or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Netherlands judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Netherlands judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales

post #1 of 69
Thread Starter 
Though Apple has found some success in barring the sale of Samsung devices including its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in various countries, Samsung on Friday failed to stop the sale of 3G-enabled Apple devices like the iPhone and iPad in the Netherlands.

A Dutch judge made the ruling in favor of Apple on Friday, dismissing Samsung's claims of patent infringement, according to Reuters. The ruling is by intellectual property expert Florian Mueller, of FOSS Patents, as a victory that could help Apple in similar legal disputes in Italy and France, where Samsung is already attempting to block sales of the newly launched iPhone 4S.

"Apple will be taking French and Italian translations of the Dutch ruling with it," Mueller reportedly said. "This makes it a long shot for Samsung that it could win an injunction in the EU based on its 3G patents."

The Dutch court ruled that 3G patents owned by Samsung are open to license under the definition of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, or FRAND, patent use. A judge in The Hague said that Apple and Samsung should work to find an agreement.

In a post to his blog detailing Samsung's loss in the Netherlands, Mueller said it's possible that Apple this week reached a tipping point in its legal battle against Google's Android mobile operating system, which powers Samsung devices like the Galaxy Tab lineup.

"Apple has not yet dealt a fatal blow to Samsung, but it's on an impressive winning streak and making headway at a breathtaking rate," he said. "I expected Apple to do well, but the results have exceeded even my expectations."



Samsung's request to ban the sale of the iPhone and iPad came in September, specifically taking issue with the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, first-generation iPad and iPad 2. Samsung unsuccessfully argued that the devices infringe on four 3G patents it owns.

Samsung recently vowed to step up its legal actions against Apple, as the number of lawsuits between the rival companies continue to grow. Most notably, Apple has successfully banned the sale of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany and Australia.
post #2 of 69
Hold on, let me go get my pop-corn.
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
post #3 of 69
Everybody knows who the copycat is. Netherlands can't be without Apple!
post #4 of 69
Hah gotta love the Dutch Courts. Doesn't take no patent bullshit from anyone, not even Apple. This should be the way to go everywhere else. Should save both sides in lawyers' fees, and less spam on tech blogs.
post #5 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mock Turtleneck View Post

Hah gotta love the Dutch Courts. Doesn't take no patent bullshit from anyone, not even Apple. This should be the way to go everywhere else. Should save both sides in lawyers' fees, and less spam on tech blogs.

agreed.

they only upheld the bounce back claim against Samsung right?

Also, I'd prefer a bit of punishment against Samsung for the instances of obvious look and feel ripping off.
post #6 of 69
Samsung's quarterback was sacked while attempting a "Hail Mary" pass.

Game over.
"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 #7 of 69
Cue the uzual zuzpects.
post #8 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Samsung's quarterback was sacked while attempting a "Hail Mary" pass.

Game over.

Nice.
post #9 of 69
If this is actually true, why are they still actively promoting their phones (Galaxy S II) on TV in the Netherands? Saw the commercial this week many times on TV, same for their tablet. That does not make sense to me!
post #10 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMinded View Post

If this is actually true, why are they still actively promoting their phones (Galaxy S II) on TV in the Netherands? Saw the commercial this week many times on TV, same for their tablet. That does not make sense to me!

This article talks about blocking iPhone/iPad in Netherlands (which was denied), not any Samsung products.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #11 of 69
deleted
post #12 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

agreed.

they only upheld the bounce back claim against Samsung right?

Also, I'd prefer a bit of punishment against Samsung for the instances of obvious look and feel ripping off.

Yes and if I've not mistaken, the bounce back effect had been replaced with an overscroll glow in a firmware update some time ago. So back to business as usual I guess.

