Where's that damn popcorn icon?
Or failing that the shoot the lawyers one or the TM/patent meh one?
A US judge has allowed Samsung and Apple to add some extra devices to their lists of allegedly infringing products, bringing the iPhone 5, the Galaxy Note 10.1 and the US version of the Galaxy SII into the mix. But Judge Paul Grewal partially denied Apple's attempts to tack the Jelly Bean operating system onto the end of the …
Or failing that the shoot the lawyers one or the TM/patent meh one?
This is getting tedious. Apple need to be bitch-slapped BIG TIME for their small mindedness.
How many versions are there about Apply having and not having a shortage of iPhone 5 devices in stores?
This one is Nov 8. The scratches and scuffs were reported as far back as Sept 26. Is it possible Apple is recaling them quietly and swapping the body covering with updated, less scuffy/less scratchy shells? That could be a uge slash on profits, and if true, investors migt bitch-slap if they could do so without hurting the company.
On the flip side of slapping, Samsung and others domestically might get slapped, too. See:
"Koreans buy domestic phones, tablets abroad"
"An increasing number of Korean customers are ordering LG Nexus 4 smartphones and Samsung Nexus 10 tablets from the U.S., since they cost only about half of other up-to-date smartphones sold in Korea, according to news reports.
Korean customers are willing to buy the newest smartphone and tablet from overseas despite the possible difficulties in customer services, local reports said Monday.
With the increase in demand, many Koreans studying in the U.S. and Canada have posted offers online to reserve and purchase the product on Korean customers’ behalf and ship them. Many orders have been placed for the Nexus 4, which is scheduled to be launched on Nov. 13.
In the U.S. market, the price of the LG Nexus 4 starts at $299 for an 8 gigabyte device and $399 for 16 gigabytes. About $100 is added to the price to cover shipping and commission."
(I am trying to be balanced in this posting, so, please, no wretched down thumbs, thank you very much!"
Am i missing the point here? Isn't the Apple patent they are trying to hit the note with actually related to computers & not mobiles?
The patent description starts off with - A data input technique for a computer ......
Ok so the note has computing power but is this basically going to see apple argue that if they ignore that the note is a phone then they have a case?
Anonymous as I don't use this often & can't remember my password anyway
You still need a login and password to post anonymously :p
There's a fairly convincing legal analysis knocking around (from a real lawyer, not amateur speculation) that only a few % of the $1bil are eligible for triple damages. That's from a combination of errors/shortcuts on the actual paperwork due to the jury's astonishing wish to get out of the jury room fast and a form wording that fails to trigger the conditions necessary for triple damages.
If Koh actually awards substantial tripling there's a whole new appeal coming just based on that. What it suggests to me is Apple didn't plan for winning, they're just doing it to slow Samsung down and $1bil was unexpected.
What needs to happen to stop Apple is a few bans on their products. Until they start suffering the same 'abuse' the crusade will continue.
The Register summarises Apple v Samsung well enough.
But if you want to read more detailed expert commentary you should read these blogs, URLs below for the particular reports about the latest filings in the California District Court, and the subsidiary judge's ruling.
It makes no sense to me that any claim has to be assumed valid when the patents themselves have not been tested. Look at the latest shambles, a $1bn fine and a lot of the patents that were being used in that trial have since been declared invalid because of prior art or being obvious.
If the US courts are aware that the USPTO rubber stamping something does not necessarily mean anything then before any trial for damages or bans can be allowed the contested patents should have to be examined first to see if they are actually valid otherwise there is no point.
What happens if a company gets forced to pay a massive fine on a patent that is then overturned? Will they get that money back? What about all the bad publicity for the company? An awful lot of time and effort could be saved if everything was made clear at the start.
The Note 10.1 is an amazing little device, but how can that infringe on any of Apples 'valid' patents??
It looks nothing like an iPad, it looks MUCH better! than an iPad!
It is just totally crazy, I just hope the US sees sense and gives Apple a kicking in court this time...
The whole patent wars waging around the world are crazy...
The only person who wins in all this is the Lawyers....
"Judge Koh, also presiding over this suit, issued a preliminary injunction against sales of the Nexus, but the Court of Appeals overturned the ban in October."
So basically the judge has presumed Apple will win the case and therefore "issued a preliminary injunction".
In the world of mobile an injunction on a product with the trial being at least 9 months away is as good as a perminent ban, the phone would likely be updated or replaced with a new model not long after with no way od knowing how many could have sold and what compensation should be for lost sales.
It would be better to leave the product up for sale but for each one sold a set amount to be lodged with the court to cover any fines, this could have the dual benifit of a correct fine for number sold or the defendant on winning getting all the sales it would have.
