or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Federal court denies Samsung motion to stay Galaxy Tab injunction, grants Nexus stay [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Federal court denies Samsung motion to stay Galaxy Tab injunction, grants Nexus stay [u]

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday denied Samsung's request for the immediate stay of an Apple-won injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 pending judgement of district and federal court appeals while an identical motion for the Galaxy Nexus remains up in the air.

Update: Samsung has won a temporary stay on the Galaxy Nexus smartphone that will remain in effect until at least next week, reports Bloomberg, meaning that sales of the device can resume until Apple responds to the Federal Appeals Court motion on July 12.

Apple won temporary U.S. injunctions against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet and Galaxy Nexus smartphone last week and the South Korean company has yet to find any success in staying the rulings ahead of the lucrative back-to-school season.

In its latest attempt to keep the devices on shelves Samsung requested that the CAFC stay both injunctions, reports FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, and asked the Federal Circuit for immediate stays ahead of a decision on a stay pending appeal. The court's Motions Panel denied the immediate stay request for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 without further comment but did not offer a ruling on the Galaxy Nexus.

Samsung Appeal
Ruling denying Samsung's request for an immediate stay of the Galaxy Tab injunction. | Source: FOSS Patents


Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California, who first instituted both injunctions, denied Samsung's request to stay pending appeal on Monday for the Galaxy Tab and followed up that ruling with a denial for a stay on the Galaxy Nexus injunction on Tuesday.

Apple has been ordered to respond to the federal motions to stay by July 12 at 12 p.m. Eastern for the Galaxy Tab and the 5 p.m. for the Nexus.
post #2 of 33

As stated in the original article the justices gave no reason for denying the immediate stay on the Tab, but FOSSPatents guess was that there was no immediate danger to Samsung since the product was for all intents already discontinued anyway. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #3 of 33

Samsung got Samsunged.

 

LMAO... karma's a bitch. There is a price for copying.

post #4 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

As stated in the original article the justices gave no reason for denying the immediate stay on the Tab, but FOSSPatents guess was that there was no immediate danger to Samsung since the product was for all intents already discontinued anyway. 

Or, just as likely, the Appeals court didn't think Samsung had a chance to prevail since they had already essentially told Koh to issue the injunction. They haven't yet seen the Nexus complaint, so they obviously need some information.
"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 #5 of 33

What a crappy decision!

 

Competition is what drives companies to perfect their products and to make them affordable. While I really appreciate the quality of Apple devices and have bought a few throughout my lifetime, I hate to see them trying to stop any other company from competing against them simply because the product looks like one of theirs.

post #6 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by enrigonz View Post

What a crappy decision!

Competition is what drives companies to perfect their products and to make them affordable. While I really appreciate the quality of Apple devices and have bought a few throughout my lifetime, I hate to see them trying to stop any other company from competing against them simply because the product looks like one of theirs.

It would be easier if you'd just put a big note on your forehead that says "I don't know anything about intellectual property or innovation". You should also simply add that to all of your posts. It would save everyone a lot of time.
"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 #7 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Or, just as likely, the Appeals court didn't think Samsung had a chance to prevail since they had already essentially told Koh to issue the injunction. They haven't yet seen the Nexus complaint, so they obviously need some information.

They didn't tell Koh to issue an injunction no matter how many times you repeat it. They told her that using prior art for some particular tablet whose-name-escapes-me as a reason to deny the injunction request on the Tab was flawed. It was sent back for reconsideration. If she had no other reason to deny the injunction then the Appeals Court saw no reason for it to be denied. With that said they upheld her reasons for not allowing the Apple injunction request on the Galaxy handsets that are part of that particular case.

 

And of course they saw the Nexus complaint, and the ruling and explanation supporting it from Judge Koh. They've given Apple a chance to respond to the issues that Samsung has raised with  her findings, which Apple must do by the 12th to have their reply considered.

 

If you insist that you are absolutely correct that the Appeals Court ordered her to issue an injunction on the Galaxy Tab (or if she didn't they would  according to one of your other posts) please quote the part of the Appeals Court remand ruling that says that. I'll gladly admit that you're right and thank you for educating me. I love learning something new at every chance I get and man enough to admit when I'm wrong.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


It would be easier if you'd just put a big note on your forehead that says "I don't know anything about intellectual property or innovation". You should also simply add that to all of your posts. It would save everyone a lot of time.

Okay, elaborate, in detail as the specifics of the 4 patents that are being fought over since we laymen don't seem to have a clue.

post #9 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Okay, elaborate, in detail as the specifics of the 4 patents that are being fought over since we laymen don't seem to have a clue.

I don't believe he knows himself, which is why it's a shame he feels the need to constantly belittle others.

 

If you requested me to do that, I'd say it's already been covered by sites from FOSSPatents, to ArsTechnica to even Engadget IIRC. It would require me to do the same research you yourself can do on your own. Here's one place you can start if you want a plain-English description from a programmer.

 

 
Once you get the basic understanding of the claims (against the Galaxy Nexus) from that link you should be able to follow more involved descriptions that may have their own slant to "the truth" from other sources if you're that interested.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #10 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by enrigonz View Post

What a crappy decision!

