or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple posts $2.6M bond to block sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple posts $2.6M bond to block sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1

post #1 of 69
Thread Starter 
Almost immediately after the company won an injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, Apple posted the necessary $2.6 million bond to block sales of the iPad competitor in the U.S.

Apple's posting of the bond means that the injunction has taken effect and Samsung must cease stateside sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, or the company could be sanctioned for contempt, according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents.

The $2.6 million bond posted by Apple is necessary to protect Samsung in the event that the Korean electronics maker appeals the injunction and succeeds. If the current injunction is found to have been improperly granted, Samsung could be awarded that money to compensate for any losses.

Apple was granted the injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 on Tuesday by U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh. In her ruling, she said that Samsung "does not have a right to compete unfairly by flooding the market with infringing products."

In response to Koh's ruling, Samsung has already filed a motion to stay the injunction pending its own forthcoming appeal. As noted by Mueller, Samsung's motion to stay asserts that the company's appeal is likely to succeed, as Samsung feels the court "erred by issuing a preliminary injunction based on a stale and incomplete record."

Galaxy Tab 10.1


The injunction comes a month before Apple and Samsung are set to square off in court, with their patent infringement lawsuits scheduled to go to trial in late July. Ahead of that trial, Apple has also succeeded in having portions of Samsung's expert reports excluded from the case.

In fact, Mueller said that Apple won that showdown with Samsung "by an extraordinarily wide margin," as the iPhone maker had many portions of Samsung's expert reports excluded and defeated most of Samsung's motions. However, Samsung's own motions against Apple's expert reports "were much less successful."

"Apple goes into this summer's trial with a fundamentally stronger case than Samsung," Mueller said. "That belief is mostly based on the strength of the asserted intellectual property rights and the fact that Samsung mostly relies on FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents. Both parties have great lawyers, but no lawyer can change the fact that Samsung is in a strategically weaker position here."
post #2 of 69
Afraid of a little competition.
post #3 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narcosis View Post

Afraid of a little competition.

 

Yep. SameSung can't manage to make something that will sell without copying apple so much that their own lawyers can't tell the two apart at a mere 10 feet away. So they have to play these scared tactics. 

 

Apple on the other hand is doing as the laws demand and defining their IP. Something even Samesung does all the time, even when they should back down a little because they put the IP into FRAND status and were possibly demanding terms out of those rules. 

 

As many have said the 10.1 is going end of life anyway to be replaced by a model that isn't in this suit. So really there's little financial harm to be had for Samsung which is likely why the bond is so low. The real value here is the hope that the courts will invalidate the design patent. Because if the courts don't then Apple is likely to file against the newer Tab model as well and it will be a lot harder to win that case unless it is radically different than the one currently under exam (and from what I hear it isn't) if Apple wins this case and the patent is affirmed

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 #4 of 69
This will make the Samsung GalaxyTab a household name. This could backfire. The public won't know that this is nothing but a shameful copycat by corrupt Samsung, they will assume Apple is being anticompetitive.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #5 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

This will make the Samsung GalaxyTab a household name. This could backfire. The public won't know that this is nothing but a shameful copycat by corrupt Samsung, they will assume Apple is being anticompetitive.

 

No it won't. No one cares about this crap.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #6 of 69
So did Tim Cook dig down behind the seat cushions in his office to come up with the $2.6 million?
post #7 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narcosis View Post

Afraid of a little competition.

Hey, I didn't study last night, but I know you did, so I copied your answers on the test.
What's the matter? Afraid of a little competition?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #8 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narcosis View Post

Afraid of a little competition.

Except it isn't. No Android tablet currently on the market is even remotely competitive with the iPad. 

 

But that isn't the point. The point is that Apple feels their IP is being misappropriated. And there most certainly *is* the potential for harm here. Even if Samsung barely sells any of these tablets, the *next* Android tablet that comes along which might actually be competitive will simply continue the "let's *borrow* from Apple" trend that Samsung started. 

