Apple objects to timing of Verizon interference in Samsung case
Apple has opposed Verizon's motion to file a brief in support of Samsung in a patent infringement dispute with the argument that the wireless operator waited too long to file its request.
The Cupertino, Calif., company's filed its objection on Tuesday, asking the court to either dismiss Verizon's request as untimely, or allow Apple to submit a response on Oct. 6, Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents reports.
Verizon submitted a request last Friday to file an amicus curiae brief in defense of Samsung. The proposed brief takes issue with Apple's request for a preliminary injunction on four of Samsung's products, arguing that any injunction would work against the public interest.
Apple first sued Samsung in April, then filed a request for an preliminary injunction on some of Samsung's newest smartphones and tablets. The products in question are the Infuse 4G, Galaxy S 4G, Droid Charge and Galaxy Tab 10.1.
"The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a non-party's submission of amicus briefs in district courts," Apple's filing read. Mueller agreed with Apple's assessment, pointing out that "in all of the many lawsuits" that he has monitored, this is the first attempt by a party to file such a brief.
Apple's filing does not yet address the wireless carrier's public interest arguments, objecting first to the tardiness of the request. Verizon's motion "would have been untimely by several weeks" if submitted in an appellate court, Apple argued. Given that Samsung filed its own reply to Apple's request for a preliminary injunction on August 22, Apple noted that Verizon's brief would have been due at the end of August.
The company points out that its request for an injunction was filed nearly three months ago, discovery closed about a week ago and its reply brief to Samsung is due soon. The hearing on the motion is scheduled for Oct. 13. The motion contains a footnote from Apple stating that "Verizon's counsel first sought Apple's consent for Verizon to submit an amicus brief on that same day [September 23, the day when Verizon filed its brief]."
Apple describes the timing as "disruptive to Apple's ability to present its positions to the Court in an orderly fashion," asserting that it doesn't leave enough time for an "opportunity to seek discovery (whether from Verizon, Samsung, or another company) to rebut Verizon's claim that a preliminary injunction is contrary to the public interest."
Mueller speculated that Verizon was "in a real hurry last week" preparing for the motion and suggested that the company may have taken "quite some time" to decide whether to get involved with the case. He goes on to posit that Verizon may have achieved its primary objective of "giving the impression of support for Google and Samsung," regardless of whether its amicus brief is accepted.
Verizon's decision to get take a side in the case has complicated an already difficult situation. The fact that Apple has a business relationship with Samsung as a customer, while also being bitter rivals, has made for a tense dispute. An executive for the South Korean electronics giant said last week that the company had initially held back out of respect, but will now become "more aggressive" in its legal battle with Apple.
Apple and Verizon became partners when they teamed up to bring the iPhone 4 to the Verizon network after more than three years of AT&T exclusivity in the U.S. Samsung and Verizon have shared a close relationship for several years as they've worked together to present Google's Android operating system as a viable alternative to the iPhone and iPad.
The Cupertino, Calif., company's filed its objection on Tuesday, asking the court to either dismiss Verizon's request as untimely, or allow Apple to submit a response on Oct. 6, Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents reports.
Verizon submitted a request last Friday to file an amicus curiae brief in defense of Samsung. The proposed brief takes issue with Apple's request for a preliminary injunction on four of Samsung's products, arguing that any injunction would work against the public interest.
Apple first sued Samsung in April, then filed a request for an preliminary injunction on some of Samsung's newest smartphones and tablets. The products in question are the Infuse 4G, Galaxy S 4G, Droid Charge and Galaxy Tab 10.1.
"The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a non-party's submission of amicus briefs in district courts," Apple's filing read. Mueller agreed with Apple's assessment, pointing out that "in all of the many lawsuits" that he has monitored, this is the first attempt by a party to file such a brief.
Apple's filing does not yet address the wireless carrier's public interest arguments, objecting first to the tardiness of the request. Verizon's motion "would have been untimely by several weeks" if submitted in an appellate court, Apple argued. Given that Samsung filed its own reply to Apple's request for a preliminary injunction on August 22, Apple noted that Verizon's brief would have been due at the end of August.
The company points out that its request for an injunction was filed nearly three months ago, discovery closed about a week ago and its reply brief to Samsung is due soon. The hearing on the motion is scheduled for Oct. 13. The motion contains a footnote from Apple stating that "Verizon's counsel first sought Apple's consent for Verizon to submit an amicus brief on that same day [September 23, the day when Verizon filed its brief]."
