or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung asks court to toss Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction, seeks damages
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung asks court to toss Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction, seeks damages

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 
Samsung on Sunday filed a motion with the U.S. District Court of Northern California asking that a preliminary injunction against its Galaxy Tab 10.1 be dissolved, noting the Apple v. Samsung jury found the device had not infringed on an Apple iPad design patent.

The motion and its accompanying proposed order come just days after Samsung was dealt a blow from a U.S. jury who found the company guilty of violating a number of Apple design and utility patents, with damages owed adding up to over $1 billion.

Despite being found in violation of six out of seven asserted patents, Samsung managed to partiallly escape judgment against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which Apple claimed infringed upon its D'889 iPad design patent. The Korean company's tablet was found to have violated several software patents, though the preliminary injunction was based on the design property alone, thus brining into question the injunction's validity.

As pointed out by The Verge, the Samsung device was taken off the market in late June due to potential infringement, but now that the jury has ruled otherwise, the Korean company is seeking both to dissolve the sales ban and collect damages from Apple.

From the motion:

Here, the jury found that Samsung‟s Galaxy Tab 10.1 does not infringe the D‟889 patent.
Since the purported infringement of the D‟889 patent was the only basis for the preliminary injunction, the jury‟s finding means that Samsung had a right to sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 during the period in which the injunction has been in effect. Samsung is therefore entitled to recover damages caused by the improper injunction, and the Court should retain the bond so that it may do so.


Galaxy Tab 10.1


Apple first tried to have the Galaxy Tab 10.1 blocked in the U.S. in December of 2011, but was shot down as Judge Lucy Koh said the company would not suffer irreparable harm from its continued sale. The jurist ultimately granted the injunction, however, after Apple successfully appealed the ruling with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and re-filed for the sales ban in May.

In order for the preliminary injunction to take effect, Apple needed to post a $2.6 million bond, which Samsung is now requesting the Court retain until a hearing can be held to argue damages incurred by the sales stoppage.

post #2 of 43

Apple will show that the tablet infringes on the "squeeze to zoom" patent (and maybe some others) and this tablet and the current one will be banned.

 

Apple has the balls to put the squeeze on Samsung...

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #3 of 43
A lot of people in this forum are really happy about the way the jury decided in this case but I wonder if ultimately it won't end up being the cause of lots of future things people here won't be happy about. Just imagine the next time Apple needs to add something like the swipe down from the top notification center. Now everything imaginable will be covered by any number of broad software patents. Then these patent holders will expect Apple to pay enormous licensing fees because Apple is so rich. Will this all be a good thing?
post #4 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

A lot of people in this forum are really happy about the way the jury decided in this case but I wonder if ultimately it won't end up being the cause of lots of future things people here won't be happy about. Just imagine the next time Apple needs to add something like the swipe down from the top notification center. Now everything imaginable will be covered by any number of broad software patents. Then these patent holders will expect Apple to pay enormous licensing fees because Apple is so rich. Will this all be a good thing?

 

You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...

 

These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.

post #5 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

 

You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...

 

These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.

I think its all about the licensing, if its not an essential patent apple would probably pay for it. :S

post #6 of 43

Samsung is going to fight tooth and nail on these smaller items trying to get every nickel they can from Apple. I really hope the judge triples the damages against them to force a settlement. 

 

Apple needs to file to have it banned for the other patents that it does violate. They could and should argue that it is moot that it was banned for the wrong reason once they get a ban for the other patents. Having Samsung cook their estimates of lost sales isn't very attractive. I'm sure they will say they lost $1.05B as a result. 

post #7 of 43

OK, here's a few million in compensation for the design-related ban… and here's a new permanent injunction for the multiple infringements elsewhere. Something like that maybe?

post #8 of 43
I love the hypocrisy. Samsung want the ban dissolved on the basis of a verdict they themselves plan to appeal. So, do they want the verdict upheld, or not, that's all I want to know.
post #9 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattBookAir View Post

I love the hypocrisy. Samsung want the ban dissolved on the basis of a verdict they themselves plan to appeal. So, do they want the verdict upheld, or not, that's all I want to know.

