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.
  1. Tom 15

    Wow

    I know it's all legal bullshit but Apple claiming that a smartphone released 11 months ago could irreparably damage them is a funny thing to say...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Wow

      @Tom 15: "claiming that a smartphone released 11 months ago could irreparably damage them is a funny thing to say"

      I think this is about establishing precedent. In general, companies have shied away from copying brand name products in too much detail. Everyone copies to some extent, especially where standards are concerned, but there's a fine line between taking inspiration from something vs knocking off someone else's work.

      Some of Samsung's recent products look so similar to Apple products that they can't be distinguished without looking closely. I think Apple is not concerned about these individual items per se. I think the real concern is that other tech manufacturers will lose all fear of knocking off everything Apple releases in every detail with no fear of impunity.

      Love or hate Apple, you can't deny that they break new ground and set trends. The Mac changed the face of user interfaces, the iPhone caused a huge revolution in the mobile market, and the iPad introduced a market many thought pointless or unwarranted. It's difficult to appreciate how expensive and risky it is to run a business like that. Apple have pulled it off (not always) and been well-rewarded - and they deserve it. It could have gone badly wrong and Apple might have sunk long ago.

      The market needs companies like Apple and Samsung, but they need to respect each other's territory. If it's open season on Apple's R&D, it can't recover the money invested in future products - that's the "irreparable damage" cited in the case. Apple spends literally years developing ideas before customers are exposed to them, and it's phenomenally expensive. A knock-off can be developed in a fraction of the time (and cost). These court cases are a warning shot to Samsung and others - copy our ideas too closely and there will be consequences. The market must allow risk-takers to profit from their ventures.

      1. P Zero
        Boffin

        Re: Wow

        Aside from the Galaxy Ace, I don't think any of the recent Galaxy models, much less the Nexus, look much like the tiny iPhone at all.

        1. Mike Judge
          FAIL

          Re: Wow

          LOL @ Apple....

          http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4dafe5364bd7c8810c080000-610-/samsung-iphone-comparison.jpg

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Wow

          Ooooh, Galaxy "Ace", that's harsh, that's the little diddy low-powered one, huh ;)

          It's prob underclocked too ;)

      2. Gil Grissum
        Thumb Down

        Re: Wow

        Right, but banning the Galaxy Nexus for two years doesn't do irreparable harm to Samsung, as well as deny customers a product OTHER THAN APPLE? A product that Apple is afraid it can't compete with? Seriously, the Galaxy Nexus neither looks nor acts like an iPhone. It's not possible to get them mixed up. I can see getting a ban at the conclusion of a trial if the Galaxy Nexus were found to infringe, but to ban the product for two years before a trail, makes no sense and does irreparable harm to Samsung that $96million can't possibly compensate them for TWO YEARS of lost Galaxy Nexus sales. Hopefully Google just goes ahead and let's their Motorola Subsidiary make the next Nexus Phone. Then we'll see if Apple has the balls to sue Google. DOUBT IT!!

      3. KnucklesTheDog
        Thumb Down

        Re: Wow

        "It's difficult to appreciate how expensive and risky it is to run a business like that."

        In 2007 Apple walked into an exceptionally strong and well established market which was experiencing huge growth. Their strong brand and large amounts of cash made it fairly risk free, and they cashed in massively on technology and a market developed at great expense entirely by others (including in some part Samsung). If the iPhone had failed as other Apple products have, they'd have brushed themselves down and carried on selling Macs and iPods.

        That's the way it works of course, they can't be blamed for it, but you take the rough with the smooth. Without the early handset manufacturers and operator investment there would be no market for Apple. Without Apple, there was and would still be smartphones. Flashy UIs are great for those with larger disposable incomes, but they don't contribute to the underlying and very expensive mobile infrastructure.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Wow

      The sale of exactly 1 infringing phone, where the user would have purchased the APPL product could easily be defined as irreparable damage, as the sale is lost.

