or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple seeking EU ban of all Samsung Galaxy smartphones, tablets
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple seeking EU ban of all Samsung Galaxy smartphones, tablets

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
Following up on initial action seeking an injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany, Apple has filed a new complaint against a broad range of Samsung Galaxy branded smartphones and tablets in the Netherlands.

Apple was already granted a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet by a German court, under the concept of infringement of a registered design. That ruling did not pertain to the Netherlands however, which does not offer the same legal protections over product designs as German law does.

Apple's initial injunction originally applied to all of Europe apart from the Netherlands, but was later limited to Samsung's German subsidiary by the court after it said it was not sure if it had the jurisdiction to apply the ban to a Korean company.

Apple's new, parallel filing in the Netherlands pertains to patent infringement rather than just copying design elements, and goes far beyond the German filing in both scope and intent. While the German ban only applies to the Galaxy Tab 10.1, and only prevents Samsung's German subsidiary from importing new models, it did not prevent existing inventories from being sold.

However, Apple's new filing demands an injunction against sales of essentially all of Samsung's Android-based smartphones, including the Galaxy Ace, Galaxy S and Galaxy SII, as well as the original Galaxy Tab 7 and new 10.1 tablets, according to a report by Computerworld.

It also extends to other related models, such as the Google-branded Nexus S, and the Samsung Gio, Europa, Appolo, and Mini, of which Apple says, "It is expected that these devices are also covered by one or more of the patent rights invoked."

An attack on the channel

Further, rather than just banning new imports, Apple calls for a complete recall of all stocks of affected Samsung devices from European distributors and resellers, and an legal injunction against "manufacturing, stocking, importing, distributing, trading or selling" by Samsung Korea and its Dutch subsidiaries, which include Samsung Logistics BV and Samsung Overseas BV.

Apple also demands that Samsung be compelled to notify all of its channel clients of a recall of all infringing products, and that it offer compensation for retail stock value and the return transportation of the devices. Apple also wants Samsung to warn its resellers that "by storing, offering and/or selling of the above mentioned Galaxy smartphones [and tablets], you commit infringement of the intellectual property rights of Apple."

Canalys analyst Alastair Edwards stated that if the injunction is granted, it could have significant implications for the European market, noting that "this is a very big threat to Samsung, because basically their whole European supply chain will be broken."

While pointing out that Samsung is currently ahead of Apple in sales of smartphones in the the Europe, Middle East and African market, "this could mean it's almost game over for Samsung in Europe."

The Hague court will rule on the injunction September 15, but judge Edger Brinkman has stated that any injunction wouldn't be granted until at least October 13. However, the threat of an injunction and the disruption it might cause resellers as their inventories are returned to Samsung may prevent them from taking new inventory. "Distributors and resellers now have to think hard whether to keep Galaxy products in stock," Edwards stated.

Apple takes up patent protections for iPhone

Apple promised to enforce its patented innovations related to the iPhone when it first appeared, but did not take immediate action against every rival that appeared. Apple spent no efforts pursuing legal action against the Palm Pre for example, which barely made a dent in smartphone sales. However, Samsung is the largest Android licensee and has produced a new line of Galaxy branded mobile devices that are closely pattered after Apple's iPhone, iPod touch and iPad.

Apple's original complaint filed in Germany indicated that the company tried to negotiate with Samsung last fall, but was rebuffed by its component partner and rival. Samsung subsequently began bringing its Galaxy models to market around a number of jurisdictions, complicating Apple's efforts to stop it.

At the same time, Google's announced acquisition of Motorola Mobility has sent Samsung's executives into action to shore up support for Bada, the company's own hedge against Android. Apple's legal action against Samsung applies both to hardware designs (potentially affecting both Android and Bada-based phones) and software elements related to Android.
post #2 of 53
There's an injection for that?
post #3 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggiedoc View Post

There's an injection for that?

