Court Upholds Ban on Samsung Galaxy Tablet

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Court Upholds Ban on Samsung Galaxy Tablet

image

Samsung's Nexus smartphone joins Apple's Galaxy Tab injunction.

Samsung recently faced a ban on sales of its tablet in the US, as a result of its ongoing patent dispute with Apple over alleged design similarities between the iPad and the Galaxy Tab. Samsung immediately filed a motion to stay, but its hopes were dashed. Not only is the ban still in place, but the judge also slapped an injunction on sales of the Galaxy Nexus smartphone.

"Samsung is disappointed with the court's decision," said the company in an official statement following the ruling. It intends to continue to appeal against the injunction, saying that it believes "today's ruling will ultimately reduce the availability of superior technological features to consumers in the US," unless it can get the injunction lifted.

The Galaxy Tab is the closest competitor to Apple's iPad, but Apple still dominates the market. Market forecasters expect iPad sales to make up 61.4% of all tablet sales in 2012; that's out of a grand total of 105 million units estimated to be purchased this year.

Regardless, Samsung has reason not to be too concerned about this decision, as the shipment volume of Galaxy Tab and Nexus smartphones is relatively small. Also it usually takes a while for the courts to process injunctions, so Samsung has some time to unload stock before the banhammer comes down.

Source: Guardian

Permalink

Time has no meaning with the Nexus.

This still the same judge? You know, I was told that it's easier to become a judge than a lawyer in America. Now sure how true that is, but if it is...yeah.

Apple doing what they do best, litigating against the competitors they are most scared of. Jobs never could hack competition, and neither can Tim Cook, it seems.

image

Waaghpowa:
This still the same judge? You know, I was told that it's easier to become a judge than a lawyer in America. Now sure how true that is, but if it is...yeah.

Lucy Koh, the judge who has basically ruled almost every case involving Apple in Apple's favour. Known to be an avid user of iPhones and iPads. Why pay someone off when they are already one of your sheep.

Griffolion:
Lucy Koh, the judge who has basically ruled almost every case involving Apple in Apple's favour. Known to be an avid user of iPhones and iPads. Why pay someone off when they are already one of your sheep.

Even if this is remotely the case, can't they get a different judge?

Waaghpowa:

Griffolion:
Lucy Koh, the judge who has basically ruled almost every case involving Apple in Apple's favour. Known to be an avid user of iPhones and iPads. Why pay someone off when they are already one of your sheep.

Even if this is remotely the case, can't they get a different judge?

Doubtful Apple "pays people off", it's a bit ridiculous to assert that the American law system is that broken, but I would assert that she's compromised on a personal preference level simply based on the amount of simply ridiculous cases she's given in Apple's favour.

Also, I'm not entirely too sure on the system. Since there are only a limited number of Judges deemed to be up on technology matters ("up on technology matters" being used very loosely in this case) in the country, I think it's a case of asking a judge to hear it. I know Apple suffered a setback trying to patent troll the Galaxy S 3 recently because, lo and behold, the same Judge wasn't actually available to take the hearing at the time Apple needed in order to get an import ban in place before the GS3 actually released. The court case has been postponed to a date Koh can take the hearing, and Apple requested no other Judge.

Griffolion:

Waaghpowa:

Griffolion:
Lucy Koh, the judge who has basically ruled almost every case involving Apple in Apple's favour. Known to be an avid user of iPhones and iPads. Why pay someone off when they are already one of your sheep.

Even if this is remotely the case, can't they get a different judge?

Doubtful Apple "pays people off", it's a bit ridiculous to assert that the American law system is that broken, but I would assert that she's compromised on a personal preference level simply based on the amount of simply ridiculous cases she's given in Apple's favour.

