or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple wins broad injunction against Samsung in The Netherlands over bounce-back patent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wins broad injunction against Samsung in The Netherlands over bounce-back patent

post #1 of 52
Thread Starter 
Samsung lost an appeal in the Netherlands over its infringement of Apple's bounce-back patent, resulting in a broad injunction against selling accused devices and all other infringing devices that Samsung has introduced or will introduce.

Apple vs Samsung in The Netherlands


The District Court of The Hague originally awarded Apple a ban on infringing Samsung Galaxy devices in an order back in November 2012.

That ban centered on European Patent EP2059868, and pertained to Samsung's use of Google's stock Android 2.2.1 or later, which began copying the iPhone technique Apple invented to simplify the navigation and direct manipulation of photos, often referred to as simply the "bounce back" patent.

Nearly a year after Samsung was found to infringe Apple's IP in The Netherlands, a German court was persuaded by Google to throw out Apple's rights over the same patent, based on the idea that Steve Jobs' original presentation of the iPhone's new technique in 2007 was "prior art," a line of reasoning that is legal in Germany.Samsung's strategy of delay has failed in that the infringement ban has been extended to all devices that similarly infringe

Samsung continued to contest Apple's win in The Netherlands for another year after the German case before again losing a final decision by the Court of Appeal of The Hague.

Because the case has dragged on for years, the original products found to infringe are now relatively ancient models, including the original Galaxy S, SII and Ace phones. However, Samsung's strategy of delay has failed in that the infringement ban has been extended to all devices that similarly infringe, including any future devices or renamed products Samsung can create in the future.

Google's Motorola, Samsung fight for the right to rip off Apple's inventions



Samsung created its own alternative to Apple's "bounce back" or "rubber banding" concept that involves a "blue flash" to indicate that the user has reached the end of a scrolling list. However, both Samsung and Google continued work together to deliver infringing versions of Apple's work instead.

While Google blamed Android's infringement in Germany on Jobs' demonstration, it has also continued to deliver intentionally infringing "pure Android" versions to other licensees in other countries that purposely copy Apple's iPhone rather than deliver original software that offers user interface inventions that might work equally as well.

In the U.S., Google argued on behalf of its Motorola Mobility subsidiary that Apple's patents should be ignored as worthless even as it distributed copies of Android that purposely emulated a variety of original elements of the iPhone that it knew to be patented.

Google's line of reasoning convinced Judge Richard Posner to sideline all claims in the Motorola vs. Apple case in 2012, a decision that was recently overturned by an appeals court that ruled Judge Posner "wrongly threw out the case."

Motorola now too weak to meaningfully infringe



However, in the years of delay between the dismissal and its overturning, Google's Motorola lost relevancy as an Android licensee as the subsidiary frittered away billions of dollars of Google's profits and failed to introduce any successful or profitable new Android products.

Google subsequently decided to sell off its Motorola unit as "discontinued operations."

As a result, Apple and Google jointly announced they would drop all claims in all jurisdictions related to Motorola's now virtually irrelevant history of infringement.

Google continues to fight for Android infringement



Despite dropping its Motorola-related lawsuits with Apple, Google continues its efforts to attack Apple's U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 in the American Apple vs Samsung case, which covers the same "bounce back" invention.

Following its success in Germany, Google's efforts to attack Apple's invention in the U.S. serves as a tactic to reduce Samsung's nearly billion dollar penalty for infringing the patented invention in producing Galaxy phones designed to look and work identically to Apple's iPhone, beginning back in 2010.

Samsung copies iPhone


A new tactic in protecting Android's infringement



Google's previous efforts to "protect Android" from infringement claims originally centered around buying up billions of dollars worth of patents and using these to support its licensees after they were sued.

However, this effort has proven to be both unsustainable expensive (particularly in the case of Motorola) and a legal dead end, due to the fact that most of the patents it acquired are already committed to FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non Discriminatory) licensing, which prevents them from being effectively used to win sales bans against Apple's products.