 

Apple *must* make an example of someone early on. And if they do it to the big boys like Samsung, then all the other small fry will be less willing to take that risk. 

post #9 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

This will make the Samsung GalaxyTab a household name. This could backfire. The public won't know that this is nothing but a shameful copycat by corrupt Samsung, they will assume Apple is being anticompetitive.

 

The public doesn't even know this stuff is going on. They hardly care about tech-company litigation. 

 

Apple's been tying all these companies up in court for, what, almost two years now. Has it backfired in terms of public reaction?  Nope.

 

LOL Samsung is already a household name, as faceless Asian tech companies go. They make TVs and some other electronics. That are virtually indistinguishable from the other faceless Asian tech companies that do the same thing. 

post #10 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Except it isn't. No Android tablet currently on the market is even remotely competitive with the iPad. 

But that isn't the point. The point is that Apple feels their IP is being misappropriated. And there most certainly *is* the potential for harm here. Even if Samsung barely sells any of these tablets, the *next* Android tablet that comes along which might actually be competitive will simply continue the "let's *borrow* from Apple" trend that Samsung started. 

Apple *must* make an example of someone early on. And if they do it to the big boys like Samsung, then all the other small fry will be less willing to take that risk. 

The Apple haters seem to miss that part of it. Apple's not concerned about the relatively small amount of money involved. A $2.6 M bond doesn't even rise to the level of chump change for them. They're also not focused on the specific legal battles. While people are running around in circles trying to follow all the legal battles in detail and define a 'winner', Apple's objective is to make competitors stop copying. If they can do that, then whether they won or lost any specific court battle is irrelevant.

And if you look at the Galaxy SIII, Apple may be winning that important battle. Samsung's newest phone finally doesn't look like as close a copy of the iPhone as they thought they could get away with. That means two things:
1. If it's the start of a trend, then Apple won the war - putting a stop to everyone making slavish copies.
2. It thoroughly debunks the mantra of the Apple haters: "there's only one way to make a phone and a phone MUST look like an iPhone if it's to work, so the design shouldn't be protected." Clearly, the fact that Samsung has managed to make a new model phone that isn't a slavish copy demonstrates that it's possible to give your phone a unique appearance without giving up all of its unique characteristics.
"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 #11 of 69
Quote:
The $2.6 million bond posted by Apple is necessary to protect Samsung in the event that the Korean electronics maker appeals the injunction and succeeds.

So Apple temporarily gets one device off the sales shelves of one country and with a small bond, it's obvious that Samsung will be minimally impacted. Essentially it's another pyrrhic victory and the weakness of Apple's overall legal strategy continues to be exposed - the Android juggernaut continues unabated.
post #12 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


Hey, I didn't study last night, but I know you did, so I copied your answers on the test.
What's the matter? Afraid of a little competition?

 

And, OBTW, now that we got the same score on the test... I pulled the curve up and you got a B instead of an A.   

post #13 of 69

I hope this sticks. I remember Samsung coming out with some tag line along "The device Apple tried to block". Everything after this is going to be "The device we tried to copy but were found guilty of illegally copying". I can't wait to beat down the trolls.

post #14 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post


So Apple temporarily gets one device off the sales shelves of one country and with a small bond, it's obvious that Samsung will be minimally impacted. Essentially it's another pyrrhic victory and the weakness of Apple's overall legal strategy continues to be exposed - the Android juggernaut continues unabated.

 

Apple isn't necessarily looking for big wins or even far-reaching injunctions. 

 

The *very act* of Apple tying up a major player in tech over (alleged) IP misappropriation sends a message to everyone else, especially the smaller players who can't afford to throw money at lawyers. 

 

It isn't a "weak" legal strategy, since Apple loses nothing (aside from pocket change), but gains a great deal in terms of what they communicate to competitors, current infringers and prospective infringers. It's a long-term strategy whose effects are only truly felt over time, especially in terms of what competitors choose *not to do*, or what they feel discouraged from doing. 

post #15 of 69
The purpose of the bond is to make Samsung whole if it were to prevail on the merits of the underlying action for infringement.

Put simply, all that Samsung could show the Court in potential lost profit from the Injunction was a pittance: $2.6 Meg. The measure of Samsung's damages is the bond and nothing more.