Also, I'm not entirely too sure on the system. Since there are only a limited number of Judges deemed to be up on technology matters ("up on technology matters" being used very loosely in this case) in the country, I think it's a case of asking a judge to hear it. I know Apple suffered a setback trying to patent troll the Galaxy S 3 recently because, lo and behold, the same Judge wasn't actually available to take the hearing at the time Apple needed in order to get an import ban in place before the GS3 actually released. The court case has been postponed to a date Koh can take the hearing, and Apple requested no other Judge.

There was a case a few years ago, against a judge who was eventually found guilty of taking some hundreds and thousands of dollars worth in bribes from a prison over many years. It seems they paid him/her (I forget) to convict as many people as possible and send them to their prison, so they could make more profit (with prisons being private).

Make no mistake about it, the U.S. criminal justice system is fucked beyond belief.

I'm not sure if that's possible with the way the law, or the article, is written. I'm pretty sure you can't just add stuff to an injunction without another case.

Clearing the Eye:

Griffolion:

Waaghpowa:

Even if this is remotely the case, can't they get a different judge?

Doubtful Apple "pays people off", it's a bit ridiculous to assert that the American law system is that broken, but I would assert that she's compromised on a personal preference level simply based on the amount of simply ridiculous cases she's given in Apple's favour.

Also, I'm not entirely too sure on the system. Since there are only a limited number of Judges deemed to be up on technology matters ("up on technology matters" being used very loosely in this case) in the country, I think it's a case of asking a judge to hear it. I know Apple suffered a setback trying to patent troll the Galaxy S 3 recently because, lo and behold, the same Judge wasn't actually available to take the hearing at the time Apple needed in order to get an import ban in place before the GS3 actually released. The court case has been postponed to a date Koh can take the hearing, and Apple requested no other Judge.

There was a case a few years ago, against a judge who was eventually found guilty of taking some hundreds and thousands of dollars worth in bribes from a prison over many years. It seems they paid him/her (I forget) to convict as many people as possible and send them to their prison, so they could make more profit (with prisons being private).

Make no mistake about it, the U.S. criminal justice system is fucked beyond belief.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple has bribed Koh off given how she has always seemed to side with them even when other judges rule against them in other cases in related manners. Everyone has a price and clearly Apple found hers.

The Steve Job's business plan legacy is still alive and well. Take other peoples ideas patent them then buy the judges and sue the crap out of anyone who tries to do anything remotely similar.

The downside is that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 1 was banned, which is complete BS if you/anyone has been following this business. The upside is that even to Samsung this is outdated tech and was replaced by the Galaxy Tab 10.1 2 months ago.

No, the real problem here is the Galaxy Nexus ban. That ban is based off a unified search patent that was granted several years ago, but never protected until earlier this year, and then only used against (for all intensive purposes) Android (its apparently being licensed to anyone else who wants it). The kicker is that Apple claims the infringing device represents a "significant potential drop" in revenue and marketshare based ENTIRELY on the existence of the infringing features. Yet sales data has shown that while the Galaxy Nexus has sold, it has not, in any way, sold in volume necessary to take any significant market share from the iPhone (that dubious pleasure actually goes the Galaxy S2 and RAZR series phones). Anyway, there is also tons of prior and concurrent use for this, except Apple is probably licensing to those companies. And again, taking away marketshare from the leading single company in the industry.

My personal thoughts: several groups arrived at this same tech independently (as software makers are wont to do), Apple managed to get the Patent first (which software patents shouldn't be patentable, or at least all fair-use license-able), and is using its powers as patent holder unfairly, by selectively licensing to some, but not all. Admittedly, Samsung is one of its biggest competitors, but Apple IS suing Motorola, another of its biggest competitors, in the EU for not licensing fair-use patents to it.

Does any of this not reek of monopolistic anti-trust behavior?

nadesico33:

My personal thoughts: several groups arrived at this same tech independently (as software makers are wont to do), Apple managed to get the Patent first (which software patents shouldn't be patentable, or at least all fair-use license-able), and is using its powers as patent holder unfairly, by selectively licensing to some, but not all. Admittedly, Samsung is one of its biggest competitors, but Apple IS suing Motorola, another of its biggest competitors, in the EU for not licensing fair-use patents to it.

