Samsung files patent case against Apple in Australia over iPhone, iPad
After having been temporarily blocked from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 Android tablet in Australia, Samsung has filed a countersuit in the country, alleging the iPhone and iPad are violating its own intellectual property.
In the latest episode of the tense legal battle between the two companies, currently being fought in at least 20 cases across four continents, Samsung claimed in a lawsuit filed with the Federal Court of Australia that Apple?s smartphone and tablet offerings are infringing seven patents related to wireless communications standards.
The electronics giant also intends to see Apple?s patents that have been asserted against its Galaxy phones and tablets invalidated and revoked, Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported on Friday.
?Samsung has a proud history of innovation in the mobile industry,? the company said. ?It has invested continuously in R&D, design and technology to produce our innovative and cutting-edge mobile devices.?
Apple fired the first shot in the complex patent-related confrontation between the two rivals in April, firmly accusing Samsung of copying well-known design elements of its iconic iPhone and iPad products.
The company has obtained victories in cases in
Germany and Australia, where courts have issued injunctions against Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales, as well as in the Netherlands where three Galaxy-branded handsets, including the flagship Galaxy S II, are temporarily barred from being sold.
Samsung quickly returned fire alleging that Apple is violating various patents related to power consumption and 3G data transmission. Earlier this week, reports indicated the company has filed two new lawsuits(1, 2) against the iPhone maker in France and the U.K. At the same time, Samsung is currently engaged in appealing previous unfavorable verdicts.
The South Korean electronics maker had originally claimed it would launch the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia in the "near future," but then agreed not to release the device until at least Sept. 30 after formal hearings on the matter had taken place.
As of late August, U.S. court filings listed 19 Samsung-Apple litigations, all yet to be decided despite some of them already showing preliminary verdicts favorable to Apple:
15/4/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 5:11-cv-1846) (North District of California)
21/4/2011: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Japan, Inc. (Tokyo District Court, Japan ? JP Pat. No. 4642898 - 2011 (Yo) No. 22027)
21/4/2011: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Japan, Inc. (Tokyo District Court, Japan ? JP Pat. No. 4299270 - 2011 (Yo) No. 22028)
21/4/2011: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Korea Ltd (Seoul Central District Court, Korea - 2011 Kahap 39552)
21/4/2011: Samsung Electronics GmbH v. Apple, Inc. and Apple GmbH (Mannheim Regional Court, Germany) (7 O 247/11)
17/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Japan Corp. (Tokyo District Court, Japan ? JP Pat. No. 4204977 - 2011 (Yo) No. 22048)
17/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Japan Corp. (Tokyo District Court, Japan ? JP Pat. No. 4743919 - 2011 (Yo) No. 22049)
17/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics GmbH (Mannheim Regional Court, Germany) (7 O 166/11)
17/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Seoul Central District Court, Korea - No. 2011 Gahap 63647)
27/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Court of Justice, the Hague, Netherlands) (KG 11-730)
27/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Court of Justice, the Hague, Netherlands) (KG 11-731)
28/6/2011: In the Matter of Certain Mobile Electronic Devices (ITC Case Samsung v. Apple 337-TA-794)
29/6/2011: Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd. et al. v. Apple Inc. (District of Delaware, 11-cv-573-LPS)
29/6/2011: Samsung Electronics Italia s.p.a. v. la Apple Inc. (Tribunale Di Milano, Italy)
29/6/2011: Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd. v. Apple Retail UK et al. (UK High Court of Justice Chancery Div. Patents Court HC 11 CO 2180)
5/7/2011: In the Matter of Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof (ITC Case Apple v. Samsung 337-TA-796)
8/7/2011: Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and Samsung Electronics France v. Apple France et al. (Tribunal De Grande Instance De Paris 11/10464)
28/7/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. Co. (Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry, General Division) (NSD1243/2011)
4/8/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics GmbH (Düsseldorf Regional Court)
In the latest episode of the tense legal battle between the two companies, currently being fought in at least 20 cases across four continents, Samsung claimed in a lawsuit filed with the Federal Court of Australia that Apple?s smartphone and tablet offerings are infringing seven patents related to wireless communications standards.
The electronics giant also intends to see Apple?s patents that have been asserted against its Galaxy phones and tablets invalidated and revoked, Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported on Friday.
?Samsung has a proud history of innovation in the mobile industry,? the company said. ?It has invested continuously in R&D, design and technology to produce our innovative and cutting-edge mobile devices.?
Apple fired the first shot in the complex patent-related confrontation between the two rivals in April, firmly accusing Samsung of copying well-known design elements of its iconic iPhone and iPad products.
