or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple objects to timing of Verizon interference in Samsung case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple objects to timing of Verizon interference in Samsung case

post #1 of 51
Thread Starter 
Apple has opposed Verizon's motion to file a brief in support of Samsung in a patent infringement dispute with the argument that the wireless operator waited too long to file its request.

The Cupertino, Calif., company's filed its objection on Tuesday, asking the court to either dismiss Verizon's request as untimely, or allow Apple to submit a response on Oct. 6, Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents reports.

Verizon submitted a request last Friday to file an amicus curiae brief in defense of Samsung. The proposed brief takes issue with Apple's request for a preliminary injunction on four of Samsung's products, arguing that any injunction would work against the public interest.

Apple first sued Samsung in April, then filed a request for an preliminary injunction on some of Samsung's newest smartphones and tablets. The products in question are the Infuse 4G, Galaxy S 4G, Droid Charge and Galaxy Tab 10.1.

"The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a non-party's submission of amicus briefs in district courts," Apple's filing read. Mueller agreed with Apple's assessment, pointing out that "in all of the many lawsuits" that he has monitored, this is the first attempt by a party to file such a brief.

Apple's filing does not yet address the wireless carrier's public interest arguments, objecting first to the tardiness of the request. Verizon's motion "would have been untimely by several weeks" if submitted in an appellate court, Apple argued. Given that Samsung filed its own reply to Apple's request for a preliminary injunction on August 22, Apple noted that Verizon's brief would have been due at the end of August.

The company points out that its request for an injunction was filed nearly three months ago, discovery closed about a week ago and its reply brief to Samsung is due soon. The hearing on the motion is scheduled for Oct. 13. The motion contains a footnote from Apple stating that "Verizon's counsel first sought Apple's consent for Verizon to submit an amicus brief on that same day [September 23, the day when Verizon filed its brief]."

Apple describes the timing as "disruptive to Apple's ability to present its positions to the Court in an orderly fashion," asserting that it doesn't leave enough time for an "opportunity to seek discovery (whether from Verizon, Samsung, or another company) to rebut Verizon's claim that a preliminary injunction is contrary to the public interest."

Mueller speculated that Verizon was "in a real hurry last week" preparing for the motion and suggested that the company may have taken "quite some time" to decide whether to get involved with the case. He goes on to posit that Verizon may have achieved its primary objective of "giving the impression of support for Google and Samsung," regardless of whether its amicus brief is accepted.

Verizon's decision to get take a side in the case has complicated an already difficult situation. The fact that Apple has a business relationship with Samsung as a customer, while also being bitter rivals, has made for a tense dispute. An executive for the South Korean electronics giant said last week that the company had initially held back out of respect, but will now become "more aggressive" in its legal battle with Apple.

Apple and Verizon became partners when they teamed up to bring the iPhone 4 to the Verizon network after more than three years of AT&T exclusivity in the U.S. Samsung and Verizon have shared a close relationship for several years as they've worked together to present Google's Android operating system as a viable alternative to the iPhone and iPad.
post #2 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Verizon submitted a request last Friday to file an amicus curiae brief in defense of Samsung. The proposed brief takes issue with Apple's request for a preliminary injunction on four of Samsung's products, arguing that any injunction would work against the public interest.

Total BS. With that mentality, let's open the pharmeceutical floodgate and make generic versions of all protected drugs too so they are cheaper and much more affordable for every person. The way it is now works against the public interest too.
post #3 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Total BS. With that mentality, let's open the pharmeceutical floodgate and make generic versions of all protected drugs too so they are cheaper and much more affordable for every person. The way it is now works against the public interest too.

And that has to do with a PRELIMINARY injuction exactly how?