Following a series of losses around the world, most recently including its case in Japan, Samsung has similarly appeared to shift its efforts from attempting to weaponize FRAND-licensed Standards Essential Patents to instead undermine Apple's inventions and devalue patents in general.Samsung has been less successful in competing with Apple outside of the courts

In its second U.S. patent trial, Samsung's strategy involved buying up low-value patents and seeking tiny infringement claims over them.

This tactic appeared to work well, as it convinced a jury that its years of profiting from purposeful infringement of Apple's patents was only worthy of $120 million in damages.

Samsung has been less successful in competing with Apple outside of the courts: in the phone market it ships twice as many units as Apple but earns only half as much; in tablets Samsung has failed to achieve any significant headway despite closely copying Apple's iPad, and in technology its "leading by following" has failed to match Apple's lead in delivering modern ARMv8 Application Processors like the 64-bit A7 while also stumbling in its efforts to sell Knox-secured Android Galaxy products to government and enterprise clients.

post #2 of 52

Outstanding. :) Need this in the US. 

post #3 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

Outstanding. 1smile.gif Need this in the US. 

I don't think Samsung sells any of the infringing devices anymore.
"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 #4 of 52
It will not happen in the US due to playoffs in Washington, DC. It is my belief both Google and Samsung have spent millions of US dollars lining politician pockets to block all attempts to reign in guilty verdicts against them in US court rooms.
post #5 of 52
We need more injunction coming to a city, state and country near you..
post #6 of 52

And some people want a peace treaty or they want Apple to abandon all litigation?:no:

 

How does this win for Apple fit in with that defeatist state of mind?:rolleyes:

 

Screw that, I want war, and I want Samsung to get what it deserves.:smokey: 

post #7 of 52
post #8 of 52

Remember, such an injunction in one EU country makes it easier (though not automatic) and faster to get similar stuff in other EU countries.

post #9 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

Outstanding. 1smile.gif Need this in the US. 

I don't think Samsung sells any of the infringing devices anymore.
It includes all future infringing produces. That is way a sales ban is important. Not like the patent trials where they are so far behind on models. Now that Koh's decision was overturned, I really hope we see a ban.
post #10 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post


It includes all future infringing produces. That is way a sales ban is important. Not like the patent trials where they are so far behind on models. Now that Koh's decision was overturned, I really hope we see a ban.

 

Right.

 

Question: How many of the new models infringe?

 

Answer: None

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #11 of 52

Another nail in the coffin.

post #12 of 52

Okay... fine.  Samsung lost on appeals, and it will also cover current and future devices - if any.

So, will someone please explain if this means Apple can get damages for all those devices that were sold?  I want this to hurt Samsung in the pocketbook.

At some point the courts will have to see that Samsung is using/abusing the courts and realize Samsung is taking advantage of the years it takes to come to a decision, which by then is largely obsolete and/or irrelevant.

post #13 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I don't think Samsung sells any of the infringing devices anymore.

 

"the infringement ban has been extended to all devices that similarly infringe, including any future devices or renamed products Samsung can create in the future."

post #14 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

Right.

 

Question: How many of the new models infringe?

 

Answer: None

 

How much does Samsung pay you to troll here?

post #15 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

Right.

 

Question: How many of the new models infringe?

 

Answer: None

Actually they do.  They have not stopped using Apple's tech because they could get away with it. This is a feature they created a workaround for but decided not to use it because they thought they wouldn't be forced to stop.  

post #16 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

It includes all future infringing produces. That is way a sales ban is important. Not like the patent trials where they are so far behind on models. Now that Koh's decision was overturned, I really hope we see a ban.

They stopped using the rubber band effect so there's really not much if anything to ban regarding this particular patent.
"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 #17 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

Right.

 

Question: How many of the new models infringe?

 

Answer: None

 

You don't seem to get it, *if* no new model infringe then that is precisely the outcome Apple wants because Samsung's already declining ability to come up with appealing reasons to buy their garbage will be further reduced.

post #18 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

Outstanding. 1smile.gif Need this in the US. 