The company has obtained victories in cases in
Germany and Australia, where courts have issued injunctions against Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales, as well as in the Netherlands where three Galaxy-branded handsets, including the flagship Galaxy S II, are temporarily barred from being sold.
Samsung quickly returned fire alleging that Apple is violating various patents related to power consumption and 3G data transmission. Earlier this week, reports indicated the company has filed two new lawsuits(1, 2) against the iPhone maker in France and the U.K. At the same time, Samsung is currently engaged in appealing previous unfavorable verdicts.
The South Korean electronics maker had originally claimed it would launch the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia in the "near future," but then agreed not to release the device until at least Sept. 30 after formal hearings on the matter had taken place.
As of late August, U.S. court filings listed 19 Samsung-Apple litigations, all yet to be decided despite some of them already showing preliminary verdicts favorable to Apple:
15/4/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 5:11-cv-1846) (North District of California)
21/4/2011: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Japan, Inc. (Tokyo District Court, Japan ? JP Pat. No. 4642898 - 2011 (Yo) No. 22027)
21/4/2011: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Japan, Inc. (Tokyo District Court, Japan ? JP Pat. No. 4299270 - 2011 (Yo) No. 22028)
21/4/2011: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Korea Ltd (Seoul Central District Court, Korea - 2011 Kahap 39552)
21/4/2011: Samsung Electronics GmbH v. Apple, Inc. and Apple GmbH (Mannheim Regional Court, Germany) (7 O 247/11)
17/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Japan Corp. (Tokyo District Court, Japan ? JP Pat. No. 4204977 - 2011 (Yo) No. 22048)
17/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Japan Corp. (Tokyo District Court, Japan ? JP Pat. No. 4743919 - 2011 (Yo) No. 22049)
17/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics GmbH (Mannheim Regional Court, Germany) (7 O 166/11)
17/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Seoul Central District Court, Korea - No. 2011 Gahap 63647)
27/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Court of Justice, the Hague, Netherlands) (KG 11-730)
27/6/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Court of Justice, the Hague, Netherlands) (KG 11-731)
28/6/2011: In the Matter of Certain Mobile Electronic Devices (ITC Case Samsung v. Apple 337-TA-794)
29/6/2011: Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd. et al. v. Apple Inc. (District of Delaware, 11-cv-573-LPS)
29/6/2011: Samsung Electronics Italia s.p.a. v. la Apple Inc. (Tribunale Di Milano, Italy)
29/6/2011: Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd. v. Apple Retail UK et al. (UK High Court of Justice Chancery Div. Patents Court HC 11 CO 2180)
5/7/2011: In the Matter of Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof (ITC Case Apple v. Samsung 337-TA-796)
8/7/2011: Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and Samsung Electronics France v. Apple France et al. (Tribunal De Grande Instance De Paris 11/10464)
28/7/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. Co. (Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry, General Division) (NSD1243/2011)
4/8/2011: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics GmbH (Düsseldorf Regional Court)
Comments
(let's hope other countries follow suit)
?Samsung has a proud history of innovation in the mobile industry,? the company said. ?It has invested continuously in R&D, design and technology to produce our innovative and cutting-edge mobile devices.?
See - the doubters have been wrong all along. Samsung really are innovative after all.
The counter-suits prove that Samsung's overall strategy is to force a settlement that allows them to sell knockoff phones and tablets that look, feel and act like Apple's iPhone & iPad in order to trick unsuspecting non-tech savvy shoppers who want an Apple device into buying a Samsung imitation, which is of lower quality and is minus the iOS & iTunes experience that the customer is shopping for in the first place. This is a scam, a rip-off, plain and simple.
Clearly then, trickery, thievery and greed have triumphed over innovation at Samsung. Shame on Samsung's executives who are the leaders of this criminal scam, shame on you.
Apple innovates. Samsung steals, copies and rips-off customers. Is that the message you want the world to hear, Samsung?
You're doing a good job Brownie.
See - the doubters have been wrong all along. Samsung really are innovative after all.
They were talking about photocopiers I assume?
From this article, one could get the impression that despite being sued multiple times for slavishly copying the iPhone and iPad, Samsung's thuggish executives remain hell bent on finding a legal way to copycat Apple's devices. Clearly on display here is Samsung's belief they have a right "unless prevented" to steal Apple's IP and copy it. Obviously, Samsung refuses to, or is incapable of, innovating a better product than Apple's.