I had that same question. Seems a bit odd.
post #10 of 43
I'm curious why the jury didn't find against this obvious iPad rip off?
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #11 of 43
I read that the judge is likely to issue a directed verdict on that specific patent because the jury was confused. If that happens, Samsung will be found to be in violation on the tablet too.

If so, the amount of damages could be raised, also.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/26/apple-v-samsung-did-the-jury-blow-the-galaxy-tab-verdict/
Quote:
According to the federal code governing trademarks (15 USC § 1125), language echoed in the judge's instructions, it's illegal to copy the design of a product if it's sufficiently famous -- as famous, say, as the iPad. The design of such a product doesn't actually have to be registered with the patent office to be protected from infringement or dilution.

Edited by Dick Applebaum - 8/27/12 at 4:53am
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #12 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zozman View Post

I think its all about the licensing, if its not an essential patent apple would probably pay for it. :S


If it is an essential patent, then one way or another (either through direct payments, or hidden within the supplier cost of a component that already licenses and thus exhausts it), Apple will pay for it.

 

If it is not an essential patent, then Google could hypothetically choose not to give it to Apple for any amount of money.

post #13 of 43

The difference between Apple and Samsung in this case is that Apple would rather license patents than infringe on them.  That's why they have been working with other companies to buy up patents instead of doing it on their own.  If they wanted to, they could easily take sole custody of the Kodak patents and screw everybody, but they are part of a group that now includes Microsoft and Google that wants to buy the patents.  Apple prefers licensing, Samsung prefers court battles.

post #14 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

 

You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...

 

These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.

 

Too bad for Google, Apple has been using drop downs since 1984 and had variations working on iPhones prior to Android even being released.

 

Then there's the small issue of Android being "open", Apple has just as much right to use parts of it as Google has to use WebKit and other Apple open source software.

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 #15 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I read that the judge is likely to issue a directed verdict on that specific patent because the jury was confused. If that happens, Samsung will be found to be in violation on the tablet too.
If so, the amount of damages could be raised, also.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/26/apple-v-samsung-did-the-jury-blow-the-galaxy-tab-verdict/

That clears things up a lot. The jury apparently thought that "unregistered" means "not protected" which isn't the case.

Given that the Tab is so similar to the iPhone, that would explain why the jury let Samsung off the hook on this one.

Considering that this is the judge who held the two tablets up for Samsung's attorneys to try to tell the difference, a Rule 50 decision is quite possible.
"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 43
Premarket:

+2.9% AAPL

+1.4% MSFT

-1.7% GOOG
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #17 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

A lot of people in this forum are really happy about the way the jury decided in this case but I wonder if ultimately it won't end up being the cause of lots of future things people here won't be happy about. Just imagine the next time Apple needs to add something like the swipe down from the top notification center. Now everything imaginable will be covered by any number of broad software patents. Then these patent holders will expect Apple to pay enormous licensing fees because Apple is so rich. Will this all be a good thing?

 

Right, because those companies will be warm and fuzzy and just let Apple use something they patented, right? And Apple(or us) should trust the company that is pilfering wifi data and asking parents for their children's SS# to enter a contests?

 

If Google has a legal patent, let them have their day in court and prove its validity. If the patent is valid and Apple is infringing, Apple can pay. Where were your complaints when Apple had to pay Nokia?

post #18 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

A lot of people in this forum are really happy about the way the jury decided in this case but I wonder if ultimately it won't end up being the cause of lots of future things people here won't be happy about. Just imagine the next time Apple needs to add something like the swipe down from the top notification center. Now everything imaginable will be covered by any number of broad software patents. Then these patent holders will expect Apple to pay enormous licensing fees because Apple is so rich. Will this all be a good thing?

 

Apple has so far done quite a job of successfully avoiding others' patents while enforcing their own. Everyone else has had all the opportunities Apple had. It's always been a level playing field. 

 

For disputes, the courts are there for a reason. 

post #19 of 43
What is interesting is to consider the Long-term future of various mobile operating system.

Willl Android usage decrease?

Will WinMo (whatever) usage increase?

Will RIMM license QNX?

Will Symbian be revived?

