samsung

Of course there could be another reason... but if things had gone the other way "American court" would be the first thing fandroids would shout about :-)

Just helping level the discussions. Isn't this a trolling site?

2
18
Bronze badge

Re: Judge of Korean descent siding with Samsung

Were that judge an idiot and approve the opposite decision, you'd suspect the idiots conspiracy?

3
0

Re: Judge of Korean descent siding with Samsung

You mean like the white judges in Germany were generous towards Apple?

3
0

Re: Judge of Korean descent siding with Samsung

"You mean like the white judges in Germany were generous towards Apple?"

Oh wait, Steve Jobs is Arab, not white. My bad.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I could make a screenplay out of this.

I can't help but think every arguement Apple tries to use on the judge makes her secretly shift more and more in samsungs favour.

It's basically come to this

Apple = brat

Samsung = other kid

Koh = mum

Washington = dad

Apple: "Mum, Samsung was being mean, take away his toys."

Koh: "Now now apple, I can't take away their toys unless you can prove it."

Apple "No... Take away their toys NOW!"

Koh: "Not until you give me some proof."

Apple runs to dad

Apple: "Dad, dad, Samsung was mean to me, and mum won't take away their toys, make mum take away their toys."

Washington: "Now dear, maybe you should take away Samsungs toys."

Koh: "No, not until Apple proves they've done something wrong."

Apple: "I hate you, I hate you, take away their toys or I'll hate you forever and ever"

Samsung meanshile is stood outside the room listening while muffling their laughter.

54
4
Trollface

Re: I could make a screenplay out of this.

Fantastic - The entire legal play out of apple v samsung in less than 15 lines.

3
0
Bronze badge

Corporate Communism

1
3
Silver badge

Well duh!

The normal structuring of ANY Western corporation is the same as that of any communist country's leadership. Communism is essentially corporation of an entire nation under one brand.

2
2
Coat

Re: Well duh!

You're missing the part where the Communist state confiscates all property in the name of the state. Corporations really can't do anything more than sue for it, a la Apple.

1
2
Gold badge

Corporations can't confiscate property.

Really. So you own that DVD? That MP3? You own your phone? Your tablet? Your Mac? Do you own that copy of software you bought, or is it all licensed to you? Restricted under penalty of sever fines and/or jail?

Some things you may be allowed in your jurisdiction, others aren't. Even in Western nations. Here in Canada I will soon be unable to rip a DVD, jailbreak a cell phone or install a different operating system on my tablet/PC. A combination of intellectual property overreach and "digital locks" rules do in fact mean that corporations can confiscate all sorts of property. Really, you never owned it in the first place.

Just like any communist country

A condo association or property developer can place all sorts of restrictions on what I can and can’t do with my own home. Car manufacturers can prevent me from accessing certain electronics or so forth on my vehicle. Corporations can tell me if I can use my phone at work, if I can take a picture, or any of a dozen mundane activities that used to be perfectly innocent, innocuous and allowed when I was a youngster.

The argument goes that we choose to sign our right away to these corporations by using their product, by living where live, working where we work or so forth. And yet every single year our options are fewer. The alternatives non-existant. You can agree to these binding conditions and forfeiture of rights with company A, or you can agree to it with company B.

The next argument is that you can simply choose to do without. In many cases – internet access, a phone, a place to live that is within commuting distance of a job, taking whichever job you can find because unemployment is ridiculous – “choosing to do without” means choosing poverty. Either directly – through choosing not to be employed – or by proxy – by being unemployable because you cannot meet the basic requirements that society has placed on each and every one of us.

So we have the illusion of choice. We can choose to give up our rights to damned near everything – including various types of property – or we can choose abject poverty.

Fantastic.

So the almighty capitalism ends up being “better” because they don’t kill you outright. In the more dictatorial communist regimes we were led to believe that if you didn’t comply, you were killed. In our capitalist utopia, if you don’t comply you are simply driven into such poverty that wither away and die a terrible, lingering, lonely death.

The bullet was cleaner.

13
1
Gold badge

Re: Corporations can't confiscate property.

"Just like any communist country"

Er, no. In a Communist country, all these things would be the property of the state and you'd be able to access anything you needed, in any format, whenever you needed it. What you just described is Fascism.