The, very low, bond certainly indicates that the Court had clear and convincing proof that this knockoff: (a) doesn't have a chance of winning the underlying case; and, (b) that Samsung's potential lost profits are a small fraction of its attorney's fees prosecuting this case.

In short: stick a fork in that knockoff, it's done!
post #16 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post


So Apple temporarily gets one device off the sales shelves of one country and with a small bond, it's obvious that Samsung will be minimally impacted. Essentially it's another pyrrhic victory and the weakness of Apple's overall legal strategy continues to be exposed - the Android juggernaut continues unabated.

It would be pyrrhic if it were Elbonia... but the U.S.  and a 2 possibly longer stay?  As a stockholder, the victory is solid, and the strategy is sound.  If we spend the money to protect our investement's IP, then use it until that IP is superceded with a new IP.

 

yes, their strategy is exposed... we make stuff, we got patent protections on stuff... you copy it, you can't sell it without our approval... and we don't approve (unlike how the 'old PC' market was set up with licencing and royalties...  and the courtrooms were just negotiation tactics to lower the per unit costs)

 

Eventually Cheap will overrun the tablet market, I agree.  It's the nature of the advancement.   Apple just wants to earn their 'better mousetrap' dollars today, to invest in something completely different tomorrow.   

post #17 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narcosis View Post

Afraid of a little competition.

Drive-by troll posters coming out!
post #18 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bought_it@AAPL View Post

The purpose of the bond is to make Samsung whole if it were to prevail on the merits of the underlying action for infringement.
Put simply, all that Samsung could show the Court in potential lost profit from the Injunction was a pittance: $2.6 Meg. The measure of Samsung's damages is the bond and nothing more.

True, but the chances of that are very, very slim. The appeals court already looked at this one and basically told Koh "you have one more chance to file an injunction and if you don't, we will".

There's no way Samsung is going to win this one in the end.
"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 #19 of 69

This $2.6 mil bond should cover sales of this tablet for between six months and a year...

post #20 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


True, but the chances of that are very, very slim. The appeals court already looked at this one and basically told Koh "you have one more chance to file an injunction and if you don't, we will".

No they didn't. One judge out of the three felt an immediate injunction was warranted. I gave you a link several posts back to the written decision remanding it and the reason behind it. You should read it.

 

In fact it's because of her hasty decision granting the injunction despite Samsung's request to submit more recent evidence in support of their arguments that they may be successful in having it overturned on appeal for now.


Edited by Gatorguy - 6/28/12 at 9:30am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #21 of 69

I use both Apple and Samsung products, but some of these comments are way too bias toward how great Apple products are.

 

Blocking someone because their product looks like a glossy rectangle is quite ridiculous and has nothing to do with patent infringement. 

Its Apple's way of using some of their pyramids of cash to strangle their competition or slow them down. Apple has sued everyone!

 

Samsung, ASUS, Google, HTC, Motorola, etc will eventually topple Apple together.  Apple's one ace they had was touchscreen technology and an OS with gestures, but that was years ago. Now everything has gestures, touch screens and gyroscopes. The comments about iPad being superior in specs is wrong. Even the Nexus 7 tablet released yesterday has better specs

than the iPad 3 or even 4. Guess what the price is....$199    :o   So if you enjoy being a brand zombie and paying 30-50% more for a product that has older specs, go for it...

 

Apple has definitely reached its peak, unless they can pull off something as great as a computer to brain interface.

post #22 of 69
Quote:
If Apple wins this case, they will be releasing the thermo-nuclear warheads on all the Android device makers.

So Apple will drop the fly-swatter and pull out the LGM-30G Minuteman-IIIs. Reminds me of the MAD Doctrine.
post #23 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

 

This court case may seem like small potatoes but Apple is just stretching up for the big game. If they win this, it sets precedent to go after all the other models. It's a smart play by Apple because going after the Tab 10.1 only costs them $2.6 million in bond. If they went after a new popular model like the GSIII, they probably would have to pay a $100 million bond. If Apple wins this case, they will be releasing the thermo-nuclear warheads on all the Android device makers.

