or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung Galaxy smartphones banned from sale in Europe in Apple suit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung Galaxy smartphones banned from sale in Europe in Apple suit - Page 2

post #41 of 103
Well,

I did a little checking. It turns out that the issue is not with the Gallery App in Native Android. The issue is with a Touchwiz ( UI Skin) bounce feature. it should be very easy for Samsung to correct this...

I also read an ( unconfirmed ) article that the Judge is going to allow sales as long a Samsung agrees to change the toucwiz bounce feature before the deadline.....
post #42 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

Well,

I did a little checking. It turns out that the issue is not with the Gallery App in Native Android. The issue is with a Touchwiz ( UI Skin) bounce feature. it should be very easy for Samsung to correct this...

I also read an ( unconfirmed ) article that the Judge is going to allow sales as long a Samsung agrees to change the toucwiz bounce feature before the deadline.....

Just another thing that build negativity in the minds of those trying to decide between a clone or a real iPhone. That and the massive invasion of the Android OS with malware and other nasties ... All good news for AAPL
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #43 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Just another thing that build negativity in the minds of those trying to decide between a clone or a real iPhone. That and the massive invasion of the Android OS with malware and other nasties ... All good news for AAPL

It is good for that Apple got it banned on a real patent, it is bad that it has probably invalidated the vast majority of their look and feel crap and that the fix will be very easy to make.

Also, I doubt that very many customers who would be swayed by this will even find out about it. You have to read forms like this one to know anything about it. If you do read forums like this one, you probably already know enough of the facts that this would not have any effect on your smartphone decision one way or the other....
post #44 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj View Post

What if Galaxy phones became the new Coors and were highly coveted as irresistable forbidden contraband delivered by smugglers?

That would be awesome! They could remake Smokey and the Bandit!

-kpluck

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply
post #45 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

Anybody know a Sci-Fi movie to help Sammy out on this one?



Seriously, it was way ahead of its time.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #46 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

No reason for Samsung to continue to do this. They just need to make peace with Apple and tweak their designs a bit. Samsung should never have let it go this far.

Agree. There's something about the Samsung mentality. Maybe a holdover from the Korean war. North and South Korea still don't have a peace treaty. Just a cease-fire. Neither side wants to back down first.

I hope, for Samsung's shareholders' sake, that Samsung *does* back down. That they'll innovate and stop copying. Otherwise, it's time to uninstall the current top management.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #47 of 103
From a review of the decision posted at OSNews:

". . . (the Judge)does not agree with Apple that Samsung copied Apple. In addition, two of the three patents have been thrown out by the judge as well; he does not believe either Android 2.x, Android 3.x, or any of Samsung's additions violate these two patents.

The swipe-to-unlock patent is interesting, since the judge states that it is very likely that in a 'bottom procedure' (a thorough court case where all details are taken into account), this patent will be declared invalid. He specifically refers to the Neonode N1m mobile phone as prior art, which sports the exact same unlock method as the iPhone. The Neonode was released in 2005.

Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The <Knight Rider> is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.

Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.

The only infringement claim upheld by the judge concerns patent 2.058.868, which covers scrolling through a collection of photos in full screen, and more specifically, how the photo bounces back after too short a swipe. . ."
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #48 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.

OK, so the judge is both blind and stupid.

Blind because the LG Prada looks nothing like the iPhone or Samsung phones in question.

Stupid because the LG Prada came out after the iPhone - so how could it be prior art?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone

And the Nokia 7710?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_7710
Wow. This doesn't even remotely resemble the iPhone or Samsung phones in question. Even a blind person should be able to figure that one out. Besides, the 7710 wasn't an Android phone.

If I were Samsung, I wouldn't be celebrating this one too much. A judge with an IQ greater than room temperature would not have made such obvious blunders.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #49 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

OK, so the judge is both blind and stupid.

Blind because the LG Prada looks nothing like the iPhone or Samsung phones in question.

