backtop


Print 36 comment(s) - last by testerguy.. on Mar 9 at 8:13 AM

Samsung is expected to file its own brief in the following weeks

Nokia has decided to join Apple in the quest to crush Samsung.

Nokia filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington earlier this week in an effort to help Apple achieve a permanent injunction of some Samsung phones.

According to Nokia, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh was wrong in making Apple show "causal nexus" between demand for the iPhone and the patent violations.

Keith Broyles, Nokia's attorney from Alston & Bird, said that Nokia joined the case as an ally for Apple in order to protect patents for future innovative devices.

"Nokia has recently been involved in numerous U.S. patent lawsuits, as both a plaintiff and defendant," Broyles wrote. "Nokia is thus both a significant patent owner that might seek an injunction to protect its patent rights, and a manufacturer in an industry in which patent owners routinely issue threats of injunctions for patent infringement."

This case has been ongoing for some time. Last June, Apple's patent infringement claims against Samsung for its Galaxy Nexus phone led to a preliminary injunction, ruled by Judge Koh. Samsung then appealed this ruling on July 1 in an attempt to lift the temporary ban. The ban stayed.

In August, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Samsung indeed infringed Apple's patents.

However, in December, Judge Koh denied Apple's request for a permanent injunction against certain Samsung phones, which sent the case back to appeals court. Now, apparently Nokia wants in on the action.

Samsung is expected to file its own brief in the following weeks.

Source: Thomson Reuters News & Insight



Comments     Threshold


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

So....
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/7/2013 4:00:46 PM , Rating: 5
Apple couldn't get them banned, now these other companies are trying to help them get Samsung products banned. Pathetic losers.




RE: So....
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/7/2013 4:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple couldn't get them banned, now these other companies are trying to help them get Samsung products banned. Pathetic losers.
A wise man once said, "If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em."


RE: So....
By wickyman on 3/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: So....
By killerroach on 3/7/2013 5:04:15 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
no matter how well they are built, how good the software is, and how interesting the feature list can be...Samsung never puts any effort into design.


And, until recently, Apple hardly put anything into R&D, frequently being outspent by a factor of multiples by their Korean counterparts.

Maybe if Apple spent as much time creating slick tech as they did a slick image, this would be a completely irrelevant discussion. But that's simply a world of hypotheticals.


RE: So....
By superstition on 3/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By superstition on 3/7/2013 5:19:24 PM , Rating: 2
They are not the fictional "good" and "bad" guys that posters on this site like to pretend they are.


RE: So....
By TakinYourPoints on 3/8/2013 5:31:55 AM , Rating: 3
People sure love to frame things in absolutes though.

To be clear, everyone is being ridiculous here. Apple and Nokia are being ridiculous to the extent to which they patent technologies (sympton of a broken system), while Samsung has a decades long history of curruption both in and outside of Korea. Long before this business with Apple, they were in court with RIM over copying the Blackberry.

Interesting reading if you have time: http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/30/3709688/samsung...

Guess playing dirty is a part of being a multinational, everyone does in their own way.


RE: So....
By superstition on 3/8/2013 6:29:31 PM , Rating: 1
It's so amusing how people hid my comment because it refutes the religious zealotry.

People are so invested in their armchair partisan war games. It's like corporate football but the only people laughing are the CEOs who walk away with the dough.


RE: So....
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/7/2013 5:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Furthermore, Apple used to be called Microsoft's R&D arm. If you were to know your Apple history you'd know that.
? LOL


RE: So....
By superstition on 3/7/2013 5:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
That was long before anyone cared about Samsung and Microsoft was the company people were so religious about. It was Microsoft vs. Apple for the faithful zealots rather than Samsung vs. Apple.


RE: So....
By RufusM on 3/7/2013 5:38:58 PM , Rating: 3
Yep and Microsoft won that case. Let's be honest, Samsung did clearly copy Apples iPhone design to a certain degree with their Galaxy S phone.

