Feeds

back to article Apple demands a quickie, aims its torpedo at 8 Samsung mobes

Apple is seeking quick bans on eight of Samsung's phones after beating the South Korean firm to a bloody pulp in its US patent super-trial. Yet legal experts are unsure the verdict can hold up. The fruity firm is wasting no time in seeking preliminary injunctions on Sammy mobes ahead of getting the permanent bans the jury …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Childcatcher

And so......

the floodgates open!

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: And so......

This is just the beginning. Unless something good happens, Android is dead!

0
13

Re: And so......

They were design patents... nothing to do with Android...

8
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: And so......

And the software patents don't relate to Android core features but to features Samsung added..

So Android is far from dead....

7
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Bronze badge

Re: And so...... P.A.J.J Conga Begins

Seems apple is already doing its VK (Victory over Korea) *izz jig. They better be careful lest lest they break their *ick due to too much wrist flick. Or, they could get too sloppy and create a tripping/sssslipping hazard for themselves. Time for Korea to get ROKN with the Red Shark, White Shark, and Blue Shark and do a gas-bubble prox-blast on the Appleship Lollipop...

I wonder if they'll be punk-asses and have US Customs on the lookout for US citizens and passport holders bringing personally-owned GTab 10.1 models into the States.... (yes, I know, if they are not intended for sale, they would only be possibly/potentially subject to a sales tax/import tarriff, but knowing apple, even tho it is the wi-fi version, they'll want THEIR tax, too. Just TRY it, apple. MAKE MY DAY!)

1
3
Bronze badge

Re: And so...... P.A.J.J Conga Begins... BEGAN

... With apple HOT on its own heels...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/261800/apple_targets_galaxy_s_iii_note_in_latest_legal_action.html

Unfortunately for apple, it indeed seems the Galaxy phones are becoming hot as a wild fire. I guess, then, we'll next see apple getting court orders/injunctions against those mobile users, even damanding a list of them and suing them knowingly, contemptibly, and slavishly buying from Samsung in a concerted, evil, Anti-American effort to deprive apple of its rightful monies.

Well, get this, apple: you have a right to COMPETE FOR, not a right to DEPRIVE others OF money. OBVIOUSLY -- and this is the part of which you're too fucking dense to understand -- those who do not buy apple do so for economic and/or political reasons, political being a cover word for CONTEMPT! If you STFU and behave, and just FIT decently instead of ACTING OUT CONTEMPTIBLY, defectors and avoiders might give you some more money and love.

I don't see Mercedes suing the shit out of Ford for making mini-Mercedes... Do YOU? All sorts of combs, blenders, cars, airplanes, engine blocks, laptops, non-spill coffee mugs, backless stools and leather seats, hammers, wrenches, syringes, keyboards, and an almost endless list of consumer products can be found all over the word. Why don't you take your balls, marbles, or quilts and shut you namby-pamby, candy-assed, primadonny pretty ass and legal department STFU. It appears even members of your own board are finding disgust (or someone is claiming as much) in the money apple is wasting, pursuing tenuous claims bolstered by a judge and jury either afraid of, enamored by, or bought by apple and company.

How many other phone companies are pulling this shit in court? Your candy-assed cache has gone to your head and you're becoming more a head-fracked competitor than microsoft.

-- You borrowed from BSD/FreeBSD/Linux and reshaped your world. Have you forgotten that?

-- ms propped your near-death asses up (albeit to avoid anti-competition charges) in the mid-to- late 90s (what, to the tune of $250 millions?)

You're masters at design and tech integration, and masters at advertisement. But, you ARE welcome to keep spending hundreds of millions on lawyers and litigation -- if any good thing comes from this, it will show just how F*CKED UP the USPTO is and how much of a danger to innovation worldwide it is or is becoming. Crowd-sourcing of patents will probably one day (maybe in under 5 years) cost you at least 150 patents. Hopefully, Samsungs legal staff and underutilized employees will scour the hell out of the USPTO database (OpenPatents, and others) and reverse some of your dubious gains that your own attorneys knew were dubiouos. Korea and Koreans won't let this slide. Chinese, Japanese, and some European Union members won't let this tripe of a judgement last and in earnest will cause you some justified setbacks.