Stupid because the LG Prada came out after the iPhone - so how could it be prior art?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada_(KE850)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone

And the Nokia 7710?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_7710
Wow. This doesn't even remotely resemble the iPhone or Samsung phones in question. Even a blind person should be able to figure that one out. Besides, the 7710 wasn't an Android phone.

If I were Samsung, I wouldn't be celebrating this one too much. A judge with an IQ greater than room temperature would not have made such obvious blunders.

The 7710 is used as an example because it has a gui with rows of icons (sound familiar?). The LG Prada was announced before the iphone, I believe.
post #50 of 103
Prior art for a spreadsheet and paint apps?

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #51 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooki3s View Post

The 7710 is used as an example because it has a gui with rows of icons (sound familiar?). The LG Prada was announced before the iphone, I believe.

Nope. See the Wiki article. Prada announced on Oct, 08 and released in Dec, 08. iPhone announced Jan 07, released June 07.


As for the 7710, the fact that it has rows of icons is irrelevant. Apple isn't claiming that icons are patentable. It's a design patent - if Samsung's layout and icons are identical to the way Apple did it, then that could be actionable - even if someone else used a different layout and design in the past.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #52 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Nope. See the Wiki article. Prada announced on Oct, 08 and released in Dec, 08. iPhone announced Jan 07, released June 07.

"A second version of the phone, the LG Prada II (KF900) was announced October 13, 2008. It was released December 2008."

"It was first announced on December 12, 2006."

Why don't you try reading the article first next time.....
post #53 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooki3s View Post

The 7710 is used as an example because it has a gui with rows of icons (sound familiar?). The LG Prada was announced before the iphone, I believe.

Sounds spot on to me.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/15/t...ble-chocolate/

Note the part were it says the Internation Design Forum was probably aware of the design for a while before anyone else.

Is that a chromed metalic band I see on the sides?
post #54 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Nope. See the Wiki article. Prada announced on Oct, 08 and released in Dec, 08. iPhone announced Jan 07, released June 07.


As for the 7710, the fact that it has rows of icons is irrelevant. Apple isn't claiming that icons are patentable. It's a design patent - if Samsung's layout and icons are identical to the way Apple did it, then that could be actionable - even if someone else used a different layout and design in the past.

You're reading the wiki wrong, start with the top paragraph instead of looking at the prada II release dates. There's also a special iphone controversy part on the page.

As for the 7710; the judge clearly states that it's an example of prior art for the gui and as such has to be taken in consideration when determining if samsung is infringing the patent. So I guess it does have something to it, however it's only a small part of the judges argument.
post #55 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Nope. See the Wiki article. Prada announced on Oct, 08 and released in Dec, 08. iPhone announced Jan 07, released June 07.


As for the 7710, the fact that it has rows of icons is irrelevant. Apple isn't claiming that icons are patentable. It's a design patent - if Samsung's layout and icons are identical to the way Apple did it, then that could be actionable - even if someone else used a different layout and design in the past.

lol the prada was not released after the G1.

Also since when were you a judge?
post #56 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooki3s View Post

You're reading the wiki wrong, start with the top paragraph instead of looking at the prada II release dates. There's also a special iphone controversy part on the page.


So THIS looks like an iPone to you?
http://www.lgblog.co.uk/wp-content/u...ne-by-lg-5.jpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by cooki3s View Post

As for the 7710; the judge clearly states that it's an example of prior art for the gui and as such has to be taken in consideration when determining if samsung is infringing the patent. So I guess it does have something to it, however it's only a small part of the judges argument.

If Apple had claimed the right to icons, it might have been relevant. But since it shares no characteristics with the iPhone, it's not.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #57 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

From a review of the decision posted at OSNews:

". . . (the Judge)does not agree with Apple that Samsung copied Apple. In addition, two of the three patents have been thrown out by the judge as well; he does not believe either Android 2.x, Android 3.x, or any of Samsung's additions violate these two patents.