Apple describes the timing as "disruptive to Apple's ability to present its positions to the Court in an orderly fashion," asserting that it doesn't leave enough time for an "opportunity to seek discovery (whether from Verizon, Samsung, or another company) to rebut Verizon's claim that a preliminary injunction is contrary to the public interest."
Mueller speculated that Verizon was "in a real hurry last week" preparing for the motion and suggested that the company may have taken "quite some time" to decide whether to get involved with the case. He goes on to posit that Verizon may have achieved its primary objective of "giving the impression of support for Google and Samsung," regardless of whether its amicus brief is accepted.
Verizon's decision to get take a side in the case has complicated an already difficult situation. The fact that Apple has a business relationship with Samsung as a customer, while also being bitter rivals, has made for a tense dispute. An executive for the South Korean electronics giant said last week that the company had initially held back out of respect, but will now become "more aggressive" in its legal battle with Apple.
Apple and Verizon became partners when they teamed up to bring the iPhone 4 to the Verizon network after more than three years of AT&T exclusivity in the U.S. Samsung and Verizon have shared a close relationship for several years as they've worked together to present Google's Android operating system as a viable alternative to the iPhone and iPad.
Comments
Verizon submitted a request last Friday to file an amicus curiae brief in defense of Samsung. The proposed brief takes issue with Apple's request for a preliminary injunction on four of Samsung's products, arguing that any injunction would work against the public interest.
Total BS. With that mentality, let's open the pharmeceutical floodgate and make generic versions of all protected drugs too so they are cheaper and much more affordable for every person. The way it is now works against the public interest too.
Total BS. With that mentality, let's open the pharmeceutical floodgate and make generic versions of all protected drugs too so they are cheaper and much more affordable for every person. The way it is now works against the public interest too.
And that has to do with a PRELIMINARY injuction exactly how?
Mueller agreed with Apple's assessment,
Why I'm not surprised?
What they don't know is Apple never failed to have a backup plan. Verizon on the way? Just sell iPod touch with comm radio in addition to FaceTime and iMessage (a.k.a. prepaid iPhone 4S) and they are good to go.
Good to go for what? And why is Verizon on the way?
The outcome of Verizons actions will be simply no iPhone 5 on their network.
If by some chance you aren't trolling, consider that this would be stinging many users who are customers of both companies. You have a large number of people that bought the iphone once it was available on Verizon. They may have purchased apps on that phone as well. Telling them that their only means of upgrade is to switch carriers is terribly unfair especially if it's just because of corporate bickering. This would be a bad PR experience for Apple and you don't seem to have considered impact on sales. Not everyone will switch carriers simply to buy the iphone 5.
Total BS. With that mentality, let's open the pharmeceutical floodgate and make generic versions of all protected drugs too so they are cheaper and much more affordable for every person. The way it is now works against the public interest too.
I agree. The protection of intellectual property is in the public interest because it provides incentive for companies to innovate. If anyone can copy your work without penalty, there is no incentive to create new products.
I agree. The protection of intellectual property is in the public interest because it provides incentive for companies to innovate. If anyone can copy your work without penalty, there is no incentive to create new products.
Could you please state a single event in our history where this has happened? Or a single industry?
Your saying if Apple looses a patent battle - that's it, they are going to sell off inventory and shut the company down? The entire computing industry will quit? Science and education will be useless? Mankind will slip into total apathy and will never advance past today's knowledge and understanding?
Kill all patents - or Limit them to 5 years - and watch the Economy explode. Not to mention quality of life & jobs. Or should we wait for a company to eventually buy all patents smother is no such thing as competition... Which is happening right now in all industries.
Maybe a more balanced approach to patents is the key.
Read this patent.
Competitors across the board will crap themselves.
It's a double crapper with this biggy, as well.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...trademark.html
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!
For 2011, 589 Patents Granted and counting.
I'm betting on well over 800 for the year.
This one goes back to 2000 when filed by two of my favorite former fellow employees and their brilliant minds:
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...S=PN/8,027,925
It goes all the way to work back started at NeXT.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...ivescribe.html
Read this patent.
Competitors across the board will crap themselves.
It's a double crapper with this biggy, as well.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...trademark.html
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!
