Apple unlikely to get Samsung device injunction from US court - Page 2

Thank goodness you are not a judge.

That is merely your opinion.

Not correct. You're confusing wishful thinking with legal reality..

It is not enough to show that Samsung's product looks like Apple's. In a patent case, you must show that they violate the specific, written claims in the patent. It is perfectly legal to have a similar (or even identical) appearance if you can do so without violating the patent.

And if it's a copyright case, then you need to show that the copyright is valid and that the copyist duplicates relevant specifics of the copyright and that the copy creates risk of confusion for the customers.


Sorry, but you're the one that's incompetent. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. As I explained above, in order get an injunction, you must show that the plaintiff has a likelihood of winning AND that a cash award would not be sufficient recompense.

To use your example, if Toyota sued Tesla Motors for copying a design element, they would have a much better chance of getting an injunction than if Tesla sued Toyota. If the plaintiff wins and is awarded damages, it is far more likely that Toyota could pay the damages than Tesla.

In this case, Samsung can clearly afford to pay any likely fine and Apple failed to show that there would be damages that money wouldn't make up for, so they rightfully lost the injunction request.

AHHAHAHA! Thank goodness for you, troll!

I don't think the defendant's ability to pay is the determining factor in whether a court allows a preliminary injunction. Moto got one against Apple and is probably going to get one ordered on Microsoft as well. Neither of those came to court with empty pockets. In other cases Apple has been successful in getting preliminary injunctions against Samsung, altho they were either overturned or worked around so far.

In this particular case Judge Lucy Koh wasn't convinced that Apple's market was being harmed by Samsung (True, since they sell everything they can produce). In fact it was reported she was of the opinion that the beneficiary of a Samsung injunction would be other smartphone vendors, not Apple. They were unable to show they were being damaged in the marketplace to the judge's satisfaction. Whether Samsung had deep pockets or not wasn't why the injunction was denied according to anything I've read about the case.

What you can't seem to understand is that I'm not contending their intent at all. I'm contending their method.

By showing that the F700 is nothing like the iPhone because the homescreen operates in a completely different manner than iOS opens the door for
The Galaxy S is nothing like the iPhone because the homescreen operates in a completely different manner than iOS

which is not something I think they want to do.


And that is why I take issue with the article focusing on the homescreen of the F700.
Because what elements of the Galaxy S' homescreen are lifted from Apple? the widgets? the desktop concept? Those elements don't even exist on iOS.
However, if you look at the homescreen of the F700, you see evidence of a desktop, and what appears to be a calendar widget. So from that, it would seem that "Samsung had just continued to develop the interface ideas shown in the F700."


Again, twisting my words. At no point did I mention Apple's case. The article you linked was written by The Verge, and AFAIK, The Verge is not affiliated with Apple in anyway.

Since you seem to confuse The Verge with Apple, let me clarify my statement for you:

You don't think a lot of things - and you're wrong more often than you're right.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...ters-9712.html
"However, courts have denied preliminary injunctions to plaintiffs on the ground that patent infringement can be remedied by the defendant's paying damages to the plaintiff once infringement has been found in a trial."


Motorola's was in a different country. Since no one seems to have explained it to you, different countries have different rules.

And Microsoft? What are you referring to?


Name a U.S. case where Apple has gotten a preliminary injunction against Samsung. Obviously, different countries have different rules. But in the U.S., the rules are as I stated.


As usual, you are misinterpreting the facts.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397195,00.asp
{Judge Koh} "It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed,"

There are two factors here. First, Apple must show potential damages - and Koh didn't think they had done that (and the appeals court agreed). Then, if Apple had been able to show damages, Samsung could have used the defense of "we have lots of money" as shown above.

Whoa, doggies! You seem to be confusing what little knowledge of the case and the law you have with being an expert, or a quick little note of mine with being a treatise.
(Appearance is enough for design patents, btw).


Duh


That's irrelevant and immaterial.


You call me incompetent, then dump me with all that responsibility? Let's leave it to Apple's legal team, shall we?


It isn't over. And it isn't right(ful) that an entity (person or corporation) can do whatever they please merely because they have deep pockets. An injunction is very important to reverse the tide.

IMHO Apple's main problem is that Samsung isn't alone in ripping off Apple's IP via Android, so it looks like blocking Samsung wouldn't change the overall appearance of the marketplace. That doesn't make Samsung any more justified or less important to stop, just as stopping one criminal is as important as stopping others.

You're still here, tekstud?

Imagine that, the truth being exactly the opposite of what GG says it is.

Although, frankly, Judge Kohl's logic seems a little twisted, but it's not the first time I've thought her rulings didn't make any sense.

Perhaps the Galaxy S doesn't look anything like the 3GS when you hold it "in person"; but I remember the front-pic (with the icon grid and all) being featured on the covers of many tech magazines here in Japan. Looks pretty much 3GS-ish in that context (and no hint about its real size). It looked pretty lame if you ask me.