The fact that most, if not all[1], allegedly communist countries are, or were, actually fascist states with a very unconvincing rebadging job is just very funny.

[1] Actually I can't think of any examples of a genuinely communist state since communism was invented. Quite a few prior to that though. How odd.

1
0
Thumb Up

@Trevor_Pott -- Re: Corporations can't confiscate property.

An excellent commentary, well said. In many posts, I've said much the same but you've argued more articulately and forcefully.

We got rid of communism that was supposedly trying to hijack our democracies only to have rampant capitalism succeed in its place and it did so in a most spectacular way (brawls between behemoth corporations such as Apple, Samsung and HTC etc. over minutiae of their own making with little or no government involvement attests to this).

The consequences are that world works somewhat differently to the way it did not that long ago. The poor beleaguered citizen (who I was brought up to believe was at the centre of the democratic process), now finds himself continually fighting an uphill battle to achieve some equity in the most fundamental of things--rights, once they were supposed to be the raison d'être of democracy. For example, the right to choose; the right to be educated and correctly informed and not subject to rampant propaganda; the right to be left alone; the right to privacy and be secure, and the right to not be deceived or lied to by one's own government, etc., etc. are now all once again in the firing line centuries after we thought we'd reached consensus.

What we're witnessing now is a strange inversion of this process: one in which corporate entities and governments have become 'super-citizens' in their own right as they've amassed many questionably legitimate rights for themselves. In doing so they've acquired considerably more power than we--the great unwashed citizenry--presently have (or are capable of mustering in the current political climate). Moreover, these 'super-citizens' have asserted their 'rights' by might--through: money; ease of access to the law ('buying' thereof); lobbying and influence of politicians; conning and convincing governments to sign trade treaties that preferentially benefit them over individual citizens; easy access to the media; use of propaganda and blatant advertising, and, at times, even through graft and corruption.

These days, individuals or small groups who try to tackle this seemingly inexorable and inextricable perversion of the democratic process aren't shot to silence them as once in Nazi Germany; instead, they're subjected to everything from being outright discredited, to being told their actions are unpatriotic and bad for the economy, to being sent broke by legal costs, or silenced by threats, or through being ground down into ineffectiveness by the sheer number of the obstacles that their opposition is able to place in their way. It's no wonder so few ordinary citizens are prepared to stick their necks out and be involved in the democratic process.

I grew up in the '50s and '60s and there's no doubt things were far from perfect back then. As always, there were major disagreements between political protagonists and, at times, all-out war, nevertheless there was considerably more consensus between individuals, politicians and corporate leaders about what constituted the social contact that underpinned democracy back then. Much of the civility and respect for each other, institutions etc. has gone only to be replaced with the hard and abrupt edge to society that's now our way of life. The devaluing of social norms over the past half-century has meant we now attempt to regulate them through the law. Governments' attempts to social engineer society through the enforcement of new laws, in my opinion, often makes things worse (especially so when the law benefits one party more than the other) .

Today, we've upped the anti on just about everything: tightened laws, regulated any and everything to a level of absurdity--the point where humans cease to act in human ways (as Charlie Chaplin in 'Modern Times'), so we're now overly watchful of our backs, or we just end up in trouble. Similarly, we've codified many of our human relationships in law to the point where we need a social worker or a lawyer before we attempt anything significant, yet there are those who actually consider this normality.

Nevertheless, society's new 'controlled' mentality dovetails well with the ethos of the modern mechanistic, procedurally orientated corporation, and similarly so with international trade and commence.

With an almost universal business 'mentality' in place worldwide we end up achieving similar laws everywhere, essentially, we've worldwide rules in place. Add to this a bunch of international treaties policed by the ITO and similar organisations then we've heaven on earth for rampant capitalism. The Apples of this world are in clover and now they're acting as such. Trouble is that the citizens of most countries around the world had no say in this arrangement whatsoever; it was a sleight-of-hand backdoor collaboration between capitalism and governments.

Welcome to the late 20th and early 21st centuries, welcome to modern corporate ethics, and welcome to democracy Mark-II--the new all-powerful corporate model.