Therefore, the evidence mounts that Samsung's overall strategy is to force a settlement that allows them to sell knockoff phones and tablets that look, feel and act like Apple's iPhone & iPad, and furthermore, tricking unsuspecting non-tech savvy shoppers who want an Apple device. into buying their imitation, which is of lower quality and is minus the iOS & iTunes experience that the customer is shopping for in the first place. This is a rip-off, plain and simple.
If this is true, then clearly trickery, thievery and greed have triumphed over innovation at Samsung and shame on Samsung's executives who are the participants in this criminal enterprise, and indeed, shame on the Korean culture itself for condoning such gangsterism by their business leaders.
Apple innovates. Samsung steals, copies and rips-off it's customers. Is that the message you want the world to hear, Samsung?
Maybe time for the US consumers to boycott Korean cars (off topic but boy do they look like Lexus cars these days)... oh wait, I'm sure Android users are lining up for those Kias too!
Btw, was there actually a court-issued injunction in Australia? Last I heard the injunction was voluntary (not really an injunction, just a forbearance agreement entered into by Samsung, agreeing not to sell their hardware pending an ultimate decision by the courts).
Even in litigation matters they have to copy Apple. Can't they come up with some original grounds for legal action that Apple hasn't thought of yet?
Other legal actions are possible.
Samsung can't expect to just waltz in with their sleazy lawyers and splash enough cash to buy off what Apple's sleazy lawyers have already bought off.
What kind of sick world does Samsung live in?
Samsung needs to recognize that Apple bribed, stole, extorted, forced, hostile takeover, and sometimes innovated - those patents... fair and square - from their own crooked government employees looking for a handout and other nefarious means.
Samsung can't expect to just waltz in with their sleazy lawyers and splash enough cash to buy off what Apple's sleazy lawyers have already bought off.
What kind of sick world does Samsung live in?
Feeling alright?
First, both sides copied (a unique patent is so hard to find nowadays everything is mostly modifications).
Second, Apple needs Samsung and Android because they will dominate the market and increase the chance of being broken up due to anti-trust laws.
Third, patent reform (wanting energy efficiency and giving the rights for a basic design outline is not patent worthy).
Fourth, settle outside of court, both sides are wrong, although Samsung is probably the one that is more wrong.
Second, Apple needs Samsung and Android because they will dominate the market and increase the chance of being broken up due to anti-trust laws.
Ha! Hardly. Apple needs hardware that is competitive and software that wasn't stolen from the iPhone OS 1.0 alpha.
Ha! Hardly. Apple needs hardware that is competitive and software that wasn't stolen from the iPhone OS 1.0 alpha.
I hope you mean the god-awful touchwhiz and not Android itself...
And Samsung hardware is competitive...it may not be Aluminum and glass but they still make solid hardware.
Though I do prefer Aluminum devices myself, depending on the quality of the plastics, plastic does just fine and Aluminum seems to be more of an unnecessary luxury at times.
I would like a hardwood phone though...could be interesting if done right.
I hope you mean the god-awful touchwhiz and not Android itself...
To clarify, I don't mean Android now. They've done their fair share of adding to it. I only meant to say that the current UI foundation was theft from Apple.
To clarify, I don't mean Android now. They've done their fair share of adding to it. I only meant to say that the current UI foundation was theft from Apple.
Yea TouchWiz is lame. Granted it's earlier iterations were much more direct (though a properly spruced up homescreen would diminish that similarity) it is still a bit TOO inspired by iOS for my liking. I mean shit, Sense was technically inspired by iOS...Sense did a great job being unique...even MotoBlur's ugly ass was inspired.
Like I said in a previous post, there are many many ways to differentiate a 4x4+ grid. (plus being the app drawer button or the dock of icons)
Ha! Hardly. Apple needs hardware that is competitive and software that wasn't stolen from the iPhone OS 1.0 alpha.
Maybe so, but it tablets are so suppose to dominate the PC market and Apple dominates the tablet market as well as the phone market (both projected) then it just shows they need Samsung and Android for competition.
Besides, consider the features that were added because of Android, so in a sense Android made iOS better.
Besides, consider the features that were added because of Android, so in a sense Android made iOS better.
Stet. However, I'd consider the features added to iOS proper by the jailbreakers to be a much larger contribution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI
Samsung has their own design developed overtime. See below images. Yes, it is a digital photo frame, not a tablet. But, my Ipad2 does a little more that this product. In this sence, I feel Apple copied this product in Ipad, I mean acctual Ipad.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/s...-movies-music/
Hey Apple fan readers, read following article and say what you think. Dont forget to click print icon at the end of the article to see images as well as articles.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25056/Th..._USPTO_Was_Bad
This is what Apple has been doing. And I dont know who can defend Apple anymore.