Feeds

back to article Apple wheels out sueball cannon, again

Apple and Google might have decided on a ceasefire in their global patent mutually-assured-destruction battle, but Cupertino-versus-Korea continues to grind on. In its latest move, Apple has fired off two new sueballs: one seeks a permanent injunction preventing the sale of now nearly-obsolete Samsung products in the US; the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge

"In its other filing, Apple asks for permanent sales bans on Samsung Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note II, various Galaxy S II variants, Galaxy S III and Stratosphere devices in the US."

It's as if Apple *wants* Samsung to sell more of their current and/or later gear. Do they even get how this works?

8
2

Why the S2? I bought mine because it was *NOTHING LIKE* an iPhone. Puzzled.

6
1
Silver badge

re: Why the S2?

Because SII is like SIII which is a bit like SIIII?

I'm beginning to wonder if Samsung like this stuff. If you are at the premium end of the market, you don't mention your competition. This looks like vanity for Apple, I suspect they would have been better off dropping it and saying, "well, we still think they infringed and were in the wrong so we sued on principle, but they aren't good enough to worry us."

Hanging on to this makes Apple look like a loser, even if they win.

14
1

Sure, who you think you kidding ? Go compare the phones.

http://thegeekdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Samsung-Galaxy-s2-vs-iPhone-4S.jpg?1998de

2
8

They both look like every other phone on the market. Do you expect a manufacturer to put the screen inside the battery compartment and the buttons on the back?

17
1
Silver badge

This isn't about phones looking like each other

It's about phones containing features that are patented (like data detectors). It doesn't matter what they look like, providing they contain these features (which can either be worked around or removed, they aren't an essential part of a smartphone) then they violate Apple's IP.

3
6

Re: This isn't about phones looking like each other

"It's about phones containing features that are patented (like data detectors)."

Yeah... Exactly. Some of those are completely insane patents of course, like touching a touch screen, but a US government department approved it so it must be valid, right?

2
2
Silver badge
Stop

Re: This isn't about phones looking like each other

Samsung got their chance to try to convince the jury that the patents weren't valid (for reasons like obviousness) and failed. A patent that has been upheld by a court is regarded as stronger.

BTW, which patent do you think was "touching a touch screen"? I think you'll find you're wrong.

0
0
g e
Silver badge

Re: This isn't about phones looking like each other

Except they were ordered not to mention their F700 touch phone and were banned from presenting evidence based upon it.

And as for touching a screen I'd say that the touchscreen manufacturer would have had that code first, as part of their dev/reference material provided with the specsheets and other component collateral.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Go compare the phones

Both look like Symbian S60, behold a Nokia N96:

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/109/nokia-n96.jpg

0
0
Silver badge
Stop

Re: This isn't about phones looking like each other

The only reason they couldn't mention the F700 was because they tried to introduce it as evidence too late in the process. It was a misstep by their legal team, not anything malicious.

Once again, which was the patent for "touching a touch screen"? Nothing was as simple as that, and all of the patents were non-essential to making a smartphone.

0
0

Ask about our low cost contingency fee deals

Looks to me that a contingency fee firm is rolling the dice on getting paid by Apple. Double or nothing.

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: Ask about our low cost contingency fee deals

That could be one possibility. It's also possible that Apple is really afraid of Samsung or maybe the existing monetary award didn't cover lawyer's fees and upper management bonuses. Any way you cut it, the lawyers get new cars and boats.

9
1
h3
Bronze badge

Jury ?

Am I reading it right that the jury has decided on the damages ?

How can anybody who would end up actually left on the jury make any reasonable decision whatsoever on that. (Unless the judge just says this is what it should be and they follow along but in that case why doesn't the judge just decide it).

Just seems an incredibly stupid system.

7
0
Bronze badge

Re: Jury ?

Welcome to the US judicial system. In civil cases, they set damages, both real and punitive. In criminal cases, they select the sentence to recommend to the judge. As always, the judge has the final say on damages and sentencing.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Jury ?

Yes, it is a dumb system. The average person isn't qualified to determine whether infringement has happened in technology patents, let alone decide on appropriate damages. Even those of us reading/posting about this probably aren't qualified for that (though perhaps better qualified than the jury)

The problem is, the typical judge isn't qualified either. You'd need some technology expert judges, and putting that kind of power into the hands of one person is asking for abuse. Like when DoD contracts are awarded and the general who made the decision often seems to retire shortly after and end up with a cushy consulting gig or seat on the board with the company that won the bid. Nothing unsavory there, no sir!

At least the average joes on the jury aren't likely to be bribed or bought. Not that it would be difficult for a company to buy one of them, but the more they try to buy it quickly becomes a certainty they'll be found out so they know better than to try.

6
1
Bronze badge

Re: Jury ?

Apple's fan club would buy their product even if it were inferior to Samsung's, and Apple's haters would buy Samsung even if were inferior to Apple's. In fact I am extremely skeptical that actual people really decide which phone to rent based on the stupid patents at issue. The true damages that Apple suffered probably are in the range of +/- $10, irrespective of what the jury, a naive judge, or an expert judge might think. Each side will have produced their paid-for "experts" who produced numbers based on the assumptions they were told by their employer to make, and the jury probably split the difference based on which set of lawyers told the most convincing story.

A pox on them all.