This design patent used to secure the Tab injunction has nothing to do with smartphones and can't be used against those. Apple had argued the utility patent claims apply to the smartphones and thus warranted an immediate injunction. Judge Koh disagreed and the same Appeals Court that sent the Tab decision back affirmed her reasoning on all the utility patents. There won't be an immediate injunction on those.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

The public doesn't even know this stuff is going on. They hardly care about tech-company litigation. 

 

Apple's been tying all these companies up in court for, what, almost two years now. Has it backfired in terms of public reaction?  Nope.

 

LOL Samsung is already a household name, as faceless Asian tech companies go. They make TVs and some other electronics. That are virtually indistinguishable from the other faceless Asian tech companies that do the same thing. 

 

Wrong in part.  Samsung is actually quite distinguishable from the others:  They're winning the East Asian electronics sweepstakes across many fronts, "get" marketing, and are beginning to have the brand cachet Sony once had, but began surrendering back in the '80's in a series of both small and spectacular missteps.  Samsung's growth is also part of a pattern of South Korea's industries' coming of age and becoming at least competitive in quality and design with Japanese companies while beating them on price - Hyundai is the other signal example of this.  

 

Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, China and others have all followed distinct strategies here.  Taiwan's companies and the lower tier Japanese companies, in fact, have more followed the churn out tons of "we sell that too" product (not without some design distinctions, but nothing iconic and world-beating), while China more resembles the earlier days of post WWII Japan - starting off making all kinds of cheap junk, then working up to manufacturing parts, then subassemblies and now assembly of products for foreign makers (e.g., Foxconn for Apple), but with few brands of their own with a world-wide presence. Yet.

Lenovo is arguably one such Chinese brand - but while it's large, influential and executes, it got its critical leg up by taking on IBM's notepad (ThinkPad) business, i.e., in that purchase, inherited the tech and whatever panache existed from the original "IBM PC-compatible" maker and have generally run very well with it - especially in marketing to the business world - placing them ahead of Dell and behind only HP in the PC market - even if they're not "hot" among the developed world's individual consumers.  

 

But do keep your eyes on China.  Foxconn and others have learned a great deal manufacturing the guts of the world's electronics - and won't likely be content to be sub-contractors forever.

 

And don't think of Asian companies - or Asia - as some undifferentiated mass that's not relevant to where the world - let alone our prized digital gadgets - is going.

Footnote:  Look at how long the word "pad" has been associated with leading edge mobile computing (and see below - way pre-computing) tech!  

 

 

Quote:

The name "ThinkPad" is a product of IBM's corporate history and culture. Thomas J. Watson, Sr, had first introduced "THINK" as an IBM slogan in the 1920s. For decades IBM distributed small notepads with the word "THINK" emblazoned on a brown leatherette cover to customers and employees.[3] The name ThinkPad was suggested by IBM employee Denny Wainwright, who had a "THINK" notepad in his pocket.[4][5] The name faced disagreements from the IBM corporate naming committee because the nomenclature system for the IBM computers was then numerical; however, the brand name "ThinkPad" was kept as the press showed appreciation for the title.[6]

[edit]Early models

The first three ThinkPad models introduced were the 700, 700C, and 700T, which debuted in October 1992

 

And in 2008, Lenovo introduced their own IdeaPad line.  Just a "DEA" away from......  ....well, you know.....

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #25 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinjitsu View Post

I use both Apple and Samsung products

No, you don't.
Quote:
but some of these comments are way too bias toward how great Apple products are.

Praise for Apple products on an Apple fan site? Holy crap, that's the discovery of the century.
Quote:
Blocking someone because their product looks like a glossy rectangle is quite ridiculous and has nothing to do with patent infringement. 

Fortunately, that's not what's happening.
Quote:
Its Apple's way of using some of their pyramids of cash to strangle their competition or slow them down. Apple has sued everyone!

They haven't sued farmers, auto manufacturers, doctors…
Quote:
Samsung, ASUS, Google, HTC, Motorola, etc will eventually topple Apple together.

BA HA HA!
Quote:
Apple's one ace they had was touchscreen technology and an OS with gestures, but that was years ago.