The swipe-to-unlock patent is interesting, since the judge states that it is very likely that in a 'bottom procedure' (a thorough court case where all details are taken into account), this patent will be declared invalid. He specifically refers to the Neonode N1m mobile phone as prior art, which sports the exact same unlock method as the iPhone. The Neonode was released in 2005.

Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The <Knight Rider> is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.

Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.

The only infringement claim upheld by the judge concerns patent 2.058.868, which covers scrolling through a collection of photos in full screen, and more specifically, how the photo bounces back after too short a swipe. . ."

Spare us the OSNews Netherland's Apple is the New Evil speak. That site is garbage. The editor in charge is a bottom feeder in the tech world if there is such an example.

It's a home for misfit tech rejects whose social skills are those equivalent to a second grade bully. They can't decide whether webOS will kill the New Evil or Android's Do No Evil is cool as long as it kills the New Evil, etc.

Do yourself a favor: Contact actual Patent Lawyers for their connections with Apple and find out the real status of the ruling or stop wasting everyone's time. After all, that's the job of actual journalism--to waste people's time like being on a roller coaster of confusion.

This is step one in several steps of impending litigation.

Apple never wages war without having all there ducks in a row.
post #58 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

By the way it was written, I thought he was implying that there was a great underground desire for Coors in Europe. I can see how what I said makes no sense if that's not what was meant.

It was clear what you thought. And that's not what he meant. HTH.
post #59 of 103
so, in summary, apple patented a bunch of stuff that other people already did, i.e. apple copied/stole other's ideas and then claimed them as it's own

then apple takes samsung to court, claiming it copied/stole apple's ideas

pot, kettle

as for swiping images, pretty much how i remember moving stuff in/out from under the magnifier on a light table in ye olde days, it's intuitive/obvious, and so shouldn't be patentable, from memory i think i also wiggled a few back and forth

in fact i feel a law coming on...

my law:

intuitive user interfaces, by definition, are not patentable
post #60 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

From a review of the decision posted at OSNews:

". . . (the Judge)does not agree with Apple that Samsung copied Apple. In addition, two of the three patents have been thrown out by the judge as well; he does not believe either Android 2.x, Android 3.x, or any of Samsung's additions violate these two patents.

The swipe-to-unlock patent is interesting, since the judge states that it is very likely that in a 'bottom procedure' (a thorough court case where all details are taken into account), this patent will be declared invalid. He specifically refers to the Neonode N1m mobile phone as prior art, which sports the exact same unlock method as the iPhone. The Neonode was released in 2005.

Regarding the design related stuff - the Community Designs - of the iPad, the judge threw it all out, citing loads of prior art (like the Compaq TC1x00). In addition, the judge stated that only the front of the device shows some resemblance, while everything else is entirely different. The <Knight Rider> is also cited as relevant prior art - the judge threw out Apple's defense that the product never made it to market. To round it out, the judge also mentioned 'form-follows-function' several times. Most interesting note: the judge specifically mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.

Regarding the design of the Galaxy smartphones, the judge again cites numerous cases of prior 'art', including the LG Prada. The judge threw out all of Apple's claims here. Finally, the Android GUI - the Nokia 7710 is cited numerous times as prior art.

The only infringement claim upheld by the judge concerns patent 2.058.868, which covers scrolling through a collection of photos in full screen, and more specifically, how the photo bounces back after too short a swipe. . ."

It sounds to me like the judge was just "throwing a bone" to Apple rather than invalidating every one of their specious claims and telling them to go take a hike.

It is distressing that the AI article is so twisted as to ignore the major substantive portions of the ruling, and instead, focuses on a minor matter, presenting it as some sort of huge win for Apple. Putting on a good face is one thing - ignoring the most important aspects of the story is quite another. Seemingly, AI cannot be trusted to fairly report the facts. Very sad.
post #61 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by umumum View Post

my law:

intuitive user interfaces, by definition, are not patentable

What an asinine statement.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #62 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

Anybody know a Sci-Fi movie to help Sammy out on this one?



