The filing was for an injunction to prevent sales until the full court case. The court ruled that they didn't see cause for a ban on trade dress (basically saying that don't agree it is obviously a copy) but there is cause on the patent issue. A patent that specifies only phones so the devil is in the details.
There's obviously a misunderstanding of issues here.
This was a preliminary injunction hearing. The court ruled that there wasn't sufficient evidence to award a preliminary injunction on the basis of trade dress - but that simply says it wasn't a slam-dunk. They court could still believe that Apple has a good chance to prevail, but not enough to award an injunction. Some judges just don't like to award preliminary injunctions unless there's absolutely no question at all about the facts. It is also not unheard of for a judge to award the preliminary injunction on the basis of narrow grounds rather than using all the grounds at their disposal.
Basically, it doesn't mean that Samsung won. It simply means that Apple didn't prove that they were so guilty that the court didn't need to have a full trial to determine whether to stop the sale of their products.
Furthermore, it really doesn't matter at this point. Samsung can not sell those phones. There's really not much point in reading more into it than that.
Furthermore, it really doesn't matter at this point. Samsung can not sell those phones. There's really not much point in reading more into it than that.
It doesn't ban the sale of the devices at all. It simply creates a logistics issue that Samsung will have to figure out in the next 7 weeks according to new reports. And even if nothing changed, there's several countries in the EU that the ruling won't apply to anyway since they've never recognized the validity of the single Apple patent validated so far.
The photo viewer issue the judge ruled on in this case applies to all android models. Does anyone know if samsung can make the changes itself or do they need google to do it?
More evidence the patent system is broken. If we are being honst, the photo viewing patent is pretty minor compared with the overall complexity of a smartphone but it still gets the entire device banned.
It doesn't ban the sale of the devices at all. It simply creates a logistics issue that Samsung will have to figure out in the next 7 weeks according to new reports. And even if nothing changed, there's several countries in the EU that the ruling won't apply to anyway since they've never recognized the validity of the single Apple patent validated so far.
I'm not sure you fully understand the implication of the term "logistics issue". That means Sam has to find another port city and distribution center to ship their phones to. Before you say "just go rent another warehouse somewhere" think about it. They have to find another place to distribute their phones to the rest of Europe, i.e. spend more money to duplicate something they already have spent money on.
Everybody's all excited about whether Apple prevailed, slam dunk blah blah blah. But Apple got what it wanted. Sam can't sell or distribute into Europe from The Netherlands. A very shrewd and well-executed move on Apple's part, from where I'm standing.
It doesn't ban the sale of the devices at all. It simply creates a logistics issue that Samsung will have to figure out in the next 7 weeks according to new reports. And even if nothing changed, there's several countries in the EU that the ruling won't apply to anyway since they've never recognized the validity of the single Apple patent validated so far.
It's not simply a logistics issue. The judge banned the import of those phones.
The idea that Europeans would "crave and covet" watery American (so-called) beer is about as likely as them craving a Galaxy phone I guess. Maybe ex-pat Americans would be interested?
European beer tastes have absolutely nothing to do with his point, which seems to have flown well over your head.
Coors used to be sold only West of the Mississippi River (which is a large river in the USA nearly bisecting the country). As a result, and despite its poor quality, it used to be "smuggled" back east by enterprising individuals who resold it at premium prices.
Now does it all make sense? No thanks needed for the reality tutorials. I enjoy your posts.
European beer tastes have absolutely nothing to do with his point, which seems to have flown well over your head.
Coors used to be sold only West of the Mississippi River (which is a large river in the USA nearly bisecting the country). As a result, and despite its poor quality, it used to be "smuggled" back east by enterprising individuals who resold it at premium prices.
Now does it all make sense? No thanks needed for the reality tutorials. I enjoy your posts.
By the way it was written, I thought he was implying that there was a great underground desire for Coors in Europe. I can see how what I said makes no sense if that's not what was meant.