      Of course, it might be reparable, if on appeal, the judge orders Samsung to (a) buy everyone who bought the infringing product an iPhone, or (b) orders Samsung to buy back every infringing phone.

      Definitions are important, and it is unclear to me without reading the full summary judgement exactly what APPL and/or the judge deem "irreparable damage" to mean.

      1. Joseph Lord

        Re: Wow

        In addition to fully repair the damage any apps bought on the Samsung devices should be refunded and the data should be transferred to equivalent apps on the iPhone. Samsung and Google should also remove any accounts created and data added about use.

        I'm not saying that this should all happen just concurring that the damage is effectively irreparable as the impact is significantly beyond the single sale.

        Now I'm actually opposed to software patents as so few of them have any real technical merit and the negative impacts are in my view greater than the benefits but while they are still in allowed in law I think that they should be enforced (actual widespread enforcement might show their negative aspect more publicly and lead to a law change).

        Patents are supposed to be a legal monopoly over a particular technology and as such injunctions seem completely appropriate (for non FRAND patents).

      2. Joseph Lord

        Re: Wow

        In addition to fully repair the damage any apps bought on the Samsung devices should be refunded and the data should be transferred to equivalent apps on the iPhone. Samsung and Google should also remove any accounts created and data added about use.

        I'm not saying that this should all happen just concurring that the damage is effectively irreparable as the impact is significantly beyond the single sale. Whether it should happen should depend on who is more likely to win in the end, Samsung and Google are irreparably damaged by the injunction probably even to a greater degree than Apple not having the injunction but if Apple are much more likely to win in the end.

        Now I'm actually opposed to software patents as so few of them have any real technical merit and the negative impacts are in my view greater than the benefits but while they are still in allowed in law I think that they should be enforced (actual widespread enforcement might show their negative aspect more publicly and lead to a law change).

        Patents are supposed to be a legal monopoly over a particular technology and as such injunctions seem completely appropriate (for non FRAND patents).

      3. Rob Beard
        Trollface

        Re: Wow

        Ahh in that case Apple should sue Nokia... I was going to buy an iPhone for my daughter but since they were so damned expensive I bought a Nokia Lumia 710 instead for about a quarter of the pay as you go price. Shameful Nokia selling your Windows Phones so cheaply.

        Rob

    3. Gil Grissum
      Pint

      Re: Wow

      Not only is it funny, it's downright despicable. How the HELL did Apple get a TWO YEAR BAN on a phone released 11 months ago without a trial, in which a legal finding would perhaps conclude patent infringement? How do they get what amounts to a summary judgement that bands a product a year past it's relevance, in turn giving the next iPhone less competition?? HOW IS THIS CRAP LEGAL?? This makes me want to sling my iPhone 4S at a wall and buy a Galaxy SIII since it's not going to be possible to get a Galaxy Nexus for two years!!!

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Apple PR done well.

    Thanks to their obsession with software and "design" patents (black rectangles, anyone?), they manage to sell me both my Navibot and my S3.

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

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Apple PR done well.

      Go back to phones before the iPhone 1, they looked and behaved rather different didn't they?

      Computers before the Apple Lisa/Mac looked quite different too.

      Spot a pattern emerging? you might think their claims are bullshit, but history says otherwise.

      1. Wize

        Re: Apple PR done well.

        "Go back to phones before the iPhone 1, they looked and behaved rather different didn't they?"

        So you are saying that because they released a device with touchscreen just as touchscreen became popular that they invented touchscreen phones?

        Next you'll be saying Nokia invented phones with buttons.

        1. Ben Tasker Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: Apple PR done well.

          Go back to phones before the iPhone 1,

          Sorry, there were phones before the iPhone? Bloody hell, did S Jobs know about this? Surely that must be retro-spective patent infringement, after all at least some of them had video calling and (basic) voice recognition.