Secondly with sucha long time from going to the court and the trial starting then all patants that are not accepted as standards within the industry, ie a patent on say jpegs, should be tested to ensure they are valid and at that point the trial date to be set.
Finally at least Android is not being added as that would be the most crazy thing of all, Apple if they had won on Android would have won against everyone who uses it without having to face Google directly. If they want to try to attack Android they should do so against either Google themselves or against motorola which is the same thing.
There's a legitimate reason to enforce injunctions quickly, this is really about Apple stopping Samsung gaining vendor lockin on new consumers. That has ongoing effects on future Apple sales. The problem is that's the wrong thing to do in the main US court system because it's so very, very slow and unsupportable injunctions take too long to undo. Glacial paced even when the participants aren't deliberately causing delay.
Faced with this situation most patent claims go straight to the ITC because the ITC responds quicker. Apple went straight to court because a quick result is the last thing they want, they're aware that failure is a very real possibility so play for the delay instead. The rest of the world refused to play, all other cases have been lost rapidly. In the US they got lucky in finding a protectionist, rather stupid judge prepared to let Apple do what they want. It's actually surprising her injunction got overturned so quickly, that's not normal in the US.
"It would be better to leave the product up for sale but for each one sold a set amount to be lodged with the court to cover any fines"
Now you're being just too dang logical!
Add every product from both companies to the list - then ban sales of both lists until they see sense...
Samsung also make fridges. Should they be added? They are rectangular and have slightly rounded corners I suppose.
... And cool!
nobody cares. both of them are behaving like children and should be ignored as such.
You should care, because if Apple (or indeed anyone else) manages to continue to patent/copyright trivial stuff, it's you as a consumer who will suffer with higher prices, and/or less functionality.
ie you will only be able to buy apple products
Plus, meantime, anyone who has bought a Samsung or Apple product is paying for this farce.
Samsung only retaliated in response to apple's attacks, which is entirely reasonable and correct for Samsung to do - maybe if iphone was banned, they'd get a taste of their own medicine.
Are we talking about the Galaxy SII or SIII?
It's the SIII.
and this other judge will, too...
But, as to an excerpt from the article
" Can U.S. Federal Judge Luch Koh go ahead and rule on a verdict by a “flawed jury” on Dec. 6? Legal experts argue against Judge Koh belatedly calling the jury’s decision flawed. It would be tantamount to admitting to a mistake.
Apple has already won one of its patent cases in the US, getting a $1bn jury-awarded settlement that Judge Lucy Koh can triple for the fruity firm. Samsung is trying to get that decision overturned, claiming jury misconduct means that only a brand new trial is fair."
Perhaps the writer may want to read this:
"Will Judge Koh rule on flawed Apple verdict?
Samsung targets foreman Hogan"
"While the possibility is extremely low that the original verdict will be overturned, patent experts believe that there could be changes to the August ruling.
``Adjustments are likely, and we may actually see adjustments in favor of both parties. On the bottom line, Apple obviously has more to lose at this stage. If Apple could just accept the jury verdict as the final outcome and avoid adjustments and an appeal, it would take it any day of the week without hesitation,’’ said German patent expert Florian Mueller, via e-mail.
``I’m now more skeptical than I was a couple of months ago about Apple’s entitlement to damages enhancements. I now believe that Judge Koh will take the damages amount below $1 billion because the jury made at least one very obvious mistake, awarding Apple a disgorgement of Galaxy Prevail profits, which is contrary to law because that particular device was not held to infringe any design patent and disgorgement is available only for design patents, not for software patents.’’"
said German patent expert Florian Mueller
so samsung will get a full overturn as always when Florian said they wont, the opposite is correct
Does anyone know when the first iPhone 4 prototype was released?
If never conceived of before 2009, then the Hong Kong action/suspense film "Kidnap" may be what Samsung needs to rip to shreds Apoke"'s claim that Samsung is violating any iPhone 4 look and feel of the phine itself, if indeed Apple mad or is asserting such a thing.
I bought the DVD in 2011, iirc, maybe early 2012. The phine Rene Liu is holding looks very much like an iPhone 4. But, according to google searches, the iPhone 4 debuted in 2010, and the film in 2007.
Am I confused? Does anyone know what yeaer 2006/2007 phone existed and appeared to look like an Apple product, the iPhone 4 namely? Or, was the movie pist priduction in a time warp?
Why doesnt Apple sue ALL the chinese clone makers, who also even copy Apple packaging to the last bit. And using their name too/
Now that would be true copyright, patent, and all other infringements Apple's lawyers can think of.