Need this in Suriname too. See a lot of S3's and S4's but the Aces do sell a lot also. Very cheap alternative for one of the expensive ones or an iPhone. I wonder if the ban would apply here too, if we still were a colony of the Netherlands, but got independence in 1975.
post #19 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

"the infringement ban has been extended to all devices that similarly infringe, including any future devices or renamed products Samsung can create in the future."

If you read all of it you would've read this.
Quote:
Samsung created its own alternative to Apple's "bounce back" or "rubber banding" concept that involves a "blue flash" to indicate that the user has reached the end of a scrolling list.
"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 #20 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

Actually they do.  They have not stopped using Apple's tech because they could get away with it. This is a feature they created a workaround for but decided not to use it because they thought they wouldn't be forced to stop.  

No they don't.
"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 #21 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

How much does Samsung pay you to troll here?

So you consider being correct as trolling? From my experience island hermit is by far not a troll.
"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 #22 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post
 

 

You don't seem to get it, *if* no new model infringe then that is precisely the outcome Apple wants because Samsung's already declining ability to come up with appealing reasons to buy their garbage will be further reduced.

 

Is Samsung still selling phones in the Netherlands?

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #23 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


So you consider being correct as trolling? From my experience island hermit is by far not a troll.

 

freediverx is just pissed off because I called him lazy.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #24 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post
 

Actually they do.  They have not stopped using Apple's tech because they could get away with it. This is a feature they created a workaround for but decided not to use it because they thought they wouldn't be forced to stop.  

 

You answered my question.

 

None.

 

Do you really think that workaround wouldn't be implemented in all new models... tomorrow.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #25 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

It includes all future infringing produces. That is way a sales ban is important. Not like the patent trials where they are so far behind on models. Now that Koh's decision was overturned, I really hope we see a ban.

Right.

Question: How many of the new models infringe?

Answer: None

All of the devices infringe data detectors. I'm hopeful they get a ban for it. I'm fine with them skirting a ban by removing Apple's IP. That is the point.
post #26 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post


All of the devices infringe data detectors. I'm hopeful they get a ban for it. I'm fine with them skirting a ban by removing Apple's IP. That is the point.

 

You wouldn't know that's the point by reading these comments. It seems that a lot of people think that this about stopping the sale of Samsung phones.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #27 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


If you read all of it you would've read this.
Quote:
Samsung created its own alternative to Apple's "bounce back" or "rubber banding" concept that involves a "blue flash" to indicate that the user has reached the end of a scrolling list.

 

You seem to be an admirer of Samsung's deceptive practices. Here's the FULL quote:

 

"Samsung created its own alternative to Apple's "bounce back" or "rubber banding" concept that involves a "blue flash" to indicate that the user has reached the end of a scrolling list. However, both Samsung and Google continued work together to deliver infringing versions of Apple's work instead."
 

post #28 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post
 

 

"the infringement ban has been extended to all devices that similarly infringe, including any future devices or renamed products Samsung can create in the future."

Okay.

Which current devices similarly infringe on this?

post #29 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

All of the devices infringe data detectors. I'm hopeful they get a ban for it. I'm fine with them skirting a ban by removing Apple's IP. That is the point.

This isn't about data detectors, and just because a device infringes on a patent doesn’t mean that there will be a sales ban.

Judges don't hand out injunctions lightly because the sale of a of a infringing product might hurt the offended company but it will definitely hurt the accused company.

What if the device is found not to infringe? How do you make up for the lost sales caused by the injuction?
Edited by dasanman69 - 5/20/14 at 4:36pm
"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 #30 of 52
QFT:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
 
Judges don't hand out injections lightly 

LOL!

post #31 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Judges don't hand out injections lightly because the sale of a of a infringing product might hurt the offended company but it will definitely hurt the accused company.
 

 

Judges are wielding syringes now?

post #32 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

You seem to be an admirer of Samsung's deceptive practices. Here's the FULL quote:

"Samsung created its own alternative to Apple's "bounce back" or "rubber banding" concept that involves a "blue flash" to indicate that the user has reached the end of a scrolling list. However, both Samsung and Google continued work together to deliver infringing versions of Apple's work instead."