          Next you'll be saying Nokia invented phones with buttons

          I'd say they probably used a computer or pen and paper

          <-- Was a joke icon but after that last one figured this was more fitting

      2. MrXavia
        FAIL

        Re: Apple PR done well.

        No, have you ever seen the LG Prada?

        it had a Capacitive screen, it had icons to trigger apps...

        even a row of icons at the bottom if my memory is right..

        So apple is just evolution, not revolution....

        All apple do it make it faster and smaller, oh and stopped you changing a battery!!!

        I am NOT impressed by apple, if they entered the market and stopped all this pathetic suing, then I would have respect for their achievement, but this litigation is pathetic, if you can't compete, then lay down and die.

        Even my old Motorola (A920 I think) smart phone was very similar to an iPhone, just bulkier, resistive and smaller screen, it was released 2 years before the iPhone....Oh and it did video calling all that time ago, look how long apple took to get that!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Apple PR done well.

          *yawn* tired old (wrong) argument.

          LG Prada was announced on December 12, 2006. iPhone revealed on January 9, 2007. You really think Apple copied and developed the complete iPhone hardware and software in less than a month? LG has not (do this date) filed a lawsuit against Apple. The iPhone had been in development for years before coming out.

          In some respects the LG Prada actually had a much better hardware spec than the iPhone, it had 3G for example, but the software so infinitely more polished on the iPhone, despite its shortcoming such as no mms.

          Disclosure: Not an iPhone owner.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Apple PR done well.

          First ever pictures of the LG Prada , 16th December 2006

          http://blog.dialaphone.co.uk/2006/12/19/worlds-first-official-photos-of-lg-prada-phone/

          Apple announced the iPhone less than a month later.

          Wow, their engineers must have worked overtime to 'copy' that.

          OF course you cant patent a rectangle with rounded corners. Apple havnet done any such thing or even attempted to.

          it's th euse of a single sheet of continuous glass, with a chrome surround and a single button at the bottom, with the screen centralised within easy reach of the thumb/fingers, along with a capacitive MULTI-TOUCH screen, that is what they innovated.

          The grid layout with icons is nothing new, Apple never pretended it to be. Nor were the use of gestures or fingers on the screen. It's the use of multi-touch with kinetic scrolling and pinch to zoom together on a phone that Apple innovated, and made an incredibly recognisable and easy to use device as a result.

          Those of you who just hate on Apple for the sake of it make me laugh though.

          Face it, Fandroid, you are just jealous because Apple actuall have loyal fans that stick to their products because they, beleive it or not, prefer them!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Apple PR done well.

            'you are just jealous because Apple actuall have loyal fans that stick to their products because they, beleive it or not, prefer them!'

            Really, the Judge and Apple both believe differently. As stated in the article 'in order to capture long-term market share, all the while irreparably harming Apple.'

            in other words once people find out there is a better alternative, one that does more, costs less and doesn't lock you into a single vendor and expects you to upgrade every year for only a minimal improvement then they won't go back and Apple won't have those long-term users buying from itunes for the next x number of years.

            1. Gil Grissum
              Pint

              Re: Apple PR done well.

              This is the whole point of what makes this summary judgement/2 year ban wrong. Apple is effectively saying that within the next two years, they won't have anything going for them but incremental upgrades on the iPhone. So they had to stop the Galaxy Nexus before people on a two year contract could dump the iPhone 4S for something that outclasses it. Of course, anyone who isn't dead between the ears would want to dump the iPhone for anything else just because of this lawsuit. well, anyone who didn't drink the Koolaid.

          2. Mark .

            Re: Apple PR done well.

            "it's th euse of a single sheet of continuous glass, with a chrome surround and a single button at the bottom, with the screen centralised within easy reach of the thumb/fingers, along with a capacitive MULTI-TOUCH screen"

            Earlier phones had single sheets. There's nothing special about single buttons - later phones have more buttons, some devices have no hardware buttons.

