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 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.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














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