In addition to the (strong?) possibility of lifting of the ban, Apple also runs the risk of compensating Samsung for losses incurred in the event the final ruling goes against them. Of course, if it goes against Samsung, then the Android phone vendor with the strongest momentum would be castrated, cut off at the knees and beheaded, all at once.
As I see it, Apple has to win in two courts here - one is the court of law and the other is the court of public opinion. In my humble opinion, Apple will will lose in the court of public opinion and will at best, get a stalemate in the court of law.
As to public opinion, unless you're a complete honk for Apple Inc, any reasonable person can see that an Android devices are sufficiently different from an iPhone or iPad. Whether or not they are better is debatable, but nobody can use an Android device and confuse it with an iPhone or iPad. As such, in the court of public opinion, Apple will increasingly be seen as the 800 lb guerrilla that's attempting to stifle competition through litigation.
In the court of law, it comes down to multitudes of patents and considering how many patents are involved, who owns them, and the inherent technical complexity, it's safe to assume that the courts will make rulings for and against Apple in the coming years. When it comes to the patent wars, the only sure winners will be the lawyers and even if Apple wins some skirmishes, they will lose in the court of public opinion and that could be disastrous if Apple neglects to keep trumping with the competition with new innovations.
I'm not sure you fully understand the implication of the term "logistics issue". That means Sam has to find another port city and distribution center to ship their phones to.
No, I do understand the initial judgement as it's been explained so far. They cannot continue to import those phones thru the Amsterdam port beginning 7 weeks from now. Additionally the distribution ban applies only to certain countries that recognize the validity of the single patent that Samsung may eventually be found to infringe. It's not "all of Europe". What no one really knows yet, as far as I know, is how difficult it will be to replace the entry point, nor the expense of doing so. It may not be worth the expense to Samsung. Or it might be a relative pittance.
Within a few days I'm sure we'll see more detail about what's going to be done on Samsung's part, and what the real-life effect of this is. I don't think it's at all clear yet who is winning at this point.
The court made null all of Apple's argument against Android as a whole. The bigger patents of multi touch GUI interface have been declared NULL and can not be used against others in the future.
All Samsung has to do is update the minor Gallery UI with an accelerometer ( of which Touch Whiz 4.0 uses already in side scrolling application home screens).
Exactly. How anybody can interpret this as a huge victory of Apple. Most of their patent claims were just invalidated. The only remaining issue can be fixed by simple software update. This needs a quite bit of fanboism to be seen as anything that favors Apple's litigation machine.
Wrong. The court said that there was not sufficient evidence to issue a preliminary injunction baring the import of the products based on those patents.
The validity of the patents has not been decided upon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
It doesn't ban the sale of the devices at all. It simply creates a logistics issue that Samsung will have to figure out in the next 7 weeks according to new reports. And even if nothing changed, there's several countries in the EU that the ruling won't apply to anyway since they've never recognized the validity of the single Apple patent validated so far.
That's wrong. The decision bans the import and sale of the devices to the Netherlands (which is where Samsung imports all of its European devices). Furthermore, the strength of the ruling also probably bans the import of the devices to any of the other European countries where Apple has the same patent. They CAN import the products into countries which are not covered by the patent (although Apple can just as easily file for injunctions in those countries, as well).
Wrong. The court said that there was not sufficient evidence to issue a preliminary injunction baring the import of the products based on those patents.
The validity of the patents has not been decided upon.
That's wrong. The decision bans the import and sale of the devices to the Netherlands (which is where Samsung imports all of its European devices). Furthermore, the strength of the ruling also probably bans the import of the devices to any of the other European countries where Apple has the same patent. They CAN import the products into countries which are not covered by the patent (although Apple can just as easily file for injunctions in those countries, as well).
You've misunderstood a couple of points according to news outlets. Read the BBC story here for details on what the court order actually accomplishes.