An idea for Samsung: Samsung, you should create a contest in which ever 5th Samsung Mobile device consumer family traveling to Korea for at least a week will be GIVEN at least one Galaxy Tab 10.1 or Galaxy Note 10.1. Every 8th traveling individual wil receive at Galaxy Note 10.1 and at half price, a US-capable or world-capable S III. (Of course, you'll have to figure out some way to help the individual avoid the US Customs and various tax authorities when they try to import the device to the USA. Put those under-utilized employees in Seoul and Taejeon to use, SAMMY! AJA!

0
1
FAIL

I bought a Galaxy S III, but crapple didn't lose a sale because i'd never buy anything from them. Its crazy that a court essentially let them own the phone/tablet market because of a few stupid patents/trade dress that should never of been issued in the first place.

34
5

Back to school for me

How does one become a patent lawyer?

Clearly its a job for life!

3
0

Re: Back to school for me

> How does one become a patent lawyer?

> Clearly its a job for life!

Don't bother, the idea is already patented. :P

9
0

Re: Back to school for me

"How does one become a patent lawyer?"

Easy! Start by learning how to chase ambulances, then lose any remainder of a soul.

0
0
Megaphone

"The jury reached its decision in just three days"

No they didn't they made up their mind after the first day of evidence. It's quite clear this was never a fair trial, and every time someone from the jury opens their mouth, the more it appears that Samsung never stood a chance of a fair trial. It's a kangaroo court and It's increasingly sounding like a 1 person jury, with 8 people towing the line and keen to get back home for the weekend. This will undoubtedly be overturned. There is not a chance in hell that it will stand.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

And some stuff here from the lead juror (who himself is a software patent holder it seems, and clearly wanted to promote the validity of patenting trivial things).

44
4
Silver badge

Re: "The jury reached its decision in just three days"

As I've pointed out on a previous thread, I don't understand why US courts require juries for these civil cases. In British law, the only civil cases that make use of a jury* are slander/libel, and a British judge threw Apple's case against Samsung out on its ear. While I have some sympathy for the use of juries in criminal cases, trial by one's peers and all that, I don't think they're the best method for resolving complex, technical civil issues. Of course, they offer great opportunities for grandstanding advocates.

* AFAIK IANAL

21
0
WTF?

Re: "The jury reached its decision in just three days"

In light of strong evidence of copying such as this:

http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/08/samsung-apple-trial-comparison-document/

or this:

* In February 2010, Google told Samsung that Samsung’s “P1” and “P3” tablets (Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1) were “too similar” to the iPad and demanded “distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.”

* In 2011, Samsung’s own Product Design Group noted that it is “regrettable” that the Galaxy S “looks similar” to older iPhone models.

Only a blind rabid fandroid would find otherwise, but there were none in the jury.

Oh and by the way, none of the juror had an iPhone either:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/28/apple-samsung-foreman-explains

(Barry Shitpeas sock puppets feel free to downvote)

4
35

Re: "The jury reached its decision in just three days"

"* In February 2010, Google told Samsung that Samsung’s “P1” and “P3” tablets (Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1) were “too similar” to the iPad and demanded “distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.”

* In 2011, Samsung’s own Product Design Group noted that it is “regrettable” that the Galaxy S “looks similar” to older iPhone models."

Neither of which are proof that Samsung copied apple.

If you look at the Samsung documents you will see that they had several phone designs they were working on and one phone released before the iphone was released that looked similar to the iphone. In fact apple included the released phone in the list of phones they wanted compensation for before it was pointed out to them that it was released before the iphone.

There are a limited number of ways to style a phone around a rectangular screen. Samsung documents show they chose a design similar to the iphone at the same time as the iphone was being designed. That their phones ended up looking similar can be as much put down to coincidence as copying.

30
1
Silver badge

Re: "The jury reached its decision in just three days"

You seem to imagine that the competitor analysis slides with the iPhone were the only design work done on the Galaxy S. Obviously it was only a part of the design process and it's a perfectly normal thing to do.

Secondly there are plenty of instances in that slide deck that don't end up with the Galaxy aping the iPhone. The notification system for instance. It just says to make the colour a more distinctive one. It doesn't move from the top bar to the icons like on an iPhone.

In other cases it's just a comparison like the size of font on a field where the iPhone had a more legible size so they recommend making the equivalent field also a legible size. What are they infringing there?

It's not a smoking gun, it's just business reality.

