or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wins against Samsung increase likelihood of global settlement
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wins against Samsung increase likelihood of global settlement

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
AppleÂs second preliminary injunction win in a European court against Samsung products may Âincrease the likelihood of a global settlement between the two rival companies, the investment banking division of the Royal Bank of Canada said Wednesday.

Earlier in the day, a Dutch court awarded Apple an injunction banning three Samsung Android handsets -- the Galaxy S, the Galaxy S II and the Galaxy S Ace -- from sale across the European Union because they were found to infringe on the iPhone maker's patents.

The news comes two weeks after a German court sided with Apple and ordered a similar injunction against a different Samsung product, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 -- an Android tablet that was similarly found to be in violation of Apple iPad-related patents.

The news, combined with the recent German ruling, is likely to pressure Samsung into pursuing Âa global settlement" with Apple that would bring immediate closure to the matter, Â*RBC analyst Mike Abramasky told clients in a brief report.

As it stands, the Dutch ruling threatens to impact SamsungÂs smartphone sales across Western European, where it ships an average 3.5-4.0 million units per quarter.

Abramasky also noted various other approaches Samsung could take in fighting the latest injunction. For example, he said, the South Korean company Âmay appeal the ruling, attempt a redesign and workaround the patent, or may be able to adjust its distribution strategy to mitigate the injunction.Â

Apple and Samsung are currently involved in similar copyright and patent infringement suits in various countries, including the U.S., UK, The Netherlands, Germany, South Korea, Japan or Australia.

For its part, Apple in early August also secured a favorable decision in Australian courts, which prevented Samsung from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 across the continent.

At least one report has indicated that executives from both companies have been meeting in hopes of resolving the matter independent of the courts but no settlement has been reached.
post #2 of 30
Thought I read that the ban was due to the way the photo gallery swipes to the next photo. Really, it's an Android feature and Samsung may have already stated that they plan on replacing the infringing software in time to avoid an Oct 13 ban.
post #3 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlevier View Post

Thought I read that the ban was due to the way the photo gallery swipes to the next photo. Really, it's an Android feature and Samsung may have already stated that they plan on replacing the infringing software in time to avoid an Oct 13 ban.

IMHO, if anything today's initial Dutch court ruling will prompt Apple to put more effort into a friendly settlement with Samsung. I imagine they prefer to avoid having a patent they're throwing at other Android handsets, "swipe to unlock", ruled invalid. And that's the likely outcome if they pursue it. Their legal strategy of use community patents to attack Samsung (and likely others) has already been put to the test and failed, at least for now.

So yes, today's ruling may increase the likelihood of a settlement out of court, but not because Samsung feels more pressure. IMHO it's Apple that might be realizing the need to put these issues to rest before a court makes a final judgement.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #4 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IMHO, if anything today's initial Dutch court ruling will prompt Apple to put more effort into a friendly settlement with Samsung. I imagine they prefer to avoid having a patent they're throwing at other Android handsets, "swipe to unlock", ruled invalid. And that's the likely outcome if they pursue it. Their legal strategy of use community patents to attack Samsung (and likely others) has already been put to the test and failed, at least for now.

So yes, today's ruling may increase the likelihood of a settlement out of court, but not because Samsung feels more pressure. IMHO it's Apple that might be realizing the need to put these issues to rest before a court makes a final judgement.

Was it therapeutic for you to fantasize about Apple eating humble pie?

"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 #5 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IMHO, if anything today's initial Dutch court ruling will prompt Apple to put more effort into a friendly settlement with Samsung. I imagine they prefer to avoid having a patent they're throwing at other Android handsets, "swipe to unlock", ruled invalid. And that's the likely outcome if they pursue it. Their legal strategy of use community patents to attack Samsung (and likely others) has already been put to the test and failed, at least for now.

So yes, today's ruling may increase the likelihood of a settlement out of court, but not because Samsung feels more pressure. IMHO it's Apple that might be realizing the need to put these issues to rest before a court makes a final judgement.

Exactly this was a loss for apple.
post #6 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlevier View Post

Thought I read that the ban was due to the way the photo gallery swipes to the next photo. Really, it's an Android feature and Samsung may have already stated that they plan on replacing the infringing software in time to avoid an Oct 13 ban.

yep, all the "design" claims were rejected -

"The judge has ruled that Android 2.x violates Apple's 868 patent which covers scrolling through photos on a touchscreen. Only this one patent is violated - the complaints about two other patents as well as the design patents has been thrown out. The judge did not agree with Apple that Samsung is copying Apple's design. The injunction only covers the Galaxy smartphones, since they run Android 2.x; Android 3.0 does not violate the patent in question"

and yes samsung is changing it - it is not the gallery but how it scrolls

"The ban has been based on the method of scrolling in the Gallery. If it is replaced, there is no reason to maintain the ban on selling," Samsung's lawyer Bas Berghuis of Woortman
post #7 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Was it therapeutic for you to fantasize about Apple eating humble pie?