How about WebOS?
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #20 of 43

Apple will trade patents with Google because Google innovates. Apple will sue Samsung for patent violations because Samsung doesn't have any to trade as they copied.

post #21 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I read that the judge is likely to issue a directed verdict on that specific patent because the jury was confused. If that happens, Samsung will be found to be in violation on the tablet too.
If so, the amount of damages could be raised, also.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/26/apple-v-samsung-did-the-jury-blow-the-galaxy-tab-verdict/

A directed verdict is a highly unusual move from a judge except in the most extreme circumstances. While it's always possible, I wouldn't bet on it happening merely because there's evidence that the jury was confused about Apple's legal rights for an unregistered versus a registered product. In light of the fact that Apple pretty much won everything else (and the Galaxy Tab's sales have been dismal), it would be hard to see Judge Koh making that change.

post #22 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...

These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.

The issues become simply licensing issues. No big deal. Cross licensing is common among all sorts of devices and companies. And such licensing affects ultimate pricing very little, since each both receives and pays licensing fees, the net cost nears zero.
post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

 

You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...

 

These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.

i don't think so. google (motorola) just filed new lawsuit and is asking to stop import of apple devices. i think they are just going to do what apple is doing and try to stop them completely at first. apple isn't like MS. ms is more than happy to take a fee and allow use, apple doesn't want you using what they believe is theirs. i also wonder what effect the news that jurors put aside 'prior art' will have on appeal to the recent big money verdict.

post #24 of 43
I am in no way a fan of software or business process patents, but what I do hope happens out of this is that we get a more innovative and competitive marketplace in the phone industry. The possible reality though is that we end up with another dark ages like 2000-2005 where Blackberry was the only game in town and each new generation added a single feature to make itself compelling. If Apple's main goal is a do-not-clone clause in their agreements then this should go the right direction.

One thing is sure though-- the big winners here are Microsoft and RIM. Not sure if there really is a big loser yet though; the damages would need to be $2B for Samsung to be sufficiently hit.
post #25 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Too bad for Google, Apple has been using drop downs since 1984 and had variations working on iPhones prior to Android even being released.

Then there's the small issue of Android being "open", Apple has just as much right to use parts of it as Google has to use WebKit and other Apple open source software.

Android being "open" does not mean in the public domain. IP restrictions still apply and are subject to whatever licensing and payments the owner may require.

This same logic applies to any such "open" products, such as WebKit, GNU software etc. None of these products are in the public domain, and use of each are subject to contractual obligations.
post #26 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple joy View Post

i don't think so. google (motorola) just filed new lawsuit and is asking to stop import of apple devices. i think they are just going to do what apple is doing and try to stop them completely at first. apple isn't like MS. ms is more than happy to take a fee and allow use, apple doesn't want you using what they believe is theirs. i also wonder what effect the news that jurors put aside 'prior art' will have on appeal to the recent big money verdict.

You are flatly wrong that Apple doesn't want you to use what is theirs. Apple licensed patented technology to MS. Evidence in the Samsung case showed Samsung refused to license IP from Apple when it was offered in 2010.

Please, do your homework before propagating ignorance.
post #27 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

What is interesting is to consider the Long-term future of various mobile operating system.

Willl Android usage decrease?
I think Android will stop being the go-to device. But, between Apps and skinning, it has a useful place.
Quote:
Will WinMo (whatever) usage increase?
I think it suddenly became viable. Before, it was likely DOA, but now it has a real shot at 15% market share.
Quote:
Will RIMM license QNX?
If there was ever a chance to split software and handset divisions, now is it. Really comes down to how long before QNX is viable.
Quote:
Will Symbian be revived?
Nokia's deal with Microsoft likely precludes that happening.
Quote:
How about WebOS?
It would need to be spun off. It can't survive with HP's noose around its neck. Even then, it is hard to imagine how they will get inertia going. When did they last release a successful product?
post #28 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

Android being "open" does not mean in the public domain. IP restrictions still apply and are subject to whatever licensing and payments the owner may require.

This same logic applies to any such "open" products, such as WebKit, GNU software etc. None of these products are in the public domain, and use of each are subject to contractual obligations.

Is Android GPL3? If so, I understood patents to need to commute. MSPL might actually be a good direction for Google to go though, because it has it's own "thermonuclear" patent clause.

But, I do agree that open source is not public domain and Apple could not just incorporate features at will.
post #29 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

 

You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...

 

These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.