He is correct that there have been no invalidations. However, the patents were already thoroughly examined by the judge and on several occasions in the court order the judge states that the outcome of the 'real' suit (the one which takes ages) will likely be the same.
The judge also specifically states the the swipe-to-unlock patent has a very good chance of being invalidated in the follow-up suit due to prior art (Neonode n1m).
Basically all samsung has to do (and they already stated they will) is change the gallery app. Other manufacturers will have to do the same though, hopefully google quickly changes it at the source.
The court made null all of Apple's argument against Android as a whole. The bigger patents of multi touch GUI interface have been declared NULL and can not be used against others in the future.
As already stated above, the other patent breach claims were not strong enough for a judge to decide he did not need a full trial. In other words, Samsung may still be in breach of those, just not so obviously that the judge can decide without a full trial.
"Breach not 100% obvious" does not mean "No breach"
I think that design copying would generally be so 'soft' that they are seldomly decided without a full trial.
Still, for those who thought the copying was obvious on all fronts, the ruling will be a disappointment.
European beer tastes have absolutely nothing to do with his point, which seems to have flown well over your head.
Coors used to be sold only West of the Mississippi River (which is a large river in the USA nearly bisecting the country). As a result, and despite its poor quality, it used to be "smuggled" back east by enterprising individuals who resold it at premium prices.
Now does it all make sense? No thanks needed for the reality tutorials. I enjoy your posts.
I knew about the history of Coors but I still found the response funny.
The Coors analogy is pretty apt in other ways though: Coors is a watered down attempt to recreate a pale lager -- Samsung Galaxy is a skin deep attempt to recreate an iPhone.
I am glad the Look and feel crap was more or less ruled invalid at this point. ( Yea they have a shot in court, but it is slim after this preliminary ruling and will take years in the courts.... ). The Gallery is very easy to change. There are already several other free options that you can replace the system gallery app with now that would not violate the patent in question. I replaced mine a long time ago, because the built in one sux....
I would think Samsung could have a patch up in a couple of weeks that would take care of this issue. They would definitely not need Google's assistance to do it....
I did a little checking. It turns out that the issue is not with the Gallery App in Native Android. The issue is with a Touchwiz ( UI Skin) bounce feature. it should be very easy for Samsung to correct this...
I also read an ( unconfirmed ) article that the Judge is going to allow sales as long a Samsung agrees to change the toucwiz bounce feature before the deadline.....
Comments
The filing was for an injunction to prevent sales until the full court case. The court ruled that they didn't see cause for a ban on trade dress (basically saying that don't agree it is obviously a copy) but there is cause on the patent issue. A patent that specifies only phones so the devil is in the details.
There's obviously a misunderstanding of issues here.
This was a preliminary injunction hearing. The court ruled that there wasn't sufficient evidence to award a preliminary injunction on the basis of trade dress - but that simply says it wasn't a slam-dunk. They court could still believe that Apple has a good chance to prevail, but not enough to award an injunction. Some judges just don't like to award preliminary injunctions unless there's absolutely no question at all about the facts. It is also not unheard of for a judge to award the preliminary injunction on the basis of narrow grounds rather than using all the grounds at their disposal.
Basically, it doesn't mean that Samsung won. It simply means that Apple didn't prove that they were so guilty that the court didn't need to have a full trial to determine whether to stop the sale of their products.
Furthermore, it really doesn't matter at this point. Samsung can not sell those phones. There's really not much point in reading more into it than that.
Furthermore, it really doesn't matter at this point. Samsung can not sell those phones. There's really not much point in reading more into it than that.
It doesn't ban the sale of the devices at all. It simply creates a logistics issue that Samsung will have to figure out in the next 7 weeks according to new reports. And even if nothing changed, there's several countries in the EU that the ruling won't apply to anyway since they've never recognized the validity of the single Apple patent validated so far.
It doesn't ban the sale of the devices at all. It simply creates a logistics issue that Samsung will have to figure out in the next 7 weeks according to new reports. And even if nothing changed, there's several countries in the EU that the ruling won't apply to anyway since they've never recognized the validity of the single Apple patent validated so far.
