or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple contacts US carriers, resellers to enforce Samsung product ban
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple contacts US carriers, resellers to enforce Samsung product ban

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
Apple has reached out to carriers and resellers of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Nexus, demanding that they stop selling banned products.

Apple's actions were revealed in a court filing made by Samsung this week, summarized by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. The enforcement of the ban involved letters "to many carriers and retail companies that currently sell" the banned products.

Those companies were told to "immediately" remove the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in letters that went on on June 28. Similar letters related to the Galaxy Nexus smartphone were sent on July 3.

"Apple's menacing letters greatly overreach, incorrectly claiming that third-party retailers are subject to the prohibitions of the preliminary injunction, which clearly they are not," Samsung argued in its court filing. The Korean electronics maker is of the opinion that retailers "are permitted to sell their existing inventory, even without a stay."

In his analysis, Mueller said Apple's approach is "aggressive," but he also believes that Apple's understanding of the injunction against Samsung's products is "not baseless."

Galaxy Tab 10.1


Apple's enforcement of court-ordered injunctions against Samsung's products comes as the two companies are headed toward a legal showdown when their patent infringement trial kicks off on July 30. Each company has accused the other of infringing upon their intellectual property with products like smartphones and tablets.

In late June, Apple won temporary U.S. injunctions against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet and Galaxy Nexus. Samsung, however, won a stay on the injunction against the Galaxy Nexus earlier this month.
post #2 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple has reached out to carriers and resellers of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Nexus, demanding that they stop selling banned products.

i don't think the definition of "reach out" includes "demand", which is what apple is doing.

"Personally, I would like nothing more than to thoroughly proof each and every word of my articles before posting. But I can't."

appleinsider's mike campbell, august 15, 2013
Reply
"Personally, I would like nothing more than to thoroughly proof each and every word of my articles before posting. But I can't."

appleinsider's mike campbell, august 15, 2013
Reply
post #3 of 53
Feel the love
post #4 of 53

I hope Apple know what they're doing and this, or some other patent they may possibly infringe upon, doesn't blow up in their face. As a shareholder, that's my biggest fear. I'm all for protecting IP but no one should be an a-hole about it. It's all about the 'karma/burning bridges' thing.

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #5 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

I hope Apple know what they're doing and this, or some other patent they may possibly infringe upon, doesn't blow up in their face. As a shareholder, that's my biggest fear. I'm all for protecting IP but no one should be an a-hole about it. It's all about the 'karma/burning bridges' thing.

Why? They didn't make any demands - just a request. They even provided the wording of the order so the retailer could figure out if they needed to act.

I can't imagine that it would hurt Apple. Reputable dealers will comply with the intent and wording of a court order. Apple has no need for the other kind.
"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 #6 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In his analysis, Mueller said Apple's approach is "aggressive," but he also believes that Apple's understanding of the injunction against Samsung's products is "not baseless."

 

 

Here's what the judge ordered:

 

 

 

Quote:
Accordingly, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC; its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees,
attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them, are enjoined from making,
using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States
Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus and any product that is no more than colorably different from the
specified product and infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604.

 

 

Mueller seems to be correct when he says that Apple's position is "aggressive...but not baseless".

 

One or more of the bolded categories might apply to third party retailers, if one applies enough spin.

post #7 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

I hope Apple know what they're doing and this, or some other patent they may possibly infringe upon, doesn't blow up in their face. As a shareholder, that's my biggest fear. I'm all for protecting IP but no one should be an a-hole about it. It's all about the 'karma/burning bridges' thing.

 

 

If this was done by the legal department, then if one takes thier track record into account, this may well turn out to be a losing strategy.

 

OTOH, if it was implemented by the PR department, I'd not question its likelihood of success in generating additional profits.

post #8 of 53

Samsung won a stay on the injunction against the Galaxy Nexus.  I guess that is why it is back for sale on Google Play.

post #9 of 53

*Looks at the Acer A700, ASUS Transformer Infinity, Samsung Galaxy SIII, HTC One X, HTC One S, etc.*

And nothing of value was lost to the Android community if these two old Samsung products disappeared from the face of the earth.

 

It feels like Apple is just trying to flick ants in a line and rather than try to go after the colony itself. In the end, these efforts are just pointless as the line will just curve around their attempts to disrupt the trail.