Google Cant sue Apple because Android is open source. Google is not losing money on The notifications bar that apple has. As long as Android is free they can do nothing

post #30 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple joy View Post

i don't think so. google (motorola) just filed new lawsuit and is asking to stop import of apple devices. i think they are just going to do what apple is doing and try to stop them completely at first. apple isn't like MS. ms is more than happy to take a fee and allow use, apple doesn't want you using what they believe is theirs. i also wonder what effect the news that jurors put aside 'prior art' will have on appeal to the recent big money verdict.

ITC Plans to investigate those claims in 2014 ( no kidding).

The other thing to consider is that it is not a lawsuit, and the ITC just said no to all of Motorolla's last set of complaints. The original complaints were their strongest by far.
post #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

You are flatly wrong that Apple doesn't want you to use what is theirs. Apple licensed patented technology to MS. Evidence in the Samsung case showed Samsung refused to license IP from Apple when it was offered in 2010.
Please, do your homework before propagating ignorance.

Apple is happy to cross-license. Apple does not generally license anything for a fee. The only exception I know of are the pools they are in.
post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post


You are flatly wrong that Apple doesn't want you to use what is theirs. Apple licensed patented technology to MS. Evidence in the Samsung case showed Samsung refused to license IP from Apple when it was offered in 2010.
Please, do your homework before propagating ignorance.

do your homework before you spout off. apple offered some patents for licensing but never any covering 'design' of which at least 4 of the 7 in dispute are design related. apple will not license what they think is a 'look alike'. they aren't MS. 

post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by karimseed View Post

Google Cant sue Apple because Android is open source. Google is not losing money on The notifications bar that apple has. As long as Android is free they can do nothing


Have you ever heard of a patent troll?  Ie. somebody who doesn't make any money off of their any products of their own, but who nevertheless has a proven track record of successfully forcing others to pay them license fees to implement patented technologies?

 

The same principle could apply here.

post #34 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


ITC Plans to investigate those claims in 2014 ( no kidding).
The other thing to consider is that it is not a lawsuit, and the ITC just said no to all of Motorolla's last set of complaints. The original complaints were their strongest by far.

the recent are not 'standard-essential'. we will see what happens. and don't expect the recent jury to hold up. that 1+ billion to apple ain't gonna happen this time.it will be reduced (at the least)

post #35 of 43
This is Phase 1 in the fallout of this decision by the world's sloppiest jury.
 
Here are a few specifics:
 
  • They seemed to have ignored the judge's instructions, because reading and understanding that would take too long, perhaps two or three days.
  • They decided to not take into account prior art, per their own comments, because that was confusing and too much trouble. 
  • And they even tried to fine Samsung for items they're ruled not in violation--I suspect because they didn't even take the time to read their decision over a second time. 
 
This was the jury from Lazytown. It's likely to result in a lot of messy, expensive complications.
 
Samsung's Win with the Galaxy Tab
 
And while most of their blunders tilted heavily toward Apple, having decided to vote in favor of Apple on the first day, again per their own comments, in their sloppiness, they found the Galaxy Tab 10.1 non-infringing, despite the fact that a court and an appeals court had ruled it infringing. That then frees Samsung to sue for damages, as here, and go on to create a host of tablets that aren't infringing because they look like this Galaxy. That virtually destroys Apple's primary reason for this lawsuit.
 
The Know-it-all Foreman and a Mistrial
 
Based on remarks by jurors, all these jury blunders seemed to flow from a juror who became their 'expert' and foreman because he had a patent (just one) of his own. That fits with my 'blowhard' theory for this too-quick decision and what's leaking out afterward: the unfortunate jury was dominated by one or two know-it-alls who forced the rest to do what they wanted. There was little deliberation and a host of blunders.
 
What I'm now wondering is if or why either side permitted that patentee to be on the jury. People who've had some personal experience related to the issues at trial are usually excluded, so that experience cannot shape their decision. Did both Samsung (in general) and Apple (over the Galaxy) blunder badly, or did this juror/foreman withhold that information from the court?
 
If the latter is true, this drawn-out and expensive trial could quickly become a mistrial.
 