I have no doubt that Samsung will take additional steps to avoid similar confrontations with Apple in the future. Since Apple supposedly "owns" the rights to a rounded rectangle with minimalist design, future tablets from Samsung will probably have pointless additions such as physical buttons, or something ridiculous like being rainbow coloured. This is just to satisfy Apple's "look and feel" assertions, which were agreed upon by that one German Court. The preliminary injuction in Australia was based on some touch-related patents which could potentially apply to every touchscreen phones and media on the Market. How that will turn out I don't know.
post #13 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The ruling is by intellectual property expert Florian Mueller, of FOSS Patents, as a victory that could help Apple in similar legal disputes

Huh, there seems to be a word missing here, "seen" perhaps, unless Florian Mueller is moonlighting as a judge in the Netherlands.
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 #14 of 69
How stupid can Samsung be? They are now raising new levels where no company reached before.

This is how it is resumed:

FIRST CASE
Apple is Samsung biggest 8 billion dollars per year customer;
Samsung copied Apple;
Apple asked Samsung to modify the devices;

now things are about to fork in 2 directions:

1) Samsung changed the design and keep the 8 billion dollar customer;
2) Samsung fight the 8 billion dollar customer. This scenario has two outcomes:

a) Samsung wins in court. In this case, it continues to sell the devices, but, it loses the 8 billion dollar customer. Chances of Samsung winning: hell freezing anytime soon has far more probabilities.

b) Samsung loses in court. In this case, it has to modify the devices, it has to pay the legal fees and it loses the 8 billion dollar per year customer and as a bonus, has to pay Apple an indemnification of zillions of dollars.

Conclusion: Samsung chose the option where it will lose the 8 billion dollar customer.

Moral of story: never copy your biggest customer and by no means piss your biggest customer, even if you are right.
post #15 of 69
Netherlands judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales

That should be, Dutch judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales

I know, it's weird yet true.
Posted by the door post at the post office the post man posted his last post-millennial post card with a Penny Black postage stamp via the Royal Post.
Reply
Posted by the door post at the post office the post man posted his last post-millennial post card with a Penny Black postage stamp via the Royal Post.
Reply
post #16 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

It's official: Samsung has complied with the Dutch court's request for the small modification needed to avoid Apple's only surviving claim of infringement; all other claims made by Apple had been previously denied by that court, so Samsung is free to sell anything they want there:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...12-705215.html

Until the main hearing which will decide the actual validity of the patents, unlike the pretrial opinion given in Apple's seeking of an injunction, which you referred to earlier.
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 #17 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Different case, though a similar outcome.In that case Apple tried to block Samsung from selling phones in the EU, only to have nine out of ten of its claims dismissed, one patent found completely invalid, and the only remaining item of contention was the bounce-back scroll, for which the court gave Samsung several weeks to comment out the offending code and re-release. In this case Samsung tried to block Apple's products, and the practical effect was pretty much the same: no products are being blocked by that court.

Bounce back ... in Samsungs face that is.
Both cases aren't similar at all, Apple won a small victory with one of its patents, Samsung had a total loss on a claim that wasn't real to begin with and was refuted by the judge with the arguments Apple provided.
The point is that android cannot use this bounce back element in its user interface and all user elements Apple can claim in the future. This means that the interface will look bleak and unattractive and doesn't feel lively, guess what people will buy in the future?
So, evading the patent does mean less sales, and a real loss.

J.
post #18 of 69
deleted
post #19 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShack View Post

Netherlands judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales

That should be, Dutch judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales

I know, it's weird yet true.

Yeah, it is! Our national anthem is even weirder... It starts: William of Orange is me, of German descent. I've always honored the king of Spain. And I'll remain faithful to my Fatherland (which by then was just known as "the seven provinces"). That's what you get when you're trying to get ahead in the EU...
post #20 of 69
deleted
post #21 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

You raise a good point: any preliminary injunction Apple has won against Samsung may ultimately just provide Samsung with heavy multiples of lost sales if Apple's design patents don't hold up, as the CA and Dutch judges feel they're quite questionable.

Meanwhile, Apple has yet to produce receipts for payment of FRAND royalties to Samsung, which may result in multiples of those payments as well.

Given that Sony is Samsung's #2 customer with orders almost as high as Apple's, Apple only accounts for about 6% of orders from that division leaving the other 94% of their business entirely unaffected by Apple, and that we're currently in an environment where demand for the components Samsung produces is greater than supply, by the time this is all finished Samsung may well be able to replace Apple's orders easily while making a small profit from the settlements.

