Judge denies Apple request to stop Galaxy sales in U.S.

1246714

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 274
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GalaxyTab View Post


    Does this include any Apple gear with Samsung components in them?



    Time to get rid of your Apple gear if so.



    I will NOT buy a Samsung product ever again! Unfortunately, that includes Apple products, because they all have Samsung stuff inside!



    Sorry Apple, but it is a matter of principle.







  • Reply 62 of 274
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Do you believe Libertarians actually believe that there's no threat to the pace of innovation if you completely remove patent law?



    No one can know of course but it's likely to be a true statement.



    Patent law doesn't exist to keep up "the pace of innovation." Patent law exists to protect the economic (and other) rights of the creators of the innovations.



    How fast innovation does or does not proceed is irrelevant and many things affect that speed. There are excellent arguments that Capitalism itself slows down the pace of innovation and invention.
  • Reply 63 of 274
    kpomkpom Posts: 660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post


    Part of competing is defending your intellectual property in court. If you don't defend yourself everyone just copies you without doing any research of their own. To suggest that defending ones intellectual property is anti-competitive is nonsense from people who don't understand the concept research and development. Should you ever spend a significant amount of time and money creating something, you'll understand the concept of intellectual property the moment someone rips you off.



    True. To the people who bash Apple for defending their IP, would you like it if a co-worker took your work, claimed it as his or her own to the head of your department, and got a promotion or raise that you deserved? That's essentially what Apple is alleging. It's up to the courts to rule whether that it is true.



    There is a reason intellectual property laws exist.
  • Reply 64 of 274
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    All these heated arguments are interesting but I am not convinced sales of Android Tablets are so abysmal because of Apple's legal actions. Hence the removal or loss of all such actions can't be assumed to lead to significant market share increases. The legal suits may well have helped in creating uncertainty in buyer's minds helping them go the iPad route or it may simply be like the iPod market place, a total annihilation of all opposition by a far superior product regardless of price or legal actions by Apple.



    you are so correct! Apple has the tablet market pretty much to themselves. The sales figures of the ipad prove this fact. Sooo......how do do you prove harm from Samsung? You admit no other tablet maker has made a dent in iPad sales. Apple has the tablet market pretty much to themselves. So where is the damage to Apple?
  • Reply 65 of 274
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post


    No you will need to license if there is no work around as anti competitive regulations will come to play. It is no brainer else there will only be a single smartphone/tablet manufacturer.



    Once again, please post the law or case law that supports your position.



    Other than FRAND stuff which is essential for things like a telecommunications network, no one is required to license their patents if they don't want to.



    Apple does (IIRC) have a few patents which fall into the 'essential' category and these are licensed under FRAND. The majority of their patents (including ALL of the ones being discussed here) are not essential and therefore Apple has no obligation to license them. After all, there were smartphones and tablets before Apple came along. Furthermore, even if it were impossible to make a tablet without violating Apple's patents, that doesn't automatically require Apple to license the technology. If you invent something new, the entire premise of our patent system is that you should have the exclusive right to commercialize it.



    But, once again, feel free to post the law which supports your position.
  • Reply 66 of 274
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post


    I think 2003 one is compaq TC100. It was one of the major reasons that US court opined that Apple's tablet design patent will likely be invalidated.



    Yepper... and as someone who owns the Compaq TC1000, as well as both generations of iPad, some of the similarities in design are quite apparent.



  • Reply 67 of 274
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    ...



    Design Patent D504,889: asserted against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1.

    - Likely invalid in light of Knight Ridder prior art.

    - Likely infringed.

    - Likely irreparable harm to Apple. (See NOTE below)...



    I know you're a troll and your posts are absolutely ridiculous logic-wise most of the time, but this takes the cake.



    How can a TV show from the 80's be "prior art" for anything other than other TV shows? You don't understand law at all do you?



    Thanks for the laugh.
  • Reply 68 of 274
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post


    The "Samsung Components" your refering to the A5, the lcd, and the nand flash memory, are OEM built to the manufacturers specs by samsung. The A5 and the Flat panel used in apples products were designed by apple for apple. Samsung is being Paid to build them they did not design them. The Arm core design in the A5 is owned by ARM not by samsung Same with the Graphics Unit. Apple customized them specifically for the devices there in. The LCD is also specific to the iOS devices. Appled designed a unique system for laminating the glass to the LCD and also the Capacitative Touch Layer. With the exception of the memory these components are not put in anyone elses products. Apple could have intel build them or sharp or sony or lg and is already starting to do some of that now. Samsung does not own the designs of those parts they just have the manufacturing facilities to build them. (With exception to the memory of which there are dozens of nand flash vendors all over the world including micron and intel right here in the us).





    if what you say is true, then there is little or no reason why Apple needs to enrich Samsung.