For 2011, 589 Patents Granted and counting.
I'm betting on well over 800 for the year.
And all of this has to do exactly how with this thread?
And how exactly competitors will crap themselves? Wishful thinking?
Total BS. With that mentality, let's open the pharmeceutical floodgate and make generic versions of all protected drugs too so they are cheaper and much more affordable for every person. The way it is now works against the public interest too.
Yes, the hypocrisy is astounding. It would be in the public interest to force Verizon and other carriers to adhere to a number of regulations and practices. Do they really want to go there?
Could you please state a single event in our history where this has happened? Or a single industry?
Your saying if Apple looses a patent battle - that's it, they are going to sell off inventory and shut the company down? The entire computing industry will quit? Science and education will be useless? Mankind will slip into total apathy and will never advance past today's knowledge and understanding?
Kill all patents - or Limit them to 5 years - and watch the Economy explode. Not to mention quality of life & jobs. Or should we wait for a company to eventually buy all patents smother is no such thing as competition... Which is happening right now in all industries.
Maybe a more balanced approach to patents is the key.
definitely limit the time...especially software patents considering the pace of evolution in software....
Imagine ONE company being allowed to use any form of multitouch in their devices for 25 years? that's crazy.
The outcome of Verizons actions will be simply no iPhone 5 on their network.
That would not be a good outcome for Apple's customers. And I think you are wrong.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...ivescribe.html
Apple patents don't make Apple products.
If by some chance you aren't trolling, consider that this would be stinging many users who are customers of both companies. You have a large number of people that bought the iphone once it was available on Verizon. They may have purchased apps on that phone as well. Telling them that their only means of upgrade is to switch carriers is terribly unfair especially if it's just because of corporate bickering. This would be a bad PR experience for Apple and you don't seem to have considered impact on sales. Not everyone will switch carriers simply to buy the iphone 5.
OK, 4 monts later tha AT&T? No?
I agree. The protection of intellectual property is in the public interest because it provides incentive for companies to innovate. If anyone can copy your work without penalty, there is no incentive to create new products.
Could you please state a single event in our history where this has happened? Or a single industry?
Your saying if Apple looses a patent battle - that's it, they are going to sell off inventory and shut the company down? The entire computing industry will quit? Science and education will be useless? Mankind will slip into total apathy and will never advance past today's knowledge and understanding?
He didn't really say that. Granted, the phrase "there is no incentive" taken out of context sounds like intellectual property is implied to be the only thing providing incentive, but do you really think that's what he meant?
Rain, your post is inflammatory at best. Maybe take it down a notch, eh?
Could you please state a single event in our history where this has happened? Or a single industry?
Your saying if Apple looses a patent battle - that's it, they are going to sell off inventory and shut the company down? The entire computing industry will quit? Science and education will be useless? Mankind will slip into total apathy and will never advance past today's knowledge and understanding?
Your response is inflammatory so I will ignore it.
"No iPhone 5 for you!"
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...ivescribe.html
Read this patent.
Competitors across the board will crap themselves.
It's a double crapper with this biggy, as well.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...trademark.html
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!
For 2011, 589 Patents Granted and counting.
I'm betting on well over 800 for the year.
This one goes back to 2000 when filed by two of my favorite former fellow employees and their brilliant minds:
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...S=PN/8,027,925
It goes all the way to work back started at NeXT.
Does anyone think that Apple's attempt to ignore hard earned and inventive intellectual property that belongs to someone else should be permitted? Shouldn't they just find a way to "innovate around" a validly issued patent rather than steal it for themselves?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ok_reader.html
And Ogma certainly needs to protect their property as well. Why should Apple and others have the right to take their valuable legally-patented property.
http://www.applepatent.com/2011/04/o...of-patent.html
Offending Apple products should be removed from the marketplace shouldn't they? That's the only fair way to deal with it. If Apple wants to use someone else's IP they should either pay for it or figure out their own way of doing things rather than copy someone else's work. Once a patent is issued, it's legal, enforceable and should be honored. Period.
/s
The outcome of Verizons actions will be simply no iPhone 5 on their network.
Look at Apple Vs Google.
Still Apple have Google as default search engine on all products.
Litigation and business is two different things. If Apple stopped selling Verizon iPhones Apple would loose 630 dollar x how many iPhones Verizon sells. Over a billion dollar.