Edited by Negafox - 7/13/12 at 10:55am
post #10 of 53

But Apple is not a law enforcing entity.  They have no authority.  The best they can do is contact local authorities and have them handle it.  If any of these providers tell's Apple to pound sand, there is Zero Apple can do about it.  What, breach contract and pull Apple products?  Go to other carriers?  Right, Apple needs the carriers more than the carriers need Apple.  Here Jimmy, a nice new iPhone but it has no network.
 

post #11 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

Samsung won a stay on the injunction against the Galaxy Nexus.  I guess that is why it is back for sale on Google Play.


Yeah, and no one is purchasing a 2 year old tablet.  Nice win Apple, not.

post #12 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post

Samsung won a stay on the injunction against the Galaxy Nexus.  I guess that is why it is back for sale on Google Play.


Saw that, and with a patch from Google it will stay on sale, and with a little root action, all prior capabilities can be restored and if an individual has no idea what root is then it is safe to assume they will not miss anything lost in the patch so either way Apple lost and looks like a bunch of tools in the process.

post #13 of 53

This is nothing more or less then for example a company contacting a website to demand they pull down infringing IP. Apple is well within their rights to make these demands.

post #14 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

But Apple is not a law enforcing entity.  They have no authority.  The best they can do is contact local authorities and have them handle it.  If any of these providers tell's Apple to pound sand, there is Zero Apple can do about it.  What, breach contract and pull Apple products?  Go to other carriers?  Right, Apple needs the carriers more than the carriers need Apple.  Here Jimmy, a nice new iPhone but it has no network.
 

you may want to tell that to TMOBILE and Sprint (before they got their iphone)

post #15 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

*Looks at the Acer A700, ASUS Transformer Infinity, Samsung Galaxy SIII, HTC One X, HTC One S, etc.*


And nothing of value was lost to the Android community if these two old Samsung products disappeared from the face of the earth.

It feels like Apple is just trying to flick ants in a line and rather than try to go after the colony itself. In the end, these efforts are just pointless as the line will just curve around their attempts to disrupt the trail.

It's really amazing how prone the Apple haters are to simply ignoring the facts.

Pre-lawsuit:
Put an iPad next to a Tab. They are so similar that even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.

Post-lawsuit:
Put an iPhone 4S next to a Galaxy SIII. You'd have to be blind to confuse them. (That is not to say, of course, that there might not be patent infringement that isn't visible simply by glancing at the phone).

Apple's strategic goal is to compete on the basis of differentiated products and they wanted to stop the competition from making slavish copies. If the SIII is any indication of that, they succeeded - and that's far more important than any of the legal skirmishes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

But Apple is not a law enforcing entity.  They have no authority.  The best they can do is contact local authorities and have them handle it.  If any of these providers tell's Apple to pound sand, there is Zero Apple can do about it.  What, breach contract and pull Apple products?  Go to other carriers?  Right, Apple needs the carriers more than the carriers need Apple.  Here Jimmy, a nice new iPhone but it has no network.

Where did Apple say they were going to do anything about it? They simply asked the retailers to comply with the court's decision.

Now, even if the retailers refuse, it's not clear that Apple could simply call law enforcement. My guess is that they'd have to initiate legal action against the retailer and get a court order that applies directly to the retailer before they could file for contempt. While it's possible, in principle, for Apple to win a case like this against the retailer, it's very difficult because the retailer wasn't party to the case. However, it is quite likely that Apple would win such a case.

In the end, it's simply a warning shot. "The decision says that Samsung's partners have to stop selling the product, so please stop doing so if you don't want to get dragged into this mess". And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take.
"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 #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



Where did Apple say they were going to do anything about it? They simply asked the retailers to comply with the court's decision.
Now, even if the retailers refuse, it's not clear that Apple could simply call law enforcement. My guess is that they'd have to initiate legal action against the retailer and get a court order that applies directly to the retailer before they could file for contempt. While it's possible, in principle, for Apple to win a case like this against the retailer, it's very difficult because the retailer wasn't party to the case. However, it is quite likely that Apple would win such a case.
In the end, it's simply a warning shot. "The decision says that Samsung's partners have to stop selling the product, so please stop doing so if you don't want to get dragged into this mess". And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take.

 

Requesting and demanding are two different things.  Demand implies authority.  Requesting implies relationship. 

post #17 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

 Right, Apple needs the carriers more than the carriers need Apple.  Here Jimmy, a nice new iPhone but it has no network.
 

 

In this day and age Apple could release a wifi only phone that does calls via VOIP and folks would probably still buy it. 

