Judge denies Apple request to stop Galaxy sales in U.S. - Page 2

And if you get caught copying, obfuscate.

You are missing the point. Did Apple design and build a great revolutionary tablet? YES! The iPad is outstanding! They are selling millions of them. BUT they are suing Samsung on the "look and feel" and that "look and feel" clearly was there before the first iPad was released. They weren't as thin or as powerful and they weren't designed by Apple. But the basic "look and feel" was around before the iPad. Businesses copy each other all the time! It is part of the free market system. Can you imagine a world where any new product design could not be replicated? We all would be driving a Ford. Ford could charge whatever they wanted for their product since there would be no competition allowed. Look and feel patents should never be allowed. Apple did not invent the tablet look and feel remember? So if that kind of patent is allowed then we would not have an iPad. The tablet was invented before Apple started making them.

But Apple is finding it very tough to replace Samsung. In fact Samsung has very specific patents regarding Apple devices too. As patently Apple reported on Oct 25:-

"
Samsung Wins a Patent Relating to a Method for Fabricating a Semiconductor Die Package for Apple's iOS Devices

Samsung has been granted patent 8,043,892 that relates to a method for fabricating a semiconductor die package for Apple's iOS Devices.

The patent states that "the described packages are the basis for realizing micro-sized and high performance electronic devices with small volume. That is, the above described semiconductor die package and integrated circuit package have been widely used for developing portable devices, e.g., mobile terminals, telephones, iPods, iPhones. iPod and iPhone are registered trademarks of Apple Inc, Cupertino, Calif., USA.

_ _ _ _ _But I do wonder if Apple, mainly Steve Jobs, was aware of Samsung customizing and patenting this method. He wasn't one for losing control of any aspect of Apple's products and or processes. I wonder if this is keeping Apple's production of iOS chipsets with Samsung. An alternative supplier would have to have different design approach to Samsung's semiconductor die package."

Samsung is making it increasingly difficult for Apple to replace them by patenting all cost effective or efficient ways to make their chips

FACT???????




FACT???????

The idea of consumer tablet started in 1997 with http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/L...-Screen-Phone/

Please read the court document before making such comments.

A large part of document was dedicated on validity. In fact top lawyers of the country (from both Apple and Samsung) are fighting over the validity issue for past many months. Probably they know law better than you by concentrating their effort on validity questions ( When it was not all necessary as per your viewpoint)

And case was definitely fought over four points

1, Merits ( i.e patents are valid or not and whether infringed or not)
2, Irreparable harm
3, Balance of Hardship
4, Public Interest

Really?



Samsung Digital Photo Frame 2006.

Apple likely realizes that their focus on asserting design patents/community designs as their (so far) primary legal argument is going to be a failure. In hindsight they erred. Samsung out-flanked them, whether by accident or good planning. Here's the way I read things:

1. Apple claims Samsung tablets infringe on design patents.
2. Samsung says the design is obvious and lists prior art.
3. Apple says those aren't valid examples, and now gets into the specific design elements in the patent that make it unique and infringed by Samsung. Hmmm. . . The beginning of a southward turn.
4. Samsung replies that there's no practical way to design around it, the elements are too broad.
5. Apple has to respond and is required to show that Samsung's claim of there not being workarounds isn't accurate. Apple's legal team is probably seeing the mistake in the gameplan.
6. With Apple's list in hand, Samsung makes minor changes to the exterior appearance, and perhaps thanks Apple for the advice.
7. Back in the tablet market with minimal changes to their product.
8. In the event these small initial changes aren't enough, Samsung tweaks it a tiny bit more using Apple's road-map.

The same "Apple arguing against itself" if they use design patent claims applied in the US case too. Apple didn't invent the tablet idea and therefor there's prior examples. Apple will of course argue their design idea is unique but, with the plaintiff introducing prior art, Apple has to list specifics that make their design patent unique. At this point the plan begins to fall apart as seen in the numbered list above, with the added possibility that even some of the Apple utility patents may be invalidated.

At the end of the day, design patents, while they have some value, aren't going to be effective as bludgeons against competitors.

