or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple wins 3G patent battle with Samsung in UK court ruling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wins 3G patent battle with Samsung in UK court ruling

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
Apple this week secured another patent win over rival Samsung, this time in a U.K. court over a standard-essential patent related to 3G connectivity.

Samsung had attempted to assert that Apple's products infringe on patents it owns, but Judge Christopher Floyd ruled in London that Apple did not infringe, according to ZDNet. The case involved 3G patents related to the way devices send and receive data over a wireless network.

Apple and Samsung phones


In filing the lawsuit, Samsung had hoped to take about 2.5 percent in royalties from Apple's 3G-enabled devices ? a demand that intellectual property expert Florian Mueller characterized as "ridiculous."

He also noted that Apple has successfully fought off 24 standard-essential patent claims by Samsung, while the South Korean company has prevailed on three standard-essential patents, with two of those cases in its home country.

Samsung responded to the ruling by saying officials are "disappointed" by the decision. The company plans to review the judgment before deciding whether to appeal.

The legal battles between Samsung and Apple began in April of 2011, when Apple sued Samsung and accused the company of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad with its own smartphones and tablets. Samsung has fired back with its own complaints, and the two companies are now embroiled in dozens of lawsuits that span around the globe.

Apple's accusations of copying have not prevented Samsung from introducing similar products. Last month, the South Korean handset maker introduced a new application for its devices called "Wallet," which bears numerous similarities to Apple's Passbook, including the design of the icon.
post #2 of 25
Now Scamsung wish they hadn't hired their pet judge away. 1wink.gif

Just kidding ... Good news indeed!
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, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
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, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #3 of 25
Maybe Samsung can ask Jacob if he knows of any other UK judges that are for sale that would be willing to actively volunteer to take the case. I'm sure other judges would like to know they have a cushy parachute to walk into after the trial.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #4 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple this week secured another patent win over rival Samsung, this time in a U.K. court over a standard-essential patent related to 3G connectivity..

So, of course, AAPL is down in pre-market trading.
"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 25

Will Samsung be forced to take out full page ads to proclaim their agreement with this ruling? Or is that only for Apple?

post #6 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyPaul View Post

Will Samsung be forced to take out full page ads to proclaim their agreement with this ruling? Or is that only for Apple?

Excellent question!
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, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
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, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #7 of 25
DOOMED!
post #8 of 25
+1,000,000.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #9 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyPaul View Post

Will Samsung be forced to take out full page ads to proclaim their agreement with this ruling? Or is that only for Apple?

As long as Samsung doesn't continue to claim Apple guilty of the IP violation despite the ruling and outside of any appeal there shouldn't be a posting requirement. That's where Apple got dinged in the previous case. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #10 of 25

Apple were initially only required to put a statement via a small link on their website (they claimed would take two weeks to organise) which they did in a few days. However the content of the linked statement was so petulant and did not meet the requirements of the court that they were THEN required to take out the adverts.

post #11 of 25
Originally Posted by JollyPaul View Post
Will Samsung be forced to take out full page ads to proclaim their agreement with this ruling?

 

Nonsense. Even when Apple wins, Apple loses.


Originally Posted by emcomments View Post
Apple were initially only required to put a statement via a small link on their website (they claimed would take two weeks to organise) which they did in a few days. However the content of the linked statement was so petulant and did not meet the requirements of the court that they were THEN required to take out the adverts.

 

No, they never needed to take out advertisements, and no, the content met the requirements perfectly.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #12 of 25
Samsung has been using the court cases with Apple as a marketing strategy to make Apple look like the bad guy and so far it seems to be working among the younger generation. The younger generation seem to have a distaste for older generations using apple products that they have to " rebel" against the older people and use Samsung.
post #13 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

As long as Samsung doesn't continue to claim Apple guilty of the IP violation despite the ruling and outside of any appeal there shouldn't be a posting requirement. That's where Apple got dinged in the previous case. 

 

I think the question of corruption on the part of the judge in that case is fully answered. It had nothing to do with anything Apple did, and everything to do with the judge looking to line his pockets. And his subsequent actions are all the proof that's needed. It's a sad day for the justice system in the UK when judges are so easily and openly bought.

post #14 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGeek Pro View Post

Samsung has been using the court cases with Apple as a marketing strategy to make Apple look like the bad guy and so far it seems to be working among the younger generation. The younger generation seem to have a distaste for older generations using apple products that they have to " rebel" against the older people and use Samsung.

