Feeds

back to article Second win for Apple as Galaxy Nexus sales banned in US

Apple has scored its second legal victory of the week with a court ruling on Friday that effectively bans sales of Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone in the US. Fresh from her ban on Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 earlier in the week, US District Judge Lucy Koh has issued a pre-trial injunction against Samsung over the Android …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

FAIL

Ye gods.

OK, let's go without a trial, then, not bother with the tedious hearing and examination of evidence, and oh yeah, make a few punitive assumptions as well.

How the HELL did this moron get appointed to the bench?!

45
8
Silver badge
Devil

Re: Ye gods.

It's the hypocrisy which stinks the worst - this is almost at Prescott levels. You can absolutely guarantee there will be no problem when Apple bring out a large, flat, black, rectangular device for watching moving pictures on with sound, powered by a remote, which looks and feels identical to the ones Samsung and a zillion others have been selling for the past 10 years.

24
7
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: Ye gods.

Calm down Billy Boy this is just pre trial ban. Once the proper hearings have taken place you may find things change. Unless of course the Judge has an iPhone!

4
2
Anonymous Coward

Calm down Calm down

Its only a pre-trial injunction, these things happen just in case the other party 'may' suffer financial loss before a ruling is made. It is just precautionary for the courts.

The outcome may well be different, could even be turned on its head.

Let's hope it is sorted before the iPhone 5 na iOS 6 rears its head, then even if Samsung etc win if it is after the release of the new iPad mini or iPhone 5 and iOS 6 the nexus and Tab may find themselves yesterday's products and will suffer sales.

Could this be the reason of this court case?

6
1
Silver badge

Yep, keeps them out of the market till after Christmas

Maybe that's the ploy, maybe it's a legitimate claim.

We shall see next year in March when the trial starts.

In the mean time......

3
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Apple

Apple will still have to post a $100,000,000 bond to the courtnfornthe injunction that is payable to Samsung should Apple lose the case. but how much would Samsung really lose if the phone is delayed until next year?

3
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Calm down Calm down

> Its only a pre-trial injunction

When is the trial? The reason I ask is because if the trial was next week then a pre-trial ban wouldn't be an issue. If the trial is in six months (and that would be quick) then the hardware will be "old" by the time any ban is lifted. Apple can use legal manoeuvres to delay any trial, possibly by years, which would make the hardware obsolete when any ban is lifted.

16
1

Re: Apple

It was released over 6 months ago and being a Google experience device is probably well beyond the peak for sales.

1
8
g e
Silver badge

Re: Ye gods.

Actually, if the judge can be shown to own an pihone, ipad and maybe a mac thing of some sort could that be used to show predujice/bias?

10
6

Re: Ye gods.

Evidence is looked at in the injunction application. That's the whole point of an injunction - swift action, based on preliminary evidence and subject to a substantial fee for the Claimant.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Fansungs spin so fast they make me dizzy

When Judge Koh is dishing it out to Apple or prosecuting them she's a smart judge of the highest morals. When she sides with Apple she's a moron.

It all seems very convinient [sic].

8
13
Stop

Re: Ye gods.

Throw enough patent claims, some of them might stick because the judge owns an i-thing.

1
3

Re: Calm down Calm down

The problem is this is another example of how the patent system makes no sense for software and modern electronics. According to the story, the trial is likely to take place after the holidays, so that's 6 months away. A six month sales ban essentially kills a cellphone dead. Who the hell is going to want to buy a Galaxy Nexus at full price in six months? No-one. By that time it's obsolete.

A six month injunction might be fine for a product with an expected sales lifetime of ten years. If the product's expected sales lifetime is about a year, with half of that at deep discounts, it's ludicrous; the system just doesn't work.

8
0

Re: Calm down Calm down

Here's the thing.

Firstly this is not about look and feel. So arguments about Apple making a TV in a few months are irrelevant. There are 4 Patents up for grabs and make no mistake Samsung just got in the way these four patents infringements lie heavily at the feet of Google and Android.

Also this is the Galaxy Nexus phone that has been banned which was released in November last year and not the new Galaxy SIII which also infringes but has not as yet had an injunction against it.

The thing is if Apple does win this case then ALL of Android will be culpable.

It might be simpler for Google to code around this stuff or take features out, like Motorola made Apple remove push emails from iOS5 in Germany.

1
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Calm down Calm down

Sure it does, it gives Samsung (and anyone else) a massive disincentive to copy directly from a competitor.

1
8

Re: Calm down Calm down

Or, you know, build something rectangular.

3
0
Silver badge

Like I said last time...