"Sometimes an insect will even mimic its predator."

It should help Samsung realise they aren't going to come out on top by taking this approach.
post #63 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

"A second version of the phone, the LG Prada II (KF900) was announced October 13, 2008. It was released December 2008."

"It was first announced on December 12, 2006."

Why don't you try reading the article first next time.....

Why let mere facts stand in the way of a strong opinion and fierce loyalty? You need to go along in order to get along. If you are an instrumentalist, facts are whatever work best for you. Reality ain't got much hold on some folks.
post #64 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by umumum View Post

intuitive user interfaces, by definition, are not patentable



And so you're the one who gets to define "intuitive", then? So what happens if something more "intuitive" comes along? Does that mean I get to patent my older, once-thought-to-be-unpatentable invention?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #65 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Spare us the OSNews Netherland's Apple is the New Evil speak. That site is garbage. The editor in charge is a bottom feeder in the tech world if there is such an example.

It's a home for misfit tech rejects whose social skills are those equivalent to a second grade bully. They can't decide whether webOS will kill the New Evil or Android's Do No Evil is cool as long as it kills the New Evil, etc.

Do yourself a favor: Contact actual Patent Lawyers for their connections with Apple and find out the real status of the ruling or stop wasting everyone's time. After all, that's the job of actual journalism--to waste people's time like being on a roller coaster of confusion.

This is step one in several steps of impending litigation.

Apple never wages war without having all there ducks in a row.

If there was something factually incorrect in their article, wouldn't it be better to just point it out rather than using vague accusations painted with a broad brush but no detail?

So what parts were incorrect? That way others don\\'t repeat the same misinformation.

BTW, FOSSPatents real patent lawyer makes the same "likely invalid" comment regarding Appl'es swipe to unloack infringement claim.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So THIS looks like an iPone to you?
http://www.lgblog.co.uk/wp-content/u...ne-by-lg-5.jpg

I have never stated that it looks like it, just saying that your statement about the release date is incorrect. The prada isn't even mentioned in the court order.

If Apple had claimed the right to icons, it might have been relevant. But since it shares no characteristics with the iPhone, it's not.

The judge is just going over the design in parts; the comment about the icons is a part of why he/she thinks the patent isn't applicable. The judge also covers side views, back, front, things like audio jack placement, logo placement, etc.

Comment in quote
post #67 of 103
Samsung made it very simple for those who dont like to read:

"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 #68 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Spare us the OSNews Netherland's Apple is the New Evil speak. That site is garbage. The editor in charge is a bottom feeder in the tech world if there is such an example.

It's a home for misfit tech rejects whose social skills are those equivalent to a second grade bully. They can't decide whether webOS will kill the New Evil or Android's Do No Evil is cool as long as it kills the New Evil, etc.

Do yourself a favor: Contact actual Patent Lawyers for their connections with Apple and find out the real status of the ruling or stop wasting everyone's time. After all, that's the job of actual journalism--to waste people's time like being on a roller coaster of confusion.

This is step one in several steps of impending litigation.

Apple never wages war without having all there ducks in a row.


At least that website provides concrete proof to back up their statements.

You, on the other hand, have none of that.

How are people suppose to trust YOU regarding this entire matter?

Do you have any conclusive evidence to suggest that they are a "bottom feeder in the tech world"?

For people like yourself, any sort of new information that goes against Apple would be deemed by you and your kind as "garbage".

From the tone of your statements, the information on that website seems very threatening now doesn't it?

I'm sorry that Santa Claus wasn't real.

"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 #69 of 103
deleted
post #70 of 103
deleted
post #71 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

At least that website provides concrete proof to back up their statements.

You, on the other hand, have none of that.

How are people suppose to trust YOU regarding this entire matter?