I'm not sure you fully understand the implication of the term "logistics issue". That means Sam has to find another port city and distribution center to ship their phones to. Before you say "just go rent another warehouse somewhere" think about it. They have to find another place to distribute their phones to the rest of Europe, i.e. spend more money to duplicate something they already have spent money on.
Everybody's all excited about whether Apple prevailed, slam dunk blah blah blah. But Apple got what it wanted. Sam can't sell or distribute into Europe from The Netherlands. A very shrewd and well-executed move on Apple's part, from where I'm standing.
It doesn't ban the sale of the devices at all. It simply creates a logistics issue that Samsung will have to figure out in the next 7 weeks according to new reports. And even if nothing changed, there's several countries in the EU that the ruling won't apply to anyway since they've never recognized the validity of the single Apple patent validated so far.
It's not simply a logistics issue. The judge banned the import of those phones.
"Spaceballs"?
"Oh s*it. There goes the planet."
"Even in the future nothing works!"
I luv Spaceballs zingers!.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094012/quotes
/
/
/
Funny.
The idea that Europeans would "crave and covet" watery American (so-called) beer is about as likely as them craving a Galaxy phone I guess. Maybe ex-pat Americans would be interested?
European beer tastes have absolutely nothing to do with his point, which seems to have flown well over your head.
Coors used to be sold only West of the Mississippi River (which is a large river in the USA nearly bisecting the country). As a result, and despite its poor quality, it used to be "smuggled" back east by enterprising individuals who resold it at premium prices.
Now does it all make sense? No thanks needed for the reality tutorials. I enjoy your posts.
European beer tastes have absolutely nothing to do with his point, which seems to have flown well over your head.
Coors used to be sold only West of the Mississippi River (which is a large river in the USA nearly bisecting the country). As a result, and despite its poor quality, it used to be "smuggled" back east by enterprising individuals who resold it at premium prices.
Now does it all make sense? No thanks needed for the reality tutorials. I enjoy your posts.
By the way it was written, I thought he was implying that there was a great underground desire for Coors in Europe. I can see how what I said makes no sense if that's not what was meant.
Fascinating high stakes poker!!
As to public opinion, unless you're a complete honk for Apple Inc, any reasonable person can see that an Android devices are sufficiently different from an iPhone or iPad. Whether or not they are better is debatable, but nobody can use an Android device and confuse it with an iPhone or iPad. As such, in the court of public opinion, Apple will increasingly be seen as the 800 lb guerrilla that's attempting to stifle competition through litigation.
In the court of law, it comes down to multitudes of patents and considering how many patents are involved, who owns them, and the inherent technical complexity, it's safe to assume that the courts will make rulings for and against Apple in the coming years. When it comes to the patent wars, the only sure winners will be the lawyers and even if Apple wins some skirmishes, they will lose in the court of public opinion and that could be disastrous if Apple neglects to keep trumping with the competition with new innovations.
I'm not sure you fully understand the implication of the term "logistics issue". That means Sam has to find another port city and distribution center to ship their phones to.
No, I do understand the initial judgement as it's been explained so far. They cannot continue to import those phones thru the Amsterdam port beginning 7 weeks from now. Additionally the distribution ban applies only to certain countries that recognize the validity of the single patent that Samsung may eventually be found to infringe. It's not "all of Europe". What no one really knows yet, as far as I know, is how difficult it will be to replace the entry point, nor the expense of doing so. It may not be worth the expense to Samsung. Or it might be a relative pittance.
Within a few days I'm sure we'll see more detail about what's going to be done on Samsung's part, and what the real-life effect of this is. I don't think it's at all clear yet who is winning at this point.
The court made null all of Apple's argument against Android as a whole. The bigger patents of multi touch GUI interface have been declared NULL and can not be used against others in the future.