    Until Apple stops giving my money to Samsung, I will give no money to Apple.



    Boycott Apple until they agree to stop giving your money to Samsung!
  • Reply 69 of 274
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    you are so correct! Apple has the tablet market pretty much to themselves. The sales figures of the ipad prove this fact. Sooo......how do do you prove harm from Samsung? You admit no other tablet maker has made a dent in iPad sales. Apple has the tablet market pretty much to themselves. So where is the damage to Apple?



    Lots of things:



    1. Lost sales. Apple could argue that everyone who purchased the Tab (or some percentage of Tab purchasers) would have bought an iPad if Samsung hadn't copied the iPad. They could then claim all of those lost sales.



    2. Brand image damage. Apple has created a powerful brand image. Fakes can dilute that image by making people think that the inferior product was from Apple.



    3. Legal costs to protect their technology.



    4. Marketing costs. When there's someone illegally copying Apple's look and feel and technology, Apple may have to spend more money to correct the misconceptions.



    5. Pricing. Presence of cheap copies my force Apple to charge less than they want (or prevent Apple from raising prices when they might otherwise have done so).



    Just because Apple has 90% of the market, you can't say that there's no damage. Maybe Apple would have had 95% of the market if Samsung hadn't copied.
  • Reply 70 of 274
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    I know you're a troll and your posts are absolutely ridiculous logic-wise most of the time, but this takes the cake.



    How can a TV show from the 80's be "prior art" for anything other than other TV shows? You don't understand law at all do you?



    Thanks for the laugh.



    Of course not. The trolls keep proving beyond any doubt that they don't understand the law OR technology.



    The only thing they seem to be good at is cashing Google checks.
  • Reply 71 of 274
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lvshow View Post


    FACT???????









    FACT???????



    The idea of consumer tablet started in 1997 with http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/L...-Screen-Phone/







    It looks like JooJoo slavishly copied the iPad. It looks exactly the same! As if they iPad didn't exist first!



    They should be banned immediately if they make a tablet that looks so much like another one!
  • Reply 72 of 274
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    I know you're a troll and your posts are absolutely ridiculous logic-wise most of the time, but this takes the cake.



    How can a TV show from the 80's be "prior art" for anything other than other TV shows? You don't understand law at all do you?



    Thanks for the laugh.



    Are you being sarcastic?



    Actually he has simply stated the facts. The lines he has used are direct copy paste from article at The verge



    I have read court document, it states as follows:-



    "The Court finds that the 1994 Fidler/Knight Ridder tablet creates ?basically the same visual impression? as the D?889 patent. See Durling, 101 F.3d at 103 (internal quotations omitted). The 1994 Fidler/Knight Ridder tablet is also a simple rectangular tablet with four evenly rounded corners. The front screen is a flat reflective surface surrounded by a rim on all four sides. The back-side, though it apparently has four screws, is essentially flat. The area surrounding the screen is admittedly not entirely symmetrical on all four sides, but none of these minor differences distracts from the overall visual appearance of the 1994 Fidler/Knight Ridder tablet as a simple and portable rectangular tablet with the same overall visual impression as the D?889 patent. See Durling, 101 F.3d at 103 (?In comparing the patented design to a prior art reference, the trial court judge may determine almost instinctively whether the two designs create basically the same visual

    impression.?) (emphasis added) "
  • Reply 73 of 274
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


    Really?







    Samsung Digital Photo Frame 2006.





    That needs to be banned too.
  • Reply 74 of 274
    No doubt for me that intellectual property must be protected. I am not a lawyer, so I learn a lot from these posts, thanks. I believe the issue has something to do with the limit of what can be protected or not. It seems to me that in various subjects, more can be patented in the US than in the rest of the world, which, as the example seems to show, does not give necessarily any protection to the one who owns the patent. There has been a long debate in Europe about software patents, for example (I cannot even say what is now the current status). Legislation differ depending on what part of the world you are, and therefore no general conclusion can be drawn from the outcome of any particular justice decision.



    If one takes the example of car industry, it is clear that successful look and feel are copied (red color of Ferraris, BMW style, etc ..). In many cases, there are no legal grounds to sue, and even if there are, the copied one does not engage itself into it.



