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

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.


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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