            Here's the thing: no one's objecting to say that Apple were first with multitouch. If we were making a list of 100 important phone "firsts", then sure Apple being first with multitouch should be somewhere on the list.

            The problem is that people don't say that. Instead they blow it out of proportion, saying things like "Apple invented touchscreen phones" or even that they invented smartphones(!) Even you here are trying to make it sound like the most important thing ever. I used the Nokia 5800 for years which didn't have multitouch, and now I have the apparently-patent-infringing Galaxy Nexus. The difference of having a touchscreen is far greater than the addition of multitouch. And capacitive has its downsides, such as inability to use a pen, no good with gloves (thanks to Samsung we now have capacitive multitouch screens that do work with pens). A well designed UI might benefit from multitouch, but doesn't require it.

            The other problem is when people completely ignore all the other innovations made by other companies. If you're going to talk about multitouch, then what about: first mobile phone, first phone with applications, first phone with 3rd party software, first with GPS, first with maps, first with a camera, first with wireless, first with a web browser, first with email, first with 3G, first with video calling, first with video recording, first with picture sending, first with tethering, first with wireless hotspots, first with offline maps, first with satnav, first with a touchscreen. There are many many important things that make up the phones we use today, including Apple's - and a great many of those firsts came from other companies. (I suspect that Nokia feature prominently, yet all we hear about them from the media is hatred.)

            And yes, I'm sure that Apple didn't copy LG, but similarly, the point is that companies like LG (or Nokia etc) didn't copy Apple.

            1. Eddy Ito Silver badge

              Re: Apple PR done well.

              Let's not forget the Samsung F700 was announced a whole month after the first iPhone and was another rectangle with rounded corners and capacitive touch screen.

              Why is it the fanbois scream the iPhone wasn't a copy of the Prada because there wasn't enough time between the two but somehow believe Samsung could make a copy in the same time frame? Perhaps everyone saw the writing on the wall well ahead of time and were working on similar phones and LG happened to win the race to market forcing everyone else with similar kit to show it off and likely add a feature or two in order to persuade folks to wait for the next great thing.

              Let's be honest, Apple wouldn't care if Samsung had kept working with the original OS on the F700 and only care now because for some reason they feel slighted by Google and Android. The fact that Android began in 2003 and Google bought it in 2005 doesn't seem to matter. Seriously, was Apple so naive to think Google was going to use Android on their web search data center and not make mobile devices?

          3. phr0g
            FAIL

            Re: Apple PR done well.

            knob.

      3. Peter 48
        Stop

        Re: Apple PR done well.

        Go back to phones before iphone 1? How about PDAs which had phone functions such as palm or pocket PC, dating back many years prior and from whom apple obviously took many design ideas. Have a look at the Audiovox Thera from 2002, a full 5 years before the iphone for example, and tell me truthfully that there is no obvious lineage going on there. And whilst the Apple Lisa was certainly significant in popularising the GUI, but the GUI principle was invented by Xerox first and popularised considerably more by the Atari ST and the Comodore Amiga.

        Spot a pattern emerging? Apple sycophants love a bit of historical revisionism when it comes to their beloved product.

        1. the-it-slayer
          Facepalm

          Re: Apple PR done well.

          @Peter 48: "Go back to phones before iphone 1? How about PDAs which had phone functions such as palm or pocket PC, dating back many years prior and from whom apple obviously took many design ideas. Have a look at the Audiovox Thera from 2002, a full 5 years before the iphone for example, and tell me truthfully that there is no obvious lineage going on there. And whilst the Apple Lisa was certainly significant in popularising the GUI, but the GUI principle was invented by Xerox first and popularised considerably more by the Atari ST and the Comodore Amiga.

          Spot a pattern emerging? Apple sycophants love a bit of historical revisionism when it comes to their beloved product."