 

That said, we know what the letters as it was quoted in the source material. By the wording of the injunction as quoted previously in this thread, carriers could be legally deemed as agents acting in concert with Samsung which would mean that they would be violating the injunction if they sell the banned items. Apple merely sent out letters to make sure that said parties are aware of the injunction in the event that Samsung didn't bother to properly inform their agents of the state of things. There could also be contract clauses in the deals with Apple that the carriers were being reminded of. As well as reminding them that if they don't stop selling said items they could find themselves party to one or more lawsuits. Heck for all we know these letters are part of some required procedure for filing any such suits. Or perhaps Apple wanted to be nice and assume any violation was 'innocent' rather than just slapping folks with a lawsuit under the assumption they were informed and doing it out of malice. 

 

Samsung is the group painting it as malice etc where there is none. Anyone reading it can see that. 

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 #18 of 53
post #19 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


It's really amazing how prone the Apple haters are to simply ignoring the facts.
Pre-lawsuit:
Put an iPad next to a Tab. They are so similar that even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
Post-lawsuit:
Put an iPhone 4S next to a Galaxy SIII. You'd have to be blind to confuse them. (That is not to say, of course, that there might not be patent infringement that isn't visible simply by glancing at the phone).
Apple's strategic goal is to compete on the basis of differentiated products and they wanted to stop the competition from making slavish copies. If the SIII is any indication of that, they succeeded - and that's far more important than any of the legal skirmishes.

What Apple hater? I own a white 16 GB WiFi iPad 3, 17" MacBook Pro, 2 x iPhone 4S' for my wife and I, and an iPhone 3GS for my four-year-old daughter. I do not even own any Android products.

 

I would hardly call anything Apple has done thus far a "thermonuclear war" against Android. It is more eye-rolling at best.

post #20 of 53

Not necessary. The court order already applies to Samsung, it's partners and those acting in concert with them. This includes the retailers. Retailers that don't comply will be reported to the presiding judge, who decides whether to cite them for contempt or not.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


.
Now, even if the retailers refuse, it's not clear that Apple could simply call law enforcement. My guess is that they'd have to initiate legal action against the retailer and get a court order that applies directly to the retailer before they could file for contempt. 
post #21 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

In this day and age Apple could release a wifi only phone that does calls via VOIP and folks would probably still buy it. 

 

That said, we know what the letters as it was quoted in the source material. By the wording of the injunction as quoted previously in this thread, carriers could be legally deemed as agents acting in concert with Samsung which would mean that they would be violating the injunction if they sell the banned items. Apple merely sent out letters to make sure that said parties are aware of the injunction in the event that Samsung didn't bother to properly inform their agents of the state of things. There could also be contract clauses in the deals with Apple that the carriers were being reminded of. As well as reminding them that if they don't stop selling said items they could find themselves party to one or more lawsuits. Heck for all we know these letters are part of some required procedure for filing any such suits. Or perhaps Apple wanted to be nice and assume any violation was 'innocent' rather than just slapping folks with a lawsuit under the assumption they were informed and doing it out of malice. 

 

Samsung is the group painting it as malice etc where there is none. Anyone reading it can see that. 


Either way Apple looks like a giant douche, bully.

post #22 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheviot View Post

Not necessary. The court order already applies to Samsung, it's partners and those acting in concert with them. This includes the retailers. Retailers that don't comply will be reported to the presiding judge, who decides whether to cite them for contempt or not.

 

 

Right, so Apple sending out this notice just makes them look foolish.  A - Hey judge, since you are not doing your job in a manner we see fit we will do it for you B - Hey retailers, since you are not doing your jobs in a manner we see fit we will threaten you. 

post #23 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheviot View Post

Not necessary. The court order already applies to Samsung, it's partners and those acting in concert with them. This includes the retailers. Retailers that don't comply will be reported to the presiding judge, who decides whether to cite them for contempt or not.

Getting an injunction is one mountain climbed, getting it enforced is another. Local law enforcement have bigger fish to fry than a retailer selling devices.
"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 #24 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

 

Right, so Apple sending out this notice just makes them look foolish.  A - Hey judge, since you are not doing your job in a manner we see fit we will do it for you B - Hey retailers, since you are not doing your jobs in a manner we see fit we will threaten you. 

I didn't realize when a judge issues an injunction, he is responsible for telling all the retailers about it too.

post #25 of 53

if its about karma then samsung got a lot coming to them and google...

post #26 of 53
None pf this will matter once congress and the president sign into law the "no banning for software patent" legislation.
post #27 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheviot View Post

Not necessary. The court order already applies to Samsung, it's partners and those acting in concert with them. This includes the retailers. Retailers that don't comply will be reported to the presiding judge, who decides whether to cite them for contempt or not.

That is not correct.

The retailers were not party to the court case and therefore the court case is not binding on them without further action. A decision is only binding on parties to the case. The fact that partners and others are mentioned in the case doesn't mean that they can be found in contempt.

