Print 83 comment(s) - last by TakinYourPoint.. on Jul 10 at 12:56 AM

Apple scores a second victory this week against Samsung

Apple has been handed its fair share of defeats in court with regards to its patent lawsuits against various Android handset/tablet manufacturers. However, Apple’s fortunes in the U.S. court system have taken on a decidedly more positive note this week. 
On Wednesday, it was reported that Apple scored a pre-trial injunction on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the U.S. courtesy of Judge Lucy Koh in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Koh ruled that Samsung infringed on key Apple design patents, and admonished the company, stating:
Although Samsung has a right to compete, it does not have a right to compete unfairly by flooding the market with infringing products. While Samsung will certainly suffer lost sales from the issuance of an injunction, the hardship to Apple of having to directly compete with Samsung’s infringing products outweighs Samsung’s harm in light of the previous findings by the Court.
Given that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is an older tablet that hasn't seen much sales success in the United States to begin with, the ban isn't much of a hindrance to Samsung. In addition, its follow-up -- the Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 -- isn't affected to the sales ban.
However, a ruling that was handed down late Friday is a much more serious threat to Samsung's fortunes in the U.S.
I. Apple Scores its Second Victory This Week, Galaxy Nexus Ban Granted

On Friday, Judge Koh dealt Samsung its second blow for the week in the form of a pre-trial injunction against the Galaxy Nexus smartphone. The Galaxy Nexus was introduced late last year as the poster child for Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich".

Samsung Galaxy Nexus
As she did earlier in the week with regards to the Galaxy Tab 10.1 ban, Judge Koh once again pointed out that Apple was clearly wronged by Samsung's infringements. "Apple has made a clear showing that, in the absence of a preliminary injunction, it is likely to lose substantial market share in the smartphone market and to lose substantial downstream sales of future smartphone purchases and tag-along products," stated Judge Koh in her Friday ruling.
The pre-trial injunction will go into effect as soon as Apple pays a $95 million bond to enforce the ban.
II. Patents, Patents, and More Patents.
The original motion filed by Apple indicated that Samsung's infringed upon the following patents:
U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 -- Describes a method for retrieving user information from a "variety of locations" from a single interface
U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721  -- This is Apple’s infamous “Slide to Unlock” patent
U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 -- Details detection methods that create functional links from actionable data items like phone numbers, dates, email addresses, or web pages.
U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 -- Describes touch screen input methods along with display of current character strings or word suggestions as users "type" on the screen
According to Dan Levine, reporting for Reuters, the Galaxy Nexus ban was granted based on infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604.
III. Apple, Google Respond
There's no question that Apple is delighted with this recent turn of events, having scored two legal victories against Samsung this week. However, the company only issued its standard canned response to Friday's ruling:
It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging. This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.
The four patents being used against Samsung in the case against the Galaxy Nexus revolve around design implementation in Google's Android operating system. For its part, Google issued this response to the ruling:
We're disappointed with this decision, but we believe the correct result will be reached as more evidence comes to light.
Samsung has yet to respond, but we have the feeling that they will go straight for an appeal as they did with the pre-trial injunction handed down against the Galaxy Tab 10.1.

Sources: Reuters, The Verge

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: I used to be Apple was cool
By tayb on 6/30/2012 7:11:46 PM , Rating: 0
I can hook up an Android device or a Nokia or a Windows phone to pretty much anything and transfer stuff back and forth. With an iCrap device I need to run iTunes to transfer data.

So it is not so much that you are locked in so much as it is an inconvenience to have to launch iTunes? Also, there are plenty (and I mean PLENTY) of applications that yank data off iOS devices without iTunes. You could also jailbreak the iOS device and accomplish the exact same thing.

I can view Flash on pretty much anything except iCrap where I can only do it on the computers. Why - because Apple want to control what apps run on their stuff.

You can't view flash on Windows Phone, iOS, or apparently Android 4.1. You can't even view flash on Windows 8 RT and that's freaking Windows! There are multiple legitimate reasons to not allow flash on a platform but the primary one was and has always been security. Microsoft made the same decision.

Everyone isn't suing but some are and it's mainly to get back at Apple or to force settlements.

Motorola and Samsung are in trouble for abusing FRAND patents in lawsuits against Apple. Apple started the mess, that's for certain, but it takes two to tango.

Let the circle jerk continue.

RE: I used to be Apple was cool
By dark matter on 7/1/2012 12:46:22 PM , Rating: 1

Apple decided they didn't have to pay motorola for the FRAND patents if they didn't agree on the price.

That's like you or I going to the car hire company and driving around for free because we didn't like the charges the car hire company offered us.

RE: I used to be Apple was cool
By tayb on 7/1/2012 6:47:24 PM , Rating: 1
False. Apple was willing to pay for the FRAND patents but not the sums Motorola and Samsung were charging. Motorola and Samsung were asking exorbitant prices that were not remotely consistent with the prices they typically ask. Do you know what FRAND stands for? Fair Reasonable And Non Discriminatory.

That's like you or I going to the car hire company and driving around for free because we didn't like the charges the car hire company offered us.

Horrible analogy that underscores your complete lack of knowledge on the subject.

By darkhawk1980 on 7/2/2012 7:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think you need to go back and read the article. Apple DIDN'T want to pay it, so they didn't. Even though it was reasonable given the volume of phones.

What was NOT reasonable, was what Apple wanted to charge for use of their patents. It was multitudes more than what the FRAND patents were, given the volume of phones that Motorola has been selling as of late.

Why? So Apple could litigate them to death.

Hey, feel free to continue spinning the your Apple. We all know it's rotten to the core.

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki