Samsung denied iPhone ban in Italy
An Italian court has denied Samsung's request for a preliminary injunction against the iPhone 4S, making it the third time the South Korean electronics maker has failed to obtain a ban on Apple's newest handset in Europe.
In a report from Italian news agency ANSA published on Thursday, it was revealed that Samsung's bid to block iPhone 4S sales in Italy was rejected by the Milan-based Italian first-instance court for patent cases, according to FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller.
The Italian court's rejection marks the third straight loss for Samsung in its effort to curb Apple handset sales in Europe, and follows similar decisions by France's Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris in December 2011 and Dutch court Rechtbank's-Gravenhage's ruling in October.
Both companies are embroiled in a worldwide patent war, though thus far only Apple has seen success in its injunction requests and won bans against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany, Australia and the Netherlands.
Mueller points out, however, that the Cupertino, Calif., company is only slightly ahead despite successfully banning the tablet in the three countries. He goes on to explain that Apple could potentially owe Samsung a significant amount in damages if courts in those states find that the preliminary injunctions were improperly granted.
Although the two electronics giants shot for short-goal wins in order to disrupt each other's business, the plan was ultimately ineffective. It seems clear that in order to continue with this line of patent litigation, a regular comprehensive proceeding must take place which means that the dispute is unlikely to be resolved any time soon.
The patent war erupted when Apple filed a suit against Samsung in April 2011, alleging that the South Korean company blatantly copied the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. Most recently, Apple's motion in the U.S. was shot down in December.
The dispute now spans over 10 countries across four continents.
Comments
?the third time the South Korean electronics maker has failed to obtain a ban?
Something tells me they won't take the hint.
Wish there was a quote from the judge or something.
Something tells me they won't take the hint.
Wish there was a quote from the judge or something.
He was probably lost for words.
I wonder what the next Samsung commercial will look like? First they try and make fun of Apple customers standing in line, because Apple has the most desirable and in demand phone, then Samsung comes out with a new commercial, that is a rip off of Apple's commercials, with similar vibe, similar music, similar concept. Samsung is a joke.
would have been a better title for this article. When I read the headline, I thought Samsung denied that they tried to ban the iPhone in Italy... misleading title!
Then you read it wrong. The meaning is clear for all to see. I knew exactly what it meant when I read it.
would have been a better title for this article. When I read the headline, I thought Samsung denied that they tried to ban the iPhone in Italy... misleading title!
For it to be correctly understood in the way you understood it the title would have needed to be "Samsung denies iPhone Ban." The actual title does reflect the intended meaning.
Then you read it wrong. The meaning is clear for all to see. I knew exactly what it meant when I read it.
It definitely could be read in multiple ways. zeromeus statement does make the title more clear.
It definitely could be read in multiple ways. zeromeus statement does make the title more clear.
Many statements can be read in multiple ways, but it's up to the reader to determine what is the most likely intended meaning behind a particular phrase. Not everybody gets sarcasm on the internet and not everybody is going to correctly interpret things that they read.
Many statements can be read in multiple ways, but it's up to the reader to determine what is the most likely intended meaning behind a particular phrase. Not everybody gets sarcasm on the internet and not everybody is going to correctly interpret things that they read.
And not everyone speaks English as a first language and not everyone reading articles are of an age and/or intelligence that would allow for the most correct meaning to be determined at all times. This is why trying to be as clear as possible with the least amount of ambiguity is preferred and therefore first falls on the writer, especially when your audience is vast.
This isn't a newspaper where typesetting is limited in order to maximize the number of headings per page. There is certainly a limit with webpages but this 6 word 29 letter title is not pushing the envelope.
And not everyone speaks English as a first language and not everyone reading articles are of an age and/or intelligence that would allow for the most correct meaning to be determined at all times. This is why trying to be as clear as possible with the least amount of ambiguity is preferred and therefore first falls on the writer, especially when your audience is vast.
This isn't a newspaper where typesetting is limited in order to maximize the number of headings per page. There is certainly a limit with webpages but this 6 word 29 letter title is not pushing the envelope.
I certainly see what you mean, but I'm glad that I am not responsible for writing any titles, because I certainly wouldn't take into account any non-English speaking foreigners and Americans who might have poor reading/writing skills and other people who are not of a certain age or intelligence, as they wouldn't be my target audience to begin with.
I like all of these lawsuits. Apple is winning more than they lose. .
Except that they aren't winning more lawsuits than losing. Because this isn't the actual suit, just prelim injunctions until the suits which will start being heard over the next several months. Apple could still lose. In fact I suspect that they will on several points of the trade dress issues. But that's not a total loss since it will still count as them trying to defend their patents (something required under the rules of play). And if it is shown that they didn't try to license the patents Samsung is yelling about then they will probably end up paying a penalty, because FRAND doesn't mean "use it for free" and in many countries the user has to be the one to start the conversation with the owner brushing them off to be able to cry FRAND abuse.
All that said, in the end it probably won't hurt Apple in the least. The fines they might pay will be nil compared to the earnings and money in the back, the backlash on the blogs won't stop sales etc. A couple of months after the real suits finish something new will happen and everyone will have forgotten about this.
would have been a better title for this article. When I read the headline, I thought Samsung denied that they tried to ban the iPhone in Italy... misleading title!
As a native English speaker I cannot see any misleading meaning in the headline.
To arrive at your mis-understanding "I thought Samsung denied that they tried to ban the iPhone in Italy" you have to add words, which you seem to have done subconsciously.
To me the headline "Samsung denied iPhone ban in Italy" is unambiguous and I find it very difficult to arrive at your misunderstanding.
Part of the art of headline writing is to make them as succinct as possible. Often headline writers deliberately try to introduce a double entendre, but in this case there really appears to be none!
Then you read it wrong. The meaning is clear for all to see. I knew exactly what it meant when I read it.
Proud of you!!!!!
Except that they aren't winning more lawsuits than losing. Because this isn't the actual suit, just prelim injunctions until the suits which will start being heard over the next several months. Apple could still lose. In fact I suspect that they will on several points of the trade dress issues. But that's not a total loss since it will still count as them trying to defend their patents (something required under the rules of play). And if it is shown that they didn't try to license the patents Samsung is yelling about then they will probably end up paying a penalty, because FRAND doesn't mean "use it for free" and in many countries the user has to be the one to start the conversation with the owner brushing them off to be able to cry FRAND abuse.
All that said, in the end it probably won't hurt Apple in the least. The fines they might pay will be nil compared to the earnings and money in the back, the backlash on the blogs won't stop sales etc. A couple of months after the real suits finish something new will happen and everyone will have forgotten about this.
It's pretty clear to see that the spate of Apple lawsuits (as F Mueller himself also states) is designed to test which proprietary patents are effective, obtain judgments that will act as strong precedents, but more importantly act as a "shot across the bows" of infringing copycats with regard to yet-to-emerge innovations that Apple will be deploying in the near future.
Those looking to emulate Siri or the upcoming Apple TV will think twice about blatant reverse-engineering of their products and processes if they know that even trivial patents clearly awarded to Cupertino will be stoutly defended with all their resources, which are quite substantial.
It may well be that the patents Apple really cares about concern products and processes that are yet to be released to the market, by which time a solid "Great Wall of IP" would have been put in place to create virtually-insurmountable obstacles for those who would piggy-back onto the R&D efforts at Cupertino and attempt to "stand on the shoulders of giants"...
Except that they aren't winning more lawsuits than losing. Because this isn't the actual suit, just prelim injunctions until the suits which will start being heard over the next several months. Apple could still lose. In fact I suspect that they will on several points of the trade dress issues. But that's not a total loss since it will still count as them trying to defend their patents (something required under the rules of play). And if it is shown that they didn't try to license the patents Samsung is yelling about then they will probably end up paying a penalty, because FRAND doesn't mean "use it for free" and in many countries the user has to be the one to start the conversation with the owner brushing them off to be able to cry FRAND abuse.
All that said, in the end it probably won't hurt Apple in the least. The fines they might pay will be nil compared to the earnings and money in the back, the backlash on the blogs won't stop sales etc. A couple of months after the real suits finish something new will happen and everyone will have forgotten about this.
...apart from Apple being deliberately placed in the position they are in due to Samsung (and Motorola) revoking the licenses of Qualcomm and Broadcom based purely and specifically on chips sold to Apple.
It doesn't seem particularly "fair and reasonable" at all, hence these cases being given short shrift in various courts.
It may well be that the patents Apple really cares about concern products and processes that are yet to be released to the market, by which time a solid "Great Wall of IP" would have been put in place to create virtually-insurmountable obstacles for those who would piggy-back onto the R&D efforts at Cupertino and attempt to "stand on the shoulders of giants"...
This is the most insightful comment I've heard on the matter.
The dispute now spans over 10 countries across four continents.
Sounds like a new epic spy novel involving hot ________, cool ________ and exploding _______!
Samsung is selling in Germany, the Netherlands and Australia.
Looks like it's 3-3 at this stage. 4-3 if you consider the US as well