back to article Samsung asks for US Galaxy Nexus ban to be lifted pending appeal

Samsung has filed an appeal against the US ban on the Galaxy Nexus phone that will take the Google mobe off the market for nearly two years. US judge Lucy Koh awarded the preliminary injunction on the phone to Apple on Friday, blocking imports of the Nexus until the trial starts, currently scheduled for March 31, 2014. Apple …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Pint

Re: Outstripped?

This means that a two year ban on the Galaxy Nexus insures that by the time the ban expires, the phone is obsoleted by whatever the latest tech is and that won't be Apple. Basically, they are so scared of us all dumping our iPhones for Galaxy Nexus phones, that they wanted the phone banned so that the next iPhone has less competition for Holiday sales this year and next. They of course didn't factor in that Google won't sit idly by and will surely produce a new Nexus Phone around the time that the next iPhone arrives. So Apple really isn't going to accomplish what they set out to do.

0
2
Pint

Re: Outstripped?

And that alone makes the ban rather suspicious- The low dollar amount of the bond in comparison to potential lost sales and a two year ban on a product that will be in fact superseded by a newer Nexus Phone around the time of the next iPhone's release. Something legally fishy about the whole thing. Someone should investigate this judge. Wouldn't it be funny if she "acquired" some Apple stock or if she in fact has and uses an iPhone or iPad?

1
0
Go

Re: Outstripped?

Samsung's damage here is not irreperable.

if they win, ban apple from selling all phones for the same period. What? Apple doesn't like that? I thought the damage from such a ban was small...

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Outstripped?

I can't confirm whether I might have been thinking exactly the same thing. Or not ;)

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Can't they just change the name from Nexus to Bond?

0
0
jai

if Samsung appeal

shouldn't Samsung have to post a bail money as well then, seeing that if the trial does find that they were infringing the product, then they should have to post money equal to the revenue that Apple has lost as a result.

Not saying I agree either way with the product ban, just saying that if that's the way it works (posting money to cover the potential loss) then surely it should work both ways?

Oh wait, i forgot, lawyers and patents... there's nothing fair or logical invovled

0
8
Anonymous Coward

Re: if Samsung appeal

No. If Samsung prevails it puts the burden on apple to prove that Samsung has infringed, even if Samsung did infringe they would only be paying the cost of the infringement not the total loss of the phone, customers, and future sales.

Now even if Apple is at fault and nothing was infringed, the technology will be out dated and the product no long can recoup revenue. This is a major problem and it seem completely ridiculous for one company to completely shut out another just cleaver wordings in court documents. Technology moves to fast for this kinda of BS and every major player knows it.

4
1
Anonymous Coward

Learn English, AC

* outdated

* no longer

* seems

* clever

* too

* kind

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Learn English, AC

Interesting, those corrections actually make a more understandable sentence than your original post.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Would it ever be considered possible that Apple somehow might have "gamed" the system, in some mysterious way? ;) This is of course purely a hypothetical question..... "the system" as it stands is completely honest, straightforward and trustworthy, right? And if it is, then it's not possible ;)

0
0
Thumb Down

What about the other patents?

One thing I'm unclear on is, why is this different from the other patents in smartphones? My understanding is that all the companies have to cross-licence, including Apple. Is it that Samsung or Google don't think these patents are valid and so aren't paying, or that Apple is refusing to licence them? Why don't Samsung or Google pull the plug on licensing patents to Apple, or is it that they don't have any relevant ones (unlike say, Nokia who do)? It's also unclear what is so special about the Nexus, since it runs the basic Android version - unless Apple are using this as a test case to legally kill off Android in the US altogether.

To the people going on about Apple's innovation - even if that's true, we could equally talk about the innovation done years before by companies like Nokia, Samsung, and LG, which Apple have benefitted from.

Typically technology and innovation is something that goes through stages, with things getting better, and more popular, with progress made by many companies. Company A might release a device in Year 1, then company B releases a better device that sells more in Year 2, then in Year 3 we have even more sales from a better device.