You're absolutely correct: this isn't quite so simple as an occasional preliminary hearing might suggest.

Yes! Samsung losing one of their largest customers is probably good news for Samsung, bad news for Apple! Injunctions in favor for Apple are no doubt going to prove costly to Apple in the end! Injunctions against Samsung can only fuel their rise to supremacy!

It's like you have a translator box that takes any news and spits out "How this hurts Apple and helps their competitors."
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #22 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

You raise a good point: any preliminary injunction Apple has won against Samsung may ultimately just provide Samsung with heavy multiples of lost sales if Apple's design patents don't hold up, as the CA and Dutch judges feel they're quite questionable.

Unfortunately for Samsung, this isn't their first infringement lawsuit and it probably won't be their last. In case you hadn't heard, Apple has been granted permanent injunctions against the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in both Australia and Germany. I believe those rulings fall into the "persuasive precedent" category, which Apple will no doubt use against Samsung and any other infringers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_precedent

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Meanwhile, Apple has yet to produce receipts for payment of FRAND royalties to Samsung, which may result in multiples of those payments as well.

Cost of doing business. The best-case scenario for Samsung is that they will be forced to pay Apple for the use of their patented IP. And I wonder how many other electronics manufacturers also have failed to pay FRAND royalties to Samsung.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Given that Sony is Samsung's #2 customer with orders almost as high as Apple's, Apple only accounts for about 6% of orders from that division leaving the other 94% of their business entirely unaffected by Apple, and that we're currently in an environment where demand for the components Samsung produces is greater than supply, by the time this is all finished Samsung may well be able to replace Apple's orders easily while making a small profit from the settlements.

Samsung is apparently preparing to exit the TV manufacturing business to focus more on their mobile device business. And Apple is successfully attacking said mobile device business. You do the math.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

You're absolutely correct: this isn't quite so simple as an occasional preliminary hearing might suggest.

No, it's not. Law doesn't happen in a vacuum. Apple has established legal precedent by winning permanent injunctions against sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and they'll use it going forward.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #23 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by fpsanders View Post

Yeah, it is! Our national anthem is even weirder... It starts: William of Orange is me, of German descent. I've always honored the king of Spain. And I'll remain faithful to my Fatherland (which by then was just known as "the seven provinces"). That's what you get when you're trying to get ahead in the EU...

Yeah I know, I'm Dutch as well Your last sentence was very amusing
Posted by the door post at the post office the post man posted his last post-millennial post card with a Penny Black postage stamp via the Royal Post.
Reply
Posted by the door post at the post office the post man posted his last post-millennial post card with a Penny Black postage stamp via the Royal Post.
Reply
post #24 of 69
deleted
post #25 of 69
Quote:
"Permanent"? I've thus far only read of "preliminary" injunctions, which means they haven't even been tested by jury at all. But I'm happy to be schooled: URL?

Are you talking about possible appeals? The poster was referring to the German ban which upheld the initial preliminary ban.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #26 of 69
Trying to get an injunction based on FRAND patents makes Samsung basically equivalent to Lodsys -- trying to collect license fees that have already been paid.
post #27 of 69
deleted
post #28 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

One can hope. In which court preceding did Apple deliver the receipts for those payments?

And if Apple doesn't have the receipts, it will just pay Samsung. So what? It's not going to get its products banned.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #29 of 69
deleted
post #30 of 69
deleted
post #31 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

I would have to defer to SockRolid to find out what he meant when he wrote:



The best I can find are references to those cases which refer to both as merely preliminary.

But perhaps he's found some news more recent than this morning that I might have missed.

Looking forward to his URLs.

I missed the part about Australia. That country is still in its prelim stage. Germany is not. Germany's ban is permanent unless Samsung appeals the decision and wins. It is on Engadget if you want a non-Apple focused site as reference.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #32 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

"So what?"

Been here long?

The general meme here in the AI forums is that when a company uses another company's proprietary work in their competing products it constitutes "theft", "blatant copying" (in this case in the most literal sense), and one poster on AI even called it "rape".

