Court Upholds Ban on Samsung Galaxy Tablet

[Karloff]

Court Upholds Ban on Samsung Galaxy Tablet

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 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118132-Apple-Gets-Samsungs-Galaxy-Tab-Banned-in-the-US] 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 [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jul/03/samsung-galaxy-nexus-sales-ban]


Permalink

 

[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.

 

[Griffolion]

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.



[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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.

 

[Waaghpowa]

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?

 

[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.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

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.

 

[vxicepickxv]

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.

 

[porpoise hork]

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 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.

 

[nadesico33]

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?

 

[porpoise hork]

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

 

[Doom972]

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

 

[Sonic Doctor]

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!!!.

 

[porpoise hork]

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.

 

[cynicalsaint1]

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

 

[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.

 

[Waaghpowa]

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.

 

[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.

 

[DonTsetsi]

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?

 

[Waaghpowa]

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?

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