The Judge's Role
 
I will say one thing in favor of some of these jurors. By wondering why they weren't being shown examples of prior art in defense of Samsung, they were seeing through the wall Judge Koh erected against Samsung presenting that evidence to the jury. Her efforts to exclude that evidence on technicalities only confused the jury and perhaps contributed to their sloppiness. I can easily imaging a few of them thinking, "Well, if the court isn't allowing us to consider all the evidence in this case, why should we bother to take the time to examine the evidence that was presented. Why not just decide quickly and be done with it?" Judge Koh's unprofessional haste to try and be done with it, became their haste to reach a decision. 
 
For more details on the jury's problems, go to http://www.groklaw.net
 
Groklaw is always the best place to go for the legal side of tech news.
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

This is Phase 1 in the fallout of this decision by the world's sloppiest jury.
 
Here are a few specifics:
 
  • They seemed to have ignored the judge's instructions, because reading and understanding that would take too long, perhaps two or three days.
  • They decided to not take into account prior art, per their own comments, because that was confusing and too much trouble. 
  • And they even tried to fine Samsung for items they're ruled not in violation--I suspect because they didn't even take the time to read their decision over a second time. 
 
This was the jury from Lazytown. It's likely to result in a lot of messy, expensive complications.
 
Samsung's Win with the Galaxy Tab
 
And while most of their blunders tilted heavily toward Apple, having decided to vote in favor of Apple on the first day, again per their own comments, in their sloppiness, they found the Galaxy Tab 10.1 non-infringing, despite the fact that a court and an appeals court had ruled it infringing. That then frees Samsung to sue for damages, as here, and go on to create a host of tablets that aren't infringing because they look like this Galaxy. That virtually destroys Apple's primary reason for this lawsuit.
 
The Know-it-all Foreman and a Mistrial
 
Based on remarks by jurors, all these jury blunders seemed to flow from a juror who became their 'expert' and foreman because he had a patent (just one) of his own. That fits with my 'blowhard' theory for this too-quick decision and what's leaking out afterward: the unfortunate jury was dominated by one or two know-it-alls who forced the rest to do what they wanted. There was little deliberation and a host of blunders.
 
What I'm now wondering is if or why either side permitted that patentee to be on the jury. People who've had some personal experience related to the issues at trial are usually excluded, so that experience cannot shape their decision. Did both Samsung (in general) and Apple (over the Galaxy) blunder badly, or did this juror/foreman withhold that information from the court?
 
If the latter is true, this drawn-out and expensive trial could quickly become a mistrial.
 
The Judge's Role
 
I will say one thing in favor of some of these jurors. By wondering why they weren't being shown examples of prior art in defense of Samsung, they were seeing through the wall Judge Koh erected against Samsung presenting that evidence to the jury. Her efforts to exclude that evidence on technicalities only confused the jury and perhaps contributed to their sloppiness. I can easily imaging a few of them thinking, "Well, if the court isn't allowing us to consider all the evidence in this case, why should we bother to take the time to examine the evidence that was presented. Why not just decide quickly and be done with it?" Judge Koh's unprofessional haste to try and be done with it, became their haste to reach a decision. 
 
For more details on the jury's problems, go to http://www.groklaw.net
 
Groklaw is always the best place to go for the legal side of tech news.

 

What qualifies you, personally, to state your opinion as fact on any of these matters.

 

Are you trained in patent litigation?

 

Did you attend the trial?

 

Were you present during the jury deliberations?

 

I could go on... but, it would just cause you further embarrassment!

 

 

You should read this and consider all points of view... even your preferred groklaw participants disagree on some of the points:

 

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/26/apple-v-samsung-did-the-jury-blow-the-galaxy-tab-verdict/

"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

know-it-all rambling...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

 

What qualifies you, personally, to state your opinion as fact on any of these matters.

 

Are you trained in patent litigation?

 

Did you attend the trial?

 

Were you present during the jury deliberations?

 

I could go on... but, it would just cause you further embarrassment!

 

 

You should read this and consider all points of view... even your preferred groklaw participants disagree on some of the points:

 

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/26/apple-v-samsung-did-the-jury-blow-the-galaxy-tab-verdict/


These armchair-attorneys are just coming out of the woodwork.  They're legends in their own minds.
 

post #38 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post


Have you ever heard of a patent troll?  Ie. somebody who doesn't make any money off of their any products of their own, but who nevertheless has a proven track record of successfully forcing others to pay them license fees to implement patented technologies?

