Judge denies Apple request to stop Galaxy sales in U.S. - Page 3

But your claim was that there were no tablets on the market and you were proven wrong. Regardless of thickness and it's touch input. All Apple did was take an existing form factor and make it svelte and sexy and showed that it worked much better with a mobile OS than a streamlined version of a PC OS.

Justice has been served.



There is no better way to determine whether Samsung infringed on Apple's patents then the court.

The court has determine it does not.

Are you trying to go against the court here?


Your argument doesnt hold because it leave out the technology progress of miniaturization.

As time goes on, everything becomes smaller, cheaper and faster.

The same goes for tablets.




Apple's patent argument in court was only about the front.

Google much?

This isn't talking about a TV show at all -- it was a conceptual design presentation from a tech firm that was looking for funding to build a tablet computer. By all appearances, a good deal of the ergonomic design work contributing to the "look and feel" of a functional tablet had already been conceived and fleshed out before the presentation was produced -- in 1994. David Hasselhoff has nothing at all to do with the suggested Knight Ridder prior art.

Since you seem unable to corroborate details for yourself, I'll save you the trouble:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...YEARS-OLD.html

Before anyone attacks Judge Lucy Koh because she is of Korean descent (Samsungs hometown). She is a Harvard graduate who worked in Palo Alto (Apples hometown) on intellectual property cases and she's married to a Stanford law professor. Sounds like she is a brilliant person . Although, more than likely, the 9th circuit will overturn her ruling...... As usual.

Think about this: What if a movie showed, for example, a bicycle that folded up so to be easy to carry, where nobody had ever thought of that before. Let's say that the movie included a scene where the mechanism is described and shown in detail.

Are you saying that somebody could run out and get a patent on that implementation? That there exists no prior art, despite the mechanism having been invented by the script writer and implemented by the prop master?

Hmmm?

It's the head of Samsung's legal defense team!

No, it hasn't - no matter which side you're on.

We're a long way from a final decision in this matter.

You seem to be confusing the definition of the word "essential". A patent can be "essential" in terms of the ability to implement a particular feature, but the feature itself may not be "essential" to conforming to a recognized industry standard.

If the patent in question doesn't cover an application that is essential to implementing a technology that is regulated by a recognized standardization body, then that definition doesn't apply. For example, an essential feature of a cell phone is the ability to place a phone call. Patents related to interfacing with the latest GSM communication standards would be considered essential and would therefore be covered. But an extra feature, for example, to allow the cell phone to additionally prepare a fresh shot of espresso, would not necessarily covered.

So, I may have a patent that is essential to allowing a cell phone to produce a shot of espresso. It may be impossible for a cell phone to produce a shot of espresso unless they use the technology in my patent. But, because it isn't essential for a cell phone to produce an espresso in order to qualify as a cell phone, I wouldn't have any obligation to license that patent to anybody.

You're absolutely correct. In the U.S., a preliminary injunction is only ordered if the defendant is unable to make good any potential harm to the plaintiff. For example, let's say that the court thinks that there could be a final judgment of $10 B. If Samsung had the ability to pay $20 B without going bankrupt, there would be no injunction.

In addition, if the plaintiff could show that there would be irreparable harm (that is, harm that NO amount of money would fix), then the judge can order an injunction.

In this case, the judge did not rule on the merits of the case. She simply said that there's no danger of irreparable harm. That is, Samsung has enough money to pay any amount of damages that might conceivably be awarded.

I think Apple is competing just fine outside the courts.

Have you seen which tablets people are buying? It's not Samsung tablets... it's iPads.

And it gets worse... Not only can't Samsung make a tablet more desirable than the iPad... they also can't make one as cheap as the Kindle Fire.

Poor Samsung.

If we're talking about competition... Apple doesn't need to sue anybody. Apple is doing just fine.

This is a patent issue, however... and infringed patents need to be defended.

I wasn't trying to get involved in this thread's main argument I was making an entirely different point. However, if my assertion is true that Android tablets suck sufficiently to fail all by themselves, it doesn't preclude Apple from protecting their IP in case a copy ever bacame a threat.

Thanks, but can you equate 'essential' and 'unable to work-around'?

The court has done no such thing. The only thing the court has done is to deny the request for an injunction on sales. If you had any kind of reading ability or comprehension you might have noticed the next paragraph in which Judge Koh says that Apple is, in fact, likely to prove that Samsung infringes at east one of Apple's patents. But that little detail somehow escaped your mind didn't it. Those sorts of things always escape minds like yours.

In 1997 tablets looked very different from today's iPad.

If you have a great invention unable to be work around, you are definitely granted a monopoly with respect to that patent for certain period of time. The Supreme Court has ruled that a patent holder has the right to a legal monopoly unless they act beyond the confines of the patent monopoly..In other words, a patent monopoly is perfectly acceptable so long as the monopoly only exists as to the patented invention and does not extend so far as to create a monopoly over a product or market.

For example , Samsung's 3G patents are such patents which will grant it a monopoly on 3G market.

No, you cannot equate essential and unable to work around.

A patent unable to be worked around does not always grant you monopoly. For instance as of now Apple seems to have a monopoly on bouncing animation patent. But it is not something essential for device functionality. Tablet/Smart phone market exists even without it.

the television show is Knight Rider.

the Knight Ridder referenced by the courts is a media publishing company. Newspapers and such.

Learn the difference.

Fact. no one would confuse these for a iPad

Really?



Samsung = cheap plasticity knock off, thats why no one lines up for there products

Apple does complete outside courts but they also protect there inventions. maybe if samsung made something that wasn't so ridiculously close to iPad that there own lawyers can't tell them apart they wouldn't have this trouble

They aren't competing now? Fascinating.

And it's not about competing, it's about copying. I know for some it appears a subtle concept - but that says more about you than the issues at hand.

And look at how many people cared... Heck, they were even Bill Gates priority! For over a decade!


I'd tell you to be careful flinging around so much crap, but then realized it's probably all you know how to do

We need logical fallacy bingo for threads like this. Ad Hominem would be the free center square. For this post we could fill in the Weak Analogy squares

Like someone already said... you guys have a lot of difficult understanding the law.

If we could just get people to stop quoting his entire messages - including ridiculous pictures...

Yup, this was just a fluke...

At least nobody ever went to justice to sue about this form factor ...






http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...-pre-order.ars

Daharder signed up years ago on a apple fan site to post his garbage, yes he's never made a valid point since 2009, and he's upset because no one gives a crap about his android products. yet he logs on daily from his parents basement to post some crap that can never hold up. i don't understand it

It seems that you're the one who's upset just because someone happened to hold a different opinion than yours about the whole situation. Just add him to the ignore list if it bothers you that much and move on with your life.

Really? Prove it. Show another tablet that has the same experience as the iPad.

Go for it. Should be easy, right? After all, the iPad is full of obvious stuff!


Uh, and ones that do get sued all the time too!

Go read the US Constitution. It's a surprisingly short document for setting up a government for a country. Make note of how many concepts are in it. There aren't that many, yet patents and intellectual property protections are there - prominently.

They are the foundation of innovation and success of the United States over the last 200+ years.


No, it's part of some weird pipe dream/alternate reality.


Can you imagine a world where if you come up with an innovative idea or concept it wouldn't be worth taking a risk and laying out funds to develop it because you could be undermined at a moments notice by outright cloners?


Huh? What the heck are you blathering on about? Plenty of alternatives to the Model T were produced - and there were cars before the model T. What people couldn't do is blatantly copy designs like the transmission of the Model T - they had to develop their own.


Why? Just because you say so? You sound like the myopic arguers against copyright when it was first conceptualized. And yet it's clear (at least to those with rational reasoning capabilities) that copyright fostered an explosion of knowledge and creativity.

America would not be the country it is today without patents. As I pointed out in another thread, even China is beginning to understand the dangers of rampant copying and as their economy matures they are now starting to enforce copyright and patent protections.

You can't have a stable economy without the promise for being rewarded for your labor. It's the most fundamental of human requirements.


Your absolutely right. However they did invent the iPad look and feel. And they should be able to protect that.

Again, if it was so obvious to assemble the physical, software and conceptual design elements to create a device like the iPad - why was Apple first after everyone else had been already at it for over 10 years?


... Sigh. Nevermind. Not even worth trying to explain.


Tablet yes, iPad no. Ugh.

Here, if you really want to increase your personal wisdom, check out a book like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Const.../dp/0865973024

Start with the concepts of intellectual property and patents - Benjamin Franklin was a huge proponent and this book has several good writings from him and others on the subject. You might just learn something.

Then again it would take effort to actually try to expand your horizons - much easier to just spout off "feelings" in an Internet forum

My understanding of this (thinking in terms of a criminal trial) is that Samsung got charged and released on their own recognizance until the main trial starts.

If they had lost, it would be similar to a person having to stay in jail while they wait for the main trial.

In other words, there's enough evidence to go to trial, but not enough to take any action (prelimiinary injunction) at this time.

If this keeps up I'm going to run out of popcorn...

Yes, because a photo frame is exactly like a tablet.

Multi-touch, app store, rows of icons for applications - heck, a battery...

I'm not surprised that posts like yours are made in threads like this. What I am surprised is the lack of personal pride that people have when they make posts like this

you moron, there suing because samsung is stealing there innovations. its samsung who should be innovating and they wouldn't be getting sued. why doesn't that make sense to you

Use of logic in Internet forums is doomed to failure.

But great post and spot-on point - even if it continues to sail over their heads

I always laugh when people say Microsoft is dealing with Android the correct way by licensing their IP while Apple is going about it the "evil" way by seeking bans instead.

There's no law that says you have to license your IP. If your product is unique because of your IP, why would you let others use your IP to make products similar to yours?

And I'm sure that MS went to these companies that were using their IP without their permission and said they can pay them x-amount or we'll sue you. I hope no one thinks that lawsuits weren't on the table for MS.

So, what would the "pace of innovation" be if you knew that any innovation you attempt to develop could be stolen with no recourse?

So while you are technically correct - patent's don't expressly "keep up the pace of innovation", they certainly are a direct contributor to it.

Considered so essential to the success of the country they are one of the few concepts expressly outlined in the US Constitution!


I'd think knowing that if I took a risk I wouldn't be rewarded due to copying would pretty much kill my motivation to innovate.

Especially for a smaller/independent entrepreneur. Another thing that people tend to overlook - Apple is pretty unique for a large company in that they routinely break into or create new markets. Typically it's smaller players (like Tivo for DVRs) that create new markets. Unfortunately, even with patents Tivo has had a hard time - but they wouldn't even exist today if it weren't for patents.


Arguments from people divorced from reality due to what basically boil down to religious beliefs.

For all the "capitalism is evil" crap being spewed, no one has managed to come up with something better. And you can't tell me there aren't fertile grounds for new ideas with merit in the world...

While not perfect - what system is? - capitalism has fostered the greatest achievements in human history.

Had the democracy of ancient Greece not collapsed under it's own stupidity (a path the US and most of the west seems hell bent on following) who know's how much sooner concepts such as mechanization, mass production and electricity would have developed. Ancient people weren't stupid - but factors such as political, social and economic policies all are all contributors to "innovation".

It always saddens me when people complain about history being "boring". Far from it - history holds the answers and examples to many questions that people have. We like to think of ourselves as being special and "ancient peoples" being more like chimpanzees, but it's becoming clearer and clearer that isn't the case.

The real danger to modern society are anti-intellectualism and the emergence of the sound bite. Forget Orwell's 1984, Max Headroom and the blipvert are what we should all be watching out for!

And if Samsung's digital photo frame was such a key point why didn't Samsung use as proof of prior art or trade dress for a tablet in the case and why didn't the judge throw out the case upon seeing this digital photo frame from 2006?

It's really hard to believe anyone can look at that digital photo frame and think that the iPad ripped it off. There is no way to confuse their purpose, HW or SW look and feel.

Of course MS was going to sue. But the children seem to think that MS deciding to license makes them the "good buys" and Apple seking a ban are the "bad guys".

They are both doing what they are entitled to under the law.