Yes... it's an antidepressant called ipadalopram.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #4 of 53
AppleInsider desperately needs a proofreader!
post #5 of 53
This is war, man. Apple has been accused of being awful before, but it really was not. Now the gloves are off. Apple has the bazookas out and the fun is about to start. I suspect it was the Samsung attack, a company once perceived as a friendly supplier, that was the wound and then the bold outright copy of Apple products that was the salt to this wound.

Let the party begin. Samsung, a name already in the past tense of language should be in the past tense of companies in the tech field. Keep making refrigerators and TV sets, Samsung. Lots of profit there.

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #6 of 53
Apple is going into IP Care now, get innoculated against imitation (even if it is the sincerest form of flattery) in Europe. Which is a larger market for Samsung than the US I believe at this point. So yeah if at first you can't injunct, try, try again. And it looks like Samsung is going to get a case of bi-lateral injunctivitis out of this unless they can make a solid case of not-copying.

OK I have to stop that's just getting too goofy. I think Apple is demonstrating conclusively that they are iron-clad on their intent here - I wonder what the back-story is to this.

I suppose we'd better buckle-in for the usual spat of "everyone copies, Apple's being bad to Samsung, Apple is just trying to kill/hating on Android, the picture was photoshopped, DED is a tool, etc." now.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #7 of 53
Is Samsung that stupid that they cannot update the skin of their products to look different from iOS? Just about any other Android UI is better looking...
post #8 of 53
More than anything. I think Apple realizes how intimidated Samsung's CEO has become.

They (Apple) just want to make sure he stands up to his word as far as not copying their products.
post #9 of 53
Its time for Samsung to drop its massive patents on Apple.

They are hessitating based on being a supplier for Apple.

Now, I think, they should go all out on crushing Appple.

Remember, Samsung said they have real technology.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #10 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by juandl View Post

More than anything. I think Apple realizes how intimidated Samsung's CEO has become.

They (Apple) just want to make sure he stands up to his word as far as not copying their products.

Not sure this is just about Samsung. Its the most obvious target for a campaign meant to signal that 'we will protect our IP'. The more Samsung gets slapped the more everybody will take note and step a little more cautiously.
post #11 of 53
if they are granted that injection, it should be a real shot in the arm for European iPad sales.
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
post #12 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by battlescarred1 View Post

AppleInsider desperately needs a proofreader!

Hey, when you want to be the first to post a news story, something's gotta give. Even USAToday Online has become lax in their grammar and proofreading.

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #13 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Is Samsung that stupid that they cannot update the skin of their products to look different from iOS? Just about any other Android UI is better looking...

I don't think that would make one iota of difference. Apple has clearly decided that any and all serious competition isn't going to tread on their turf unscathed. Sammy's smartphones could be shaped like guitars and use tropical fruit for icons, but if they're great sellers then Apple's coming after them. They simply won't tolerate any real competitors and appear more than willing to let their lawyers loose to deal with them. The single exception might be Microsoft who is probably the only one with perhaps more IP armament than Apple.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #14 of 53
Pretty simmilar except for the giant SAMSUNG on the front and the fact that it is twice the size.
post #15 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

Hey, when you want to be the first to post a news story, something's gotta give. Even USAToday Online has become lax in their grammar and proofreading.

But this isn't a "first" story. And "everybody else does it" isn't a valid excuse.
post #16 of 53
I have an Ipad 2. Before buying it, I compared it with Galaxy Tab 10.1. I liked GT, but my wife wanted Ipad 2. I see that both are rectangular flat touch screen tablet computers, but everything else is different I mean size, weight, operating system and all other specs. To all fanboys who are agreeing with 'Samsung copied', have you actually compared?

I found interesting following link.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/s...s-movies-music

I think Apple copied design from the Samsung didital photo frame in Ipad series.
post #17 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

I have an Ipad 2. Before buying it, I compared it with Galaxy Tab 10.1. I liked GT, but my wife wanted Ipad 2. I see that both are rectangular flat touch screen tablet computers, but everything else is different I mean size, weight, operating system and all other specs. To all fanboys who are agreeing with 'Samsung copied', have you actually compared?