          For one, PDAs/Pocket PCs were utter useless. For the capabilities they did have (wi-fi, then 3G later); there was no application network to rely on. The phones were clunky and stylus pens? Get over. The basis for a touchscreen phone was there, but Microsoft and their ally-pallys failed to capitalise on it. That Audiovox? Okay, got the touchscreen interface first but was bitten by Microsoft's lack of innovation to make it easy to use.

          For two, read the Steve Jobs biog. Clearly explains that Apple bought into the Xerox idea of GUI when developing the Mac. Doesn't matter if they were first. Apple were probably the first to popularise and package it. Same with the iPod, iPhone and iPad. You can be the first in a product category, but doesn't mean it's better or someone else has copied you because it's clearly a better product. A concept fandroids seem to lack any understanding of.

          For three, there's clearly lots of clouded vision here from the fandroidites who will take a stab at Apple without looking at any facts and refuses to draw out any fair criticism. Especially the amount of thumbs down my first reply drew.

          I wish there's more sensibility than the typical Apple bashing everytime there's a court/ban injunction story. If most here would put their sensible glasses on, they'd be annoyed if other competition directly copied their own design and function ideas.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Re: Apple PR done well.

      If that's a samsung galaxy s3, and buying an apple product if financing terrorism, then your recent purchase must be.. oh, i don't know... financing a child prostitution ring or a kitten smashing machine?

      Apple's stopping other companies from using certain features and designs (like in this case it's search via siri, or a particular way of doing that). This is annoying, definitely. Perhaps a bit evil.

      Samsung? They're trying to stop other companies from using features like making phone calls, playing video, and connecting to networks. Well beyond just annoying, and quite far into outright evil in my book. You can compete with a phone that doesn't have a particular type of voice search, but you can't compete with a phone that doesn't make calls.

      This is why they're under investigation in the EU for patent abuse, and apple isn't. (And google/motorola are under investigation in both the EU and the US now for the same thing!)

      1. jarjarbinks

        Re: Apple PR done well.

        @Chris19 Samsung did NOT pursue these patents of theirs until apple sued them. Like google, Samsung wasn't bent like hell on suing everyone for every patent they own. They may sue a few that are clearly violating.. but not to the extent that they are now. Apple started this bullshit war of lawsuits. I am seeing WAY more comments lately about people fed up with apple's bullying and anti-competitiveness, switching to android or windows phones.. and rightfully so.

        Let's be clear.. apple makes amazing products. I like apple products. I can not stand the company however because of what they are doing..therefore, I, like millions of others world wide, are now going to no longer buy apple products. I do not want apple to fold though.they push the envelope and bring great things to the market. It encourages the likes of google, samsung and many others to keep on bringing new ideas out too. The problem is.. apple is greedy..they charge $500 for what Samsun/Asus/others figured out how to do for $150. Apple has 4x more money than the next tech company.. so why not lower their prices to $200 and stun the market? They would STILL break even, maybe even lose a little but they would own a lot more of the market. A year ago it was said apple's ipad can't be touched. A year later, 30%+ are android tablets and growing. By 2014, Android tablets will be > 50% of the market, with apple falling to about 32% or so (forget the exact predictions). Part of that reason is apple has always been..and will always be.. about high-end luxury. Their mac computers are the same way. Not one person can show me how the mac hardware is better than any other PC for 1/3 the price. OSX the operating system may be superior, but the hardware is no different..its all the same stuff we can buy off the shelf for cheap. All of their products are this way.. sold for way more than they need to be or are worth, and just like when people buy Mercedes and BMW for the name..not because the car is any better... the same goes for apple. Although in this case, apple has somehow brought out a herd of zombies that buy it only because their friends buy it and its the "cool" thing to own.

        1. DGreenshields

          Re: Apple PR done well.

          @jarajarbinks - Although I agree with most of what you are saying, my early Intel based Mac Mini was cheaper than a similar size and spec Mini-ITX box at the time and 5 years later is still in daily use as a media centre. The price on those is now roughly double what I paid at the time though. I've not seen another piece of Apple kit so competitively priced since though.