In the eyes of the law that's not the problem. There's only a problem if they make it similar enough so it could be reasonably mistaken by consumers for the iPhone, i.e. Trade Dress.

The other software patents are ridiculous. A bounce back animation or extracting telephone numbers from an email should not be patentable at all.

Code should be copyrighted. Anyone should be able to copy someones software functionality if they implement it with their own code and it doesn't infringe on anyone's Trade Dress. If the code is truly different it will pass any copyright challenge.


RE: So....
By theapparition on 3/8/2013 10:05:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's be honest, Samsung did clearly copy Apples iPhone design to a certain degree with their Galaxy S phone.

A bigger screen in a case that was almost a full 50% larger by area, The word "Samsung" emblazoned on the device with no "Apple" or fruit logo, it used entirely different hardware, had some differentiating features and most importantly, ran a completely different OS.

It most certainly was not a copy. Not even close.

Now, if someone wants to say that Samsung took design cues from the iPhone, then that's different and I'll agree with that. Much in the same way that Apple took design cues from Palm (but didn't copy the Palm Pilot or steal anything), and also design cues from Blackberry and other Win Mobile devices out there.

The debate now starts as to whether those design cues were protected under patent law, and also if those patents should have even been granted. Keep in mind that Samsung was never found guilty for the "black rectangle with rounded corners" patent that so many like to mention.

Despite the photo shopped picture that iFans like to point to, the iPhone and Galaxy S weren't even close in looks.


RE: So....
By testerguy on 3/9/2013 8:07:24 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
A bigger screen in a case that was almost a full 50% larger by area, The word "Samsung" emblazoned on the device with no "Apple" or fruit logo, it used entirely different hardware, had some differentiating features and most importantly, ran a completely different OS. It most certainly was not a copy. Not even close.


Why do people with no grasp or understanding of the patents or patent law even post such drivel.

Firstly - you mention the Samsung logo. Do you think a car company can copy a BMW down to every last detail but write their own logo on the side, and that's OK?

Secondly - whether they looked the same, whether people could tell them apart or not, and the hardware they used, have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of this case. There are certain design aspects of the home screen which are in question (layouts, colours of icons, springboard at the bottom) as well as utility patents, such as bounce back etc - all of which Samsung thoroughly documented themselves copying.

The 'black rectangle with rounded corners' patent (which is not that at all) was found in Germany to be infringed by the Galaxy Tab, with two Samsung lawyers unable to point out which tablet was the iPad and which was the Galaxy Tab.


RE: So....
By TakinYourPoints on 3/8/2013 5:40:44 AM , Rating: 1
Says the guy who can't understand a simple sales graph from the watch thread from a few days ago.

Is the US school system really this bad where someone can't comprehend simple images and statements?


RE: So....
By killerroach on 3/7/2013 5:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Furthermore, Apple used to be called Microsoft's R&D arm. If you were to know your Apple history you'd know that.


...which is completely irrelevant to the issue of the iPhone and Apple's recent R&D history. The fact of the matter is that, even today, they spend practically nothing on development.

Also, hearing you whine about the patent system being broken sounds rather funny, seeing as Apple has been advancing their case through the use of some exceptionally flimsy patents, mostly around aesthetic features (or tech features that simply add "on a mobile device" to the end of an obvious computing function).


RE: So....
By TakinYourPoints on 3/8/2013 5:27:40 AM , Rating: 3
Their lower R&D spending is because they focus on so few products. Phone, tablets, laptops, operating systems, almost all of which get to market. Other companies spend more because they're involved with things like fabrication and manufacturing (LG, Samsung), numerous product lines that go all the way down to TVs and washing machines (Samsung, Sony), or R&D that is for pure research which doesn't really end up in shipping products (Microsoft).

Efficiency doesn't equate to not trying. How much influence they have in the tech world speaks to how solid their focus is.