I found interesting following link.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/s...s-movies-music

I think Apple copied design from the Samsung didital photo frame in Ipad series.


It's very obvious this is a near identical copy of the iPad. . .

as it would appear a few years later.

Seriously tho, I don't know why Samsung wouldn't pull that out as evidence that the Tab is simply based on their own original design from 5 years ago. It's an ugly photoframe IMHO, but with a very good beginning for a full-fledged media device.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #18 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99 View Post

Pretty simmilar except for the giant SAMSUNG on the front and the fact that it is twice the size.

Yes I can see your point, lot's of people are going to mistakenly end up buying a Galaxy because the mistook it for an iPhone - not.

I am waiting for Ford (or whoever) to ask for a global injunction on of the sale of all cars that have: 4 doors, 4 wheels located more or less near the corners, an engine located in the front, glass all round a roof above the glass, devices on the front piece of glass that sweep backwards and forwards to clear rain...
post #19 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

I have an Ipad 2. Before buying it, I compared it with Galaxy Tab 10.1. I liked GT, but my wife wanted Ipad 2. I see that both are rectangular flat touch screen tablet computers, but everything else is different I mean size, weight, operating system and all other specs. To all fanboys who are agreeing with 'Samsung copied', have you actually compared?

I found interesting following link.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/s...s-movies-music

I think Apple copied design from the Samsung didital photo frame in Ipad series.

I think that Apple is 100% in the wrong on these look and feel law suits. I guess Apple is trying to game the broken world wide patent system to it's advantage. I guess I am more mad at the stupid laws that allow this type for crap to happen in the first place.

Virtually NO ONE is going to mistake these Samsung devices for the Apple devices.

However, you are not going to get many people to post on this site who think that these type of law suits are a bad idea unless another company sues Apple for the same thing.

If Apple wins this case the law suits from all sides will paralyze the industry IMHO......
post #20 of 53
The era of patent wars has begun. May they all lose.
post #21 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It's very obvious this is a near identical copy of the iPad. . .

as it would appear a few years later.

Seriously tho, I don't know why Samsung wouldn't pull that out as evidence that the Tab is simply based on their own original design from 5 years ago.

I guess Samsung might have not wanted be followed in Apple's direction being confident of what they have, ie real technology patents. I think Samsung fully awares Ipad is blantant copy, I mean design wise, of their own digital photo frame. They might have treated getting design idea is not copy althogh I think Apple crossed line.
post #22 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

I guess Samsung might have not wanted be followed in Apple's direction being confident of what they have, ie real technology patents. I think Samsung fully awares Ipad is blantant copy, I mean design wise, of their own digital photo frame. They might have treated getting design idea is not copy althogh I think Apple crossed line.

IMO it's not much of a stretch to suppose that Apple saw Samsung's "photo frame" while trying to settle on the look for the iPad, over 4 years before the iPad was released to the world.

32GB flash memory, media support for movies, pictures, etc, networking, but no wi-fi. Could Mr. Jobs have looked at the simple and clean design, been impressed with the possibilities if Samsung's idea was expanded to a full-fledged media device? Use the look, add a SIMcard, wifi, accelerometers and voila, the "look and feel" for the iPad. So what if it's almost a body double in a bigger thinner shell to Samsung's design revealed publicly in March of 2006.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 53
Why do people think this harms competition when it actually helps competition. Samsung is just copying the iPhone making very slight changes and then selling it as there own. This process provides 0 benefits to the users or the technology.

If Samsung had anything mildly original, it might be a different story.
post #24 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IMO it's not much of a stretch to suppose that Apple saw Samsung's "photo frame" while trying to settle on the look for the iPad, over 4 years before the iPad was released to the world.