Wow, that's wrong. … WOW, that's wrong…
Quote:
Even the Nexus 7 tablet released yesterday has better specs than the iPad 3 or even 4.

Man, you trolls sure are stupid. And I can absolutely say that, as you ARE nothing but an anti-Apple troll who came here to make one post.

Better specs than the iPad 3?

375

And don't even get me started on how you think you can know what's in the next iPad.
Quote:
Guess what the price is....$199

I'm waiting for this to be profound in some way. I think you mean for something to click inside me, like a realization or something, but it's just not coming.
Quote:
:o

Sorry, still nothing.

So if you enjoy being a brand zombie and paying 30-50% more for a product that has older specs, go for it…
Quote:
Apple has definitely reached its peak

So you're ignoring the mile-long line of dump trucks heading up to the peak to make it taller, then.
Quote:
…unless they can pull off something as great as a computer to brain interface.

You realize that's another 30 years away, right?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #26 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

 

Wrong in part.  Samsung is actually quite distinguishable from the others:  They're winning the East Asian electronics sweepstakes across many fronts, "get" marketing, and are beginning to have the brand cachet Sony once had, but began surrendering back in the '80's in a series of both small and spectacular missteps.  Samsung's growth is also part of a pattern of South Korea's industries' coming of age and becoming at least competitive in quality and design with Japanese companies while beating them on price - Hyundai is the other signal example of this.  

 

Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, China and others have all followed distinct strategies here.  Taiwan's companies and the lower tier Japanese companies, in fact, have more followed the churn out tons of "we sell that too" product (not without some design distinctions, but nothing iconic and world-beating), while China more resembles the earlier days of post WWII Japan - starting off making all kinds of cheap junk, then working up to manufacturing parts, then subassemblies and now assembly of products for foreign makers (e.g., Foxconn for Apple), but with few brands of their own with a world-wide presence. Yet.

Lenovo is arguably one such Chinese brand - but while it's large, influential and executes, it got its critical leg up by taking on IBM's notepad (ThinkPad) business, i.e., in that purchase, inherited the tech and whatever panache existed from the original "IBM PC-compatible" maker and have generally run very well with it - especially in marketing to the business world - placing them ahead of Dell and behind only HP in the PC market - even if they're not "hot" among the developed world's individual consumers.  

 

But do keep your eyes on China.  Foxconn and others have learned a great deal manufacturing the guts of the world's electronics - and won't likely be content to be sub-contractors forever.

 

And don't think of Asian companies - or Asia - as some undifferentiated mass that's not relevant to where the world - let alone our prized digital gadgets - is going.
 

 

As a Joe Lunchbox user, I can't tell. 

 

Sony is Lenovo is Samsung is Toshiba is LG . . . .

 

These products have no culture. Nor does it help when they're running some hodge-podge, universally-licensed OS.   

post #27 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Except it isn't. No Android tablet currently on the market is even remotely competitive with the iPad. 

But that isn't the point. The point is that Apple feels their IP is being misappropriated. And there most certainly *is* the potential for harm here. Even if Samsung barely sells any of these tablets, the *next* Android tablet that comes along which might actually be competitive will simply continue the "let's *borrow* from Apple" trend that Samsung started. 

Apple *must* make an example of someone early on. And if they do it to the big boys like Samsung, then all the other small fry will be less willing to take that risk. 

+1 Well written, but one product being competitive against another is exactly the point of preliminary injunctions. Winning an injunction almost a year later and on a product that's already been replaced by another model isn't that impressive and nothing to brag about. Whatever damage Apple tried to stop has already been done. I'd wait to gloat if and when Apple wins the patents case and Samsung is ordered to pay damages.
"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 #28 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

Apple isn't necessarily looking for big wins or even far-reaching injunctions. 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you square that with the announced strategy of Global Thermonuclear War?  It seems to me that what you say is VERY different from what Apple says.

 

Personally, I believe that Apple knows its strategy better than you know Apple's strategy.

post #29 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bought_it@AAPL View Post



The, very low, bond certainly indicates ... that Samsung's potential lost profits are a small fraction of its attorney's fees prosecuting this case.
 