There are a number of options:

1. Apple could let the retailers sell the product and then drag Samsung into court for contempt and/or for any damaged caused by the retailers selling the product. Their argument would be that Samsung was obligated to issue an immediate recall when the order was handed down.

2. Apple can simply ask the retailers to abide by the decision voluntarily - which is what Apple did.

3. Apple could drag the retailer into court to notify the retailer legally that they are covered by the decision.

Apple chose the least intrusive and heavy handed of the three options.
"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 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65C816 View Post

I didn't realize when a judge issues an injunction, he is responsible for telling all the retailers about it too.


He is the authority that enforces it.  If retailers are not complying, the judge is informed and he enforces it through law enforcement.  Pretty simple.

post #29 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

I hope Apple know what they're doing and this, or some other patent they may possibly infringe upon, doesn't blow up in their face. As a shareholder, that's my biggest fear. I'm all for protecting IP but no one should be an a-hole about it. It's all about the 'karma/burning bridges' thing.

Indeed, I didn't realise Apple were the courts and the enforcement now too!

post #30 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

...and an iPhone 3GS for my four-year-old daughter.

 Society is going down the tubes.

post #31 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

What Apple hater? I own a white 16 GB WiFi iPad 3, 17" MacBook Pro, 2 x iPhone 4S' for my wife and I, and an iPhone 3GS for my four-year-old daughter. I do not even own any Android products.

 

I would hardly call anything Apple has done thus far a "thermonuclear war" against Android. It is more eye-rolling at best.

Don't worry, he thinks everyone that doesn't agree with him is a Apple hater and doesn't realise there is actually a world outside of his Appledome. It's even scarier to note that some people can like Apple while also liking other brands at the same time!

post #32 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by fartheststar View Post

 Society is going down the tubes.

lol yes, I'm sure she is going to grow as a normal non-materialistic girl.

post #33 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by fartheststar View Post

 Society is going down the tubes.

As not even an old fart, I agree with you, but not necessarily entirely because of that. lol.gif

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #34 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by fartheststar View Post

 Society is going down the tubes.

There is no phone plan tied to the 3GS phone and the casing is heavily cracked. I tossed some toddler educational apps and storybooks onto it. I gave it to her after I upgraded to an iPhone 4S rather than just recycling the phone. Any questions?

post #35 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post


Either way Apple looks like a giant douche, bully.

Apple looks like a WINNER, a winner who is stopping a convicted price fixer of selling PIRATE copies of their stuff.

 

Samsung is being proven guilty left, right and centre.

 

Everyone knows what they did, apart from those poor sheep who drink the Google Koolaid and are looking at the world through the Google goggle's reality distortion field.

 

Build a bridge, pal, get over it.

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 #36 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post

None pf this will matter once congress and the president sign into law the "no banning for software patent" legislation.

 

You left out "standards essential".

 

Is that the Google koolaid talking?

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 #37 of 53

This sounds like another poorly executed legal strategy from the offices of Apple's General Counsel - Mr Bruce Sewell.   

post #38 of 53

...and now the latest in the Galaxy Nexus injunction saga. It looks like the appeals court will continue to stay any injunction on it, perhaps into August at least. Sales will be allowed to continue for the time-being.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/2012-1507.7-13-12.2.pdf

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

But Apple is not a law enforcing entity.  They have no authority.  The best they can do is contact local authorities and have them handle it.  If any of these providers tell's Apple to pound sand, there is Zero Apple can do about it.  What, breach contract and pull Apple products?  Go to other carriers?  Right, Apple needs the carriers more than the carriers need Apple.  Here Jimmy, a nice new iPhone but it has no network.
 

 

This is not true at all.  You don't have to be a part of law enforcement to enforce the law, and even if you did, this is not that.  This is Apple reminding the carriers and distributors (as is the right of literally anyone on earth) that they might be breaking the law and that they probably shouldn't do that.  

 

Anyone can do this.  Anyone has the right to do this.  In fact, the original concept of democracy would imply that everyone has an obligation to this.  The fact that people are selfish a-holes lately and mostly just think of themselves, and that strangers generally will get upset at you "judging" them if you point out the law to them is all irrelevant.  

 

Laws have existed since pre-civilised times, whereas the "police" were only really invented about a hundred years ago.  


Edited by Gazoobee - 7/13/12 at 3:25pm
post #40 of 53

Apple, doing what it does best: using the legal system to do business.

 

If you cant compete, litigate!

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple contacts US carriers, resellers to enforce Samsung product ban