32GB flash memory, media support for movies, pictures, etc, networking, but no wi-fi. Could Mr. Jobs have looked at the simple and clean design, been impressed with the possibilities if Samsung's idea was expanded to a full-fledged media device? Use the look, add a SIMcard, wifi, accelerometers and voila, the "look and feel" for the iPad. So what if it's almost a body double in a bigger thinner shell to Samsung's design revealed publicly in March of 2006.

It is actually more likely that Samsung saw the design Apple filed and based their frame on it. The design at the heart of the Galaxy Tab dispute was registered by Apple in 2004. See the reason Apple makes interesting new products is because they spend years developing them, not months copying them.

If you are going to talk about what came first, try to at least know the relevant dates in the dispute you are discussing.
post #25 of 53


No, thats not a Galaxy Tab.

It's a Samsung picture frame from 5 years ago.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #26 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post



No, thats not a Galaxy Tab.

It's a Samsung picture frame from 5 years ago.

Ah yes the picture frame Samsung made two years after Apple registered the design in 2004. Were you trying to pictorially represent a failed argument?
post #27 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

Why do people think this harms competition when it actually helps competition. Samsung is just copying the iPhone making very slight changes and then selling it as there own. This process provides 0 benefits to the users or the technology.

If Samsung had anything mildly original, it might be a different story.

The Galaxy SII bears little resemblance to an iPhone IMO. They would never be confused side by side, altho someone new to smartphones might guess the bigger brighter Galaxy to be the iPhone since it looks more expensive in some ways. Samsung's flagship is one heck of a phone according to reviews..
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

It is actually more likely that Samsung saw the design Apple filed and based their frame on it. The design at the heart of the Galaxy Tab dispute was registered by Apple in 2004. See the reason Apple makes interesting new products is because they spend years developing them, not months copying them.

If you are going to talk about what came first, try to at least know the relevant dates in the dispute you are discussing.

Perhaps you werent familiar with this when it was around



or even the 1994 prior art of the Knight Rider



Since you love to throw around the "prior art" argument.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #29 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The Galaxy SII bears little resemblance to an iPhone IMO. They would never be confused side by side, altho someone new to smartphones might guess the bigger brighter Galaxy to be the iPhone since it looks more expensive in some ways. Samsung's flagship is one heck of a phone according to reviews..

Would it exist without the iPhone no? Is the design differ in any meaningful way from the iPhone? no. Maybe HP should come up with their own phone design. Then they won't have these problems.
post #30 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

Why do people think this harms competition when it actually helps competition. Samsung is just copying the iPhone making very slight changes and then selling it as there own. This process provides 0 benefits to the users or the technology.

If Samsung had anything mildly original, it might be a different story.

As Gatorguy rightfuly point out, Apple might have copied Samsung's own when they designed Ipad inside and out. That might be the motivator why Samsung made their own product Galaxy SII similar to Iphone.

If law suit is the only way solve this mess, then Ipad and Galaxy SII should banned. Otherwise, why dont they just do cross licencing? Then I guess because of big success with Ipad, Apple might have to pay more fees to Samsung.
post #31 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

It is actually more likely that Samsung saw the design Apple filed and based their frame on it. The design at the heart of the Galaxy Tab dispute was registered by Apple in 2004. See the reason Apple makes interesting new products is because they spend years developing them, not months copying them.

If you are going to talk about what came first, try to at least know the relevant dates in the dispute you are discussing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

Would it exist without the iPhone no? Is the design differ in any meaningful way from the iPhone? no. Maybe HP should come up with their own phone design. Then they won't have these problems.

Your basically asking someone to make a wheel that isn't a circle.

You cant (shouldnt) have a patent on a form factor.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #32 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Perhaps you werent familiar with this when it was around



or even the 1994 prior art of the Knight Rider



Since you love to throw around the "prior art" argument.