Does any of this not reek of monopolistic anti-trust behavior?

Gotta love Apple's hypocritical stance on this.

Judge Alsup recently ruled that the 37 application programming interfaces (APIs) for the Java programming language used in Android are not covered by copyright. So this ruling sets a legal precedent that could be used for just about any type of software copyright and possibly patent lawsuits in the future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jun/01/oracle-google-api-decision-free

I never realized that "kind of looks similar when turned off" means patent infringement.

Apple, just be happy you can sell things, and leave other companies alone. Oh, right, you are doing this because you just can't compete.

If I had three wishes, one of them would be that Apple would go under and disappear, so that real competition and progress can take place, instead of inferior products being sold at insanely high prices to gullible people that think that apple is good because it is popular.

I understand that Apple products are said to be very good for art and video purposes in some respects, but why can't they just lower their prices and make quality products that can compete instead of all this suing crap.

Seriously, if Apple didn't have it's popular "in crowd" image with people that know little about technology, it would have went under a long time ago. Because with Apple's pricing system versus the specs, the only conceivable reason that it succeeds is because it is popular.

I for one, if I used one of my other three wishes to get unimaginable amounts of money, I still wouldn't buy any Apple products.

My last wish would be for courage/confidence. Yay for off topic!!!.

Doom972:
I never realized that "kind of looks similar when turned off" means patent infringement.

Sadly Koh thought so. What's funny is this argument could be said of just about any device if similar form and function. So I wouldn't be surprised if Apple continues its lawsuit spree going after every electronics company that makes anything that they also do.

Apple wants 100% of the market and has proven that it is ready and willing to do what ever it takes to squash the competition in order to get it. Sooner or later I bet there will be antitrust lawsuits brought against Apple if they keep going the way they are.

Hurray for US Patent law! Always there to stifle technology and discourage competition in the market place!

porpoise hork:

Doom972:
I never realized that "kind of looks similar when turned off" means patent infringement.

Sadly Koh thought so. What's funny is this argument could be said of just about any device if similar form and function. So I wouldn't be surprised if Apple continues its lawsuit spree going after every electronics company that makes anything that they also do.

Apple wants 100% of the market and has proven that it is ready and willing to do what ever it takes to squash the competition in order to get it. Sooner or later I bet there will be antitrust lawsuits brought against Apple if they keep going the way they are.

I'm not really shocked at Apple being jerks and trying to hog the market. They are that kind of corporation (Yes, Microsoft too).
I just don't get why the US legal system helps them take over an entire market.

Sonic Doctor:
Seriously, if Apple didn't have it's popular "in crowd" image with people that know little about technology, it would have went under a long time ago.

They almost did in the 90's. Microsoft bailed them out.

Waaghpowa:

Sonic Doctor:
Seriously, if Apple didn't have it's popular "in crowd" image with people that know little about technology, it would have went under a long time ago.

They almost did in the 90's. Microsoft bailed them out.

Wow, so Microsoft trolled itself and its supporters....lovely.

Sonic Doctor:

Waaghpowa:

Sonic Doctor:
Seriously, if Apple didn't have it's popular "in crowd" image with people that know little about technology, it would have went under a long time ago.

They almost did in the 90's. Microsoft bailed them out.

Wow, so Microsoft trolled itself and its supporters....lovely.

Doesn't Microsoft hold a substantial share in Apple?

DonTsetsi:

Sonic Doctor:

Waaghpowa:

They almost did in the 90's. Microsoft bailed them out.

Wow, so Microsoft trolled itself and its supporters....lovely.

Doesn't Microsoft hold a substantial share in Apple?

I believe they do, but also part of the bailout, originally at least, was that Apple would sell and use Microsofts office software.

Lets just say that I make a TV. It looks like a TV and has the function of a TV. It's created with my own parts and runs on software that I own legally. According to Apple logic, I cannot compete with the other brands because my TV "looks similar and thus is patent infringement".
Imagine where Apple logic would leave us if we applied it to all products on the market.