Quote:
Mueller agreed with Apple's assessment,

Why I'm not surprised?
post #4 of 51
The outcome of Verizons actions will be simply no iPhone 5 on their network.
post #5 of 51
What they don't know is Apple never failed to have a backup plan. Verizon on the way? Just sell iPod touch with comm radio in addition to FaceTime and iMessage (a.k.a. prepaid iPhone 4S) and they are good to go.
post #6 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splash-reverse View Post

What they don't know is Apple never failed to have a backup plan. Verizon on the way? Just sell iPod touch with comm radio in addition to FaceTime and iMessage (a.k.a. prepaid iPhone 4S) and they are good to go.

Good to go for what? And why is Verizon on the way?
post #7 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

The outcome of Verizons actions will be simply no iPhone 5 on their network.


If by some chance you aren't trolling, consider that this would be stinging many users who are customers of both companies. You have a large number of people that bought the iphone once it was available on Verizon. They may have purchased apps on that phone as well. Telling them that their only means of upgrade is to switch carriers is terribly unfair especially if it's just because of corporate bickering. This would be a bad PR experience for Apple and you don't seem to have considered impact on sales. Not everyone will switch carriers simply to buy the iphone 5.
post #8 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Total BS. With that mentality, let's open the pharmeceutical floodgate and make generic versions of all protected drugs too so they are cheaper and much more affordable for every person. The way it is now works against the public interest too.

I agree. The protection of intellectual property is in the public interest because it provides incentive for companies to innovate. If anyone can copy your work without penalty, there is no incentive to create new products.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #9 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

I agree. The protection of intellectual property is in the public interest because it provides incentive for companies to innovate. If anyone can copy your work without penalty, there is no incentive to create new products.

Could you please state a single event in our history where this has happened? Or a single industry?
Your saying if Apple looses a patent battle - that's it, they are going to sell off inventory and shut the company down? The entire computing industry will quit? Science and education will be useless? Mankind will slip into total apathy and will never advance past today's knowledge and understanding?

Kill all patents - or Limit them to 5 years - and watch the Economy explode. Not to mention quality of life & jobs. Or should we wait for a company to eventually buy all patents smother is no such thing as competition... Which is happening right now in all industries.

Maybe a more balanced approach to patents is the key.
post #10 of 51
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...ivescribe.html

Read this patent.

Competitors across the board will crap themselves.

It's a double crapper with this biggy, as well.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...trademark.html

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!

For 2011, 589 Patents Granted and counting.

I'm betting on well over 800 for the year.

This one goes back to 2000 when filed by two of my favorite former fellow employees and their brilliant minds:

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...S=PN/8,027,925

It goes all the way to work back started at NeXT.
post #11 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...ivescribe.html

Read this patent.

Competitors across the board will crap themselves.

It's a double crapper with this biggy, as well.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...trademark.html

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!

For 2011, 589 Patents Granted and counting.

I'm betting on well over 800 for the year.


And all of this has to do exactly how with this thread?

And how exactly competitors will crap themselves? Wishful thinking?
post #12 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Total BS. With that mentality, let's open the pharmeceutical floodgate and make generic versions of all protected drugs too so they are cheaper and much more affordable for every person. The way it is now works against the public interest too.

Yes, the hypocrisy is astounding. It would be in the public interest to force Verizon and other carriers to adhere to a number of regulations and practices. Do they really want to go there?
post #13 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Could you please state a single event in our history where this has happened? Or a single industry?
Your saying if Apple looses a patent battle - that's it, they are going to sell off inventory and shut the company down? The entire computing industry will quit? Science and education will be useless? Mankind will slip into total apathy and will never advance past today's knowledge and understanding?

Kill all patents - or Limit them to 5 years - and watch the Economy explode. Not to mention quality of life & jobs. Or should we wait for a company to eventually buy all patents smother is no such thing as competition... Which is happening right now in all industries.

Maybe a more balanced approach to patents is the key.

definitely limit the time...especially software patents considering the pace of evolution in software....

Imagine ONE company being allowed to use any form of multitouch in their devices for 25 years? that's crazy.
post #14 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

The outcome of Verizons actions will be simply no iPhone 5 on their network.