1
0

This is just stupidity

Well I am totally certain now that it's the attorney's that are running things these days at Apple. They are definitely the only winners. Whether they win or lose a case they get their money and they don't want that gravy train to end.

As my Apple devices become old they are being replaced by anything but Apple products. They just tire me out with all these lawsuits against every tom dick and harry.

Meanwhile there isn't any real innovation left in them, bless their cotton socks! I don't count a 64 bit processor being innovative enough. Sorry Apple but your range is looking tired and I somehow don't think that making devices ever thinner is appealing. I don't want a device that is credit card thick, do't feel good to hold while trying to talk to someone and always being a little behind everyone else is also not innovation.

Oh yeah and while I'm at it Samsung, you're not much better! You're stuff stinks and it's only the advertising dollars you throw at selling your stuff that makes people buy it because they don't see much advertising for the rivals and people tend to buy what sticks in their minds (maybe Apple can claim that you stole their advertising model! Advertise like hell albeit they do it for a month or two after launch and then sit back and just let people buy during upgrade cycles).

7
0
g e
Silver badge
Happy

Re: This is just stupidity

I actually suspect that Apple IS Sammy's advertising model...

0
0
Unhappy

What I'd love to see

I'd love to see Judge Koh reply "Denied! Award halved for being greedy and vexatious."

then add "Want to try for double or nothing, or will you stop wasting the court's time?"

When will the judiciary finally slap down these stupid patent squabbles?

Sigh!

11
3
Silver badge
Stop

Re: What I'd love to see

How does that apply to Samsung, who are appealing the ruling already?

See http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2014/05/06/samsung_willisighi_appeal_apple_patent_verdict/

0
4
Bronze badge

Dear Apple,

Grow up, for fuck's sake.

13
3
Bronze badge

Actually, I suspect

that Apple are really gunning hard for this as a way to keep their current balance sheet and offer the damages as a dividend to shareholders.

It would get them out of this 'No, NO NO TAX to pay as we HAVE NO PROFITSssess, precious, no profitsesssss' thing they have going on.

That or the Lawyers are on the biggest 'no win, no fee', case ever.

2
1
Bronze badge

Apple's S3 copy is about to launch...

with an S3 like big screen, S4 like '2 apps on screen at once' and S4 like NFC

They need to clear the decks/remove the real Samsung thing for their 'back to 2012' type launch come September.

5
0

Re: Apple's S3 copy is about to launch...

with an S3 like big screen, S3 like '2 apps on screen at once' and S3 like NFC

FTFY

0
0
Silver badge

Apple is now arguing that the jury was mis-directed in the matter of damages.

Of course the people that didn't think the payout was enough will whinge that the payout wasn't enough. Duh.

But for Apple to now say that the jury was "misdirected", is this not essentially contempt?

2
0

Apple a legal company?

Yes but not a moral one.

Well, it saves dealing with things like innovation.

2
0
Silver badge

Since Samsung are appealing the verdict also

asking for the damages to be reduced, it doesn't seam unreasonable for Apple to ask for them to be increased (these things cut both ways).

Given that Samsung have yet to pay up for the first set of damages it doesn't look like either side is in a hurry to settle this.

0
6
Facepalm

As ever, I think the lawyers should be locked in a room to work out their differences while the grown-ups can concentrate on doing something productive. I know it's the American way to drag your competitors down with endless lawsuits that cost a fortune regardless of the outcome, but ultimately the money comes from the cost of the product and the people who buy them. It feels like it would actually be cheaper if every handset included a $10 lawyers' levy and a ban on companies suing each other for devices that do the same things and look similar.

0
0
Bronze badge

Retrial!

I'd love a retrial where they get awarded even less in damages or the patents are thrown out due to prior art. That would really give Apple reason to stop and think before whining so much.

3
1

Re: Retrial!

Perhaps if the issue of Vel Hogan comes back up....?

0
0
JLV
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Note to Apple from a current customer...

Grow up, you are NOT attracting my business acting like a tantrum-throwing spoiled brat with a wet diaper. Your products' merits better be darn good, because you are not getting my sympathy vote for this.

Remember: it took years for Microsoft's stupid anti-competitive tricks to tarnish their public image. But... they are still paying that price, 15 years on.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

An observation and a question

So Apple maximizes profits by finding the cheapest labor it can, and controlling the market by use of litigation based on patents of (arguably) poor quality in order to control the amount they can charge for their products.

Then they sit on wads and wads of cash instead of injecting it back into the economy in the form of wages or dividends to shareholders.

Legal perhaps, but hardly the behavior of a good corporate citizen.

The question: which US President said this:

We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.

2
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: An observation and a question

Since nobody seemed interested enough to guess, I probably shouldn't bother with the answer, but for what it's worth:

Theodore Roosevelt; a Republican. My how times have changed.

1
0

It's all about profit

You will all pay it. The manufacturers only want to extort from each other sufficient royalties to ensure that they all get the maximum profit from those buyers they have convinced/programmed/deluded to pay for their devices.

So long as people will offer up hard cash for the next incremental change in these devices, Apple, Samsung and others will do very well. The legal churn simply serves to level the playing field by jacking up all of the prices until only the most well-healed (diamonds on the soles of their shoes) can pay.

0
0
Bronze badge

Full employment

For Lawyers.

Enough said.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.