 

What a lot of nonsense.

post #15 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGeek Pro View Post

Samsung has been using the court cases with Apple as a marketing strategy to make Apple look like the bad guy and so far it seems to be working among the younger generation. The younger generation seem to have a distaste for older generations using apple products that they have to " rebel" against the older people and use Samsung.

Thanks for the laugh!
post #16 of 25

I guess this judge isn't getting a new job working for Samsung

post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGeek Pro View Post

Samsung has been using the court cases with Apple as a marketing strategy to make Apple look like the bad guy and so far it seems to be working among the younger generation. The younger generation seem to have a distaste for older generations using apple products that they have to " rebel" against the older people and use Samsung.

 

Then when they grow-up & get older & wiser, the majority realise their error & switch to Apple.

 

As has been said numerous times before, the reverse, the move from Apple to Samsung, does not come anywhere near the same figures. For the majority, once with Apple they stay with Apple, the retention rates always show it.

post #18 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

As long as Samsung doesn't continue to claim Apple guilty of the IP violation despite the ruling and outside of any appeal there shouldn't be a posting requirement. That's where Apple got dinged in the previous case. 

Actually, Jacob ordered it in the original trial, as requested by Samsung. In fact the entire UK trial was initiated by Samsung suing Apple for this reason. It was not as a result of or as a response to Apple's appeal. It was the original ruling. 

 

Apple got dinged when Samsung made certain ridiculous and unprecedented suggestions and the Judge bizarrely used them in his ruling. Now that we know the trial was possibly a job interview, his erratic and irrational behavior during the trial makes more sense. To be honest, I attributed his weird behavior and rulings to him being a glory hound backing in the light of a big Apple trial. Now that we know he came out of retirement, sought out this specific trial and pushed to have it assigned to him and that shortly there after he was hired into a lucrative consulting position in support of Samsung, it obviously wasn't just glory seeking. 

 

So, by all rights, Samsung should face similar punishments in this trial, right now. Perhaps worse, because they were engaged in what other regulators might consider illegal by suing over FRAND SEP patents, which is a no-no elsewhere. But then Apple would have to find a judge willing to take instruction. I guess they have enough law firms hired that they could find the guy a job in exchange. I don't expect Apple will sink to those levels. Samsung has a long history of dealing dirty, leave it to them.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGeek Pro View Post

Samsung has been using the court cases with Apple as a marketing strategy to make Apple look like the bad guy and so far it seems to be working among the younger generation. The younger generation seem to have a distaste for older generations using apple products that they have to " rebel" against the older people and use Samsung.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

What a lot of nonsense.

I actually agree with MGP. Since all of these trials started, the Android vendors, and especially Samsung, have been able to convince the media to position Apple and the bully. Even in trials that where Apple was being sued, the media willfully or ignorantly portrays Apple as the aggressor. Look at just the UK case last year. That was Samsung suing Apple, as documented in the court records. Yet the media continually reported it as "Apple sued Samsung". The media never reports that Motorola sued Apple first or that Nokia sued Apple before Apple sued any cellular competitor. Samsung is riding high on these perceptions. Go to any forums that discuss anything Apple and you will see that the general consensus is that Apple is the aggressor, that Apple is suing everyone, that Apple's lawsuits are without merit. These are all meme's that Samsung (and Google) have been actively seeding for years and it is taking hold. Samsung is portraying themselves as the victim and as the cool, hip underdog. That used to be Apple spot but Samsung has used the lawsuits to usurp that image.

 

I don't think there is any doubt that Apple's "coolness" factor is slowing with the younger generation. The question is, does that matter. Teens are the same demo that was still using BB when the rest of the world had moved to iOS and Android. They are not the mindshare leaders in this market. Twenty/thirty somethings are, and I am getting the feeling that this demo is starting to shed at least some of their exuberance towards Apple.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #20 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Actually, Jacob ordered it in the original trial, as requested by Samsung. In fact the entire UK trial was initiated by Samsung suing Apple for this reason. It was not as a result of or as a response to Apple's appeal. It was the original ruling.

I didn't say the order came from an appeal. What I said was as long as Samsung doesn't continue to claim Apple is guilty, other than in an appeal, there wouldn't be any need for "clarification" in the form of a published announcement by Samsung. After the UK trial last summer Apple continued to publicly claim Samsung guilty anyway, and went even further in muddying the water by attempting to continue a German case that no longer mattered, having been settled by the UK ruling. Thus the admittedly unusual Apple publication order to sift the dirt and mud out of the water. making the court's judgement of non-infringement crystal-clear again.