 

I left out the part you bolded because it's unrelated to the patent in question. That was a jab by the author.

I'm a admirer of the truth. Samsung has done despicable things, but that doesn't give you the right to spread untruths nor attack another poster who's simply stating the obvious.
"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 #33 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

Judges are wielding syringes now?

Lol, freaking autocorrect.
"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 #34 of 52
I wish the World gets together and say to Sammy: enough of your thievery. The profit from Your sales of stolen tech should be prorated and returned to its rightful owners.
post #35 of 52
I'm just happy to see "Apple wins - Samsung loses." The more wins the better. No matter where it is, it's well deserved. Sadly, this news doesn't get too much into the mainstream for folks to see what kind of slugs Samsung really are.

Hrm. There's a new one. Samslug.
post #36 of 52
How about compensation for all the infringing models that shipped? Not to mention, this was willful infringement, in the US Apple would be getting triple damages...
post #37 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post


All of the devices infringe data detectors. I'm hopeful they get a ban for it. I'm fine with them skirting a ban by removing Apple's IP. That is the point.

With the way Data Detectors are implemented in Android, it's not Android but rather the individual app developers that are "infringing." The system itself provides no engine for detecting and transforming data. Any app that renders telephone numbers as tappable links does so only because the developer coded an explicit search-and-replace routine to append "tel:" metadata to developer-specified strings using a technique that is as old as Unix (a.k.a regular expression processing). Apple would like to tell developers, "Thou shalt not search for these strings in your apps."


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 5/20/14 at 6:20pm
post #38 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post
 

 

You seem to be an admirer of Samsung's deceptive practices. Here's the FULL quote:

 

"Samsung created its own alternative to Apple's "bounce back" or "rubber banding" concept that involves a "blue flash" to indicate that the user has reached the end of a scrolling list. However, both Samsung and Google continued work together to deliver infringing versions of Apple's work instead."
 

The real revelation in this article is that there are apparently Android devices still shipping with the rubber-banding animation instead of the "flash" effect that has been part of stock android at least since Gingerbread.

post #39 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

All of the devices infringe data detectors. I'm hopeful they get a ban for it. I'm fine with them skirting a ban by removing Apple's IP. That is the point.

This isn't about data detectors, and just because a device infringes on a patent doesn’t mean that there will be a sales ban.

Judges don't hand out injunctions lightly because the sale of a of a infringing product might hurt the offended company but it will definitely hurt the accused company.

What if the device is found not to infringe? How do you make up for the lost sales caused by the injuction?

 

I know this one isn't about data detectors. I believe there should be one in the US with regard to it and the other patents that Samsung has been found to infringe. The US should actually enforce a sales ban for these patents or they shouldn't have a patent system. 

 

If they enforced a sales ban, Samsung would have these features ripped out before a ban would go into effect. I don't think for a second they would loose any sales. Right now, Apple has no real means to protect their IP since the sales ban was denied. Winning money is a start, but it is too little too late. The infringement needs to stop. Now that she got overturned, I'm hopeful they can get a ban. 

post #40 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post


All of the devices infringe data detectors. I'm hopeful they get a ban for it. I'm fine with them skirting a ban by removing Apple's IP. That is the point.

With the way Data Detectors are implemented in Android, it's not Android but rather the individual app developers that are "infringing." The system itself provides no engine for detecting and transforming data. Any app that renders telephone numbers as tappable links does so only because the developer coded an explicit search-and-replace routine to append "tel:" metadata to developer-specified strings using a technique that is as old as Unix (a.k.a regular expression processing). Apple would like to tell developers, "Thou shalt not search for these strings in your apps."

 

It doesn't matter either way as Samsung is one of the app developers that infringes it. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple wins broad injunction against Samsung in The Netherlands over bounce-back patent
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple wins broad injunction against Samsung in The Netherlands over bounce-back patent