NuclearShadow:
On the plus side before the ruling goes into effect this means they will have to scramble to make sales. Seeing how they are good tablets you may be able to find yourself a steal on one now. Seems like a pure loss for Samsung right? Wrong because if these sell wildly and cheap to rid of them before the deadline this means less people have any reason to buy a iPad.

I was about to post something bitchy about Apple's sucky business practices, but...

Huh.

... where do you think is having the better sales, Best Buy, or Samsung's website?

Its nothing to do with likeness of display. It IS the display. Samsung manufactures an array of components for Apple. What this means is Samsung is privy to internal specs, designs, builds, etc. I have dismantled both devices and the resemblance is striking. Citing the same display factories.

This would not typically be the problem as LG does the same thing. However, when there was a market test general consumers could not tell the difference between the two (while off). This is the problem; Apple is banking on brand and model recognition. If they are duplicated then the value of the brand goes down.

This exact same thing happened between Samsung and some TV company in Europe. Samsung barred this company from selling TV's (it only has 3 models, all look the same as Samsung) in the USA. All of these companies do it, and I appreciate it; its a real slippery slope from here to blatant knockoff.

Griffolion:

Doubtful Apple "pays people off", it's a bit ridiculous to assert that the American law system is that broken, but I would assert that she's compromised on a personal preference level simply based on the amount of simply ridiculous cases she's given in Apple's favour.

It's not so much American law but intellectual property law that is horribly broken. It's a branch of the law where the potential for dickishness is more or less entirely at the discretion of the IP owner, and corporations (even the much-beloved fruit vendor) will always brandish their pork swords in the pursuit of profit and market share. I'd say that things are about to get worse, but with the recent defeat of ACTA in the European Parliament we may actually start to breathe a little easier.

Hell, even individuals can be colossal fucksticks when it comes to "protecting their IP." Need I remind you of just how much bullshit Tim Langdell got away with because of his trademark on the word Edge? It took a lawsuit from EA to put that abusive fucktard in his place.

I just got the Samsung Galaxy Nexus phone. Pretty sweet piece of tech. Can't wait for Jelly Bean.

If I had not gotten one, banning the competition wouldn't have convinced me to go for an iOS device anyway. I'm hooked on Android (as are a growing number of others), I don't see myself wanting to move to a more restrictive environment such as Apple has created.

DVS BSTrD:
Time has no meaning with the Nexus.

You, I like you.

I'm not sure whether I should dislike everyone else for not getting the reference, or be worried that I was the first one who did on a site like this one...

OT: Say it with me people, screw IP law. I've never once seen it do any good for the consumer or for any business or individuals small enough to actually need protection. Instead, they're who it gets used against. At this point it's nothing but a weapon that big businesses use against the consumer and their competitors.

Owyn_Merrilin:

DVS BSTrD:
Time has no meaning with the Nexus.

You, I like you.

I'm not sure whether I should dislike everyone else for not getting the reference, or be worried that I was the first one who did on a site like this one...

OT: Say it with me people, screw IP law. I've never once seen it do any good for the consumer or for any business or individuals small enough to actually need protection. Instead, they're who it gets used against. At this point it's nothing but a weapon that big businesses use against the consumer and their competitors.

I think I got it (isn't it a Demon's Souls reference?) but didn't want to say anything for risk of looking like an idiot.

OT: Companies screwing each other over? Say it isn't so!

Aeshi:

Owyn_Merrilin:

DVS BSTrD:
Time has no meaning with the Nexus.

You, I like you.

I'm not sure whether I should dislike everyone else for not getting the reference, or be worried that I was the first one who did on a site like this one...

OT: Say it with me people, screw IP law. I've never once seen it do any good for the consumer or for any business or individuals small enough to actually need protection. Instead, they're who it gets used against. At this point it's nothing but a weapon that big businesses use against the consumer and their competitors.