Going forward I'll be surprised if they don't move away from design patent claims for the most part. Even tho it will take longer, and some of their patents may be invalidated in the process, if they have valid, unique and creative IP they'll be successful in keeping some devices off the market. Arguing that someone's else's "look" shares similarities with some product Apple sells is a waste of time, effort and money.

Just my opinion.

And now someone will post regarding backs of Photo frame. Apple lawsuit against Samsung is all about how device looks from front.

Anyways, this picture proves that Ipad's design was used by Samsung previously too.

But this could not be used in courts since Apple's design patent is prior to this so Samsung used Knight Ridder and HP compaq TC 100

You are correct in terms of Design patent, Samsung has used similar ploy in Germany.

But if Apple uses Utility orTechnology patents , it will be next to impossible to claim irreparable harm necessary for preliminary injunction

And if such patents cannot be work around , then Apple will need to license them to Competitors. And if work around is possible, possibly it has already been done by Samsung or other OEMs.

Apple will succeed with only those patents which are not impossible but quite difficult to work around.

Too a blind person, i agree. Obviously the Samesung looks the same...their attorney could not even tell the difference. The look and feel was there if by that you mean, pre-ipad tables had screens. No tablet in your pictures show anything close to the ipad. So no, nothing existed prior to the iPad which looked like the iPad.

Businesses do not copy each other all the time. I would love to see you clone a BMW and try to sell it. Ever hear of copyright, trademarks and patents? those things were created to protect innovation. Granted the length of these has been extended beyond what they should but they exist to protect innovators from cloner trolls like Samesung, Microsoft and Google.

No car replicated a Ford...if they did, they would get sued into the ground, and rightfully so. Your analogy makes no sense. Remember, Apple did re-invent the tablet look and feel. Nothing looked like an iPad before the iPad. Your pictures prove it. Since the iPad and iPhone came out, everyone is cloning them. The old tablets were big square boxes with noisy fans and pen based input. Who makes those today? Or does everyone now make slim fanless iPad clones?

Please state the law that requires you to license patents to your competitors. Apple absolutely has no legal or moral obligation to license their patents to the competition.

(FRAND stuff is different - but we're not talking about FRAND).

Mind showing the whole thing....here let me show you how this is nothing like the iPad. Or better yet, i will point you to this which debunks this fantasy... http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/0...e-was-no-ipad/

This is a great picture which shows how Samesung copies Apple....

waste your time elsewhere :-))

I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit....

First...I did not post any pictures. So I don't know what you meant by that. Your examples prove my point. The exact look and feel of a BMW can be seen all over the auto industry. For that matter every car has the same look and fell.........a steering wheel....ignition key and turn to start...windows.....four wheels...aerodynamic shapes.
Lets say my company puts out a new microwave. It is sleek and beautiful. It also performs quite well! Everyone wants one. I also take the time to patent the look and feel. Nobody challenges my patent so it goes through the patent office. That look is square...rectangle with a door with predefined buttons with cooking times preprogrammed and a light that comes on when you turn it on.
From this point forward....I will sue any other company that produces a microwave with the same look and feel of mine. My companies has very very deep pockets and has unlimited resources to litigate anyone that produces a microwave that is sleek and square with a door and light that comes on when you open it. All companies are threatened with lawsuits.
But this one company i sue because they aslo made a microwave with a square shape and door with a light and pre programmed cooking buttons. I sue that they violated the look and feel of my microwave. OHHH did I mention this company also makes parts for my product.....so it has become personal. I want to punish them. I feel betrayed. Other companies are producing the same microwave but I don't sue them.....only the company that i feel betrayed by.......

No you will need to license if there is no work around as anti competitive regulations will come to play. It is no brainer else there will only be a single smartphone/tablet manufacturer.

All these heated arguments are interesting but I am not convinced sales of Android Tablets are so abysmal because of Apple's legal actions. Hence the removal or loss of all such actions can't be assumed to lead to significant market share increases. The legal suits may well have helped in creating uncertainty in buyer's minds helping them go the iPad route or it may simply be like the iPod market place, a total annihilation of all opposition by a far superior product regardless of price or legal actions by Apple.

Apple is claiming only front design in most of their design patents.

So it is not wrong to compare the front side of two devices.

Though it is also clear that from other sides it is quite dissimilar with IPAD

Excuse me? So you say that any company with a patent that leads to a product with no competition it has to share that IP and license it to avoid anti competitive regulations? Do you feel this applies to such things as pharmaceuticals? Why do we have to wait until patents expire for generics! Surely following your assertions the minute there is a unique and mind blowingly great drug with patents up the kazoo they'd have to share it by licensing the formulae to the other drug companies ... Does this happen? I am no expert in these matters so I judge you not, I just want to understand this better. It seems to me using your thinking OS X should be out there licensed to all.

I think that if any of the Apple utility patents were to be deemed essential (unable to work-around), then yes they might be required to license them.

"An essential patent is a patent which discloses and claims one or more inventions that are required to practice a given industry standard. [1] Standardisation bodies, therefore, often require members disclose and grant licenses to patents and pending patent applications that they own and that cover a standard that the body is developing. Failure to do so is a form of patent misuse.
If standards bodies fail to get licenses to all patents that are essential to practicing a standard, then the owners of those unlicensed patents can often demand royalties from those who ultimately adopt the standards. This is what happened, for example, to the GIF and JPEG standards."

I will NOT buy a Samsung product ever again! Unfortunately, that includes Apple products, because they all have Samsung stuff inside!

Sorry Apple, but it is a matter of principle.

No one can know of course but it's likely to be a true statement.

Patent law doesn't exist to keep up "the pace of innovation." Patent law exists to protect the economic (and other) rights of the creators of the innovations.

How fast innovation does or does not proceed is irrelevant and many things affect that speed. There are excellent arguments that Capitalism itself slows down the pace of innovation and invention.

True. To the people who bash Apple for defending their IP, would you like it if a co-worker took your work, claimed it as his or her own to the head of your department, and got a promotion or raise that you deserved? That's essentially what Apple is alleging. It's up to the courts to rule whether that it is true.

There is a reason intellectual property laws exist.

you are so correct! Apple has the tablet market pretty much to themselves. The sales figures of the ipad prove this fact. Sooo......how do do you prove harm from Samsung? You admit no other tablet maker has made a dent in iPad sales. Apple has the tablet market pretty much to themselves. So where is the damage to Apple?

Once again, please post the law or case law that supports your position.

Other than FRAND stuff which is essential for things like a telecommunications network, no one is required to license their patents if they don't want to.

Apple does (IIRC) have a few patents which fall into the 'essential' category and these are licensed under FRAND. The majority of their patents (including ALL of the ones being discussed here) are not essential and therefore Apple has no obligation to license them. After all, there were smartphones and tablets before Apple came along. Furthermore, even if it were impossible to make a tablet without violating Apple's patents, that doesn't automatically require Apple to license the technology. If you invent something new, the entire premise of our patent system is that you should have the exclusive right to commercialize it.

But, once again, feel free to post the law which supports your position.

Yepper... and as someone who owns the Compaq TC1000, as well as both generations of iPad, some of the similarities in design are quite apparent.

I know you're a troll and your posts are absolutely ridiculous logic-wise most of the time, but this takes the cake.

How can a TV show from the 80's be "prior art" for anything other than other TV shows? You don't understand law at all do you?

Thanks for the laugh.

if what you say is true, then there is little or no reason why Apple needs to enrich Samsung.

Until Apple stops giving my money to Samsung, I will give no money to Apple.

Boycott Apple until they agree to stop giving your money to Samsung!

Lots of things:

1. Lost sales. Apple could argue that everyone who purchased the Tab (or some percentage of Tab purchasers) would have bought an iPad if Samsung hadn't copied the iPad. They could then claim all of those lost sales.

2. Brand image damage. Apple has created a powerful brand image. Fakes can dilute that image by making people think that the inferior product was from Apple.

3. Legal costs to protect their technology.

4. Marketing costs. When there's someone illegally copying Apple's look and feel and technology, Apple may have to spend more money to correct the misconceptions.