 

Competition is what drives companies to perfect their products and to make them affordable. While I really appreciate the quality of Apple devices and have bought a few throughout my lifetime, I hate to see them trying to stop any other company from competing against them simply because the product looks like one of theirs.


Ummm, copying is not innovating. It's not like Apple is going against every phone manufacturer in the world. Just the ones that flat out copied them.

Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
post #11 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by iVlad View Post


Ummm, copying is not innovating. It's not like Apple is going against every phone manufacturer in the world. Just the ones that flat out copied them.

More specifically just the successful ones that they can claim may have copied them. No sense wasting time with others until the big guys are out of the way

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #12 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

They didn't tell Koh to issue an injunction no matter how many times you repeat it. They told her that using prior art for some particular tablet whose-name-escapes-me as a reason to deny the injunction request on the Tab was flawed. It was sent back for reconsideration. If she had no other reason to deny the injunction then the Appeals Court saw no reason for it to be denied. With that said they upheld her reasons for not allowing the Apple injunction request on the Galaxy handsets that are part of that particular case.

And of course they saw the Nexus complaint, and the ruling and explanation supporting it from Judge Koh. They've given Apple a chance to respond to the issues that Samsung has raised with  her findings, which Apple must do by the 12th to have their reply considered.

If you insist that you are absolutely correct that the Appeals Court ordered her to issue an injunction on the Galaxy Tab (or if she didn't they would  according to one of your other posts) please quote the part of the Appeals Court remand ruling that says that. I'll gladly admit that you're right and thank you for educating me. I love learning something new at every chance I get and man enough to admit when I'm wrong.

I never said that the appeals court ordered her to provide an injunction. As usual, you insist on making things up.

The facts are simple. She denied an injunction and I provided reasoning why her logic was faulty. The appeals court agreed that her logic was faulty and told her to reconsider. At least one of the judges was in favor of ordering the injunction, but the others were willing to let her get it right. She then ordered an injunction. And THEN, when Samsung appealed to try to get the injunction dropped on the Tab, the appeals court wouldn't even take the case - and gave a very curt reply.

You can whine all you want about how the Appeals court didn't order an injunction, but it's clear from their actions that they thought an injunction was the appropriate response. If they did not, they would have accepted Samsung's appeal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Okay, elaborate, in detail as the specifics of the 4 patents that are being fought over since we laymen don't seem to have a clue.

One doesn't need to get into the specifics of the 4 patents to know that a troll who comes here whining that Apple is against competition simply because they won't let someone steal their technology is clueless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


So Apple won against the device that has been replaced, is no longer current, and never really sold well, but they lost against one of the finest competing smartphones on the market.

Their strategy seems to be more like a damp firecracker than Global Thermonuclear War.  But my guess is that they will keep on keeping on.

But as a consolation, we'll now hear more bigoted comments about Judge Koh.

They lost? You are confused. Apple got an injunction from the trial judge. The Appeals court did not grant either Apple or Samsung a win, but said that they'd consider the matter and would stay the injunction until they hear the case.

You must be really desperate if you consider that a win.
"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 #13 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It would be easier if you'd just put a big note on your forehead that says "I don't know anything about intellectual property or innovation". You should also simply add that to all of your posts. It would save everyone a lot of time.

You should know better than to feed the FNGs and trolls.
"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 #14 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I never said that the appeals court ordered her to provide an injunction. As usual, you insist on making things up.
 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
 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".

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150977/apple-posts-2-6m-bond-to-block-sales-of-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1

post #15 of 33
"Oooh... and that's a bad miss."

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #16 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

"Oooh... and that's a bad miss."

BTW Soli, I think the workaround that Google will use to avoid the unified search patent claims will simply  be not enabling some local services via voice.

 

Remember the video of GoogleNow I linked a couple days back? In that there was a disclaimer posted whenever the guy in the video said "turn on wi-fi" or "turn off ringer" or something to that effect. The disclaimer said something like "Not yet enabled. Coming soon.". I'm betting that makes it a not-quite-unified search, and probably passes muster.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #17 of 33
Another expensive legal stalemate in progress.
post #18 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by enrigonz View Post

What a crappy decision!

 

Competition is what drives companies to perfect their products and to make them affordable. While I really appreciate the quality of Apple devices and have bought a few throughout my lifetime, I hate to see them trying to stop any other company from competing against them simply because the product looks like one of theirs.

 

Go buy one of those cheap Chinese copies of the phone of your choice.

 

That's the "competition" you are wanting.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #19 of 33

So your reading comprehension is no better than Googleguy's. We already knew that - you didn't need to prove it.
"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 #20 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

Another expensive legal stalemate in progress.

 

Expensive for who?

 

Apple??

 

LOL with the money they make every quarter they could sustain these legal battles indefinitely. It's only "expensive" for the small fry. 

 

And more power to Apple if they feel they have a valid dispute. That's what the courts are there for. And by the looks of it they're doing their job.

post #21 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


So your reading comprehension is no better than Googleguy's. We already knew that - you didn't need to prove it.