I think I got it (isn't it a Demon's Souls reference?) but didn't want to say anything for risk of looking like an idiot.

OT: Companies screwing each other over? Say it isn't so!

Star Trek: Generations, unless I'm completely wrong and just made an ass out of myself XD

Owyn_Merrilin:

Star Trek: Generations, unless I'm completely wrong and just made an ass out of myself XD

Correct!
I was asleep not 10 minutes ago, sorry for being late to the Trek party?

OT: I'm very happy with my Samsung. My mother has iPad on the other hand. I think Samsung is better and Apple is just being a dick.

Could never understand the sacred cow status people bestow upon Apple products, them being clearly inferior in most respects (save for graphic and video jobs). It's getting as aggravating as the constant ranting on EA.

Also, I like how that iJudge always ends up with their cases.

For fuck sake Apple... Get your shit together and become likeable again...

Owyn_Merrilin:

DVS BSTrD:
Time has no meaning with the Nexus.

You, I like you.

I'm not sure whether I should dislike everyone else for not getting the reference, or be worried that I was the first one who did on a site like this one...

I just assume people don't quote me much anymore because they have reference and pun fatigue. At least that's what I keep telling myself as I cry myself to sleep each night
You people don't appreciate me!

Bara_no_Hime:

NuclearShadow:
On the plus side before the ruling goes into effect this means they will have to scramble to make sales. Seeing how they are good tablets you may be able to find yourself a steal on one now. Seems like a pure loss for Samsung right? Wrong because if these sell wildly and cheap to rid of them before the deadline this means less people have any reason to buy a iPad.

I was about to post something bitchy about Apple's sucky business practices, but...

Huh.

... where do you think is having the better sales, Best Buy, or Samsung's website?

Ah, here's a practical lady. You wouldn't happen to be a married woman would you?

Captcha: How about that!
hmmmmmm

Doom972:
I never realized that "kind of looks similar when turned off" means patent infringement.

A judge, in open court, infamously used as evidence, probably this Koh shill, the fact that Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the difference between the Galaxy Tab and the Apple iPad at a distance of about 10-15 feet.

When I'm at Wal-Mart or Best Buy, and I'm 10-15 feet away from the display floor plasma flat screen TV's, I can't tell which is which, either.

Someone needs to take this Kob chick to the bathroom and give her a Swirly of Truth.

Waaghpowa:
This still the same judge? You know, I was told that it's easier to become a judge than a lawyer in America. Now sure how true that is, but if it is...yeah.

Judges are lawyers who have been practicing. There are requirements. You don't just go to school to be a judge.

There was a case a few years ago, against a judge who was eventually found guilty of taking some hundreds and thousands of dollars worth in bribes from a prison over many years. It seems they paid him/her (I forget) to convict as many people as possible and send them to their prison, so they could make more profit (with prisons being private).

Make no mistake about it, the U.S. criminal justice system is fucked beyond belief.

I do not believe you have any idea how America Jurisprudence works.
1. Judges don't convict anyone. Juries do. Judges have only a minimal role in the process of finding guilt. Their role as it pertains to the finding of guilt is limited entirely to approving jury instructions (which are vetted by the counsel of both sides before hand) and sentencing after guilt is determined. By sentencing I mean how long and in what manner a person is punished for. Sentencing is done according to written guidelines and there is not much room for discretion.
2. [citation needed]

DVS BSTrD:
Ah, here's a practical lady. You wouldn't happen to be a married woman would you?

Yes, actually.

Also, I got the Star Trek reference. I didn't comment because I hated that movie with a passion. It took a giant, steaming dump on the great ending that was "All Good Things" and managed to get it's own continuity wrong. Also, they dropped a fucking bridge on Kirk and blew up the D Enterprise with old ass Stock Footage from Star Trek 6. I'd say Worst Star Trek Movie Ever, but honestly the other three that followed were just as bad. The Next Gen movies are dead to me - they might as well not have happened.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here