Put it this way... it's not a wholesale win for Apple. AIs article doesn't mention there were other patents asserted by Apple, which in one way or another, were not accepted. I know this is an Apple fan site, but being typically self proclaimed intelligent people, you would think readers would prefer to know all the facts.

http://thisismynext.com/2011/08/24/d...y-smartphones/
post #8 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Put it this way... it's not a wholesale win for Apple. AIs article doesn't mention there were other patents asserted by Apple, which in one way or another, were not accepted. I know this is an Apple fan site, but being typically self proclaimed intelligent people, you would think readers would prefer to know all the facts.

http://thisismynext.com/2011/08/24/d...y-smartphones/

And even that one particular Apple claim that was upheld wasn't all that serious in the Judge's view based on his comment "...de kennelijk eenvoudig door haar uit te voeren aanpassing...", reportedly translated to mean it should be easy for Samsung to circumvent the one patent it was found to violate.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #9 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlevier View Post

Thought I read that the ban was due to the way the photo gallery swipes to the next photo. Really, it's an Android feature and Samsung may have already stated that they plan on replacing the infringing software in time to avoid an Oct 13 ban.


...and the bans in Australia and Germany?
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 #10 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

yep, all the "design" claims were rejected -

No, they weren't. The judge just said that they weren't sufficient for preliminary injunction. They can still go to trial.
"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 #11 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

...and the bans in Australia and Germany?

With the Dutch judge dismissing the same Apple design patent claims on the form factor in their entirely, I would personally expect that German temporary injunction to go bye-bye when it comes up again at a formal hearing. Australia? Dunno.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #12 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

With the Dutch judge dismissing the same Apple design patent claims on the form factor in their entirely, I would personally expect that German temporary injunction to go bye-bye when it comes up again at a formal hearing. Australia? Dunno.

Judges are human, I'm pretty sure German or Australian judges will not care about a Netherlands judge's opinion in their respective courtrooms.

An opinion that patents MAY not stand up to a full test, does not carry much weight outside the jurisdiction it is made in.
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 #13 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Judges are human, I'm pretty sure German or Australian judges will not care about a Netherlands judge's opinion in their respective courtrooms.

An opinion that patents MAY not stand up to a full test, does not carry much weight outside the jurisdiction it is made in.

You're correct. Everyone will just have to wait on the outcome of some of the other cases before things become more clear. And that assumes that both Apple and Samsung don't recognize the wisdom of shaking hands and going back to business. With no slam-dunk winner so far, that's the outcome I expect, and sooner rather than later.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #14 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You're correct. Everyone will just have to wait on the outcome of some of the other cases before things become more clear. And that assumes that both Apple and Samsung don't recognize the wisdom of shaking hands and going back to business. With no slam-dunk winner so far, that's the outcome I expect, and sooner rather than later.

Apart from Samsung having to stop or delay shipments into various markets, which shows that Apple's complaints have some merit.

Even though the Netherlands judge made it as easy as he could for Samsung, he still had to go ahead and grant an injunction.
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 #15 of 30
deleted
post #16 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Judges are human, I'm pretty sure German or Australian judges will not care about a Netherlands judge's opinion in their respective courtrooms.

An opinion that patents MAY not stand up to a full test, does not carry much weight outside the jurisdiction it is made in.

Many Australia judgments cite foreign law. Particular so in the IP context where, for better or worse nations are tending to harmonize their law.
post #17 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Many Australia judgments cite foreign law. Particular so in the IP context where, for better or worse nations are tending to harmonize their law.

So why didn't the judge in the Netherlands take into consideration the previous findings of the Australian and German courts?

There goes that theory.
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 #18 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So why didn't the judge in the Netherlands take into consideration the previous findings of the Australian and German courts?

There goes that theory.

Why don't you ask them. Reread what I wrote. I never said it was a fait accompli, nor did I assert the Netherlands should have done so.
post #19 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apart from Samsung having to stop or delay shipments into various markets, which shows that Apple's complaints have some merit.

Even though the Netherlands judge made it as easy as he could for Samsung, he still had to go ahead and grant an injunction.