That would not be a good outcome for Apple's customers. And I think you are wrong.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #15 of 51
Quote:

Apple patents don't make Apple products.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #16 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

If by some chance you aren't trolling, consider that this would be stinging many users who are customers of both companies. You have a large number of people that bought the iphone once it was available on Verizon. They may have purchased apps on that phone as well. Telling them that their only means of upgrade is to switch carriers is terribly unfair especially if it's just because of corporate bickering. This would be a bad PR experience for Apple and you don't seem to have considered impact on sales. Not everyone will switch carriers simply to buy the iphone 5.

OK, 4 monts later tha AT&T? No?
post #17 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb

I agree. The protection of intellectual property is in the public interest because it provides incentive for companies to innovate. If anyone can copy your work without penalty, there is no incentive to create new products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Could you please state a single event in our history where this has happened? Or a single industry?
Your saying if Apple looses a patent battle - that's it, they are going to sell off inventory and shut the company down? The entire computing industry will quit? Science and education will be useless? Mankind will slip into total apathy and will never advance past today's knowledge and understanding?

He didn't really say that. Granted, the phrase "there is no incentive" taken out of context sounds like intellectual property is implied to be the only thing providing incentive, but do you really think that's what he meant?

Rain, your post is inflammatory at best. Maybe take it down a notch, eh?
post #18 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Could you please state a single event in our history where this has happened? Or a single industry?
Your saying if Apple looses a patent battle - that's it, they are going to sell off inventory and shut the company down? The entire computing industry will quit? Science and education will be useless? Mankind will slip into total apathy and will never advance past today's knowledge and understanding?

Your response is inflammatory so I will ignore it.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #19 of 51
(think Soup Nazi from Seinfeld)

"No iPhone 5 for you!"
post #20 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...ivescribe.html

Read this patent.

Competitors across the board will crap themselves.

It's a double crapper with this biggy, as well.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...trademark.html

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!

For 2011, 589 Patents Granted and counting.

I'm betting on well over 800 for the year.

This one goes back to 2000 when filed by two of my favorite former fellow employees and their brilliant minds:

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...S=PN/8,027,925

It goes all the way to work back started at NeXT.

Does anyone think that Apple's attempt to ignore hard earned and inventive intellectual property that belongs to someone else should be permitted? Shouldn't they just find a way to "innovate around" a validly issued patent rather than steal it for themselves?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ok_reader.html

And Ogma certainly needs to protect their property as well. Why should Apple and others have the right to take their valuable legally-patented property.
http://www.applepatent.com/2011/04/o...of-patent.html

Offending Apple products should be removed from the marketplace shouldn't they? That's the only fair way to deal with it. If Apple wants to use someone else's IP they should either pay for it or figure out their own way of doing things rather than copy someone else's work. Once a patent is issued, it's legal, enforceable and should be honored. Period.


/s
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #21 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

The outcome of Verizons actions will be simply no iPhone 5 on their network.

Look at Apple Vs Google.
Still Apple have Google as default search engine on all products.

Litigation and business is two different things. If Apple stopped selling Verizon iPhones Apple would loose 630 dollar x how many iPhones Verizon sells. Over a billion dollar.
post #22 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

I agree. The protection of intellectual property is in the public interest because it provides incentive for companies to innovate. If anyone can copy your work without penalty, there is no incentive to create new products.

But then if you use the drug companies as an example....The pantent on those drugs runs out after 5 years and then other companies can make GENERIC VERSIONS of those drugs. So that example is saying Apple's IP will run out after 5 years. So are you sure you want to use that example?

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #23 of 51
Interestingly Microsoft and Samsung have just announced a cross-licensing agreement for each other's IP, a per-device payment for Android-based products, and a statement that Microsoft looks forward to working with Samsung on developement of new mobile phones and tablets with them.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

definitely limit the time...especially software patents considering the pace of evolution in software....

Imagine ONE company being allowed to use any form of multitouch in their devices for 25 years? that's crazy.