...it's starting to become time to ask if the US market is worth it. Patents are being used to wage a commercial war with scant regard to decent competitive practice. Plus patents are being handed out for things such as rounded corners and slide-to-unlock (gee, those are novel ideas...) seemingly with the idea of "oh well, let 'em fight it out in court". Now, however, it has turned nastier with patents being used to block sales of a product in the country. NOTE WELL: The devices barred have not been proven to infringe upon any patents. If it infringes, fine, punish them for it. But what we are seeing here is a punishment before such legal process has occurred.

So, yes, non-US companies ought to think long and hard about their position in such a marketplace.

32
4

Re: Like I said last time...

I thought the "black rectangle with rounded corners" thing was a trademark-design issue in the European Union, not the U.S. But it's hard to keep track of this topic.

0
0
FAIL

What utter tripe. They have a patent on minimalism? Black rectangle versus black rectangle... Of course the Samsung lawyer couldn't tell them apart, they haven't got enough distinctive features. The uniqueness test applied to only a part of a product is total fail.

16
1
Silver badge

Yes, you CAN patent minimalism if it's novel and practical. If you don't believe, believe that one of the most lucrative patents in US history was for a single piece of metal wire: the "Gem" paper clip.

7
15
Anonymous Coward

Re: Charles 9

No, the patent was for the paper clip that happened to be made from a single piece of wire.

If the patent was just for a single piece of wire then bicycle spokes, springs, staples and many other things that are manufactured from a single piece or wire would be infringing.

8
2
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: Charles 9

"If the patent was just for a single piece of wire then bicycle spokes, springs, staples and many other things that are manufactured from a single piece or wire would be infringing."

With the massively broad definitions used in modern patents, that's the sort of scenario we are now looking at.

12
1
Facepalm

My my. Let me see....

* I believe it's "novel and non-obvious", not practical.

* Black is a color. Colors cannot be patented, though it's possible the specific chemical composition of a material with that color might be.

* Location of controls is not patentable, or at least should fail hard for being too broad. So no requirement for them to be on the front, can be on the sides where lots of stuff (tvs!) have them.

* Standard geometric shapes are not patentable, so the rounded rectangle can't be patented. Also, according to http://www.uiandus.com/blog/2009/7/26/realizations-of-rounded-rectangles.html , Jobs took his inspiration for the shape for OSX's rounded rectangle interface from stuff already in existence, such as the "No Parking" sign. So prior art there anyway.

* Screen in the middle - Form factors are pretty standardized, borrowed from existing monitor

The point of all that? Mostly me being utterly gobsmacked at the fact that the US patent system can be used to force a company to put some sort of pointless tat on their design, and/or prevent them from simplifying its appearance/construction.

3
0
Silver badge

What the IP in question?

Some sites are under the impression that the patent in question in this case is something to do with Siri voice search, not the look of the Nexus... Can anyone clarify this?

6
1
Thumb Down

Re: What the IP in question?

I heard it was to do with swipe to unlock. It's another crappy american patent that apple are using to hurt competition. Why the nexus? They must be embarrassed about their poor showing at their mobile show compared to android. Apple had innovation once in 2005 now they are just patent trolls.

12
3
Silver badge

Re: What the IP in question?

It's a heuristic search algorithm http://www.google.com/patents/US8086604

4
0

Re: What the IP in question?

It's to do with unified search from a simple UI. You type your query into a box, which then goes on to search multiple places for your results.

Sounds like how all searches are performed to me. Where did I leave my keys? On the table? No. In the bowl? no. In the front door? Yes. Time for Apple to sue me for searching.

6
1
WTF?

Re: What the IP in question?

Following the link, it appears that there are multiple examples of prior art and prior patents. So essentially this is a "... on a phone" patent. This, plus the fact that Google's search engine predates the filing of this patent by almost 10 years (yes I know it's evolved, but that's essentially what they're trying to target and that doesn't wash) makes me wonder if this wasn't granted just so the injunction could be reversed once funded, casually sweeping nearly $100M onto Samsung's balance sheet in under a week.

4
1
Silver badge
Stop

I find myself spectacularly disappointed

in the quality of some of the posts here.

Firstly there are those who blame the judge or the legal system. For the most part they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do - settling commercial disputes based on evidence and the law. Sometimes they come down in favour of one side, sometimes the other. If a particular decision comes down against your side of choice that doesn't imply bias, mostly it implies that you're not in possession of the full facts and/or bias of your own.

Secondly the patent system. While it is far from perfect, it doesn't let you do things like take an existing invention, slap the words "on a mobile device" on the end and call it your own. There has to be an inventive step of your own that makes it work on a mobile device (it's actually ONLY that bit that's covered, the previous inventor(s) own the prior bits). A patent that references many others doesn't make it invalid, it just limits what is being claimed. It is saying "we acknowledge this prior art, we are doing something patentable above any beyond what it covers".