Samsung: The korean company that secretly wishes it were chinese.

Hehe... you made the Sesame Street reference, so I just went with it. Anyway I meant toward touch screen. I showed concurrent examples. They weren't entirely successful. The long term trend was there. Apple accelerated it, and riding trends isn't the same as copying. With the F700 I was showing a similar large display similar shape design which spun off the current. Remove the physical keyboard part and it's fairly comparable in overall look and feel. If you felt I was saying Apple copied here, you misinterpreted the post. I was trying to show that they weren't the only ones trending in this direction at the time. Fortunately for Apple, they were further ahead (addressing the vastly inferior comment), but this isn't the same thing as saying everyone else copied.


You can't actually prove that, but you clearly believe it, so I'll leave it alone.


Apple vastly accelerated a design trend. There's nothing illegal about dumping more R&D dollars into products that match that trend. Keep in mind here I'm not an Android fan, but all of the copying claims are overblown with marketing kool-aid and trash journalism. Regarding the Newton, I'm not sure whether they looked back that far for design inspiration. I've never seen the Newton. The earliest example I can recall that used that kind of design was the Palm Pilot, but even there I don't recall its full details as I didn't personally own one.

In making her decision, California district Judge Lucy Koh said that a preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy." Apple had to prove that it would suffer irreparable harm unless the Samsung products were pulled from the market, but at this stage, Judge Koh wasn't convinced.
"It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed," she wrote. "Indeed, given the evidence Samsung presented, it seems likely that a major beneficiary of an injunction would be other smartphone manufacturers."

Whether Samsung was wealthy or destitute had nothing to do with Apple not getting the requested injunction. You forgot the rest of the quote.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397195,00.asp

Or perhaps you trust Florian Mueller more:
"Apple had to "establish the following: (1) some likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying litigation; (2) immediate irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted; (3) the balance of the hardships to the parties weighs in its favor; and (4) the public interest is best served by granting the injunctive relief."

There's a definite possibility that the single patent that Apple is asserting (every other claim is design related) will be either invalid or not infringed, so that's why Apple couldn't get an injunction on the Tab. It was not because Samsung could afford to pay damages later.

Of course courts have denied a preliminary injunction because of a posted bond or some evidence assuring that damages can be paid if later required, mitigating the emergency in a specific case. That's no where near the same your claim that if a defendant can pay damages later that there will be no injunction ordered. That's just plain ridiculous. By your argument Apple is plainly foolish for requesting preliminary injunctions on well-heeled competitors since they wouldn't be granted anyway. I don't consider Apple that stupid.
http://www.crn.com/news/cloud/229000...2SQ**.ecappj03
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p.../12-15doj.mspx
http://news.cnet.com/HP-hit-with-pre..._3-228237.html

Which one of these guys wouldn't be able to pay damages?

No, I don't think her decision was wrong. Apple apparently didn't prove that they'd suffer irreparable harm - which is one of the requirements to get an injunction. Since they didn't prove irreparable harm (as affirmed by the appeals court), the injunction wasn't justified.

Apple hurt themselves with their own documents that said that they weren't going to lose iPhone sales to Samsung. With that in evidence, it was pretty hard for Apple to claim irreparable harm (or any harm at all, for that matter).

Her wording, at least, implied that they would suffer irreparable harm, but that an injunction wouldn't prevent it.

Why do Asians consider national origins so highly?

It helps to read the decision - or at least a summary of it:

http://designpatentattorney.com/my-sample-post/
"For all patents, Koh denied the motion finding that Apple failed to establish it would suffer irreparable harm if Samsung were not immediately enjoined. Apples irreparable harm argument asserted that the entrance of Samsungs infringing phones/tablets into the market would erode Apples design distinctiveness. Apple also argued that it would likely lose market share as a result of Samsungs infringing products along with ancillary sales from applications and accessories. Apple has now appealed this holding arguing that Koh abused her discretion in failing to recognize this alleged harm. "

Koh ruled very clearly that Apple would not suffer irreparable harm. The appeals court decision affirmed that.

So, were these not actually Judge Koh's words?


It would be comforting to discover that she was misquoted because the above seems like gibberish. Perhaps it's taken so out of context that it appears not to make sense, but, on its own, it doesn't seem to follow any rules of logic, or even rationality.

I recall quite clearly Mr. Jobs demonstrating snapback in the January 2007 keynote.
It's a distinguishing feature of iOS.

Not for long. Apple is/will soon sue them, too.

What she said is that:
1. Apple failed to show any damage.

2. (in the part you quoted): EVEN IF Apple were able to show damages, it is not clear that Apple would be irreparably harmed.

The two statements are not inconsistent.