If name-calling and insults are all you have left to turn to, why bother to even respond then? In case you forget how you wanted others to conduct themselves when replying to you, your request is still in my sig. It's a two-way street sir.

 

If you'd rather not attract so much negative feedback when you make errors (seems a bit more frequent lately) try not to be so arrogant and belligerant with the other members here. We can all respectfully disagree and get on with things rather than suffer the playground antics that your replies often rely on and encourage others to use in retaliation. It certainly discourages new members from posting anything at all in fear of being ridiculed for anything not perfectly adhering to your view of what the truth should be.

 

I've no doubt you're a smart guy but it doesn't show when all you can think to say is "I know you are but what am I" .


Edited by Gatorguy - 7/7/12 at 4:09am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #22 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by enrigonz View Post

What a crappy decision!

 

Competition is what drives companies to perfect their products and to make them affordable. While I really appreciate the quality of Apple devices and have bought a few throughout my lifetime, I hate to see them trying to stop any other company from competing against them simply because the product looks like one of theirs.

 

 

Crocodile-Tears.jpg

 

 

Please.

 

There's plenty of "competition" in the form of hundreds of Android-powered devices. You've got a lot to choose from. 

post #23 of 33

Who wants to bet that since this whole thing started, the legal fees paid by both sides was greater than the potential profits on the sales of the Galaxy Nexus for the same period of time?

post #24 of 33

As FOSS patents pointed out, I wonder if the fact Google made an announcement that a softwarepatch would be ready "in days" is going to hurt them. If they can fix it that easily, then how can they claim damages by a ban?

 

Perhaps Google should have kept their mouths shut about the fix until after they found out it their appeal to get the ban lifted would pass.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #25 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by enrigonz View Post

What a crappy decision!

Competition is what drives companies to perfect their products and to make them affordable. While I really appreciate the quality of Apple devices and have bought a few throughout my lifetime, I hate to see them trying to stop any other company from competing against them simply because the product looks like one of theirs.

I hope Apple makes the next iPhone $ 2799 so we'd have less people using them, which in turn would have less people babbling on Apple forums.
post #26 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drealoth View Post

Who wants to bet that since this whole thing started, the legal fees paid by both sides was greater than the potential profits on the sales of the Galaxy Nexus for the same period of time?

I doubt if that's true, but even if it is, it's irrelevant. Apple's not interested in the short term gains or expenses - they're in it for the long haul. Their goal is to get people to stop making blatant copies of their products.

Look at the Galaxy Tab and compare it to the original iPad. Even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.

Now, compare the Galaxy SIII to the iPhone 4S. Very different appearance.

If the SIII is any indication, maybe companies are starting to get the message that they should develop their own designs rather than simply copying Apple.
"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 #27 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If name-calling and insults are all you have left to turn to, why bother to even respond then? In case you forget how you wanted others to conduct themselves when replying to you, your request is still in my sig. It's a two-way street sir.

If you'd rather not attract so much negative feedback when you make errors (seems a bit more frequent lately) try not to be so arrogant and belligerant with the other members here. We can all respectfully disagree and get on with things rather than suffer the playground antics that your replies often rely on and encourage others to use in retaliation. It certainly discourages new members from posting anything at all in fear of being ridiculed for anything not perfectly adhering to your view of what the truth should be.

I've no doubt you're a smart guy but it doesn't show when all you can think to say is "I know you are but what am I" .


And, yet, you fail to address the fact that you both were misquoting me and I was simply pointing that fact out.

Sorry, googleguy, but you're not in any position to accuse anyone of anything. Other than jerrytroll, it is widely recognized that you're a troll who rarely has anything of value to add.
"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 #28 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
Sorry, googleguy, but you're not in any position to accuse anyone of anything. Other than jerrytroll, it is widely recognized that you're a troll who rarely has anything of value to add.

*sigh*

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


So your reading comprehension is no better than Googleguy's. We already knew that - you didn't need to prove it.

 

And your ability to explain haw the two statements go together is ... somewhat less so.

post #30 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

 

 

I've no doubt you're a smart guy

 

 

IMO, your credulity is misplaced.

post #31 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


IMO, your credulity is misplaced.

OK, since you apparently can't comprehend simple English.

What I said is that by its actions, the Appeals court indicated that the injunction was warranted but that they were sending it back to Koh so she could issue the injunction and that if she didn't so so, they might do so.

YOU and googleguy said that I claimed that the Appeals Court ordered her to issue an injunction.

Ask your 2nd grade teacher to explain the difference in those statements.
"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 #32 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


OK, since you apparently can't comprehend simple English.
What I said is that by its actions, the Appeals court indicated that the injunction was warranted but that they were sending it back to Koh so she could issue the injunction and that if she didn't so so, they might do so.
YOU and googleguy said that I claimed that the Appeals Court ordered her to issue an injunction.
Ask your 2nd grade teacher to explain the difference in those statements.

 

Ask your mommy why honest people admit their errors and weasels split hairs.

post #33 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

Ask your mommy why honest people admit their errors and weasels split hairs.

Ask your mommy why ignorant trolls post drivel all the time.
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Federal court denies Samsung motion to stay Galaxy Tab injunction, grants Nexus stay [u]