What planet are you on? So, bringing out a tablet/pen based solution somehow now means prior art to an immersive, touchscreen tablet with very specific internal design and external design functionality [sensors, etc] and very specific Software and OS level patents to make it all happen as it does today, back then?

Grow up and study up on the Patent Systems around the globe.
post #33 of 53
I can't help wondering if Apple is trying to weaken Samsung, driving down their value, in order to acquire it?

More likely, they can't go after the next copycat if they let Samsung off the hook easy.
post #34 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

What planet are you on? So, bringing out a tablet/pen based solution somehow now means prior art to an immersive, touchscreen tablet with very specific internal design and external design functionality [sensors, etc] and very specific Software and OS level patents to make it all happen as it does today, back then?

Grow up and study up on the Patent Systems around the globe.

Read the "community design" labeling.

You are going into the specifics of which the "community design" standard does not apply.

All it has to do is be "similar" then in apparently "infringes" upon the "community design".

In Apple's application for the "community design", it doesn't describe in details what type of UI it is using.

It just shows in pictoral form the shape of the general device.

I am from Earth by the way.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #35 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Perhaps you werent familiar with this when it was around



or even the 1994 prior art of the Knight Rider



Since you love to throw around the "prior art" argument.

Right now when I type it here will be the first time I ever type that phrase.

This is not prior art to anything.

There.. I never said it before. What I said was they all copied the iPhone and they al copied the iPad. Had the iPad failed, most of these companies would not be making tablets and if they did they would look the same as the pos tablets that shipped in 2009.

This has nothing to do with prior art. Which is why you are the only one who used it in this conversation. I also don't use that term because it is a very technical term. It is also a term you don't understand at all...
post #36 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Your basically asking someone to make a wheel that isn't a circle.

You cant (shouldnt) have a patent on a form factor.

It is much more then a form factor. You are reaching because you know your position is absurd. It is impossible to claim that Apple did not radically alter the design of the smartphone. You can wish it to be so all you want, it is still true.
post #37 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

It is actually more likely that Samsung saw the design Apple filed and based their frame on it. The design at the heart of the Galaxy Tab dispute was registered by Apple in 2004. See the reason Apple makes interesting new products is because they spend years developing them, not months copying them.

If you are going to talk about what came first, try to at least know the relevant dates in the dispute you are discussing.

I am quite interested in your comment here about the dispute register in 2004 by Apple. Can you provide evidence link if possible?
post #38 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

Right now when I type it here will be the first time I ever type that phrase.

This is not prior art to anything.

There.. I never said it before. What I said was they all copied the iPhone and they al copied the iPad. Had the iPad failed, most of these companies would not be making tablets and if they did they would look the same as the pos tablets that shipped in 2009.

This has nothing to do with prior art. Which is why you are the only one who used it in this conversation. I also don't use that term because it is a very technical term. It is also a term you don't understand at all...

You are basing on hypothetical scenarios of what ifs. Anyone can come up with alternatives. As they say, hindsight is always 20/20.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

It is much more then a form factor. You are reaching because you know your position is absurd. It is impossible to claim that Apple did not radically alter the design of the smartphone. You can wish it to be so all you want, it is still true.

No one is talking about what Apple contributed, except you.

Dont try to go off topic. Stick with the subject at hand here.

We are discussing the merits of what is in Apple's "community design" here.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #40 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

Ah yes the picture frame Samsung made two years after Apple registered the design in 2004. Were you trying to pictorially represent a failed argument?

That design is one of at least 1000 assorted designs, most of which were never used. Nor was this design ever claimed to be for the iPad. Quite likely a generic rectangular design with minimal details that Apple used to be sure every conceivable base was covered.

The iPad design has been widely attributed to Mr Ive. Not this design tho, evidence that the Community Design that Apple uses in this case was not for the iPad, but simply one of 100's that Apple filed to cover all possible designs for a portable computer.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple seeking EU ban of all Samsung Galaxy smartphones, tablets