5. Pricing. Presence of cheap copies my force Apple to charge less than they want (or prevent Apple from raising prices when they might otherwise have done so).

Just because Apple has 90% of the market, you can't say that there's no damage. Maybe Apple would have had 95% of the market if Samsung hadn't copied.

Of course not. The trolls keep proving beyond any doubt that they don't understand the law OR technology.

The only thing they seem to be good at is cashing Google checks.

It looks like JooJoo slavishly copied the iPad. It looks exactly the same! As if they iPad didn't exist first!

They should be banned immediately if they make a tablet that looks so much like another one!

Are you being sarcastic?

Actually he has simply stated the facts. The lines he has used are direct copy paste from article at The verge

I have read court document, it states as follows:-

"The Court finds that the 1994 Fidler/Knight Ridder tablet creates basically the same visual impression as the D889 patent. See Durling, 101 F.3d at 103 (internal quotations omitted). The 1994 Fidler/Knight Ridder tablet is also a simple rectangular tablet with four evenly rounded corners. The front screen is a flat reflective surface surrounded by a rim on all four sides. The back-side, though it apparently has four screws, is essentially flat. The area surrounding the screen is admittedly not entirely symmetrical on all four sides, but none of these minor differences distracts from the overall visual appearance of the 1994 Fidler/Knight Ridder tablet as a simple and portable rectangular tablet with the same overall visual impression as the D889 patent. See Durling, 101 F.3d at 103 (In comparing the patented design to a prior art reference, the trial court judge may determine almost instinctively whether the two designs create basically the same visual
impression.) (emphasis added) "

That needs to be banned too.

No doubt for me that intellectual property must be protected. I am not a lawyer, so I learn a lot from these posts, thanks. I believe the issue has something to do with the limit of what can be protected or not. It seems to me that in various subjects, more can be patented in the US than in the rest of the world, which, as the example seems to show, does not give necessarily any protection to the one who owns the patent. There has been a long debate in Europe about software patents, for example (I cannot even say what is now the current status). Legislation differ depending on what part of the world you are, and therefore no general conclusion can be drawn from the outcome of any particular justice decision.

If one takes the example of car industry, it is clear that successful look and feel are copied (red color of Ferraris, BMW style, etc ..). In many cases, there are no legal grounds to sue, and even if there are, the copied one does not engage itself into it.

As noted by many posts, there is a specific antagonism between Apple and Samsung which explain the energy they put into these disputes. I believe all Apple competitors will be cut into tiny bits in a near future, with the exception of Samsung. Although these two companies differ on many points, they strangely have one point in common, in their common complete disregard of planet finance opinion, which give them the unique advantage of conducting long term strategies.

Their fight will be an epic battle, for sure ....

Very impressive, but I wonder if the specific devices were cherry-picked.

Not applicable........some people might not want an Apple product. Some consumers might even prefer a Samsung product. You can't limit selection based on one companies greed!

So you say that tablet don't look like a iPad?
I think the iPad look exactly like that Joojoo tablet
thin, lightweight, touch UI, no buttons, black bezel, all-glass front panel

This is just a hearing on a preliminary injunction. To my feeble non-lawyer mind, it would have been more a negative for Samsung to lose than for Apple to lose. A preliminary injunction by definition (lawyers correct me if I am wrong) is an appeal to enjoin before the real trial. To get this a company needs to show that there is a preponderance of evidence in its favor - so much so that the court would enjoin prior to the actual trial. To grant one is almost the exception.

It seems to me that the judge here has said - "Not enough to go preliminary - Go have your day in court. If you can prove otherwise there - you will get a full injunction."

In that light I do not see it a a major loss. Once again, the press is blowing it out of proportion. (imho)

(Once again - any lawyers out there correct me if I am mistake.)

Offering up a carbon copy of an existing product (which you had intimate knowledge of because you are a supplier) is not competing and is certainly not innovating. Samsung needs to compete with Apple, not the other way around. Samsung is the one who needs to innovate, not Apple. But you haters can't look past your hatred of Apple can you.