 

 

Given that Samsung no longer sells the enjoined product, I beleive that you are correct.

post #30 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

 

But do keep your eyes on China.

 

Got that part right.  Only not quite in the sense you meant.

 

Thieving little darlings have just nicked over $2 Billion worth of Samsung and LG's large OLED panel production secrets.

 

ww.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/06/117_113978.html

post #31 of 69

You steal, you get sued. It's that simple.

 

Don't want to get sued? Don't steal.

post #32 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinjitsu View Post

I use both Apple and Samsung products, but some of these comments are way too bias toward how great Apple products are.

 

Blocking someone because their product looks like a glossy rectangle is quite ridiculous and has nothing to do with patent infringement. 

Its Apple's way of using some of their pyramids of cash to strangle their competition or slow them down. Apple has sued everyone!

 

 

Especially when Samsung had a design that looked just like it prior to the iPad.

 

samsung-ipad-photo-frame.jpeg

post #33 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

So did Tim Cook dig down behind the seat cushions in his office to come up with the $2.6 million?


Straight out of his wallet

post #34 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

 

How do you square that with the announced strategy of Global Thermonuclear War?  It seems to me that what you say is VERY different from what Apple says.

 

Personally, I believe that Apple knows its strategy better than you know Apple's strategy.


"announced strategy of Global Thermonuclear War"?

 

A quotation from a poorly written biography is hardly an announced strategy.

post #35 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

Another reason for the minimal impact is that the enjoined product is no longer in production.  It is obsolete.  It has been replaced.  It doesn't matter one whit to Samsung.

Apparently, it does - since Samsung has started producing products that are not slavish copies of Apple products. They learned their lesson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

Cue to JRAGOSTA:   This is where you claim that the Galaxy Tab 2 will be easily and quickly enjoined, without providing any support for the contention.

Note that I never said any such thing. But, then, honesty was never your strong point.

I said it was EASIER to get an injunction on new variations of a product that was already enjoined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No they didn't. One judge out of the three felt an immediate injunction was warranted. I gave you a link several posts back to the written decision remanding it and the reason behind it. You should read it.

And the other two judges thought that Koh's decision NOT to grant an injunction was wrong. Which is why they overturned her decision not to grant an injunction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In fact it's because of her hasty decision granting the injunction despite Samsung's request to submit more recent evidence in support of their arguments that they may be successful in having it overturned on appeal for now.

ROTFLMAO.

You've managed to reverse it entirely. Her first decision was hasty - and the appeals court overturned it. After evaluating what the appeals court said, she granted the injunction. So the more considered decision was to grant the injunction.

I would love to see your evidence that Samsung is going to get the injunction overturned. The appeals court already ruled on the matter.

Oh, and btw, I notice that both of you are still ignoring the fact that for months, you crowed about how Apple wasn't able to get an injunction while I was stating that Koh's ruling would be overturned and she would have to grant an injunction in the end. As usual, you were wrong and I was right.
"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 #36 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Apparently, it does - since Samsung has started producing products that are not slavish copies of Apple products. They learned their lesson.
Note that I never said any such thing. But, then, honesty was never your strong point.
I said it was EASIER to get an injunction on new variations of a product that was already enjoined.
And the other two judges thought that Koh's decision NOT to grant an injunction was wrong. Which is why they overturned her decision not to grant an injunction.
ROTFLMAO.
You've managed to reverse it entirely. Her first decision was hasty - and the appeals court overturned it. After evaluating what the appeals court said, she granted the injunction. So the more considered decision was to grant the injunction.
I would love to see your evidence that Samsung is going to get the injunction overturned. The appeals court already ruled on the matter.
Oh, and btw, I notice that both of you are still ignoring the fact that for months, you crowed about how Apple wasn't able to get an injunction while I was stating that Koh's ruling would be overturned and she would have to grant an injunction in the end. As usual, you were wrong and I was right.