Next bothering to check the detail of a patent. The number of commenters who don't bother to check what it patented, or who scan it only briefly and come up with a ridiculously simplified view of what's covered. This patent is a prime example. It actually covers how to take the results from multiple search sources and, using heuristic methods, filter and order them to give the most likely results first.

Finally failing to realise that most patents can be worked around. Companies can find other ways of solving a problem (some actually better than the patented method). Many of the best invention of the past were work-arounds for other people's patents, so no, they don't stifle invention, quite the opposite.

3
3
Joke

Re: What the IP in question?

"Sounds like how all searches are performed to me. Where did I leave my keys? On the table? No. In the bowl? no. In the front door? Yes. Time for Apple to sue me for searching."

You may be doing a unified search, but I doubt you have a simple UI...

1
0
LDS
Silver badge

Re: What the IP in question?

If it is this one, PalmOS phones did it at least since 2003. In my Handspring Treo 270 you did a search and it searched all the phone databases. The problem is people and maybe judge think that Apple invented the smartphone, but they didn't.

3
0

Re: What the IP in question?

And yet, Apple's own Newton was doing similar in 1987 - with "soups" which stored the data from the applications - you could search across the entire device ... #justsayin

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Just think of it, if Apple succeeds in banning all tablets/smartphones, they won't have to invent a new product in 1000 years. If someone else invents a new product, a US Judge will say that it is banned because it hurts Apple sales. With no competition, why invent?

16
8
Anonymous Coward

Don't be silly dear, Apple isn't banning all cellphones. Just the ones that copied them.

11
35
Anonymous Coward

Don't be silly dear, Apple isn't banning all cellphones. Just the ones that copied are better than them. How else can they compete?

There, fixed it for you

31
9
Silver badge
Stop

1000 years?

At the very most patents last for 25 years. That's the whole point of a patent. The deal is that a company provides full details of how an invention works in exchange for a limited time, government backed monopoly in the use and/or licensing of the invention. The data detectors patent that Apple has used against HTC has only 4 more years of life for example.

2
1
Bronze badge

Re: 1000 years?

"At the very most patents last for 25 years. That's the whole point of a patent. The deal is that a company provides full details of how an invention works in exchange for a limited time, "

And there is one problem when it's applied to technology/software... When the steam engine was invented, 25 years was well beyond the time an invention would be used. Steam train locomotives for example started becoming common in the 1830's, and were still being built over 100 years later.

Software on the other hand. Well, when was the last time you used some software older than around 5 years (excluding Windows XP)? Now try and pick something that was more than 25 years old....

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: 1000 years?

Tetris - 1984

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: software concepts more than 25 years old...

Are you having a laugh? Everything we use today is based on concepts that are at least that old.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Happy birthday iPhone

Hope you had a nice gift

Oh :) You did: A planeload of justice.

5
12
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: Happy birthday iPhone

A planeload of justice?

Must be Agent Orange!

2
0
Coat

doesn't bode well for the new Nexus 7

It won't be long now before Apple bring out a 7" iPad and sue Google for copying it.

20
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: doesn't bode well for the new Nexus 7

Nope they already have the patents for the 7 incher but just havent used them in anger yet!

0
0
Coat

Re: doesn't bode well for the new Nexus 7

Using a 7 incher in anger will get you on the sex offenders register.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Not any more

There once was a time when I considered purchasing an Apple product. That will never happen again. Fortunately I don't live in the US, so I am free to purchase superior products.

31
5
Silver badge

The long arm of the law

I assume you don't live in Germany or the Netherlands, either? Apple lawyers - coming to a courtroom near you.

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Not any more

Cutting your nose off to spite your face, now thats clever.

4
21
Silver badge

Re: Not any more

" Cutting your nose off to spite your face, now thats clever."

He's only doing that if he thinks Apple's products are superior, but from what he said he doesn't - and he's not alone.

10
1

Don't think Samsung will be too upset...

Samsung produced the Galaxy Nexus on behalf of Google, primarily as a developer device. In that role it has already served its purpose. It is not Samsung's flagship product, that role has been taken by the Galaxy S3. The main result of this is increasingly bad PR for Apple as more people start to believe that they are competing in the courtroom because they are no longer capable of competing in the open market. The whole thing is a joke, imagine if cars, hi-fis or TVs had such ridiculous patent encumbrance. Apple appear to be the biggest comedians of them all.

23
6
Silver badge

Re: Don't think Samsung will be too upset...

There's a precedent of sorts; Edison managed to collect sufficiently many patents for film equipment that he was able to force a ridiculous array of rules on the nascent industry, including permissible running times, subjects that could be covered and a bunch more. The net effect? American filmmakers moved to Hollywood, about as far as they could get from Edison, and ignored him.

I guess skipping the US would be analogous here.

16
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.