Golly, those seem harsh words for something as minor as a patent infringement.

Or it is only a patent infringement when other companies do it?

I admit that there are some extremists who spout that but I don't. My point is that Samsung can't do jack except collect a set amount owed whether Apple has receipts or not and cant ban Apple's products like it tried to do.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #33 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

"So what?"

Been here long?

The general meme here in the AI forums is that when a company uses another company's proprietary work in their competing products it constitutes "theft", "blatant copying" (in this case in the most literal sense), and one poster on AI even called it "rape".

Golly, those seem harsh words for something as minor as a patent infringement.

Or it is only a patent infringement when other companies do it?

The part that you don't seem to understand is that FRAND patents are entirely different. When a patent is offered as FRAND, it means that the patent owner is willing to license the patent to others and agrees to reasonable terms. If someone refuses to license the patent, the owner can go to court and get the license fees ordered - in which case they are made whole. That is the reason that one can not obtain an injunction based on FRAND patents.

In the case of Apple's patents, Apple never had any intention of licensing them and they are a key part of Apple's differentiable advantage. If someone infringes a patent without the patent owner's permission, it could have a drastic effect on their business that simply paying a license fee might not correct. That is why it is possible to get an injunction for a non-FRAND patent.
"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 #34 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

...except that the outcomes are identical: neither company's products are being stopped from sale by the Dutch court.

You should read my post again.

J.
post #35 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mock Turtleneck View Post

Since Apple supposedly "owns" the rights to a rounded rectangle with minimalist design,

It was more than that. As anyone that has done more than just knee jerk on the situation knows.

And Samsung has been cited on many of those other details in other courts.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #36 of 69
deleted
post #37 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

One can hope. In which court preceding did Apple deliver the receipts for those payments?

Probably none. Because they likely didn't pay anything on the grounds that it wasn't fair etc.

All they would need to do is prove that they tried to license the tech and that Samsung refused or asked for some outrageous amount of fees.

The courts will slap Samsung's hand, demand they take the payment of the fair amount and it's done.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #38 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

This is an interesting question, and I'll admit that knowing this specific aspect of the law isn't at all what I do for a living, so perhaps you could clarify this:

Let's say you license a patent to a standards body under FRAND, and I use that technology in a product that competes with yours. To keep the math simple, let's say the FRAND license fee is $100.

I tell my stockholders that mine is not an inept company, and perhaps I'm telling the truth there so of course I know full well that to use your technology I'm legally obligated to pay you $100. I just decide not to. I just decide that it looks better for me to just keep such payments in my retained earnings.

As long as I don't get caught, I get to keep your money forever.

But what happens when I'm caught?

The price for honorable companies to pay licensing fees in advance of using them is $100. Is it still just $100 if I'm caught having tried to steal it from you?

When others see this, how much money will you lose once everyone learns that they can steal anything they want from you, and the worst thing that'll ever happen to them is that they'll have to pay nothing more than the original asking price, with no penalties at all?

I know of no other circumstance that would reward infringement so richly as an assertion that there are no penalties for FRAND infringement.

But if that's the case, there are a lot of technologies I could start stealing today so it would be helpful to know.

Do you have a URL that can explain how there are no penalties for FRAND infringement?

I am really not getting what you are saying. FRAND patents are a part of a standard. If a company uses those patents, there really is no way to sneak it past the company that owns the patents. Example, company A makes and markets a device that uses wifi. Company B would automatically know that company A infringes because it can't implement wifi without the patent. Company B contacts company A and asks for payment. Company A makes sure that the amount that company B is asking for is the same or similar to the amount it collects from everyone else. If so, it either pays up or gets sued. If it chooses to get sued then company A loses suit and pays the fair amount AND legal costs for company B. You also must take into account that some licenses that fall under FRAND are covered by component purchases. Company A buys a certain chip and the chipmaker has already payed the FRAND license, then company B cannot turn around and sue company A because it has already been paid.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #39 of 69
deleted
post #40 of 69
deleted
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Netherlands judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales