or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › US judge says Samsung tablets unlikely to attract Apple's customers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US judge says Samsung tablets unlikely to attract Apple's customers

post #1 of 177
Thread Starter 
In her decision not to grant Apple a preliminary injunction against Samsung, US judge Lucy Koh stated that her decision was grounded in part on the fact that Samsung's sales were unlikely to tempt Apple's customers and instead come at the expense of other Android makers.

The reasoning behind the ruling was discovered in public court documents that were not properly redacted. A report by Reuters notes that its journalists obtained a copy of the court filings before they were edited to block certain details as intended by the court.

Justice Koh's 65 page decision that denied Apple a preliminary injunction against Samsung's sales of Galaxy smartphones and tablets in the US included mention of studies by Apple that "show that existing customers are unlikely to switch from iPhones to Samsung devices."

The report noted that "Instead, the evidence suggests an increase in sales of Samsung smartphones is likely to come at the expense of other smartphones with Android operating systems," making continued sales by Samsung leading up to a final determination on patent infringement a less significant threat to Apple, in the judge's opinion.

Samsung: counterfeits ok if Apple can't make enough originals

The judge also mentioned Samsung's argument, which stated that were Samsung's sales to be blocked, Apple would not be able to keep up with the demand for smartphones in the market. However, Koh regarded the argument as "dubious," in the face of evidence by Apple portraying itself as capable of keeping up with demand.

The heavily redacted decision also included mention of Apple licensing its scrolling patents to Nokia and IBM, and attempting to license the patent to Samsung, actions that were not publicly advertised by any of the parties previously.

Apple and Nokia entered into a secret agreement to resolve their patent issues, but publicly that decision was portrayed only as Apple paying Nokia to license its mostly FRAND licensed, standards related intellectual property. There was no mention of Apple giving Nokia any rights to use its patents unique to the iPhone.

Apple on the offense

While Samsung sells relatively very few tablets, Apple has targeted it as a primary violator of its iPhone and iPad patents due to the egregious nature of its "slavishly" copying Apple's designs, likely in hopes to prevent other makers from also using its designs as blueprints to copy.

Apple's internal studies demonstrating the low relative threat of Samsung's devices appear to have been proven accurate by the lack of any significant tablet sales by Samsung, or by similar devices from Motorola, RIM and HP this year. Apple has similarly brushed off the threat of Amazon's Kindle Fire, with its executives remaining confident that Fire sales would help attract attention to the iPad.

On the other hand, analysts note that Amazon's low cost Kindle Fire will likely engulf at least half of all Android tablet sales next year, making it even more difficult for other Android-based tablets and other potential iPad competitors to gain any traction.
post #2 of 177
So the judge is saying "The other guy's product sucks, what are you worried about"?
post #3 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple and Nokia entered into a secret agreement to resolve their patent issues, but publicly that decision was portrayed only as Apple paying Nokia to license its mostly FRAND licensed, standards related intellectual property. There was no mention of Apple giving Nokia any rights to use its patents unique to the iPhone.

Huh? You didn't read the Apple statement to the press where Apple said that Nokia will have a license to some technology, but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique.? That means some technology that makes the iPhone unique was licensed, otherwise Apple wouldn't have mentioned it, nor worded it the way they did.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...itigation.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #4 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post

So the judge is saying "The other guy's product sucks, what are you worried about"?

Koh used Apple's own studies (submitted by Apple themselves I presume) that Samsung presented little market danger to Apple.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #5 of 177
I'm not a lawyer but if I understand this right, Apple loses the injunction to stop sales in the US but it can still win at trial?
post #6 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In her decision not to grant Apple a preliminary injunction against Samsung, US judge Lucy Koh stated that her decision was grounded in part on the fact that Samsung's sales were unlikely to tempt Apple's customers and instead come at the expense of other Android makers.

Wow, just think what an enterprising PR / marketing firm could do with this judge's "endorsement".
post #7 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

I'm not a lawyer but if I understand this right, Apple loses the injunction to stop sales in the US but it can still win at trial?

This had to do with a preliminary injunction, so yes Apple can certainly come out as the winner when all is finished For now Apple's own documents were used against them according to the report. While they were arguing that Samsung was stealing significant sales from iOS devices and they needed immediate relief, Apple's market studies submitted to the court were saying just the opposite. Therefor the judge saw little danger to Apple's device sales by waiting for the actual trial in a few months before making any decision.

I'm starting to question Apple's legal teams. This is the second time in just a few days that we've seen Apple documents being used against themselves.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

This had to do with a preliminary injunction, so yes Apple can certainly come out as the winner when all is finished For now Apple's own documents were used against them according to the report. While they were arguing that Samsung was stealing significant sales from iOS devices and they needed immediate relief, Apple's market studies submitted to the court were saying just the opposite. Therefor the judge saw little danger to Apple's device sales by waiting for the actual trial in a few months before making any decision.

I'm starting to question Apple's legal teams. This is the second time in just a few days that we've seen Apple documents being used against themselves.

you win the preliminary injunction if you are likely to win in the permanent verdict.

inversely, (albeit the logic is not this simple), it means that apple is unlikely to win the permanent verdict against samsung in this case.

from the beginning of this lawsuit, i am on samsung's side.

but hopefully the judge does not put too much emphasis only on the damages to apple, because patents is not about whether apple was injured due to infringement by samsung.
the core question is whether there was an infringement and should samsung be prevented from sales as a punishment.

what the judge really should do is to invalidate these stupid design patents and order apple to file them under copyrights/trademarks.
post #9 of 177
It means that although the Tab looks somewhat like the iPad, not one single person will purchase a Tab when they really wanted to buy an iPad
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #10 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It means that although the Tab looks somewhat like the iPad, not one single person will purchase a Tab when they really wanted to buy an iPad

That's not what was stated. To be an Apple customer it seems reasonable that you would have to have purchased products from Apple. Now we can split hairs and say that if you installed QuickTime on Windows or it bought a single song on iTS you are an Apple customer, but I think the implication is that iPad buyers aren't going to buy an Samsung tablet. What about all the majority of the world that has no experience with tablets? How do they make their decision if even Samsung's lawyers can't tell the difference? We have rules about protecting trademarks for a reason. We may not like how these infringements are handled but you protecting trademark and IP rights are there for a good reasons.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #11 of 177
Isn't this about samsung stealing IP, not customers?
post #12 of 177
Isn't a bad copy still a copy?
post #13 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Isn't a bad copy still a copy?

That's what I was sayin', except you said it better.
post #14 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Isn't a bad copy still a copy?

Yes, but I think the point is that if it isn't going to directly harm Apple's market share, then other remedies (i.e. monetary) would be appropriate if the final ruling is that Samsung violated valid Apple patents. There's a higher threshold to ban sales of a product than there are for awarding monetary damages.

Product bans are generally warranted only if allowing sales of an infringing product would cause irreparable harm. If Apple would lose significant sales to Samsung by virtue of Samsung violating Apple's patents, then that would be a case for a ban.
post #15 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

Isn't this about samsung stealing IP, not customers?

Good point. Why is Apple's success or Samsung's ineffectual efforts a factor when it comes to IP and trademark theft? One article I read maybe this one *noted that Samsung losing here would likely benefit other Android-based tablet makers more than Apple.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #16 of 177
Basing the decision on the impact to Apple's sales kind of misses the point of the merits of patent protection. What does "coming at the expense of other Android makers" versus iPads have to do with the merits of a per se infringement? Is the message "you can knock something off, as long as you're only semi-profitable"?

This sends a fantastic message to the garage innovators who don't have the flush legal coffers of an Apple to defend their IP.
Snarky Mac commentary, occasionally using bad words.
themacadvocate.com
Reply
Snarky Mac commentary, occasionally using bad words.
themacadvocate.com
Reply
post #17 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

Isn't this about samsung stealing IP, not customers?

Which is why they didn't grant an injunction. Apple isn't damaged by the ongoing sales of the Samsung tablet, beyond the remedy they would seek for the infringement. It actually makes pretty good sense.

...but I would have loved to see Samsung get bitten!
post #18 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

Isn't this about samsung stealing IP, not customers?

This is not a decision on whether they infringed on Apple's patents, but a denial of Apple's request for an injunction against Samsung to stop selling devices until the patent case is settled which can take years. It's kinda hard to grant that type of injunction when the iPad is selling in the millions and the Tab in (I'm being generous) the hundreds of thousands. Samsung isn't hurting Apple's business but granting that injunction would kill Samsungs. No judge would've granted it given those numbers.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #19 of 177
I wonder how all of this will affect Samsung sales in the US, across all their product lines.

I, for one, will not be buying any more Samsung products going forward. All the legalize aside, it is clear to me that Samsung has targeted Apple products and design. The Samsung TV on the wall of my family room will be my last.

I hope Apple puts a knife into their business. First by moving all of their component business away. Second, by launching iTV which sucks all of the remaining profit out of the TV business

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

Reply

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

Reply
post #20 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Koh used Apple's own studies (submitted by Apple themselves I presume) that Samsung presented little market danger to Apple.