 

As far as I know Samsung is not continuing to make public claims that Apple is guilty despite what the court ruled. That's the difference. If you're really as aware of the facts as you imply you are you should have already known that.


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/8/13 at 6:17am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #21 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I didn't say the order came from an appeal. What I said was as long as Samsung doesn't continue to claim Apple is guilty, other than in an appeal, there wouldn't be any need for "clarification" in the form of a published announcement by Samsung. After the UK trial last summer Apple continued to publicly claim Samsung guilty anyway, and went even further in muddying the water by attempting to continue a German case that no longer mattered, having been settled by the UK ruling. Thus the admittedly unusual Apple publication order to sift the dirt and mud out of the water. making the court's judgement of non-infringement crystal-clear again.

 

As far as I know Samsung is not continuing to make public claims that Apple is guilty despite what the court ruled. That's the difference. If you're really as aware of the facts as you imply you are you should have already known that.

Umm, but you are indeed claiming that it was because of Apple's actions after the trial. But the ruling for them to publish the notice was during the trial...it was in fact the ruling of the judge in the trial. So your assertion that for Samsung to face similar treatment in this case only of they continue their claims makes no sense. An equitable outcome therefore would be for the ruling in this case itself to include a mandate that Samsung publish a similar notice. But that won't happen because this just is likely not due to be on Apple's payroll.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcomments View Post

Apple were initially only required to put a statement via a small link on their website (they claimed would take two weeks to organise) which they did in a few days. However the content of the linked statement was so petulant and did not meet the requirements of the court that they were THEN required to take out the adverts.

No, sorry, you are completely wrong on that. The original ruling included an order for Apple to publish in newspapers. The wording and placement of the website and newspaper notices was ordered changed subsequent to Apple's original postings.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #23 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Umm, but you are indeed claiming that it was because of Apple's actions after the trial. But the ruling for them to publish the notice was during the trial...it was in fact the ruling of the judge in the trial. So your assertion that for Samsung to face similar treatment in this case only of they continue their claims makes no sense. An equitable outcome therefore would be for the ruling in this case itself to include a mandate that Samsung publish a similar notice. But that won't happen because this just is likely not due to be on Apple's payroll.

Tulkas, if you check the timeline you'll find the order to publish by the original UK court came some days after the ruling of non-infringement, even tho the same judge made the order.

 

The finding of non-infringement issued by the court on July 9th. The order requiring Apple to clarify the courts order was made on or about the 18th of July, at least 9 days after the UK court's determination that Samsung did not violate Apple's asserted IP.

 

My post was 100% correct.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/apple-must-publish-notice-samsung-didn-t-copy-ipad-judge-says.html


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/8/13 at 7:25am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Tulkas, if you check the timeline you'll find the order to publish by the original UK court came some days after the ruling of non-infringement, even tho the same judge made the order.

yes, but the order was part of the trial, not after the trial. The trial, initiated by Samsung, was intended to get a ruling. The order may have occurred shortly after the finding of non-infringement, but it was still a part of the ruling. In almost any trial, orders flowing from the ruling often take a few days but they are still a part of the same trial, whether they followed by a few minutes, hours or days. Apple's activity after the trial did not (and logically cannot) have influenced the ruling of the trial itself. It wasn't just that the same judge gave the order. He gave it as the conclusion of the trial itself.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #25 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

yes, but the order was part of the trial, not after the trial. The trial, initiated by Samsung, was intended to get a ruling. The order may have occurred shortly after the finding of non-infringement, but it was still a part of the ruling. In almost any trial, orders flowing from the ruling often take a few days but they are still a part of the same trial, whether they followed by a few minutes, hours or days. Apple's activity after the trial did not (and logically cannot) have influenced the ruling of the trial itself. It wasn't just that the same judge gave the order. He gave it as the conclusion of the trial itself.

Tulkas, I'll have to assume you're not clear on why the publication order was added well over a week after the court's ruling was made official. I included a Bloomberg link to explain what prompted that. It was not Apple assertions preceeding or during the trial. The trial was over and the court's ruling published and made official on July 9th. It was because of Apple statements and actions after the ruling of non-infringement (which applied EU-wide) that Judge Birss came back to make the additional publish order. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple wins 3G patent battle with Samsung in UK court ruling