          I used Linux, Windows and Mac OS on a daily basis and honestly don't prefer any of them.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Apple PR done well.

      Hehe, Well, you are never sure what is worse, communicating with a shiny shiny or interfacing with a NEXUS?

      There are different NEXUSes ya know.

      There is the pretty trim business-like Rachel Nexus which can be very hot when trying to play music. There is the Pris Nexus - that is probably an acrobatic porn specialized model. There is of course the "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die" psychotic Batty NEXUS.

      However, IMO none of these is the real NEXUS. The real NEXUS is the Warzone2100 scum which lobs a nuke on your base for fun, infiltrates your computers and subverts the computers in your units and infrastructure to serve the Nexus high command.

      You have to really think what you are financing you know...

    4. the-it-slayer

      Re: Apple PR done well.

      I hate it when people talk utter crap. Terrorism? Bloomin' heck. You have to be really sad to make that stupid comparison because there's an outright jealousy or unneccessary disgust in the geekiest fandroids.

      It's interesting the LG Prada comparison came up. Again, I don't care if the same "tech" is used to come up with a new product. The capactive screen, buttons on screen etc. It's the application of the tech and the design which matters most. The original iPhone never touched these areas when you do the comparison. The software was totally different, the design was totally different and how some of the techniques used with the software (such as swipe to unlock) was different. I did read they wanted to pursue action against Apple for copying their product. If they really believed so, why didnt they continue to push it through the courts?

      Taking from what I said above, I can see why Apple are getting arsey with Samsung. The way the technology was applied (especially in earlier Android models) was very similar and I'd be personally annoyed if someone had copied the techniques I'd worked hard to develop and deploy.

      Okay, maybe this ban may not harm Samsung that much being an older product. However, I do not think there's anything wrong in defending your product if there are genuine patents that are broken and not licensed.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I wonder if the Judge owns an iThing?

    per title

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I wonder if the Judge owns an iThing?

      iShares, perhaps...

  4. maccy
    FAIL

    Re: Re: apple PR

    "Computers before the Apple Lisa/Mac looked quite different too."

    Well, all but one. The Xerox Star workstation, which in terms of look and feel was completely copied by Apple.

    1. Tom 38 Silver badge
      Alert

      Re: apple PR

      The Xerox Star workstation, which in terms of look and feel was completely copied by Apple, under license from Xerox.

      FTFY

      1. MikeS

        Re: apple PR

        i think the point he's making tho is that Apple (undeniably copied the interface licenced from Xerox) they did not innovate to create it in the first place as so many seem to think.

        Just like there were smartphones before the iphone (shock) there were tablets before the ipad (horror),

        Apples 'innovation' has been in marketing an popularising the use of those devices, they didnt 'invent' them.

        1. Rob Carriere

          Re: apple PR

          > Apples 'innovation' has been in marketing an popularising the use of those devices, they didnt 'invent' them.

          Actually, while the initial Lisa/Mac were shameless copies --and Apple strangely gets credit for innovation--, they later did do a lot of usability research and managed to incorporate that into the Mac and many Mac applications --and strangely they never get credit for that.

          Today's Mac is a vast improvement over the Star (and I don't just mean faster hardware and shinier GUI, I mean the interaction models) and that improvement is Apple's achievement. An achievement they would never have been able to make if Xerox had been allowed to sue them out of business...

      2. Rob Carriere

        Beg pardon?

        You mean this license?

        http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html

        1. Tom 38 Silver badge

          Re: Beg pardon?

          Yeah, I do mean that license. If you notice, the judge threw it out - Xerox agreed to allow Apple to use their tech in return for an investment in Apple, Xerox got sold and realised that Apple made a shedload of money from Xerox ideas, got greedy and tried to claw some of it back. The judge told them to get screwed.

          Fandroids - unstoppable hype machines.