Remember in the Australia case? Apple was basically scared of Galaxy series. How contradictory Apple?
post #21 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That's not what was stated. To be an Apple customer it seems reasonable that you would have to have purchased products from Apple. Now we can split hairs and say that if you installed QuickTime on Windows or it bought a single song on iTS you are an Apple customer, but I think the implication is that iPad buyers aren't going to buy an Samsung tablet. What about all the majority of the world that has no experience with tablets? How do they make their decision if even Samsung's lawyers can't tell the difference? We have rules about protecting trademarks for a reason. We may not like how these infringements are handled but you protecting trademark and IP rights are there for a good reasons.

I definitely see your point and wholeheartedly agree, but the truth is that injunctions like that are seldom awarded.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #22 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Oak View Post

I wonder how all of this will affect Samsung sales in the US, across all their product lines.

I, for one, will not be buying any more Samsung products going forward. All the legalize aside, it is clear to me that Samsung has targeted Apple products and design. The Samsung TV on the wall of my family room will be my last.

I hope Apple puts a knife into their business. First by moving all of their component business away. Second, by launching iTV which sucks all of the remaining profit out of the TV business

Well there's Samsung hardware within your idevices.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #23 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

Remember in the Australia case? Apple were basically scared of Galaxy series. How contradictory Apple?

Maybe that's just what they have to claim in a court of law dealing with all sorts of legal mumbo jumbo, but Apple is not scared of any Galaxy Tab or any other tab.
post #24 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Isn't a bad copy still a copy?

No, it's a Samsung
post #25 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Well there's Samsung hardware within your idevices.

He seems to indicate that with his " I hope Apple puts a knife into their business. First by moving all of their component business away." sentences.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #26 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

He seems to indicate that with his " I hope Apple puts a knife into their business. First by moving all of their component business away." sentences.

Yea I kinda caught that after I had written my response.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #27 of 177
Psystar bring IT on!


: AH! AH!
: Seriously?
: Savage Capitalism indeed! - You spend money and human resources to develop ART and some punk come along and use yr sweat to make easy money and this judge says … WHAT?
: Psystar… anyone?
post #28 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ochyming View Post

Psystar bring IT on!


: AH! AH!
: Seriously?
: Savage Capitalism indeed! - You spend money and human resources to develop ART and some punk come along and use yr sweat to make easy money and this judge says … WHAT?
: Psystar… anyone?

That would make sense if the punk was making money and hurting you, but its obvious that's not the case so the judge didn't want to pick on said punk. And Psystar was a whole different animal, they were actually using Apple's SW on their hardware.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #29 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

Isn't this about samsung stealing IP, not customers?

It's ALWAYS about customers.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #30 of 177
This is a bogus ruling. It basically states that if I'm an inventor, someone is free to copy my device as closely as possible, just as long as they don't have as wide of distribution channels as I do, or their reputation isn't quite up to par with mine, thus resulting in poor sales. I've never heard of such a thing, as one has nothing to do with the other. I could careless if they sell one unit, infringement is infringement, and this ruling sets a dangerous precedent for future intellectual property cases.

Apple is already moving to Sharp for panels and hopefully in deals with them, as well as others, to diversify their chip suppliers as well. Guess we'll see how much revenue the Galaxy brings in once Android's open source platform begins to implode upon itself just like Windows Mobile did. A copied design won't be able to help that.
post #31 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

That would make sense if the punk was making money and hurting you, but its obvious that's not the case so the judge didn't want to pick on said punk. And Psystar was a whole different animal, they were actually using Apple's SW on their hardware.

It always hurts when people steal from you, it is not civilized and it is disrespectful. Even IF the one you steal from IS rich.

Stealing IS just wrong ( : not that i never did. : we are all hypocrites? ).
Because you can always ask for
post #32 of 177
The statement by this judge must be in the top 10 list of "the stupidest thing a judge had ever said".

What does that even mean? It's ok to take advantage of other manufacturers, ride their success, and copy their products down to the packaging, connector, and UI, diluting their identit?! And it's ok because people already know exactly what they want?!

WTF?!
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #33 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

you win the preliminary injunction if you are likely to win in the permanent verdict.

inversely, (albeit the logic is not this simple), it means that apple is unlikely to win the permanent verdict against samsung in this case.

Please stop posting since you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

To win the injunction, Apple had to prove that they were likely to win at trial AND to show that they would suffer irreparable harm. The judge did not rule on whether Apple was likely win at trial, but did rule that they would not suffer irreparable harm since Samsung could afford to pay any reasonable penalties.

There was no decision on the merits of the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

The statement by this judge must be in the top 10 list of "the stupidest thing a judge had ever said".