But the Apple fan puts a circle around company B and says "Apple were first!". Company A is ignored because it sold less and wasn't as good, whilst company C is ignored because it became after. Yet you could do this trick with any product. To the people saying "before the iPhone 1", I could just as well say that phones were rubbish before say the Samsung S2. The iPhone 1 was lacking even when released - it didn't even have apps or 3G, things standard for years on low end feature phones - and is certainly rubbish compared to a phone today. It also sold poorly, as it's only since the IPhone 4 that sales have become comparable to mainstream platforms like Symbian or now Android (yes, check out the sales figures by platform from Gartner before you disagree). Indeed, whilst for a time Apple may have been selling more touchscreen phones than anyone else (2007-2008), later on, Nokia were doing so (2009-2010), and now (2011 onwards), it's Google/Samsung. All three stages could be said to have been "popularising" the technology. And Apple weren't first, because there were earlier stages of touchscreen phones before them. In practice I suspect it's more that the technology has just become cheaper and more refined. It's certainly not that no one thought to do it!

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Change the numbers

If Apple are incapable of playing nicely with other suppliers they need some other motivation not to act like arseholes. For a company doing $13bn profit a quarter, $95.6m sounds like quite a small price to pay for protecting against 'irreperable harm'. Surely irreperable harm implies it will destroy their bottom line and banning someone else's product will do the same to that company. This bond should be a couple of orders of magnitude higher. I'm sure Apple wouldn't mind putting up a bond of, say, $26bn (which they CAN afford). After all, it won't cost them anything anyway if it turns out they are right and not just a bunch of despicable trolling shits.

6
0

It's well worth people actually reading up on the patents involved in this case -

They are:

1) the ability to recognize patterns of text and attach actions to them (eg some text is recognized as being a website address and the user can click on the text to visit the website / phone the number / send an email etc) - something that every Sony Ericsson phone I have ever owned could do. - also note that there is not specific mention of a mobile device.

2) an incredibly vague patent that relates to search - it basically says that when you search for something - relevant data will be returned.

3) the ability to unlock a device by moving an image along a predefined path - or performing some predefined gesture - the wording of the patent is so vague that essentially just tapping the screen to unlock it is infringing the patent.

4) offering word suggestions based on the characters a user inputs - yes that's right - Apple now has a patent on predictive text.

Read more here:

http://www.i-programmer.info/news/83-mobliephone/4441-the-four-patents-that-apple-used-against-galaxy-nexusa-programmer-reads-the-patents.html

However - it will be interesting to see how Google plays this - because something that I haven't seen reported yet anywhere - Google patented the Notification system in Android that iOS "borrowed".

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20090249247.PGNR.

11
1
Thumb Down

Thumbs up and thumbs down

Thanks for actually posting info that el-reg should of done in the first place to actually spell out what patents had been supposedly infringed. However, the commentary on the said webpage is ridiculously biased and offers no suitable explanation. A patent is a patent. I wonder how many androids would defend Samsung to the hill if it was them pursuing supposedly "silly" patents?

Oh, the notification system? Where is it the same apart from the pull down? Last time I saw an android notification system was pretty basic in comparison (around version 2.2) linking backing to the apps and telling you a count of the amount of messages/etc there were.

Keep the thumbs down coming, I like them :).

0
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: "defend Samsung to the hill"

That's the first time I've heard that one!

We must not let Apple drive Samsung back to the mound of earth, but if they do then we will have to surrender...

0
0
a53
FAIL

Another Apple hater.

A judge decrees, that makes Apple a whiner ?

Quote = Anonymous Coward

"Personally I consider people paying money to Apple as people financing terrorism."

How the hell do you justify that sentence ? Apple is a terrorist organisation/backer ? What drugs are you on ?

Apple haters, jeez !!

0
6
Anonymous Coward

Apple's current actions...

in the patent arena, qualify them as terrorists. Terrorists threatening worldwide innovation and intellectual development.

1
0

It is high time Apple stopped using their money to stifle competition, imagine if laptop computer manufacturers had done the same, they all had similarities.

As far as I can see there is nothing much similar between a Nexus and an iPhone except the Nexus is cheaper and about as good but with a far better display.

The law seems to give the upper hand to established players.

They should be made to market them in an open market and on their merits alone.

Back off Apple, you only copies a smartphone in the first place, like you copies an MP3 player for the iPod, never the innovators.

4
2
Anonymous Coward

It is high time Samsung stopped copying - if everyone did it then no-one would innovate.

People seem to think it's fine for a pharma company to protect the IP on a new drug it develops - yet Apple are not allowed to do the same.

0
9
Anonymous Coward

re: People seem to think it's fine for a pharma company to protect the IP on a new drug it develops

Err, no. It's not like that at all really. The thing that is being protected in a drug is the molecular structure that makes the drug what it is. That's the equivalent of the source code or a PCB layout in tech. What Apple are doing is the pharmacology equivalent of saying 'you are producing small white pills that are used for treating cancer by the general process of XXX. We own that!". No-one thinks that is okay.