Do you have any conclusive evidence to suggest that they are a "bottom feeder in the tech world"?

For people like yourself, any sort of new information that goes against Apple would be deemed by you and your kind as "garbage".

From the tone of your statements, the information on that website seems very threatening now doesn't it?

I'm sorry that Santa Claus wasn't real.

That web site is a joke. Thom is nothing but a tool for either Microsoft of Google, whichever one he decides will send him a product to write a completely useless review. The man has not technical expertise, routinely goes on character assassinations with a large majority of his posters; and when he is proven repeatedly to be ignorant of the USPTO or beyond he blames the system based upon incompetent reviewers through more generalizations that are nothing but character assassinations.

If you want to go to a site about Hobby OS systems that will never see a consumer touch if they were paid to use and keep clicking on pages to give him more ad revenues, by all means, have at it.

Don't come crying when Android loses its shorts against Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and even Nokia.
post #72 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


Galaxy Quest.
post #73 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

That web site is a joke. Thom is nothing but a tool for either Microsoft of Google, whichever one he decides will send him a product to write a completely useless review. The man has not technical expertise, routinely goes on character assassinations with a large majority of his posters; and when he is proven repeatedly to be ignorant of the USPTO or beyond he blames the system based upon incompetent reviewers through more generalizations that are nothing but character assassinations.

If you want to go to a site about Hobby OS systems that will never see a consumer touch if they were paid to use and keep clicking on pages to give him more ad revenues, by all means, have at it.

Don't come crying when Android loses its shorts against Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and even Nokia.

I missed the part where you tell us where the article you don't like is incorrect.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

That web site is a joke. Thom is nothing but a tool for either Microsoft of Google, whichever one he decides will send him a product to write a completely useless review. The man has not technical expertise, routinely goes on character assassinations with a large majority of his posters; and when he is proven repeatedly to be ignorant of the USPTO or beyond he blames the system based upon incompetent reviewers through more generalizations that are nothing but character assassinations.

If you want to go to a site about Hobby OS systems that will never see a consumer touch if they were paid to use and keep clicking on pages to give him more ad revenues, by all means, have at it.

Don't come crying when Android loses its shorts against Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and even Nokia.

Still waiting any argument against the article.

Can you point any false or wrong point?

Who is crying? It seems you are crying and in denying phase
post #75 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

Anybody know a Sci-Fi movie to help Sammy out on this one?

The judge used Knight Rider in Samsung defense about Galaxy Tab.

Do you still find using movies funny?
post #76 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinehill View Post

Its a very Shocking news for Samsung Galaxy smart phones buyers as they will not get such good business Phone.

No, is a shoking news for AI readers as they won't have right information in this article
post #77 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

The photo viewer issue the judge ruled on in this case applies to all android models. Does anyone know if samsung can make the changes itself or do they need google to do it?

Maybe they could get Skyhook to do it, they fit well in Android's "open" system.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #78 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Wrong. The court said that there was not sufficient evidence to issue a preliminary injunction baring the import of the products based on those patents.

The validity of the patents has not been decided upon.



That's wrong. The decision bans the import and sale of the devices to the Netherlands (which is where Samsung imports all of its European devices). Furthermore, the strength of the ruling also probably bans the import of the devices to any of the other European countries where Apple has the same patent. They CAN import the products into countries which are not covered by the patent (although Apple can just as easily file for injunctions in those countries, as well).

According to this:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22527

"Samsung violates patent EP 868 with its Galaxy S, S2 and Ace model, but not with its Galaxy tablets. Samsung does not violate patent EP 948, while patent EP 022 was considered invalid. There was no violation by Samsung on any of Apple's design or copyright ..."

Not sure how accurate translation is, thought.
post #79 of 103
deleted
post #80 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Maybe they could get Skyhook to do it, they fit well in Android's "open" system.

Maybe they only need to put AOSP gallery app
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung Galaxy smartphones banned from sale in Europe in Apple suit