Netherlands judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Though Apple has found some success in barring the sale of Samsung devices including its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in various countries, Samsung on Friday failed to stop the sale of 3G-enabled Apple devices like the iPhone and iPad in the Netherlands.



A Dutch judge made the ruling in favor of Apple on Friday, dismissing Samsung's claims of patent infringement, according to Reuters. The ruling is by intellectual property expert Florian Mueller, of FOSS Patents, as a victory that could help Apple in similar legal disputes in Italy and France, where Samsung is already attempting to block sales of the newly launched iPhone 4S.



"Apple will be taking French and Italian translations of the Dutch ruling with it," Mueller reportedly said. "This makes it a long shot for Samsung that it could win an injunction in the EU based on its 3G patents."



The Dutch court ruled that 3G patents owned by Samsung are open to license under the definition of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, or FRAND, patent use. A judge in The Hague said that Apple and Samsung should work to find an agreement.



In a post to his blog detailing Samsung's loss in the Netherlands, Mueller said it's possible that Apple this week reached a tipping point in its legal battle against Google's Android mobile operating system, which powers Samsung devices like the Galaxy Tab lineup.



"Apple has not yet dealt a fatal blow to Samsung, but it's on an impressive winning streak and making headway at a breathtaking rate," he said. "I expected Apple to do well, but the results have exceeded even my expectations."







Samsung's request to ban the sale of the iPhone and iPad came in September, specifically taking issue with the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, first-generation iPad and iPad 2. Samsung unsuccessfully argued that the devices infringe on four 3G patents it owns.



Samsung recently vowed to step up its legal actions against Apple, as the number of lawsuits between the rival companies continue to grow. Most notably, Apple has successfully banned the sale of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany and Australia.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 70
    ivladivlad Posts: 739member
    Hold on, let me go get my pop-corn.
  • Reply 2 of 70
    ka47ka47 Posts: 25member
    Everybody knows who the copycat is. Netherlands can't be without Apple!
  • Reply 3 of 70
    Hah gotta love the Dutch Courts. Doesn't take no patent bullshit from anyone, not even Apple. This should be the way to go everywhere else. Should save both sides in lawyers' fees, and less spam on tech blogs.
  • Reply 4 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by The Mock Turtleneck View Post


    Hah gotta love the Dutch Courts. Doesn't take no patent bullshit from anyone, not even Apple. This should be the way to go everywhere else. Should save both sides in lawyers' fees, and less spam on tech blogs.



    agreed.



    they only upheld the bounce back claim against Samsung right?



    Also, I'd prefer a bit of punishment against Samsung for the instances of obvious look and feel ripping off.
  • Reply 5 of 70
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Samsung's quarterback was sacked while attempting a "Hail Mary" pass.



    Game over.
  • Reply 6 of 70
    Cue the uzual zuzpects.
  • Reply 7 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Samsung's quarterback was sacked while attempting a "Hail Mary" pass.



    Game over.



    Nice.
  • Reply 8 of 70
    If this is actually true, why are they still actively promoting their phones (Galaxy S II) on TV in the Netherands? Saw the commercial this week many times on TV, same for their tablet. That does not make sense to me!
  • Reply 9 of 70
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,483member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleMinded View Post


    If this is actually true, why are they still actively promoting their phones (Galaxy S II) on TV in the Netherands? Saw the commercial this week many times on TV, same for their tablet. That does not make sense to me!



    This article talks about blocking iPhone/iPad in Netherlands (which was denied), not any Samsung products.
  • Reply 10 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 11 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    agreed.



    they only upheld the bounce back claim against Samsung right?



    Also, I'd prefer a bit of punishment against Samsung for the instances of obvious look and feel ripping off.



    Yes and if I've not mistaken, the bounce back effect had been replaced with an overscroll glow in a firmware update some time ago. So back to business as usual I guess.



    I have no doubt that Samsung will take additional steps to avoid similar confrontations with Apple in the future. Since Apple supposedly "owns" the rights to a rounded rectangle with minimalist design, future tablets from Samsung will probably have pointless additions such as physical buttons, or something ridiculous like being rainbow coloured. This is just to satisfy Apple's "look and feel" assertions, which were agreed upon by that one German Court. The preliminary injuction in Australia was based on some touch-related patents which could potentially apply to every touchscreen phones and media on the Market. How that will turn out I don't know.
  • Reply 12 of 70
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    The ruling is by intellectual property expert Florian Mueller, of FOSS Patents, as a victory that could help Apple in similar legal disputes



    Huh, there seems to be a word missing here, "seen" perhaps, unless Florian Mueller is moonlighting as a judge in the Netherlands.
  • Reply 13 of 70
    How stupid can Samsung be? They are now raising new levels where no company reached before.