RE: So....
By TakinYourPoints on 3/8/2013 9:27:09 AM , Rating: 2
A good analogy is comparing companies like Valve against EA and Ubisoft. Valve has only (very recently) about 400 employees while EA and Ubisoft employ thousands each. Valve's internal game development and R&D budgets are a tiny fraction of what those other studios have, yet they generally set the standard with their games and their services. They also make more per employee than companies like Microsoft and Google, forget EA and Ubisoft.

Steam came out of a tiny R&D budget and employee count, and by comparison you have other much larger and more inefficient companies copying them (badly) with services like Origin and UPlay. Just because EA and Ubisoft spend more than Valve on game development, marketing, and R&D, doesn't mean that they are accomplishing more.

Valve is a lot like Apple in that they spend a lot less, have fewer employees, yet they set the pace that others spend so much time imitating. It comes down to efficiently spending focus and resources on a narrower set of core competencies.


RE: So....
By Mint on 3/9/2013 4:33:46 AM , Rating: 2
In the context of this topic, their R&D is relevant because it shows that the supposedly infringed IP did not cost much to develop.

The rationale for the existence of the patent system is that if you let people copy, then nobody will bother with private innovation because initial R&D costs will never be recouped. If all these lawsuits failed and Apple knew they would years ago, do you think they would have passed on making the iPhone?

Of course not. Apple made $100B+ from their first mover advantage, covering their R&D costs many times over because they didn't really innovate that much. Instead, they're visionaries able to leverage their advantages (esp. their loyal user base). For the interest of the consumer, there is little IP that is worth protection from the law.


RE: So....
By testerguy on 3/9/2013 8:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
The cost incurred to develop IP is absolutely irrelevant.


RE: So....
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/7/2013 5:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hell I had a first gen Galaxy tab and was constantly being asked if it was an iPad, as it was so similar right down to Samsung's use of a proprietary 30-pin dock connector and charger instead of the micro-USB connection that had been standard on Android devices for years at that point.
Pretty sure that the Apple 30 pin came out AFTER that Galaxy... so Samsung went forward in time to copy it?


RE: So....
By Tony Swash on 3/7/2013 5:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pretty sure that the Apple 30 pin came out AFTER that Galaxy... so Samsung went forward in time to copy it?


Apple's 30 pin connector was introduced in 2003.

Source Wikipedia.


RE: So....
By momorere on 3/7/2013 5:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
You talking about "high quality" overpriced cables/adapters like this one ? LOLZ

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/03/apples-lightn...


RE: So....
By Tony Swash on 3/7/2013 6:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You talking about "high quality" overpriced cables/adapters like this one ? LOLZ

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/03/apples-lightn...


No. I am talking about the 30 pin connector which was introduced in 2003.


RE: So....
By Reclaimer77 on 3/7/2013 7:22:59 PM , Rating: 3
I love these arguments lol. Does anyone actually believe Samsung, electronics giant, can't figure out how many pins to put in a charger so they need to copy Apple? For a cable? Come on!

Just..ahahah, these iTards are killing me!


RE: So....
By Tony Swash on 3/7/2013 7:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Samsung, electronics giant, can't figure out how many pins to put in a charger so they need to copy Apple?


Apparently they do.

http://cdn.imore.com/sites/imore.com/files/styles/...

Accepting that Samsung is a giant, supremely effective maker of well made and well marketed products of all shapes and forms who can do what no other Android OEM can do, which is make a profit, is one thing. But when was the last time that Samsung came up with a category changing, paradigm shifting product? That's not what they do. What Samsung does is watch what is selling well, use the invaluable intelligence gathered from their position in the supply chain of other companies (notably but not exclusively Apple) to gather intelligence about product pipelines and trends, and then ruthlessly mimic what is succeeding. That's a perfectly viable and seemingly very successful model. But it does involve a lot of copying.