Many aspects of life have improved significantly for people over the past fifty or so years but when we look at most of the mechanisms used to achieve this we see it's been achieved by forcing both uniformity and tighter 'couplings' between players. Tighter couplings mean more control, more control means that more feedback is needed to stabilise the system and anyone who has done network or control theory knows the high potential for things to go wrong. For corporations, social engineering on such a scale is a wonderful arrangement but the fact that most of the players never had the opportunity to participle in setting the game's rules seems to me to be a potentially explosive recipe.

Unfortunately, now, we've a new generation who accepts this new way of life as the status quo, it's the norm for them, after all they've grown up knowing little else. Still, many of them instinctively know something is very wrong even if they've difficulty in articulating the reasons for why it's so. Therein lies the hope for a more equitable society.

5
0
Meh

Re: Corporations can't confiscate property.

[1] Actually I can't think of any examples of a genuinely communist state since communism was invented

I think Cuba made a good attempt at it, pity they pissed off corporate Amerika, by nationalising everything, who then wouldn't play with them until they got all their toys back.

Q: What's the difference between capitalism and communism?

A: Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man and communism is the other way around.

To be fair though both systems have one thing in common, shortages will be evenly distributed among the lower classes.

3
0
Thumb Up

Re: @Graham Wilson -- Corporations can't confiscate property.

Fantastic post Graham,

However I would not agree that "rampant capitalism succeed".

Rampant capitalism in the form of Thatcher/Regan monetarism has been as big a failure as communism has been in Russia. Just look at the problems that have been created in the US and Europe because of corporate greed, the rich have continued to get richer while the poor have got poorer.

Georges Clemenceau (French PM 1906-1909) said that "War is too important to be left to the generals", to paraphrase that "Banking is too important to be left to the bankers". The bankers have been tested and they have been found wanting, time to take the banks away from them.

2
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Happy

@Field Marshal Von Krakenfart -- Re: @Graham Wilson -- Corporations can't confiscate property.

Thanks very much for your comments. Re rampant capitalism succeeding: my view is probably overly pessimistic and I'd be delighted if I were wrong. I agree we've moved on significantly from Thatcher/Regan monetarism but there's a long way to go on the evidence. Perhaps monetarism's a bit like the Titanic, which when put into full reverse thrust, still took 20 or so miles to bring it to a stop--my position being that I can see the action but I'm both unclear as to the stopping distance and the time the thrust was reversed. (Not a particularly useful example as I'd give T/R monetarism significantly better odds than the Titanic.)

I'll come back to monetarism later.

Your example of Georges Clemenceau is an interesting one as it well illustrates the difficult problem we have with the shift in democracy. I don't know when Clemenceau first made his "war is too important..." comment but it seems to have been before 1914 perhaps during his first prime ministership (06-09); likely, so as the comment is also often attributed to Talleyrand which makes its origins about a century earlier. Anyway, the significance is that despite being acutely aware of the statement's significance, and being very conscious that Europe (loosely) between 1870 [Franco-Prussian War] and the early 1900s was a tinder keg, and the fact that he was renowned for being a hands-on prime minister, he nevertheless was unable to cool the political climate. As we well know, when Princip lit the match in '14 Europe exploded with an almighty bang.

In essence, Clemenceau was powerless or at least in effective in stopping WWI and so too were the rest of them, French, English, Germans et al. Between Clemenceau and WWI, France had eight prime ministers and another six during the war, which also included Clemenceau's second term. Numbers don't matter here though, the fact is that it's extraordinarily difficult to slow down or change the direction of many processes, political or otherwise, once they've achieved full momentum. Same with the bankers. As you said 'time to take the banks away from them' but despite the GFC and a large collection of almighty banking fuck-ups across the world, it's almost business as usual for the banks and bankers. So powerful and entrenched these individuals and organisations are, one really wonders what actually has to transpire to unseat them. Remember, in the Clemenceau/WWI example not even WWI fully resolved Europe's conflicts, the dust hadn't really settled until at least after the 2nd war--1946 if not later.

It seems to me that as with the banks it's hard to tell what will slow or effectively change rampant capitalism for the better--simply, what's the threshold for change? Unless there's a genuine social state change then there seems little point in trying to kill it, for the moment it's left alone it'll just bootstrap itself up and back to where it started--business as usual.

Thatcher/Regan monetarism started earlier than those who gave it its name, specifically the Austrian School, Hayek (Nobel Prize '74), von Mises et al. Of course Friedman (Nobel Prize '76) is also implicated. Two Nobel Prizes within two years in the mid '70s said to the world 'go for it', but the origins of T/R monetarism are considerably earlier, as much of the Austrian School's views had been shaped by what had happened to Austria and Germany during the interwar years (failure of Austrian democracy, totalitarianism etc.).

There's little point me continuing to rave on when I can point you to a quite brilliant account of how this rampant free-market monetarist view came into existence by the British historian, the late Tony Judt. In is final lecture--the Remarque Lecture of 2009 at New York University, "What is Living and What is Dead in Social Democracy", given not long before his death, Judt eloquently summarises how Austrian School economics came into existence and how it changed democracy then the world--and not necessarily for the better. Judt's explanation is not only heartfelt but it'll go on to be a classic, I doubt if anyone else could do better. I'd urge you to listen to it.

There's both video and audio versions on the net including several YouTube ones although they're mostly broken into subparts and very incomplete. I'd suggest the best and most reliable download is this audio .MP3:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/what-is-living-and-what-is-dead-in-social-democracy/3105140 (slightly abridged audio podcast)

Here's a partial typed transcript:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/dec/17/what-is-living-and-what-is-dead-in-social-democrac/?pagination=false (an abridged text)

The original Remarque Institute site at NYU is here (although the full 100MB 1.5-hour audio file is no longer there but a QuickTime presentation is--that's if it works, it didn't for me but that's probably my blockers):

http://remarque.as.nyu.edu/object/io_1256242927496.html

If you're enthusiastic you might still be able to find the full 1.5-hour audio version somewhere on the net but the first item, the abridged Australian ABC Radio National 54-minute version is still pretty good. (I've a copy of the full audio version but that doesn’t help El Reg readers very much.)

0
0
Silver badge

"Design dilution"?

Oh, no! Imagine a world where just ANYONE could make rectangular objects with round corners.

Patents are mediaeval - just scrap them.

18
1
WTF?

Re: "Design dilution"?

I have both products. They do look the same, but certainly don't feel the same once powered on

Apple are focusing on the look opposed to the functionality as Android is so very different to IOS in every possible way.

I also don't believe the Galaxy is costing Apple sales, it just gives the consumer more choice in my unbiased position.

The market is big enough for both Samsung, Apple and any other Tablet manufacturer, the only thing these lawsuits hurt are consumers with these shoot from the hip product bans and the cost of unnecessary litigation that only lines the pockets of law firms.

24
1
Silver badge

Re: "Design dilution"?

Well, actually, Samsung and all of the other Android and Windows tablet makers are costing Apple sales. If no-one else was allowed to make tablets, then if you wanted one, you'd have no choice but to buy an iPad.

*shudder*

7
1
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: "Design dilution"?

Patents that don't contribute to the progress of society as a whole are contrary to the entire point of the patent system. Certainly scrap THOSE ones!

5
0
Bronze badge
Trollface

How far will this go?

I can imagine if the Chief Exec of Samsung dies, Apple will sue Samsung for copying that as well.

46
1
Holmes

Samsung just needs to buy a few patents from HP/Compaq for their TC1000 tablet pc from early 2000 and they're safe:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tc1000&tbm=isch

2
0

It must be terribly embarassing to be a fanboi.

The post is required, and must contain letters.

6
1
Stop

@J.R. Hartley - - Re: It must be terribly embarassing to be a fanboi. - - NO, NO, NO.

NO, NO, NO.

It's the inverse. Like the pill, they've no conception. Ipso facto, embarrassment doesn't enter their minds.

0
0
Devil

Drug?

If anything, Apple is the dangerous drug:

* It looks appealing

* It is available in many places

* It gives great pleasure when you first take it

* Pleasure decreases with time but one "has to have it" to function normally.

* You always need more but there is only one place to get your app fix

* Once you realize you're addicted it requires a lot of willpower and help to get off it

* The chance of relapse remains very high

Oooh, shiny, shiny, must have shiny.

Android sucks but it's easier to get off of and is not so addicting.

(Watch the fanbois downvote this post)

12
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: Drug?

Downvoted by an Android user for the sheer infantile content of the post...

8
4

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.