    As noted by many posts, there is a specific antagonism between Apple and Samsung which explain the energy they put into these disputes. I believe all Apple competitors will be cut into tiny bits in a near future, with the exception of Samsung. Although these two companies differ on many points, they strangely have one point in common, in their common complete disregard of planet finance opinion, which give them the unique advantage of conducting long term strategies.



    Their fight will be an epic battle, for sure ....
  • Reply 75 of 274
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bullhead View Post


    This is a great picture which shows how Samesung copies Apple....







    Very impressive, but I wonder if the specific devices were cherry-picked.
  • Reply 76 of 274
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Lots of things:



    1. Lost sales. Apple could argue that everyone who purchased the Tab (or some percentage of Tab purchasers) would have bought an iPad if Samsung hadn't copied the iPad. They could then claim all of those lost sales. Since Apple has the market cornered and sales are exceeding predictions...this has no merit



    2. Brand image damage. Apple has created a powerful brand image. Fakes can dilute that image by making people think that the inferior product was from Apple. Again...based on sales of ALL other tablet makers combined to the iPad...there has been o proof that ANYONE has ever bought a Samsung Galaxy Tab thinking it was a Apple iPad.....it clearly says Samsung on the product.



    3. Legal costs to protect their technology. There has been no damage to their product based on sales that have exceeded predictions!



    4. Marketing costs. When there's someone illegally copying Apple's look and feel and technology, Apple may have to spend more money to correct the misconceptions. What misconceptions? They would spend the money for marketing ANYWAY to promote their products!



    5. Pricing. Presence of cheap copies my force Apple to charge less than they want (or prevent Apple from raising prices when they might otherwise have done so). Nonsense...when has Apple reduced product pricing to match a competitor????? Apple always exists at the high end of the price points for the markets they enter. They produce premium products....not the low-end market share.



    Just because Apple has 90% of the market, you can't say that there's no damage. Maybe Apple would have had 95% of the market if Samsung hadn't copied.



    Not applicable........some people might not want an Apple product. Some consumers might even prefer a Samsung product. You can't limit selection based on one companies greed!
  • Reply 77 of 274
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bullhead View Post


    I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit....



    So you say that tablet don't look like a iPad?

    I think the iPad look exactly like that Joojoo tablet

    thin, lightweight, touch UI, no buttons, black bezel, all-glass front panel
  • Reply 78 of 274
    jmmxjmmx Posts: 341member
    This is just a hearing on a preliminary injunction. To my feeble non-lawyer mind, it would have been more a negative for Samsung to lose than for Apple to lose. A preliminary injunction by definition (lawyers correct me if I am wrong) is an appeal to enjoin before the real trial. To get this a company needs to show that there is a preponderance of evidence in its favor - so much so that the court would enjoin prior to the actual trial. To grant one is almost the exception.



    It seems to me that the judge here has said - "Not enough to go preliminary - Go have your day in court. If you can prove otherwise there - you will get a full injunction."



    In that light I do not see it a a major loss. Once again, the press is blowing it out of proportion. (imho)



    (Once again - any lawyers out there correct me if I am mistake.)
  • Reply 79 of 274
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post


    Awww.. you mean Apple is going to have to compete outside the courts this time? Poor Cupertino.



    Offering up a carbon copy of an existing product (which you had intimate knowledge of because you are a supplier) is not competing and is certainly not innovating. Samsung needs to compete with Apple, not the other way around. Samsung is the one who needs to innovate, not Apple. But you haters can't look past your hatred of Apple can you.
  • Reply 80 of 274
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bullhead View Post


    FACT : there was nothing like the ipad before the ipad. Tables were thick bloated hard ware devices because of running a bloated OS from Microsoft. tablets prior to the iPad had buttons and controls on the front bezel.



    Once the iPad came out, all tables suddenly got real thin, did away with all buttons on the front bezel, adopted a touch input with no pen, adopted the iOS clone Android rather than a bloated Microsoft OS so they could ditch the super thick bloated hardware requirements of a bloated Microsoft OS.



    FACT: There were no tablets in the sense the iPad revolutionized the tablet and redefined the term. After iPad, all tablets look like the iPad, coping its design and OS. And the courts are saying its okay for everyone to steal Apple's designs and copy everything they do. Thereby ensuring the future is free of innovation since as soon as Apple creates anything it will be cloned by Samesung and all the other cloners. And as history shows, no company other than Apple innovates anymore.



    But your claim was that there were no tablets on the market and you were proven wrong. Regardless of thickness and it's touch input. All Apple did was take an existing form factor and make it svelte and sexy and showed that it worked much better with a mobile OS than a streamlined version of a PC OS.
Sign In or Register to comment.