7
1
Anonymous Coward

"you copies"

What the hell is wrong with you?

0
0
h3

I don't get how Apple has not infringed something related to the notification system it directly ripped off Android. (There is probably other stuff but that was immediately obvious to me having used an ipad3 (ios5) (and also an original ipad (ios4 I think perhaps earlier).

Tablets are overrated I think (The only decent games are ports of old console games the mobile ones might look pretty but the AI is dire (With a few notable exceptions that are designed for touch like the ones in the humble bundles).

0
0
Anonymous Coward

"Tablets are overrated I think"

Well that's it then - no-one else should be allowed to have one. Unfortunately most people find they meet their needs very well - i.e. web browsing, email, Facebook, viewing media...

Hold on a minute you would rather do that on your notebook that is twice the weight, 1/3 the battery life with a low res screen. Tablets and PCs both have their places - for what they do tablets do it very well.

0
1

He didn't say no one should have them, but that they're overrated. Most people? Most people don't use tablets - at least not of the 10" non-phone variety.

My 10" Samsung notebook is only slightly heavier than a 10" tablet, but with far more functionality, and still with long battery life (11 hours). Resolutions aren't necessarily lower (depends on the make) - yes it is a pet hate of mine that many netbooks seem stuck at 1024x600, but that's not some fundamental issue of tablet versus notebook. The resolution is more than good enough for Internet usage anyway - the occasions I want more are for things you couldn't do on a phone OS anyway. Even if all I'm doing is Internet, then I can use a device far more quickly with keyboard and touchpad, than with touchscreen.

I suspect with Windows 8, we'll see a lot more hybrids (like the Surface), making the distinction a bit meaningless anyway (we don't separate smartphones based on whether they have a keyboard or not).

And if all I want is a handheld device for Internet, then my Galaxy Nexus is far more portable, much better battery life, and has more functionality than a non-phone larger tablet. Smartphones *are* tablets, basically - it makes no sense to consider them separately. Only with an Apple-obsessed media could we see Apple being raved about for taking a device (smartphone), removing functionality (phone calls) and making it less portable. Meanwhile, MS take a device (full blown PC), add functionality (touchscreen/tablet mode) and make it far more portable - and they get criticised...

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Who really 'invents' anything - you can argue whether Apple 'invented' music players - well hell no they didn't, or PCs nope or tablets - nope. What they did is massively revolutionise them - not just the minor iterations other manufacturers were doing - a complete evolutionary jump. Then they popularised them as they were 'damn good'.

Of course you can say there are good MP3 players now - but the iPod 'made' them that way and 'made' the market - same for ultra notebooks, same for smart phones - same for tablet computers yadda yadda.

0
1

Predictive text.. didn't google bring that out first?

One of the patents is about predicting text as you type. Now maybe I missed something, but long before apple iphone.. at the early stages of web 2.0, google did some amazing things that made them popular. Besides a super easy search engine, they were the first to bring the ability to predict text as you typed in the search window. I don't recall seeing that by apple back then.. or anyone. I could be wrong.. if I am correct me.

Another patent is saying swiping an image to unlock the phone. How the hell is this even patentable? If it is, then pressing a button to unlock a phone can be too. They are going to be patenting gyro motions next.. the S3 allows you to turn it upside down to turn down the volume.. can Samsung now patent that so that anyone turning a phone upside down for some sort of action can be sued?

The problem is that apple is exploiting a very bad patent system. We developers said this back in the early 90's when the XOR bit-blit patent was being used to cause every game at the time to be sued or pay royalties for using a method of making a sprite disappear and reappear to show motion. A function of math was patented in that case.

I honestly don't know what should or should not be patentable now. I think as some have said, the patent system is LONG overdue to catch up with technology. If you build a piece of hardware that others can use.. you can patent it and others can license it. If you build a service that uses multiple devices, software, etc.. and call it "cloud" you can NOT patent that (or should not be able to). I think patents on single items of physical hardware make sense. But methods for using multiple pieces of hardware or methods for using various software features to perform an operation.. how the hell does it make sense to patent that.

Someone said it bets.. patents really are a way to monopolize something. All that matters is who got there first. Which is crap.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Autocomplete

Autocomplete was a feature that was built into browsers and even Windows first, wasn't anything to do with Google. Phones had predictive text input long before the iPhone was even thought of.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Dear Apple,

fuck off and die.