    2. Steve Todd
      Stop

      @maccy - not even that

      The Star interface was quite a lot different to Mac OS. It didn't do things like redrawing uncovered parts of a window and it had no concept of a file system. On top of the changes that Apple made so they could run on hardware costing less than 1/10th of the Xerox system they literally wrote the book on how to design GUI apps on top of that, so no they didn't just take what was there and invent nothing.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Before The iphone

    Yes, i remember phones before the iphone they worked as phones and the batteries kept them working for more than a few hours - hell my six year mobile phone with its six year old battery STILL holds a charge longer than a dummy phone.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Before The iphone

      What sort of pointless blither is that - yeah years ago we had candles - they burned for hours yet my new flashlight (about 1000x brighter) only does an hour a couple of AA's. Technology - bah humbug.

      1. vic 4
        Unhappy

        Re: Re: Before The iphone

        Hmm, shame Apple don't sell a sense of humour on that there app store of theirs.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Before The iphone

          Nobody would buy it. They would not know what it is, or what it is for.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The four patents in question?

    1. it is a mobile communications device capable of making and receiving calls?

    2. it is kind of rectangular with some sort of screen?

    3. the owner / user of the rectangular communications device breaths air?

    4. the rectangular communications device uses electricity

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      * BREATHE

      You have bad breath.

      You BREATHE in and out using your lungs.

  7. P Zero
    Facepalm

    Tat

    Isn't ANY competition likely to "irreparably" damage Apple's income? Even if Koh has rebranded tech in her robes, even she should be aware we're on the downward spiral before the next shiney is announced, compared to what is essentially a dev phone.

  8. Afflicted.John
    Stop

    Outstripped?

    "during which time the Nexus' tech will no doubt have been outstripped, rendering it useless."

    What does this even mean? I really want to know...

    1. Jedit
      Flame

      Re: Outstripped?

      It means that by the time it is legal to sell the Nexus in the US, it will no longer be a competitor to the iPhone. In other words, Apple have managed to completely eliminate a rival product from the market without any need to prove that it was in reality infringing their patents, and in the worst case scenario will have to pay Samsung less than $100m compensation for the loss of perhaps $400m in raw sales plus loss of market share, visibility and reputation. The bond should have been $1 billion; if it had been, you can bet Apple would have withdrawn either the suit or the request for an injunction on sales.

      1. Gil Grissum
        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. Oninoshiko
          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...

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Outstripped?

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

    2. Andrew James

      Re: Outstripped?

      It means that by 2014 by the time the court allows Samsung to put them into the US again, the technology will be worthless and will make the victory over Apple a complete waste of time. The Nexus by then woul dbe a bargain basement phone at best. Not the shining beacon of all things Android that its supposed to represent.

    3. Gil Grissum
      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.

  9. ukgnome Silver badge
    Thumb Up

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

  10. 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

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Learn English, AC

        * outdated

        * no longer

        * seems

        * clever

        * too

        * kind

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Learn English, AC

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

  11. Anonymous Coward
    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 ;)

  12. Mark .
    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!

  13. Anonymous Coward
    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.

  14. Andrew Jones 2

    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.

    1. the-it-slayer
      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 :).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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...

  15. 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 !!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Apple's current actions...

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

  16. Brian Jones G8ASO

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "you copies"

      What the hell is wrong with you?

  17. 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).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Mark .

        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...

  18. Anonymous Coward
    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.

  19. jarjarbinks

    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. Anonymous Coward
      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.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Dear Apple,

    fuck off and die.

    That is all.

  21. chipxtreme
    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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 ;)

  22. Earl Jones Of Potatoes
    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. stanimir

      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?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: gone mad

      Did they upset you, yeah?

  23. agusta

    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"

  24. RM Myers
    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?

  25. mhenriday
    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

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

  26. RobSpruce

    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.

  27. john moriarty
    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.

  28. randygrenier

    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.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019