Why is it crazy to protect something that you invent or spend millions of dollars on R&D???
So if you create something and I come along and want to copy it. That's ok with you???
post #25 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by n2macs View Post

Why is it crazy to protect something that you invent or spend millions of dollars on R&D???
So if you create something and I come along and want to copy it. That's ok with you???

See post 17. Follow the links. Do you still think it's as cut and dried as you seem to think?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

But then if you use the drug companies as an example....The pantent on those drugs runs out after 5 years and then other companies can make GENERIC VERSIONS of those drugs. So that example is saying Apple's IP will run out after 5 years. So are you sure you want to use that example?

As of June 8, 1995 patents last 20 years from the date they were filed.

If a company spends time and money to develop an idea I believe they should have an exclusive period of time to profit from it. Without a period of exclusivity why bother inventing something? It would be much easier to just wait for another company to do all the work and then immediately cash in on the other company's idea.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #27 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

I agree. The protection of intellectual property is in the public interest because it provides incentive for companies to innovate. If anyone can copy your work without penalty, there is no incentive to create new products.

here's what most people don't get is that in the asian culture, copying is perfectly fine. that's why you've got all these knock-offs.
post #28 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

The outcome of Verizons actions will be simply no iPhone 5 on their network.

Had Apple been with Verizon (as well as AT&T) from the beginning, Samsung and Android's foothold might not have been so strong.

So denying Verizon now would just double that problem.

jmho
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #29 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Does anyone think that Apple's attempt to ignore hard earned and inventive intellectual property that belongs to someone else should be permitted? Shouldn't they just find a way to "innovate around" a validly issued patent rather than steal it for themselves?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ok_reader.html

Yeah except the iPad is not an "electronic book", if that's the case then a laptop, which can also be used to read books, will fall under the same category. This patent should work against Nook or the Kindle.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #30 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a non-party's submission of amicus briefs in district courts," Apple's filing read.

Verizon's motion "would have been untimely by several weeks" if submitted in an appellate court, Apple argued.



Sounds like they are grasping at straws. They are using rules from a different court to argue against something that is not prohibited in the court hearing the case.

I predict that the judge will allow the brief, and will also allow Apple to file a response. More information is better for a decision maker like a judge.

And then Apple will use the allowance as a point of appeal.
post #31 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

The outcome of Verizons actions will be simply no iPhone 5 on their network.

That would lower Apple's profits. Don't count on it.
post #32 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Yeah except the iPad is not an "electronic book", if that's the case then a laptop, which can also be used to read books, will fall under the same category. This patent should work against Nook or the Kindle.

... and, that case was settled. Gatorguy is trolling.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #33 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post

OK, 4 monts later tha AT&T? No?

That too would reduce Apple's profits.
post #34 of 51
deleted
post #35 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog View Post

here's what most people don't get is that in the asian culture, copying is perfectly fine. that's why you've got all these knock-offs.

Here's what you don't seem to get: There's no "Asian" culture and you're wrong anyway.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #36 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog View Post

in the asian culture

There ain't no such thing as "the asian culture". You are talking about billions of different individual people from hundreds (thousands?) of individual ancient cultures.

You might as well talk about you, an Inuit and someone who grew up in Barbados sharing a "north american culture".
post #37 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog View Post

here's what most people don't get is that in the asian culture, copying is perfectly fine. that's why you've got all these knock-offs.

That's really racist.
post #38 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Here's what you don't seem to get: There's no "asian" culture and you're wrong anyway.

Oh I see what you did there
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #39 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

That's really racist.

Continentist. PLENTY of races in Asia.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #40 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

... and, that case was settled. Gatorguy is trolling.

There's plenty of other examples of very broad/undefined patents that Apple and others have either been granted or charged with infringing. My points are perfectly valid as examples, and there were no personal attacks that I'm aware of, so the trolling claim is a little odd.
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 objects to timing of Verizon interference in Samsung case