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 3

post #81 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.

I'm afraid you'll need a judge with strong Applefanboysm syndrome before IQ.

Original iPhone was announced on announced on January 9, 2007. LG Prada was was first announced on December 12, 2006. Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006. Plus, there's a bit of controversy re International Forum Design; Prada won iF Award in 2007, but entries for that award had to be applied before the end of September 2006. I think LG would have strong case that design for the phone (if not working prototypes) were in existence by the September 2006. It might be truth that iPhone design and prototypes were finalised even before that, but thanks to Apple's traditional secrecy, it is a bit harder to be sure.

Re Nokia, it is true that it doesn't look like iPhone, but basic GUI has the same attributes - grid arranged icons, touch icon to start app. Same goes for Palm and WinMo PDAs.
post #82 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Any apologies yet from the "blatantly copying" crowd?

Nope, because judges in Australia and Germany have ruled that Samsung is blatantly copying Apple.

In spite of all good intentions, law is still subjective.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #83 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

That doesn't, but this does:

http://www.biliom.com/cep-telefonu/w...lg-prada-2.jpg

I'll be honest and say that some Samsungs do look more like iPhone than iPhone looked like Prada... but number of GUI elements are there.
post #84 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

That doesn't, but this does:

http://www.biliom.com/cep-telefonu/w...lg-prada-2.jpg

I'll be honest and say that some Samsungs do look more like iPhone than iPhone looked like Prada... but number of GUI elements are there.

Well, gee. The version that was released after the iPhone looks much more like the iPhone than the previous version.

Thanks for proving the point.
"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 #85 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Samsung made it very simple for those who dont like to read:


Looks like a settlement is very likely after this fiasco.
post #86 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

"Distressing"? How do you think AI makes its money?


By selling its product, us readers, to its advertisers. Install Ghostery, and see how many tracking cookies get loaded each time you click. It is astounding.
post #87 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Looks like a settlement is very likely after this fiasco.

Why would Samsung possible settle???????

All they have to do is change one very insignificant software feature and it is all over with.....

P.S. The TAB does not have touchwiz, it is did not violate the patent...
post #88 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

Why would Samsung possible settle???????

All they have to do is change one very insignificant software feature and it is all over with.....

P.S. The TAB does not have touchwiz, it is did not violate the patent...

It wasn't because of TouchWiz according to reports. The tablets use Honeycomb for the OS which doesn't exhibit the same snap-back and bounce action if a photo isn't fully swiped to the next screen. So only the 2.x version devices like the Galaxy and Ace were included in the order.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #89 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Well, gee. The version that was released after the iPhone looks much more like the iPhone than the previous version.

Thanks for proving the point.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or just a bit slow?

The image linked in the post you quoted is of the original KE850, revealed prior to the iPhone.
post #90 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

Why would Samsung possible settle???????


Because litigation is an expensive waste and a distraction, and because there are many other lawsuits both pending and in the wings. Apple is very litigious, using its army of lawyers to get ahead.

Settlement is often the best way to end these things.
post #91 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It wasn't because of TouchWiz according to reports. The tablets use Honeycomb for the OS which doesn't exhibit the same snap-back and bounce action if a photo isn't fully swiped to the next screen. So only the 2.x version devices like the Galaxy and Ace were included in the order.

I am running an AOSP (aka Stock) Rom on my incredible. The stock gallery app doesn't have bounce back. My Tab (with touchwix) does have it, so I'm assuming that the issue is with touchwiz, and not stock android.

Though I think I remember a different patent (flicking through pictures) that is the same on both touchwiz and stock.

This was a "win" for apple because they got three phones "banned," at least temporarily. But it was largely a loss for them, if I'm reading most of the commentary right, since so much (including the "slide to unlock" patent) were called into question and risk being invalidated.

I agree with others here who said that it doesn't make sense for samsung to try and settle here. There only seems to be one strong case against them in this court, and it's something they can fix with a software update. If anything, Apple might be more prone to settle, if only to mitigate the risk of any patents being invalidated.
post #92 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Because litigation is an expensive waste and a distraction, and because there are many other lawsuits both pending and in the wings. Apple is very litigious, using its army of lawyers to get ahead.

Settlement is often the best way to end these things.

Samsung fights, they have the chance of getting some of these patents thrown out (which will greatly help their cases elsewhere).

Apple is the one who might start considering settling now. I'm pretty sure Samsung was always open to settling. Most companies typically are. Apple's the one out for blood, but the risk of having their patents invalidated could cause them to rethink. Settlement would mean they'd have to drop cases against Samsung. Invalidation means that their lawsuits against HTC and Motorola could become weaker.
post #93 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



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.