15
0
Silver badge

Re: "The jury reached its decision in just three days"

Title should have read @dx :)

0
0
Silver badge

Re: "The jury reached its decision in just three days"

I find it regrettable that Apple phones look like old feature phones, but I don't think that should be a legal matter.

There should be no trouble distinguishing the Galaxy phones - it's the one that says "Samsung", doesn't have an obvious fridge-magnet logo, and is a completely different size. When Apple release their 4" phone, will that be copying the 4" Galaxy S?

Google were presumably only given advice knowing how messed up and broad the patent system can be.

10
0
WTF?

Re: "The jury reached its decision in just three days"

Perhaps the willingness of Samsung to destroy the evidence in the trial might have some bearing about intent here. Also note that Google is not biased against Samsung. Google said get off Apple's IP. Why is it so hard to accept that a company with a history of copying competitors does, in fact, copy its competitors?

2
10
Bronze badge

Apple is a copy-cat

Why is it so hard to accept that a company with a history of copying competitors does, in fact, copy its competitors?

7 Google's and Motorola's patents that this copy-cat Apple is infringing on, including voice-assisted search? Is it what you're driving at?

4
0
Mushroom

@DX Re: "The jury reached its decision in just three days"

* Oh and by the way, none of the juror had an iPhone either: *

No, they had a foreman that got a patent for recording video from the Internet that may or not have been the shitty little application he wrote for iOS telling them 1) don't bother determining if the Apple patents are invalid and 2) I have patents, therefore we should spend less than 90 seconds on every item on the form and slap Samsung as hard as we can

Right, no one biased on the jury at all. Especially the one in charge of guiding the discussions.

7
1
Bronze badge
Happy

Re: (Barry Shitpeas sock puppets feel free to downvote)

Wow! I'm a sockpuppet now! Cool...

4
0

Re: "The jury reached its decision in just three days"

"Perhaps the willingness of Samsung to destroy the evidence in the trial might have some bearing about intent here."

Samsung were told off because they did not preserve email from before they the case was bought to court. Apple were not told off despite apparently making no effort to preserve emails at all once samsung counter claimed.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Apple are running scared! Only an American court would rule in Apple's favour. I'm surprised that the case was held there.

Well all I can say is that Apple and the American people look even more foolish than normal!

Just don't trust a yank for a sane/competent answer.

15
2
Megaphone

You can add Scousers to the list of people NOT to trust too!

3
0
Anonymous Coward

It was a trial held in the US that was examining US patents, so where else would it be held? You have to register a patent in every country you wish for it to apply. There is no global patent system.

So if Apple has the same patent authorised in South Korea then a case will have to be held there.

If you lived in the US then surely the market closest to your heart would be your home market, so it's pretty obvious this would be the market to concentrate on first.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

"Apple are running scared! "

I thought that, given that they're trying to ban old Samsung phones and are yet claiming "ongoing irreparable harm that Apple is suffering".

i.e. even Samsung's old phones are better than the current top of the range iPhone. Great ad for the S3.

18
0
g e
Silver badge
Facepalm

I think that strategy is called

'Setting Precedent'

For further litigation down the line.

0
1
Bronze badge

Re: Only an American court would rule in Apple's favour

Only an American court did!

7
0
Bronze badge

Apple Customers Should Probably be Wary, Too...

"Genius training manual details banned words for Apple employees"

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/28/genius_training_manual_details_banned_words_for_apple_employees.html

0
0
Trollface

Re: Only an American court would rule in Apple's favour

Yes the equivalent trails in Korea both Apple and Samsung got punished. Interesting that they ruled all in favor of the Apple patents but ignore all the counter sing for 3G infringements that Apple is guilty of. Maybe Sammy should just demand that 3G be removed from iPhones :)....

0
0
Headmaster

"with 8 people towing the line"

Actually, "toeing the line". They're all metaphorically lining up with the same position, not pulling something on a rope.

14
0
Thumb Up

Re: "with 8 people towing the line"

You just made my day. You cannot beat a bit of pedantry....

7
0
Pint

Re: "with 8 people towing the line"

My work here is done.

4
0
Gold badge
Headmaster

Re: "with 8 people towing the line"

"...not pulling something on a rope."

Where does it say there's something on the other end of the line they're towing?