That's not what the part quoted says. It says an injunction would not prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed, then, it goes on to say that an injunction would benefit others, which seems irrelevant. Maybe she just can't write clearly, but that's not really a good quality in a federal judge, and not writing clearly often indicates an inability to think clearly.

I'm left with the impression that she doesn't really know what she's doing, and the fact that someone needs to "explain what she meant" isn't really reassuring.

That's what happens when you take one quote out of context and don't understand the way legal discussions are handled. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what she wrote or how she wrote it.

As I showed above, she stated that Apple had failed to show any damages. Since the appeals court addressed that topic directly (and concurred with the trial judge), that was an important part of the decision.

Legal arguments often have a cascade of arguments. They will say something like:
1. We believe xyz.
2. Even if xyz is false, we believe we should win because of abc.
3. Even if argument 2 fails, we believe we should win because of lmn.
4. And so on

It is very common for a legal argument to do what Judge Koh did. Her decision stated that Apple had failed to show damages. Then she further stated that EVEN IF Apple were able to show damages, that there would not be irreparable harm (because Samsung could afford to pay any potential damages - see the arguments above). She then further stated that if she granted an injunction, it would be the competitors who benefited, not Apple (which is a completely non-sequitor argument and is really more of a throw-away that doesn't affect the decision).

That still isn't what the sentence she wrote says, there was no "even" and that isn't at all what the sentence implies. And, if the writing of a federal judge requires that much explanation to spin it to "what she really meant", said judge needs to take remedial writing classes. I find it very disturbing that a federal judge would write in such a sloppy manner.

I find it even more disturbing that you're attacking a respected judge on the basis of a single sentence that you've taken out of context.

Get a law school degree so you understand how legal documents are written, then read the ENTIRE decree (not just one or two sentences cited by a blogger) and see if it makes sense.

The appeals court obviously thought it made sense since they affirmed it.

One doesn't need a law degree to recognize poorly written English. Maybe the appeals court didn't understand what they were reading either.

Fanboy battles throughout the ages

Nintendo Vs Sega....about the GAMES
Mac Vs PC.....about the OS
WRX Vs Evo......about the CARS


iphone Vs Galaxy....about the LAWSUITS


my my, how times have changed for the worse

Oh your talking about the PDMI standard that was created by the CEA. Nothing to do with Samsung other then they licensed the port connector. A port connector now used by pretty much everyone now. Oh and Apple bought out then hired the guy who invented the 30 pin connector for their first generation iPods. Yes, yes everyone copys Apple please excuse me.

Yes, I'm sure that your reading of one sentence is far more valid than an experience judge's reading of the entire opinion.

They understood perfectly, it was a waste of time and money. I'm happy to see these lawsuits thrown out, next step Motorolas lawsuit against Apple. I hope that falls just as flat as this one, enough is enough. Keep it up judges, these corporations need to handle these problems themselves.

Well, that sentence doesn't say what you keep saying it does, so there's no reason I would accept your interpretation of the opinion. However, I doubt very much that the appeals court based their decision on a single sentence, and it seems at odds with the opinion as a whole. But one really does have to wonder about our legal process and the people in charge of it when you see that sort of sloppy writing -- and one's writing mirrors one's thought -- along with the introduction of entirely irrelevant topics -- more muddled thought -- in even one sentence of an opinion issued by a federal judge. As a citizen, it concerns me, and it ought to concern everyone.

Yes, I'm sure that you know more about it than the judge and the appeals judge.

You can engage in schoolyard taunts, but you're still wrong about what that sentence said.

Except it isn't a PDMI connector. It is Samsung's own proprietary connector based on the PDMI standard. Just like Apple.

Android circa 2005 (it is an emulated/rendered device as no device existed at that time but the OS looked like that)


Apple Newton MessagePad (2003)

The newton came out well before then. Palm and Handspring (eventually taken over by Palm) had UI elements that were similar. Those came out in 1997 for Palm. Handspring was 1997 or 1998.







Keep in mind that the original scrapped iphone concept was also something based on a Motorola design. I'm not trying to devalue Apple's accomplishments. They used their success with the ipods and the comeback seen in the Mac line to fund IOS development and the iphone. The combination of acquisitions and in house development was obviously intense. I just think people need to lay off the kool-aid a bit, especially in terms of grumbling over why an injunction wasn't granted.

First, you can only be thinking of this, which owes something to the iPod

http://direct.motorola.com/hellomoto/rokr/

but, no, there is none of the ROKR's DNA in the iPhone.

As for your other points, well, you don't have any that are actually relevant to your koolaid comment, but the bit about how Apple's other successes funded iPhone development seems particularly bizarre in this context. I don't think we're the ones who need to lay off something.

In the opinion of someone who thinks he knows more about it than the trial judge and the appeals court.

Sorry, but your opinion isn't something that I care about.

Apparently you don't care about the rules of English syntax and semantics, either.

Your lack of a rational, intelligent argument is noted.