That is all.

7
2
FAIL

Anyone who would buy a Galaxy Nexus is not the type of person who buys an iphone. Unless of course they are developers for both operating systems in which case they would buy both phones and therefore crapple have not lost a sale.

So to say that it should be banned to avoid potential loss to crapple is ridiculous.

The patents in question should be voided as they should never of been granted in the first place.

4
2
Anonymous Coward

"I of applied for a patent"?

Whilst I agree with the sentiment contained in your last sentence, I think it would be advantageous if you learned how to express it properly in English.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "I of applied for a patent"?

Quite possibly true, and many people in the world today do not have English as their first language.

Some may additionally have other "problems". It doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid, though.

If you want a laugh, use Google Translate and go to the native-language website edition of a newspaper of any small country, preferably a prissy one, and check out the people hassling each other for not putting the correct accents in text, and totally ignoring the actual content of the posts. Especially if the person posting the comment seems a bit, shall we say, "foreign", or if the newspaper article is about something Nationalists would care about.

The politics or economics pages in posh newspapers are usually best for this ;)

0
0
FAIL

gone mad

quite speechless at some apple haters who suggest that buying apple product is like financing terrorism.

So far, 30 individuals seem to agree with his/her rubbish. This is not fanaticism, this is depseration beyond belief.

You're entitled to hate apple all you like even if the behavior itself is quite disturbing but to call people who buy apple products "terrorist sponsors" is the most pathetic argument an android fanboy has made.

get some girlfriends, there's a life outside your hatred of others. grow up for god sake.

1
4

Re: gone mad

*quite speechless at some apple haters who suggest that buying apple product is like financing terrorism.*

Apple products involve the abomination known as Objective-C. Being forced to used on a daily basis verges the horror of terrorist attack, would you not agree?

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: gone mad

I unfortunately can't agree as your sentence is syntactically invalid, however an alternative explanation for the terrorist connection is given above.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: gone mad

Did they upset you, yeah?

0
0

Steve Jobs: Good artists copy great artists steal

This is the kind of crap that happens in the good old usa. You see in that country you got senators and congressman that pretty much shed they're bones in there. 30+ year dictatorships is how it goes. So these guys are lobbyists for the big companies like apple . There really is no freedom of choise. It is not capitalism (capitalism means competition and freedom of choice for consumers). What they have in the states is called communistic monopolism. Even in your carrier spectrum there is only 3 major providers with different connectivity formats to lock you down more into a corner. To allow this to happen for insignificant designs is outrageous. Here watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU "Good artists copy great artists steal"

2
1
WTF?

wtf??

Having just read the patent she based the decision on, I'm wondering how many thousands of programming teams have built identical search systems. People were doing this in the 1960's (maybe earlier, I don't go back that far). Probably every large business has systems to look up customer information based on name, address, customer number, or whatever else might be available, when bills are paid without returning the billing statement. The look ups were usually on one screen; you entered what you knew, and the system looked up the info in the appropriate database(s). The algorithms were all different to handle data requirement (names - had to check possible nicknames, addresses - abbreviations, customer numbers - transposed digits, etc). What next - patent the IF statement?

1
0
FAIL

«... continued sales of the Galaxy Nexus

would immediately and irreparably harm Apple» Baldest admission I've yet seen from Apple that it is unable to compete on the basis of technological innovation, price, etc, but is forced to use «competition by lawyer» to maintain its position in the market. But some companies know no shame....

Henri

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: «... continued sales of the Galaxy Nexus

They'ŗe just worried about being undercut on price by at least 50% for better products? Wait 'til ZTE and Huawei start shipping more of their high-spec stuff. Then buy some popcorn and sit back and wait.

0
0

Apple is taking the Coward's way out

Apple with its never ending lawsuits proves that they are what they say they do not want to be. A potential monopoly.

0
0
WTF?

A crucial feature of patentability is novelty and obviousness. To any hafwit, nearly all the design evolutions/innovations suggest themselves once the underlying technology becomes capable. I would not grant patents in many cases due to this simple realisation.

0
0

Apple Unethical

Apple is NOT protecting any original technology. They are protecting ridiculous patents like a rectangular shape. That's not even an exaggeration. Look at this Apple patent:

http://randygrenier.com/docs/USD504889.pdf

The U.S. and European patent offices are being bought, and Apple uses unethical methods to squash competition.

0
2

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018