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: "with 8 people towing the line"

LOL!!!!! Well, it WAS a bit of a tug-of-war, hahaha

0
0
Megaphone

adjectives

"immediate, ongoing irreparable harm that Apple is suffering,"

Why stop there how about:

"immediate, long term, archival, multi generational, ongoing, irreparable, fiscal critical, patent infringing harm that Apple is being brutally, painfully, permanently subjected to, causing great suffering, financial loss and IP destruction."

Or they could just write <insert QQ here>

4
0
Bronze badge

So has the validity of the patents been ratified yet?

IIRC, the jury were instructed to assume that the patents were valid when deliberating whether Samsung had infringed them. Have the patents been tested for validity in a court of law yet? If not then I'm assuming that the damages awarded are not going to get paid until the patents have been proven valid, in their own case, right?

I would personally challenge that validity of that design patent, and one(s?) involving slide-to-unlock, yet they have been taken as gospel in this case... so that's another avenue Samsung have to avoid death by punitive damages. Get them invalidated, then you can't have infringed.

10
0
ql
Unhappy

Apple having it both ways

An interesting blog post here - https://plus.google.com/u/0/114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G - for those who can't be bothered, it's a report from a guy overhearing groups of people wondering, if Apple "proved" that Samsung's products were the same as Apple's why Apple was so expensive. No doubt the fanbois will say they're expensive because it costs to be innovative, but that neither addresses the issue not does it stack up that a rectangle with stripes is costly to produce.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Apple having it both ways

Not to mention Apples R&D spending is dwarfed by Samsungs

1
0
Joke

Re: Apple having it both ways

Did their R&D budget get used up buying different iPhones and iPads for their designers to copy?

1
7

Re: Apple having it both ways

Funnily enough, I read a post on a heavily-Mac biased website a few weeks back where the author claimed that he put his shiny new iPhone down on a desk next to a friend's Samsung phone and was entirely unable to tell them apart when he came to pick it up again. Yet same author still apparently managed to every single time update to a new iPhone each time without once accidentally buying a Samsung. I'd have thought it would have been a lesson to him that if, in his mind, the phones really looked and behaved identically, he'd have been better off buying the cheaper one.

Of course he did still argue that despite 'being identical', the Apple still looked and worked better.

8
0
Bronze badge

Re: Apple having it both ways

Fiendish, slavish penchant for insane mark-up? Apple is going on fanboyism. Sammy is going on volume.

Besides, what the F*CK is apple's problem? Apple has no and never has had any intention to serve more than it typically sells too. Their cost-analysis-matrix surely won't let them sell to everyone on Earth, yet they know no bounds. They ACT as if every potential smartphone sale is THEIRS to be had, yet if that were true, their make costs would eventually erode their profit. Sammy, at a slightly lower costing/pricing structure, probably sees benefit in rapid model turnover to keep the product line fresh, not stylizing a "must-look-sexy-for-8-years" apple approach.

2
0
Devil

No Change Here

Before this case hell would have to have frozen over before I bought any Apple product. If the choice is between something Apple make and nothing at all, I'll take nothing at all, thanks. Nothing has changed - it was simply an affirmation process.

That said, I wouldn't have bought a Galaxy tablet either because it was too much like the iPad. Sod all interoperability with anything else, proprietary connector and no memory expansion. Better screen, but essentially just flashy junk.

The real culprit here is the US patent system; the word dysfunctional isn't the half of it. Almost as unfit for purpose as copyright law.

9
1
Anonymous Coward

yeah, yeah, yeah

American jury find in favour of big shiny American company over nasty foreign infidel. Shocker.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: yeah, yeah, yeah

Won't be long before the US announce an axis of business evil and Samsung will be the first Business Terrorist on the list.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

I bet this is doing Samsung sales wonders in the US as all the people considering one of the devices that could potentially be removed from sale rush out to buy one.

1
0
Flame

No More Apple!

I used to be a big Apple fan - 15 years ago when all whole Graphic arts world ran on Macs, but the "Steve Jobs Cult" after his return and their "You're not allowed to Compete with Apple" attitude & tactics are really starting to burn my ass.

Maybe we need an Apple Boycott? Let them know what we think of the Company. - There is nothing wrong with their products (OK- we can nitpick this point) but the company's attitude and business practices are revolting.

Anyways - New tablet will be android.

6
0
Trollface

Re: No More Apple!

2nd the motion in fact due to their fine tactics even my children have demanded that the tablets they require for school not be Apple...so even teenagers are not as stupid as an 8 man American Jury

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.