All Samsung has to do is update the minor Gallery UI with an accelerometer ( of which Touch Whiz 4.0 uses already in side scrolling application home screens).
Exactly. How anybody can interpret this as a huge victory of Apple. Most of their patent claims were just invalidated. The only remaining issue can be fixed by simple software update. This needs a quite bit of fanboism to be seen as anything that favors Apple's litigation machine.
Wrong. The court said that there was not sufficient evidence to issue a preliminary injunction baring the import of the products based on those patents.
The validity of the patents has not been decided upon.
It doesn't ban the sale of the devices at all. It simply creates a logistics issue that Samsung will have to figure out in the next 7 weeks according to new reports. And even if nothing changed, there's several countries in the EU that the ruling won't apply to anyway since they've never recognized the validity of the single Apple patent validated so far.
That's wrong. The decision bans the import and sale of the devices to the Netherlands (which is where Samsung imports all of its European devices). Furthermore, the strength of the ruling also probably bans the import of the devices to any of the other European countries where Apple has the same patent. They CAN import the products into countries which are not covered by the patent (although Apple can just as easily file for injunctions in those countries, as well).
Wrong. The court said that there was not sufficient evidence to issue a preliminary injunction baring the import of the products based on those patents.
The validity of the patents has not been decided upon.
That's wrong. The decision bans the import and sale of the devices to the Netherlands (which is where Samsung imports all of its European devices). Furthermore, the strength of the ruling also probably bans the import of the devices to any of the other European countries where Apple has the same patent. They CAN import the products into countries which are not covered by the patent (although Apple can just as easily file for injunctions in those countries, as well).
You've misunderstood a couple of points according to news outlets. Read the BBC story here for details on what the court order actually accomplishes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14652482
You've misunderstood a couple of points according to news outlets. Read the BBC story here for details on what the court order actually accomplishes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14652482
He is correct that there have been no invalidations. However, the patents were already thoroughly examined by the judge and on several occasions in the court order the judge states that the outcome of the 'real' suit (the one which takes ages) will likely be the same.
The judge also specifically states the the swipe-to-unlock patent has a very good chance of being invalidated in the follow-up suit due to prior art (Neonode n1m).
Basically all samsung has to do (and they already stated they will) is change the gallery app. Other manufacturers will have to do the same though, hopefully google quickly changes it at the source.
This is actually a big loss for Apple.
The court made null all of Apple's argument against Android as a whole. The bigger patents of multi touch GUI interface have been declared NULL and can not be used against others in the future.
As already stated above, the other patent breach claims were not strong enough for a judge to decide he did not need a full trial. In other words, Samsung may still be in breach of those, just not so obviously that the judge can decide without a full trial.
"Breach not 100% obvious" does not mean "No breach"
I think that design copying would generally be so 'soft' that they are seldomly decided without a full trial.
Still, for those who thought the copying was obvious on all fronts, the ruling will be a disappointment.
European beer tastes have absolutely nothing to do with his point, which seems to have flown well over your head.
Coors used to be sold only West of the Mississippi River (which is a large river in the USA nearly bisecting the country). As a result, and despite its poor quality, it used to be "smuggled" back east by enterprising individuals who resold it at premium prices.
Now does it all make sense? No thanks needed for the reality tutorials. I enjoy your posts.
I knew about the history of Coors but I still found the response funny.
The Coors analogy is pretty apt in other ways though: Coors is a watered down attempt to recreate a pale lager -- Samsung Galaxy is a skin deep attempt to recreate an iPhone.
I would think Samsung could have a patch up in a couple of weeks that would take care of this issue. They would definitely not need Google's assistance to do it....
I did a little checking. It turns out that the issue is not with the Gallery App in Native Android. The issue is with a Touchwiz ( UI Skin) bounce feature. it should be very easy for Samsung to correct this...
I also read an ( unconfirmed ) article that the Judge is going to allow sales as long a Samsung agrees to change the toucwiz bounce feature before the deadline.....