The same principle could apply here.

So you're saying that Apple is a patent troll? That's pretty bizarre.

In any event, the entire concept of a 'patent troll' is flawed. A patent owner is free to do whatever they want with their patent. Patents are enforceable (and should be) even if you don't many any products of your own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by karimseed View Post

Google Cant sue Apple because Android is open source. Google is not losing money on The notifications bar that apple has. As long as Android is free they can do nothing

Partially correct.

Even open source software has a license agreement. If Apple doesn't follow the license agreement, then Google can sue. In addition, if Google creates something new that's part of Android but does not license it under the open source license, they can sue Apple.

Of course, we're a long way from Google proving that their patent is valid (i.e, that there's no relevant prior art) or that Apple infringes, anyway.
"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 #39 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...

These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.

An interesting point is the fact that Apple holds several patents dating back to 1995 and Newton that describe how these functions are handled in the background. Google's problem if you read though their application is they just copied the procedures from Apple's patents for their system then just added the notification center section. If you stripe away the rest of the infringing parts the Center would cease to function.
post #40 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

This is Phase 1 in the fallout of this decision by the world's sloppiest jury.
 
Here are a few specifics:
 
  • They seemed to have ignored the judge's instructions, because reading and understanding that would take too long, perhaps two or three days.
  • They decided to not take into account prior art, per their own comments, because that was confusing and too much trouble. 
  • And they even tried to fine Samsung for items they're ruled not in violation--I suspect because they didn't even take the time to read their decision over a second time. 
 
This was the jury from Lazytown. It's likely to result in a lot of messy, expensive complications.
 
Samsung's Win with the Galaxy Tab
 
And while most of their blunders tilted heavily toward Apple, having decided to vote in favor of Apple on the first day, again per their own comments, in their sloppiness, they found the Galaxy Tab 10.1 non-infringing, despite the fact that a court and an appeals court had ruled it infringing. That then frees Samsung to sue for damages, as here, and go on to create a host of tablets that aren't infringing because they look like this Galaxy. That virtually destroys Apple's primary reason for this lawsuit.
 
The Know-it-all Foreman and a Mistrial
 
Based on remarks by jurors, all these jury blunders seemed to flow from a juror who became their 'expert' and foreman because he had a patent (just one) of his own. That fits with my 'blowhard' theory for this too-quick decision and what's leaking out afterward: the unfortunate jury was dominated by one or two know-it-alls who forced the rest to do what they wanted. There was little deliberation and a host of blunders.
 
What I'm now wondering is if or why either side permitted that patentee to be on the jury. People who've had some personal experience related to the issues at trial are usually excluded, so that experience cannot shape their decision. Did both Samsung (in general) and Apple (over the Galaxy) blunder badly, or did this juror/foreman withhold that information from the court?
 
If the latter is true, this drawn-out and expensive trial could quickly become a mistrial.
 
The Judge's Role
 
I will say one thing in favor of some of these jurors. By wondering why they weren't being shown examples of prior art in defense of Samsung, they were seeing through the wall Judge Koh erected against Samsung presenting that evidence to the jury. Her efforts to exclude that evidence on technicalities only confused the jury and perhaps contributed to their sloppiness. I can easily imaging a few of them thinking, "Well, if the court isn't allowing us to consider all the evidence in this case, why should we bother to take the time to examine the evidence that was presented. Why not just decide quickly and be done with it?" Judge Koh's unprofessional haste to try and be done with it, became their haste to reach a decision. 
 
For more details on the jury's problems, go to http://www.groklaw.net
 
Groklaw is always the best place to go for the legal side of tech news.

Utter piffle.
Why?
...quoting Wikipedia or Groklaw is like playing wackamole...the crap justs keeps popping up all over the place.
@Inkling
You must have just visited Ars, where there is a thread devoted to the delusional ratings of the clueless intent on impugning the jury with totally unsubstantiated allegations that are baseless, uninformed and well...impossible to consider since not even the judge is party to the jury's deliberations. Except of course if you believe that Apple bought the judge and jury, ownd the legal system and flat out lied about everything.
I repeat, utter blowhard piffle.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung asks court to toss Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction, seeks damages