Actually it does. Slide the slideout QWERTY keyboard in and it looks very similar. But that is the Prada KF900 which was released in 2008. The phone in question was the Prada KE850 which did not have a slideout keyboard.

Here is a good closeup of the original Prada phone - made public, complete with photos before the iPhone was announced.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/unlocke...ne/3397094437/
post #94 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Nope, because judges in Australia and Germany have ruled that Samsung is blatantly copying Apple.

In spite of all good intentions, law is still subjective.

Can you show me the court decissions where it's said that they blatanly copying?
post #95 of 103
It's either a judge from the Netherlands or a dutch judge.
post #96 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

I agree with others here who said that it doesn't make sense for samsung to try and settle here. ... If anything, Apple might be more prone to settle, if only to mitigate the risk of any patents being invalidated.

It takes two to tango, and two to settle. Apple might try to drop its suit, but if there have been counterclaims, that is not a choice it can make alone.
post #97 of 103
Interestingly, Apple's claim to own the rights to the rectangular shape of a tablet may still pass muster with the German judge. Sounds crazy, with innumerable examples of slate and tablet devices over the years all produced or proposed in that shape. But the German court is not considering any elements other than the pen drawing of a rectangle as a possible device that Apple lays claim to in a Design Patent.

Unlike US courts, a judgement in a different jurisdiction in Europe only needs to be acknowledged by the German judge, but doesn't necessarily carry any weight. In addition, common procedures such as discovery are not a part of the German proceeding. So a simple question such as "How long has Apple known about the Galaxy Tab shape" can't even be made. And that's an important question since if Apple has known about the general design of the Galaxy Tab for more than 30 days prior to filing they can't ask for the emergency injunction as they've done. As FOSS Patents points out, no one at Apple is going to volunteer that they've known for some time what the Tab looks like. As FOSS goes on to indicate, there's a reason why Apple chose Dusseldorf for the filing, and why that court is compared to our patent-friendly East Texas courts.

Pretty darn interesting how some foreign legal systems work.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #98 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

It takes two to tango, and two to settle. Apple might try to drop its suit, but if there have been counterclaims, that is not a choice it can make alone.

Apple is the aggressor here. The POINT of a countersuit is to get the aggressor to settle instead of litigate. Again, most companies do these kinds of things to settle out of court. Apple's the one out for blood. I'm pretty sure that samsung, HTC, motoroloa, etc are all willing to settle, because that's how these lawsuits generally play out. Patents were typically a nuclear arsenal, you parade them around to make everyone play nice.

EDIT: Should point out that when I say aggressor, I'm using it to mean they're the ones who first sued. When I use "Out for blood" I mean that they're trying to shut these products down, not just seek damages or change.
post #99 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

What an asinine statement.

the fact is that you can't patent the obvious

something that a human being understands intuitively, without need of explanation, or example, is, by definition, obvious

you may not like it, but that's how it is, you can whine all you like, you can't change that, facts are like that

that you resort to insult, simply because you don't like the facts, says a lot about you
post #100 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by umumum View Post

something that a human being understands intuitively, without need of explanation, or example, is, by definition, obvious

I'll just post this again, then, since I never got a clarification from anyone with your position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

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 Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #101 of 103
Speculation around the iPhone began in 1999 when Apple registered the iPhone.org domain name. The New York Times in 2002 wrote about a product possibly combining phone and PDA-like features being under development. The iPhone was finally unveiled in 2007.
post #102 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Nope, because judges in Australia and Germany have ruled that Samsung is blatantly copying Apple.

I thought that, in Germany at least, (not sure about Australia) a judge had ruled that there was a reasonable probability that a full trial might lead to the conclusion that Samsung was violating Apple's IP, and that a preliminary injunction was imposed to ensure that no further damage was done until the final determination could be arrived at. (It's preliminary, after all).

That led me to the conclusion that a final determination would come later, after the rest of the two sides' arguments had been heard, and the possibility was still open that the final determination might still be in either Apple's favour or in Samsung's favour.
post #103 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

I thought that, in Germany at least, (not sure about Australia) a judge had ruled that there was a reasonable probability that a full trial might lead to the conclusion that Samsung was violating Apple's IP, and that a preliminary injunction was imposed to ensure that no further damage was done until the final determination could be arrived at.

I suppose if you believe that line drawings of an undetermined rectangular slate-like device are tantamount to Apple IP, then you are correct. Apple filed for an emergency injunction (which they may not have been entitled to do), based solely on a claim of a Design Patent on the general rectangular shape, to keep Samsung's Tab 10.1 from causing harm to Apple's iPad market. There will be a final ruling on whether the injunction stands on Sept 9th according to news reports.
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 › Samsung Galaxy smartphones banned from sale in Europe in Apple suit