There were 10 different claims brought against samsung. Of those 10, only one was found to have enough weight that the judge thought there was actually a case for infringement, and it was in a photo app, something that can be Easily updated (and Samsung over a month to update it) So if anything, the judge said apple's Complaint might have merit, but a majority of their complaints didn't.

This is why Samsung was pleased with this outcome. Unlike what DED would have you believe in his article, this wasn't a big "win" for apple. If anything, it has them looking harder at possibly settling.

Remember, the injunction doesn't go through until October. I'd be really surprised if samsung didn't already have a software update in the wings that would negate said injunction since they knew about this lawsuit earlier.
post #20 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Why don't you ask them. Reread what I wrote. I never said it was a fait accompli, nor did I assert the Netherlands should have done so.

Yet you assumed the Australian and German courts should do so in order to "harmonise".

Courtrooms are little fiefdoms, judges hold all the power over their little domain.
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 #21 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

There were 10 different claims brought against samsung. Of those 10, only one was found to have enough weight that the judge thought there was actually a case for infringement, and it was in a photo app, something that can be Easily updated (and Samsung over a month to update it) So if anything, the judge said apple's Complaint might have merit, but a majority of their complaints didn't.

This is why Samsung was pleased with this outcome. Unlike what DED would have you believe in his article, this wasn't a big "win" for apple. If anything, it has them looking harder at possibly settling.

Remember, the injunction doesn't go through until October. I'd be really surprised if samsung didn't already have a software update in the wings that would negate said injunction since they knew about this lawsuit earlier.

Unlike the German one which they only responded to a week before it happened.

So hows the Tab sales in Germany and Australia going?
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 #22 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Yet you assumed the Australian and German courts should do so in order to "harmonise".

I didn't say they 'should', I said the Australian courts 'had'. I did not mention Germany at all.

Quote:
Courtrooms are little fiefdoms, judges hold all the power over their little domain.

Yes, and they draw on decisions elsewhere on occasion. You are free to choose not to believe me. Clearly you have made that choice.
post #23 of 30
Wonder if this investment banker looked up the news lately, because the bigger picture is, it is Apple who may actually settle the case, not Samsung.

The judge just threw out 9 out of the 10 serious design/technology patents out the door, of which the ruling should serve as additional ammo for thursdays' court hearing in Europe.

"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 #24 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So why didn't the judge in the Netherlands take into consideration the previous findings of the Australian and German courts?

There goes that theory.

Because in the case of Germany were no findings? The injuction was automatic.
post #25 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Wonder if this investment banker looked up the news lately, because the bigger picture is, it is Apple who may actually settle the case, not Samsung.

The judge just threw out 9 out of the 10 serious design/technology patents out the door, of which the ruling should serve as additional ammo for thursdays' court hearing in Europe.

DED added his own spin (as usual) to what the RBC analyst said. The analyst never said the settlement would be in Apple's favour. Just that this ruling might prompt a settlement.
post #26 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Yes, and they draw on decisions elsewhere on occasion. You are free to choose not to believe me. Clearly you have made that choice.

Leave him. The concept of a legal precedent is elusive to some.

The idea that judges don't look at other jurisdictions for guidance (even if they are independently ruling in their little "fiefdom") is ridiculous.

Apple may win in some jurisdictions. But this ruling all shows, Apple may lose in more than a few places too. That's a far different story than some (like Florian Mueller) who had suggested that Apple's patent war chest was good enough to steamroll Android in every jurisdiction. Clearly, reality is quite different.
post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Unlike the German one which they only responded to a week before it happened.

So hows the Tab sales in Germany and Australia going?

Way to not read my post.
post #28 of 30
A bank doesn't "settle" with the thief that robbed them, nor should Apple.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #29 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

A bank doesn't "settle" with the thief that robbed them, nor should Apple.

you do realize that 9 of the 10 claims were thrown out right? And the bank analogy doesn't really work. Because, as has been pointed out numerous times on practically ANY sites providing commentary, patents are typically treated as "nuclear weapons" by practicing agencies (aka, real companies). Because it's basically impossible to operate in any competitive field and NOT violate patents somewhere. The point of most lawsuits is to force a settlement and they the violating party to pay you some fees, NOT to completely shut them or "send them to jail" like a bank would do with a thief.

Apple could be more likely to settle now because their case is (according to the judge presiding) 1/10th the strength it once was, actually less so since the patent they got the ban for was in a gallary application, something samsung can update before the deadline. What's worse, the judge said that he felt one of their patents (slide to unlock) would be found invalid if it went to court. That would hurt apple's chances against other manufacturers. If they settle, HTC/Motorola would still need to fight that charge.
post #30 of 30
deleted
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wins against Samsung increase likelihood of global settlement