Be honest now...is slavish your favourite word?

post #37 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Almost immediately after the company won an injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, Apple posted the necessary $2.6 million bond to block sales of the iPad competitor in the U.S.
Apple's posting of the bond means that the injunction has taken effect and Samsung must cease stateside sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, or the company could be sanctioned for contempt, according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents.
The $2.6 million bond posted by Apple is necessary to protect Samsung in the event that the Korean electronics maker appeals the injunction and succeeds. If the current injunction is found to have been improperly granted, Samsung could be awarded that money to compensate for any losses.
..."
Emphasys added.

Pardon me. That statement about the bond posted in a grant of preliminary injunctive relief is almost entirely wrong.

The extrodinary remedy of a preliminary injunction, in the instant case, is made where Apple has shown all of the equitable elements necessary - and, it is based upon the underlying infringement action. There is no appeal process available that targets the preliminary injunction. Samsung must prevail on the infringement suit to dissolve that preliminary injunction. Moreover, the bond is the measure of Samsung's damages and that is all that Samsung will receive (assuming that they prevail on the underlying action) for losses arising out of the application of the injunctive relief.

I realize that extrodinary remedies are quite complex for the layperson and the error, while eggregrious, is understandable where the author is not legally trained.
post #38 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

It's a smart play by Apple because going after the Tab 10.1 only costs them $2.6 million in bond. If they went after a new popular model like the GSIII, they probably would have to pay a $100 million bond.
Keep in mind that the bond is posted in case it is overturned. If the injunction is upheld, Apple gets that money back so it's not costing them anything
post #39 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinjitsu View Post

I use both Apple and Samsung products, but some of these comments are way too bias toward how great Apple products are.

 

Blocking someone because their product looks like a glossy rectangle is quite ridiculous and has nothing to do with patent infringement...

Good, it also has nothing at all to do with this case.  Maybe you should stop parroting Apple Hater talking points and look into the case a bit.

post #40 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
You've managed to reverse it entirely. Her first decision was hasty - and the appeals court overturned it. After evaluating what the appeals court said, she granted the injunction. So the more considered decision was to grant the injunction.
I would love to see your evidence that Samsung is going to get the injunction overturned. The appeals court already ruled on the matter.
Oh, and btw, I notice that both of you are still ignoring the fact that for months, you crowed about how Apple wasn't able to get an injunction while I was stating that Koh's ruling would be overturned and she would have to grant an injunction in the end. As usual, you were wrong and I was right.

I'm more convinced than ever that at least this particular set of issues is beyond your ability to comprehend. I gave you a link to the reasoning and the suggested action from the Appeals Court. Either you didn't read it of you don't understand what your read. They did not remand to have an injunction ordered. The majority opinion was that another equitable analysis was in order before an injunction should be granted on only the design patent claims against the Tab.  She did not do that, denying Samsung's request to submit new evidence that had not yet been considered before granting the injunction. That gives Samsung a valid claim that the injunction should not yet have been orderd Thus the Samsung appeal and a possible stay granted by the Appeals Court panel pending further hearings on the matter.

 

Here's Florian Mueller comments on the Samsung request for a stay:

 

"I don't want to overstate the merits of Samsung's appeal and its request for a stay. It's going to be difficult for Samsung at this stage. But I reiterate my belief that Samsung's arguments aren't entirely implausible. Just like I wrote yesterday, Samsung also notes that the CAFC actually wanted Judge Koh to perform another equitable analysis, but her order instead relied on the opinion of Circuit Judge O'Malley. It's possible that none of Samsung's "new" arguments have merit and that none of its new proposed pieces of evidence makes a difference. But if there's only one item that should have been and wasn't considered, then Judge Koh's decision to grant a preliminary injunction is less than waterproof. Since Judge O'Malley's position (that there was no need for a new equitable analysis as the record was supposedly clear) wasn't adopted by the majority of the CAFC, it can't necessarily be relied on. The safer alternative would have been to set a tight schedule and let Samsung produce its new evidence, to hear the parties, and to perform a new equitable analysis based on the latest record.

 

Now Jr, go make believe you understand some other subject,  or perhaps find a something written by some random internet guy in some unknown forum as proof you were right all along.  You've done so before. That's all you'll find because. . .

You're wrong. 


Edited by Gatorguy - 6/28/12 at 3:18pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple posts $2.6M bond to block sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1