Apple unlikely to get Samsung device injunction from US court
A U.S. appeals court on Friday was unimpressed by Apple's argument that a federal trial judge incorrectly denied the injunction of several Samsung products as part of the companies' ongoing worldwide patent dispute.
Judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard arguments regarding a December ruling from District Judge Lucy Koh which denied Apple's request to ban sales of certain Samsung Galaxy devices, reports Reuters.
Apple lawyer Michael Jacobs asserted that the company does not need to show a causal link between patent infringement and loss of customers in order to obtain an injunction, implying that it is enough to show that Samsung likely infringed and that the iPhone maker is likely to be hurt. Koh recently acknowledged five Apple patent definitions as part of claim construction in the ongoing California case, but that has little bearing on previous findings that there was not enough evidence for a causal link.
"It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed," Koh wrote of the December ruling.
Judge William Bryson likened Apple's argument to the hypothetical case of a car manufacturer that copied a cupholder design from a second manufacturer. Following Apple's assertion, if the second manufacturer were to lose market share for any reason, it could ask for an injunction of cars made by the first manufacturer that use the cupholder.
"Can that possibly be right?" Judge Bryson asked.
Another judge hearing the case, Judge Sharon Prost, explained that harm as represented by lost customers ""could have been for reasons completely different from the infringement."
Jacobs is pushing for an immediate stoppage of sales because even if it wins an upcoming federal court trial scheduled for July, benefits may not be seen until late 2012.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. | Source: United States Courts
As part of Friday's hearing, the judges attempted to solidify what evidence Apple would need in order to prove that a competitor profited off of an infringed patent. The matter is complicated because it is difficult to accurately quantify why a consumer chooses a certain product.
"We know it is a combination of elements that goes into any purchasing decision," Jacobs said.
Mentioned during the hearing was the so-called "snap-back" feature that is found in both Samsung and Apple's devices.
Samsung lawyer Kathleen Sullivan claims that the South Korean electronics giant did not copy any part of Apple's design for this particular feature, but qualifies the statement by adding that even if it did, "snap-back" would not be a primary draw for consumers.
"There is absolutely no evidence that any consumer, as opposed to an engineer, has said, 'I'm going to purchase something because of this snap-back feature,'" Sullivan said.
Samsung has been accused by Apple of infringing on patents to mimic the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. The dispute has grown to at least 30 complaints that span across four continents.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
Comments
Judge William Bryson likened Apple's argument to the hypothetical case of a car manufacturer that copied a cupholder design from a second manufacturer.
Sounds about right.
Sounds about right.
No, it would be like a car company copying the outline of another car company's chassis, making it bigger, and calling it innovation. Make no mistake: when the original Galaxy S came out, there was no question that Samsung was going after the look and feel of the 3GS, which was the phone out at the time. Then you look at the Galaxy Tab, the dock connector cable, the charger, the smart cover, the keyboard dock, TouchWiz..... it goes on and on.
I'm not saying Samsung makes crap products. They are actually pretty good. I just wonder how good they would really be if they didn't have Apple for their "inspiration".
I just wonder how good they would really be if they didn't have Apple for their "inspiration".
They would be making clones of Acer's netbook and phones that resemble Motorola's Razr.
They would be making clones of Acer's netbook and phones that resemble Motorola's Razr.
Touche!
However, being denied an injunction does not mean Apple has a weak case.
Of course they won't get an injunction. It's very difficult to get an injunction in US courts. Even if one is granted, there would be a time limit of several months for Samsung to comply (like the HTC case) such that Samsung would probably never lose a day of sales.
However, being denied an injunction does not mean Apple has a weak case.
If a strong case yields a denied injunction, what do you need to get the injunction?
However, being denied an injunction does not mean Apple has a weak case.
Yes, it does. ? Because Apple stole its design from Google. ? Hypocrites. ?
Ever notice how many awkward silences would be have to be put into Android/Samsung supporters' arguments here for them to feel logical in verbal communication?
Yes, it does. ? Because Apple stole its design from Google. ? Hypocrites. ?
Ever notice how many awkward silences would be have to be put into Android/Samsung supporters' arguments here for them to feel logical in verbal communication?
If the iPhone was being sold before Google even had an OS for a phone, how did Apple steal its design from Google? Time travel?
No, it would be like a car company copying the outline of another car company's chassis, making it bigger, and calling it innovation. Make no mistake: when the original Galaxy S came out, there was no question that Samsung was going after the look and feel of the 3GS, which was the phone out at the time. Then you look at the Galaxy Tab, the dock connector cable, the charger, the smart cover, the keyboard dock, TouchWiz..... it goes on and on.
I'm not saying Samsung makes crap products. They are actually pretty good. I just wonder how good they would really be if they didn't have Apple for their "inspiration".
This argument is getting somewhat tired. Note the LG Prada came out before the iphone. Note http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/s...ra-smart-f700/
The hardware industry was already headed in this direction. Apple unveiled early with a lot of press and IOS. It's not really hate against Apple here, and Samsung may very well have copied some things, but I don't think it references the iphone to the same degree that people believe here.
"It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed," Koh wrote of the December ruling.