What does that even mean? It's ok to take advantage of other manufacturers, ride their success, and copy their products down to the packaging, connector, and UI, diluting their identit?! And it's ok because people already know exactly what they want?!

WTF?!

It's especially bizarre given that this was the judge who pulled the stunt of asking a Samsung attorney to tell her which tablet was which - and the attorney was unable to do so.
"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 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Maybe that's just what they have to claim in a court of law dealing with all sorts of legal mumbo jumbo, but Apple is not scared of any Galaxy Tab or any other tab.

Really? I acctually beleived and still beleive what Apple's lawyer said in Australia case. Um... you are saying they lied in Court or Apple lied to their lawyers?

I was drown into this debate and subsquently bought Ipad 2. Never had any tab nor smartphone before. It was good initially, to be honest, playing application games (my wife played Big Fish alot). But a month later, it became an expensive toy to my pre-schoolers. They loved it.

Soon after I bought a Galaxy Fit to my wife, a cheap Samsung smartphone. Very plastic and poor design. I did not like it, honestly. My wife played with it quite a lot and was really happy, I never understood her.

Then I bought a white Galaxy Note 3 weeks ago from Hong Kong, thinking that I had bought her a substandard smartphone. Galaxy Note amazed me. It rocks. I had thought that Iphone 4 was the ultimate smartphone by experience from friends and relatives' Iphone 4. The Note completely changed that. There is so many things that she could do it with, with bigger screen and amored display. Now even my kids are playing with the Note more.

A week ago, I gave it a try on her Galaxy Fit, the poor one then. I have changed most of settings with widgets and free applications. This is seriously good AND I am in control. I feel good.

I have never been fandroid, but sure I am now.
post #35 of 177
Lucy Koh is of Korean decent.

It is right for me to point out that she might be biased, and rule in favor of Samsung. Koreans are best customers of products made by Korean companies. Most Koreans I know here in Orange County California only drive Korean made cars. They buy only Korean cosmetics, electronics, food, etc. They are more nationalistic than Japanese. And they are more racist than Mississipi.
post #36 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

Really? I acctually beleived and still beleive what Apple's lawyer said in Australia case. Um... you are saying they lied in Court or Apple lied to their lawyers?

I believe that most lawyers are liars, it's practically a part of their job.
post #37 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I believe that most lawyers are liars, it's practically a part of their job.

The term should have been changed to 'lieyers' years ago.
post #38 of 177
This is as bad as DED misquoting Ballmer. The only reason the Judge "said" that is because he was reading Apple's study at the time he said it. Sigh!

It is pretty clear why MacRumors is getting all the traffic these days. We might as well rename this site to "AppleTabloid"

It's getting more pathetic by the day...
post #39 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

Remember in the Australia case? Apple was basically scared of Galaxy series. How contradictory Apple?

Perhaps the Australian market is different from the American market? Apple has a lot of brand equity in the US, and perhaps more so than in Australia. Perhaps they are worried about losing sales there, but not so much here.

Then again, from what I recall, Apple merely told the court in Australia that it preferred the status quo (i.e. no sales of the Galaxy) to an outcome where the Galaxy is sold but Samsung pays royalties in accordance with their proposed settlement. Perhaps the Australian court didn't ask Apple to go into as much detail as Judge Koh did.

Anyway, in both courts, Apple asked for a ban, not monetary damages. There seems to be nothing inconsistent with Apple's argument. Maybe Apple isn't worried so much about lost sales as they are about others in the industry copying their design. Even if Apple is perfectly content with its current market share, it could be concerned that Samsung is diluting Apple's brand.

Anyway, in a court of law, it's completely acceptable to make two mutually exclusive arguments, as long as they are both conceivable individually. For instance, you can deny a charge, and then at the same time claim that even if you did commit the charge that it wouldn't harm anyone or wasn't illegal.

Apple can reasonably argue that Samsung shouldn't be allowed to steal sales from Apple by improperly using Apple's IP, while at the same time saying that even if Samsung doesn't actually steal sales from Apple, it should still not be allowed to sell a product that relies upon the stolen IP.
post #40 of 177
so he said, she said....
you spin the news for the apple side...
the droids spin for their side...
if you can't read through the crap... what make apple dogma any better?

what kinda of computers does apple use to design apple computers... ?

there are not any serious cad programs on the mac os..... so

we design macs on pc....

if it takes a company 20 years to come up with a three button mouse...

well, it's ok, it's just a home computer. i use one... for leisure and entertainment....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • US judge says Samsung tablets unlikely to attract Apple's customers
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › US judge says Samsung tablets unlikely to attract Apple's customers