    This is how it is resumed:



    FIRST CASE

    Apple is Samsung biggest 8 billion dollars per year customer;

    Samsung copied Apple;

    Apple asked Samsung to modify the devices;



    now things are about to fork in 2 directions:



    1) Samsung changed the design and keep the 8 billion dollar customer;

    2) Samsung fight the 8 billion dollar customer. This scenario has two outcomes:



    a) Samsung wins in court. In this case, it continues to sell the devices, but, it loses the 8 billion dollar customer. Chances of Samsung winning: hell freezing anytime soon has far more probabilities.



    b) Samsung loses in court. In this case, it has to modify the devices, it has to pay the legal fees and it loses the 8 billion dollar per year customer and as a bonus, has to pay Apple an indemnification of zillions of dollars.



    Conclusion: Samsung chose the option where it will lose the 8 billion dollar customer.



    Moral of story: never copy your biggest customer and by no means piss your biggest customer, even if you are right.
  • Reply 14 of 70
    Netherlands judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales



    That should be, Dutch judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales



    I know, it's weird yet true.
  • Reply 15 of 70
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    It's official: Samsung has complied with the Dutch court's request for the small modification needed to avoid Apple's only surviving claim of infringement; all other claims made by Apple had been previously denied by that court, so Samsung is free to sell anything they want there:



    http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...12-705215.html



    Until the main hearing which will decide the actual validity of the patents, unlike the pretrial opinion given in Apple's seeking of an injunction, which you referred to earlier.
  • Reply 16 of 70
    jnjnjnjnjnjn Posts: 588member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    Different case, though a similar outcome.In that case Apple tried to block Samsung from selling phones in the EU, only to have nine out of ten of its claims dismissed, one patent found completely invalid, and the only remaining item of contention was the bounce-back scroll, for which the court gave Samsung several weeks to comment out the offending code and re-release. In this case Samsung tried to block Apple's products, and the practical effect was pretty much the same: no products are being blocked by that court.



    Bounce back ... in Samsungs face that is.

    Both cases aren't similar at all, Apple won a small victory with one of its patents, Samsung had a total loss on a claim that wasn't real to begin with and was refuted by the judge with the arguments Apple provided.

    The point is that android cannot use this bounce back element in its user interface and all user elements Apple can claim in the future. This means that the interface will look bleak and unattractive and doesn't feel lively, guess what people will buy in the future?

    So, evading the patent does mean less sales, and a real loss.



    J.
  • Reply 17 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 18 of 70
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacShack View Post


    Netherlands judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales



    That should be, Dutch judge denies Samsung's request to halt iPhone, iPad sales



    I know, it's weird yet true.



    Yeah, it is! Our national anthem is even weirder... It starts: William of Orange is me, of German descent. I've always honored the king of Spain. And I'll remain faithful to my Fatherland (which by then was just known as "the seven provinces"). That's what you get when you're trying to get ahead in the EU...
  • Reply 19 of 70
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 20 of 70
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    You raise a good point: any preliminary injunction Apple has won against Samsung may ultimately just provide Samsung with heavy multiples of lost sales if Apple's design patents don't hold up, as the CA and Dutch judges feel they're quite questionable.



    Meanwhile, Apple has yet to produce receipts for payment of FRAND royalties to Samsung, which may result in multiples of those payments as well.



    Given that Sony is Samsung's #2 customer with orders almost as high as Apple's, Apple only accounts for about 6% of orders from that division leaving the other 94% of their business entirely unaffected by Apple, and that we're currently in an environment where demand for the components Samsung produces is greater than supply, by the time this is all finished Samsung may well be able to replace Apple's orders easily while making a small profit from the settlements.



    You're absolutely correct: this isn't quite so simple as an occasional preliminary hearing might suggest.



    Yes! Samsung losing one of their largest customers is probably good news for Samsung, bad news for Apple! Injunctions in favor for Apple are no doubt going to prove costly to Apple in the end! Injunctions against Samsung can only fuel their rise to supremacy!



    It's like you have a translator box that takes any news and spits out "How this hurts Apple and helps their competitors."
Sign In or Register to comment.