Reason they dropped all lawsuits outside the US was Apple didn't have the judges in their back pocket. Slide to unlock was ruled invalid everywhere outside the US.
Apple tried to get a ban on Galaxy, judge said: NO, NO, NO
The Apple-Samsung lawsuit in the US continues its inch-wise progress, with Judge Lucy Koh deciding against giving Apple a permanent injunction to stop Samsung selling smartphones – even though by now they are mostly obsolete. Apple won a settlement worth nearly $120m in May, with a jury deciding that Samsung had infringed …
COMMENTS
-
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 06:27 GMT Bob Vistakin
That leaked email
From: legal@apple.com
To: tim.cook@apple.com
Subject: She wants more
Body:
Tim,
The usual plan isn't working. Advice is to hold back that shareholders dividend a while longer - suggest extra 10% above last time. If she keeps holding out suggest we activate plan B - "replacement", but the fallout might be ugly.
Best
Apple Legal, Cupertino
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 13:26 GMT ThomH
Re: That leaked email
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/apple-samsung-patent-truce-150286 : “Samsung and Apple have agreed to drop all litigation between the two companies outside the United States,” Samsung told TechWeekEurope.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/06/apple-samsung-drop-patent-lawsuits-outside-usa : "Samsung and Apple have agreed to drop all litigation between the two companies outside the United States," the South Korean company said in a statement.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2461940/apple-samsung-agree-to-settle-patent-disputes-outside-us.html : "Samsung and Apple have agreed to drop all litigation between the two companies outside the United States,” Samsung said in an emailed statement Wednesday.
http://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/samsung-apple-agree-to-drop-patent-disputes-outside-the-us-571426?site=classic : "Samsung and Apple have agreed to drop all litigation between the two companies outside the United States," Samsung said in a statement.
-
-
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 17:41 GMT ThomH
If anything, Apple would suffer further irreparable harm to its reputation or goodwill were it granted an injunction. At least, if further harm were possible.
Unlike most here, who can't see beyond "this post says something positive about Apple, I will down vote it" or "this post says something positive about Google, I will down vote it", I give Apple plenty of credit for both the iPod and the iPhone. Both show a detailed comprehension of what non-technical people want from technology — i.e. they want to just plug the thing into the computer and have it suck the music in, no clicks required; they want their web pages to look right and, if crammed onto a tiny screen, they want some very easy means of navigation. Both products deserved their success.
However, if you ask me to evaluate Apple as a company? Yeah, technically competent and historically marketing savvy (or, go on, you list the companies that made billions selling premium-priced UNIX computers to consumers) but now possessed of an avarice that has led them from PR blunder to PR blunder through over-deployment of the legal team.
If it were corporeal, not a person I would like to go for a drink with.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 17:53 GMT ThomH
Re: I guess it's official.
Most people use the word incorrectly but I don't think Apple does. Per the dictionary, innovation is "[to] make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products". Notably: the changes don't have to be positive, the thing has to have been established previously.
Therefore, if anything, Apple is the most innovative company. It never creates a new market, only enters one that already exists — i.e. is "something established" — and introduces new products which tend to change the market, objectively by dint of sales numbers if nothing else.
Decide for yourself whether innovation should really the litmus test.
It's the goodwill angle that I think is more damaging. Apple has hardly done much to accumulate or preserve that lately.
-
-
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 06:51 GMT Arctic fox
This attempt by Apple to continue to pursue the issue over phones that are......
........no longer on sale is a fairly typical example of how "BigCorp" (ie any large company) and their legal departments try to game the legal system. Apple are basically trying to create ammunition from old phones as precedent for renewed attacks on phones from Samsung that are current. I.e Their present legal shenanigans in this context are nothing more than a shell game. Until the judicial system in the US (it would probably require some form of judgment from the "Supremes") sends a very firm message to the American "Managerati" that they will personally be treated as vexatious litigants if they continue with such tactics I am afraid we will continue to see plenty more of this in the future.
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 08:35 GMT AdamT
Re: This attempt by Apple to continue to pursue the issue over phones that are......
Well, nothing has changed in the last two years given that I commented thusly in Aug 2012 (but it would be equally applicable today):
.... [a hung jury] would be about the only way for the "lay person" to say: "We are fed up with you corporate titans using the legal system as the latest blunt instrument to attack each other when you could both be getting on with competing fairly and developing the next products because, yes, some of us like iThings and some of us don't but we'd like them _both_ to be available, please. Oh, and while we're on the subject of tech companies wasting time and money, WHERE'S OUR DAMN FLYING CAR?"
-
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 15:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Apple wants to ban Galaxy phones because Galaxy phones have got really (some might say stupidly)big screens and Apple is yet to show the world how it invented really (Apple used to say stupidly) big screens on a phone with the iPhone 6.
Be fair, how can Apple be expected to innovate when people keep doing stuff first?