That pretty much sums up the article. An injunction is supposed to be reserved for a case where a product being left on the market for the duration of the case would cause irreparable harm. Otherwise it goes to trial and damages/terms are figured out after that.
Yes, it does. ? Because Apple stole its design from Google. ? Hypocrites. ?
Ever notice how many awkward silences would be have to be put into Android/Samsung supporters' arguments here for them to feel logical in verbal communication?
I'm not an Android supporter
If the iPhone was being sold before Google even had an OS for a phone…
Ah, Google bought Android in aught five.
…how did Apple steal its design from Google? Time travel?
You'll have to ask one of their supporters.
No, it would be like a car company copying the outline of another car company's chassis, making it bigger, and calling it innovation. Make no mistake: when the original Galaxy S came out, there was no question that Samsung was going after the look and feel of the 3GS, which was the phone out at the time. Then you look at the Galaxy Tab, the dock connector cable, the charger, the smart cover, the keyboard dock, TouchWiz..... it goes on and on.
I'm not saying Samsung makes crap products. They are actually pretty good. I just wonder how good they would really be if they didn't have Apple for their "inspiration".
I own both a Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9 and an iPad2. The power connector and charger are exact replicas of Apples. The smRt cover they have is also very, very similar. There is no question in my mind where Samsung got their ideas.
If a strong case yields a denied injunction, what do you need to get the injunction?
Think of it this way. A person could be charged with committing a serious crime (even murder), but they could still be released on bail because they're not considered a "risk".
Likewise, Samsung continuing to sell their devices does not pose any significant "risk" to Apple, and if Apple does win and gets compensation, there's no doubt in Samsung's ability to pay up. So there's no real urgency as there's no real harm (or significiant harm) being done to Apple. However, granting an injunction to Apple would pose a significant cost to Samsung in loss of sales.
Ah, Google bought Android in aught five.
here's a history lesson for you
On November 5, 2007, the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium of several companies which include Broadcom Corporation, Google, HTC, Intel, LG, Marvell Technology Group, Motorola, Nvidia, Qualcomm, Samsung Electronics, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile and Texas Instruments unveiled itself. The goal of the Open Handset Alliance is to develop open standards for mobile devices.[14] On the same day, the Open Handset Alliance also unveiled their first product, Android, a mobile device platform built on the Linux kernel version 2.6.[14]
By the way, I'm sure Andy Rubin had absolutely nothing to do with the look and feel of Android.
here's a history lesson for you
I don't see your point. Android made software for cell phones in 2005. What does the third (or so) unveiling of it have to do with when they started making software or when Google bought it?
This argument is getting somewhat tired. Note the LG Prada came out before the iphone. Note http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/s...ra-smart-f700/
The hardware industry was already headed in this direction. Apple unveiled early with a lot of press and IOS. It's not really hate against Apple here, and Samsung may very well have copied some things, but I don't think it references the iphone to the same degree that people believe here.
Ah, the old reference the the LG Prada and F700 (both of which were garbage phones and had horrible touch gestures).
Here's a better article for you.
The Verge - F700 vs iPhone
I love Sesame Street. C'mon, let's all sing it together: "One of these things is not like the other, two of these things are kinda the same.."
Ah, the old reference the the LG Prada and F700 (both of which were garbage phones and had horrible touch gestures).
Here's a better article for you.
The Verge - F700 vs iPhone
I love Sesame Street. C'mon, let's all sing it together: "One of these things is not like the other, two of these things are kinda the same.."
With due respect, I think he was referencing it in terms of hardware similarities, in which case he does have a point.
Though I find this somewhat ironic:
It [F700] also has a homescreen that's quite different than iOS -- what you're seeing above is the function menu. [...] And the list goes on, especially if you look at the F700's actual homescreen:
These aren't just minor differences: they combine to create an entire user experience that is instantly and recognizably different than an Apple or iOS product.
The same can be said about the Galaxy S; the picture of its app drawer is not its homescreen, this is its homescreen:
The same can be said about the Galaxy S; the picture of its app drawer is not its homescreen, this is its homescreen:
Oh please. That whole "App Drawer" argument is getting lamer by the minute.
That's like saying "I'm going to copy the design of someone else's product, but I'm going to bury the screen a level down in the menus so it's not visible until you specifically select it" or "I'm going to copy the layout of someone's website, but I'll make it so you have to click a link on my homepage before you see the copied version". Since it's not the first thing you see, then it must be OK.
Oh please. That whole "App Drawer" argument is getting lamer by the minute.
That's like saying "I'm going to copy the design of someone else's product, but I'm going to bury the screen a level down in the menus so it's not visible until you specifically select it" or "I'm going to copy the layout of someone's website, but I'll make it so you have to click a link on my homepage before you see the copied version". Since it's not the first thing you see, then it must be OK.
Oh please.
Of all the things that article could've talked about, they chose to focus on how different the user experience is between the iPhone and the F700 based primarily on the homescreen. Something the F700 actually shares with the Galaxy S.
They could've talked about the similar icons, or the iOS-like persistent dock, but no, they had to choose the one feature that actually differentiates both the F700 and the Galaxy S from the iPhone
If the iPhone was being sold before Google even had an OS for a phone, how did Apple steal its design from Google? Time travel?
2005 is before 2007 right?