What flabbergasts me is that so many Americans in forums such as this feel like cheering for a Korean conglomerate when it rips of an American company. I thought you yanks were so supposed to be proud of your country and it's achievements. If I came from the country that had created Microsoft, Apple and Google I would be proud of their achievements and the American innovation they displayed and get pretty pissed off when they got ripped of by foreign companies stealing their designs.


RE: So....
By Reclaimer77 on 3/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: So....
By retrospooty on 3/8/2013 6:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
"What flabbergasts me is that so many Americans in forums such as this feel like cheering for a Korean conglomerate when it rips of an American company. I thought you yanks were so supposed to be proud of your country and it's achievements. If I came from the country that had created Microsoft, Apple and Google I would be proud of their achievements and the American innovation they displayed and get pretty pissed off when they got ripped of by foreign companies stealing their designs."

The thing is reality. You live in a very different one where a company is something to be put on a pedestal. In the real world we can be objective and see that Apple copies as much if not more than other tech giants and we don't like the hypocrisy.


RE: So....
By Mint on 3/9/2013 4:12:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But when was the last time that Samsung came up with a category changing, paradigm shifting product?
You're joking, right?

Samsung blazed the trail for the large smartphone trend. They brought out the Galaxy Note series after Apple declared the stylus dead and everyone else heeded their call, and the tens of millions who have one will tell you that it absolutely is paradigm shifting. They basically invented practical AMOLED tech, which is the future of displays.

And stop taking their manufacturing for granted. There's all sorts of innovation going on behind the scenes for cost reduction. Far more so than designing a rectangle with rounded corners...


RE: So....
By testerguy on 3/9/2013 8:13:28 AM , Rating: 2
Oh my god.

Don't be so absurd.

Firstly - larger screens aren't an innovation, they are the result of Samsungs inability to pack the power required into a smaller package. They had also been done by numerous other companies before Samsung. Ridiculous that people describe this as category changing.

quote:
They brought out the Galaxy Note series after Apple declared the stylus dead


Sorry to break it to you but the stylus is still dead, and even if it wasn't it's a BACKWARD step, not something new or innovative. The Note is the only option in this category and has sold far fewer than the Samsung Galaxy S3, iPhone 4S and iPhone 5.

quote:
They basically invented practical AMOLED tech, which is the future of displays.


Just flat out nonsense. A slight change in LCD tech which most definitely is NOT the future is not category changing, at all. Apple for example is producing far better calibrated screens without using said technology.

quote:
And stop taking their manufacturing for granted. There's all sorts of innovation going on behind the scenes for cost reduction. Far more so than designing a rectangle with rounded corners...


It's only an ignorant person who doesn't understand law who describes that 1 particular patent (of thousands) as rectangle with rounded corners. It's also unbelievably ignorant not to see that for every Samsung release, Apple has been able to cram more performance into a smaller package with better battery life, as well as higher build quality and better materials. If you want innovation, look no further than the iPhone 5 which to date has still not been matched on those fronts.


RE: So....
By TakinYourPoints on 3/8/2013 9:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't about being able to figure things out, they can certainly do something different like other companies like Motorola and HTC have. That's easy.

The thing is that copying Apple, even down to a 30 pin connector, is extremely profitable. Samsung rode a combination of imitation and aggressive marketing to billions in profits and basically owning Android hardware sales, even when competitors like HTC are offering better hardware right now.


Tiffany you made my day with that JPG
By Kurz on 3/7/2013 4:07:16 PM , Rating: 5
The Ambiguously Gay Duo, man the memories.




RE: Tiffany you made my day with that JPG
By superstition on 3/7/13, Rating: -1
By RufusM on 3/7/2013 5:43:10 PM , Rating: 3
"Hop on Gary!"


Meh.
By txDrum on 3/7/2013 8:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
I use this title a lot. Totally unnecessary. I hate our patent system.




By wind79 on 3/7/2013 10:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
Enemy of my enemy is my friend.




Seems relevant :)
By TakinYourPoints on 3/8/2013 9:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki