Apple's bid to block June 21 US launch of Samsung Galaxy S III denied
Apple will not be able to bar sales of Samsung's Galaxy S III smartphone before its June 21 launch in the U.S., a judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif., ruled this week that Apple's push to block sales of the Galaxy S III in just over a week wouldn't fit on her calendar, according to Reuters. Apple had hoped to win a quick ruling that would push back the launch of Samsung's new flagship Android-based phone.
Koh's ruling came only a few days after Apple suffered another setback in court, when U.S. Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner in Chicago, Ill., deemed that Apple hat not shown enough to prove injury. The case was scheduled to begin this week, but Posner's ruling canceled the trial.
In contrast, Apple's setback against Samsung in attempting to block the launch of the Galaxy S III is not an indication that Apple would lose an eventual court ruling. Instead, the scheduling of the court just wouldn't allow a ruling to be made in the next week.
Apple indicated last week in front of Koh that they were interested in pursuing a restraining order against the Galaxy S III in order to block sales of the device before it reaches U.S. shores. Apple attorney Josh Krevitt told the court that the harm would be "irreparable" once sales of the Android smartphone began.
Samsung reportedly saw more than 9 million preorders of the Galaxy S III with its carrier partners before launch. It already debuted in late May in Europe and is now available in a total of 28 countries, and Samsung expects to have the Galaxy S III available in 145 countries on 296 wireless operators by the end of July.
Samsung first unveiled the quad-core Galaxy S III a month ago. It features a 4.8-inch HD Super AMOLED screen, a 1.4-gigahertz processor, one gigabyte of RAM, and available capacities of 16, 32 and 64 gigabytes.
Apple has argued in court that the Galaxy S III should be included as part of another ongoing preliminary injunction case against the Galaxy Nexus, since Apple sees Samsung's latest smartphone as a successor to the handset created through a partnership of Google and Samsung. In response, Samsung said in a formal opposition that Apple's motion "should not be done on two days' notice, without due process, and with no factual record whatsoever."
Samsung and Apple are engaged in a number of patent infringement suits against one another. They began more than a year ago, when Apple sued Samsung and accused the company of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad, and the cases now span over 10 countries around the world.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif., ruled this week that Apple's push to block sales of the Galaxy S III in just over a week wouldn't fit on her calendar, according to Reuters. Apple had hoped to win a quick ruling that would push back the launch of Samsung's new flagship Android-based phone.
Koh's ruling came only a few days after Apple suffered another setback in court, when U.S. Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner in Chicago, Ill., deemed that Apple hat not shown enough to prove injury. The case was scheduled to begin this week, but Posner's ruling canceled the trial.
In contrast, Apple's setback against Samsung in attempting to block the launch of the Galaxy S III is not an indication that Apple would lose an eventual court ruling. Instead, the scheduling of the court just wouldn't allow a ruling to be made in the next week.
Apple indicated last week in front of Koh that they were interested in pursuing a restraining order against the Galaxy S III in order to block sales of the device before it reaches U.S. shores. Apple attorney Josh Krevitt told the court that the harm would be "irreparable" once sales of the Android smartphone began.
Samsung reportedly saw more than 9 million preorders of the Galaxy S III with its carrier partners before launch. It already debuted in late May in Europe and is now available in a total of 28 countries, and Samsung expects to have the Galaxy S III available in 145 countries on 296 wireless operators by the end of July.
Samsung first unveiled the quad-core Galaxy S III a month ago. It features a 4.8-inch HD Super AMOLED screen, a 1.4-gigahertz processor, one gigabyte of RAM, and available capacities of 16, 32 and 64 gigabytes.
Apple has argued in court that the Galaxy S III should be included as part of another ongoing preliminary injunction case against the Galaxy Nexus, since Apple sees Samsung's latest smartphone as a successor to the handset created through a partnership of Google and Samsung. In response, Samsung said in a formal opposition that Apple's motion "should not be done on two days' notice, without due process, and with no factual record whatsoever."
Samsung and Apple are engaged in a number of patent infringement suits against one another. They began more than a year ago, when Apple sued Samsung and accused the company of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad, and the cases now span over 10 countries around the world.
Comments
It's no wonder that Mr Cook hates using litigation - Apple ends up wasting nuclear amounts of money on legal stalemates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
It's no wonder that Mr Cook hates using litigation - Apple ends up wasting nuclear amounts of money on legal stalemates.
I don't remember a single decisive win for Apple.
They should replace their General Counsel.
Bruce Sewell to Join Apple as General Counsel & SVP
Daniel Cooperman to Retire
CUPERTINO, California—September 15, 2009—Apple® today announced that Bruce Sewell, formerly senior vice president and general counsel of Intel Corporation, will join Apple as the company’s General Counsel and senior vice president, Legal and Government Affairs, reporting to Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Daniel Cooperman, who has served in these roles at Apple for the past two years, will be retiring at the end of September.
“We are thrilled to have Bruce join our executive team, and wish Dan a very happy retirement,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “With Bruce’s extensive experience in litigation, securities and intellectual property, we expect this to be a seamless transition.”
At Intel, Sewell has been responsible for leading all of Intel’s legal, corporate affairs and corporate social responsibility programs, managing attorneys and policy professionals located in over 30 countries around the world. He joined Intel in 1995 as a senior attorney assigned to counsel various business groups in areas such as antitrust compliance, licensing and intellectual property. In 2001, Sewell was promoted to vice president and deputy general counsel, managing Intel’s litigation portfolio, and handled corporate transactions including M&A activities.
Prior to joining Intel, he was a partner in the litigation firm of Brown and Bain PC. Sewell was admitted to the California Bar in 1986 and to the Washington D.C. Bar in 1987. He received his J.D. from George Washington University in 1986, and a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Lancaster, in the United Kingdom, in 1979.
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers, OS X operating system and iLife and professional applications. Apple is also spearheading the digital media revolution with its iPod portable music and video players and iTunes online store, and has entered the mobile phone market with its revolutionary iPhone.
It's not winning that matters. It's about Apple making their presence known and sending a message.
This has a substantial effect on the industry, as well as their competitors' roadmaps.
I was thinking the same thing. Seems to me that having a patent offers very little protection, regardless if you take an infringer to court or not. The infringer may get slapped, but keeps on selling. Apple can't protect their IP any better than anyone else. What's the point of continuing to throw more money at the problem when trying to protect yourself costs so much, with little to nothing to show for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
It's not winning that matters. It's about Apple making their presence known and sending a message.
This has a substantial effect on the industry, as well as their competitors' roadmaps.
What effect? Everyone keeps selling the same type (design) of smartphone regardless of court battles. Don't see anyone having much trouble getting their products to market no matter how closely one mirrors the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
It's not winning that matters. It's about Apple making their presence known and sending a message.
This has a substantial effect on the industry, as well as their competitors' roadmaps.
Winning is everything. To argue otherwise is just advertising denial. I agree with your second sentence - the industry can clearly see Apple not really getting anywhere so can act accordingly
So basically, Samsung just got free marketing thanks to Apple, cause just when the GS3 died down in the news a bit, the injunction thing came up and put it back.
Looks like the GS3 will have a successful launch.
Just curious though.....what happens when Apple releases a rectangular TV with an uncluttered front and a 16:9 aspect ratio?
Or what happens if Motorolla decides to hit back against the drop down notifications (they are after all owned by Google now).
Then what happens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
It's not winning that matters. It's about Apple making their presence known and sending a message.
This has a substantial effect on the industry, as well as their competitors' roadmaps.
Actually Samsung has said that this litigation has actually HELPED them a lot. Free brand exposure and such, the article was on the Verge a week or so ago, have to see if I can find it.
Give them an inch…
They don't need a decisive win. They've had a number of smaller wins. More importantly, the entire world now knows that Samsung and Motorola and Android are incapable of innovation and have to copy Apple.
Furthermore, this one hasn't played out yet. Koh was already overruled by the appeals court on this matter who said that she improperly denied an injunction the first time. I hope she's got a lot better reason this time around or she'll simply be overruled again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
They don't need a decisive win. They've had a number of smaller wins. More importantly, the entire world now knows that Samsung and Motorola and Android are incapable of innovation and have to copy Apple.
Furthermore, this one hasn't played out yet. Koh was already overruled by the appeals court on this matter who said that she improperly denied an injunction the first time. I hope she's got a lot better reason this time around or she'll simply be overruled again.
Actually, judging by the fcat Samsung sales seem to be increasing at an alarming clip year on year, I would think all this has done is make the public more aware that Samsung even makes phones.
If anything, they are just there to have the public see what all the fuss is about with these Samsung phones and then some of those people end up buying the things when they try it, as can be seen by the ever increasing sales numbers.
If Apple didn't put Samsung in the news half as much, who knows? They may be just another LG or some other company who's phones dont sell.
EDIT: By the way, if they were incapable of innovation, why will iOS6 NOW be getting features which have existed in android FOR YEARS!
Multitasking
Voice searching
using voice to open apps
sharing
turn by turn navigation
facebook integration
Video calling
tabbed mobile browsing
saving web pages for offline reading
reply to call messages
etc
Quite a bit of what is in iOS now was innovated by other mobile OS's BEFORE Apple did them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
They don't need a decisive win. They've had a number of smaller wins. More importantly, the entire world now knows that Samsung and Motorola and Android are incapable of innovation and have to copy Apple.
Furthermore, this one hasn't played out yet. Koh was already overruled by the appeals court on this matter who said that she improperly denied an injunction the first time. I hope she's got a lot better reason this time around or she'll simply be overruled again.
This is getting easy to predict. Samsung will NOT be stopped from selling the Galaxy S III, period. What product of ANY significance has Samsung been stopped from selling in the U.S.? Again, Apple is throwing their money away.
Nothing is over ''til it's over. At some point one of these battles will get to where a clear patent infringement is ruled, THEN the damage will be assessed.. The longer this goes on the greater the damage is being accumulated. Of course, then there will be a battle over what amount of damage is correct, and on and on.
Some of you may remember the suit that kept IBM out of the mini-computer market for long enough that they jumped that market and went after the micro-computer market.. These things have effects, they just take a long time to show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
Actually, judging by the fcat Samsung sales seem to be increasing at an alarming clip year on year, I would think all this has done is make the public more aware that Samsung even makes phones.
If anything, they are just there to have the public see what all the fuss is about with these Samsung phones and then some of those people end up buying the things when they try it, as can be seen by the ever increasing sales numbers.
If Apple didn't put Samsung in the news half as much, who knows? They may be just another LG or some other company who's phones dont sell.
The general public is far less aware of the Apple - Samsung cat fight than you believe. They are far more aware of the Samsung products they have in their kitchen and living room, and the Samsung commercials then anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
They don't need a decisive win. They've had a number of smaller wins. More importantly, the entire world now knows that Samsung and Motorola and Android are incapable of innovation and have to copy Apple.
The smaller wins all add up to a net effect close to zero. No competitor has had any significant trouble introducing and selling any competing product.
And the number of people who think along the lines of "Incapable of innovation and have to copy" is so small as to be silly. For example, consumer surveys do not list this as a reason to buy or not buy any particular brand. In other words, it is not even on most people's radar. It is no factor whatsoever (or at best, a ridiculously small factor) in mainline consumer product sales.
Quote:
Furthermore, this one hasn't played out yet. Koh was already overruled by the appeals court on this matter who said that she improperly denied an injunction the first time. I hope she's got a lot better reason this time around or she'll simply be overruled again.
By the time any injunction is issued, the Galaxy V will be in the pipeline for announcement, the Galaxy IV will be a best seller, and the Galaxy III a bargain bin antique available to the prepaid market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
More importantly, the entire world now knows that Samsung and Motorola and Android are incapable of innovation and have to copy Apple.
Well, if you count the entire world as this forum and forums like this, then yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
By the time any injunction is issued, the Galaxy V will be in the pipeline for announcement, the Galaxy IV will be a best seller, and the Galaxy III a bargain bin antique available to the prepaid market.
Kinda like how apple is fighting to have the galaxy tab 10.1 banned. You know, the tablet that was released AGES ago, had a successor, and probably isn't even manufactured anymore.
for the love of god... I can only imagine what we would have if the money and time defending this crap iOS for kids had been dumped into designing computers for the talented people like before.
top it off, all this litigation has done nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
More importantly, the entire world now knows that Samsung and Motorola and Android are incapable of innovation and have to copy Apple.
Furthermore, this one hasn't played out yet.
How exactly is the Samsung Galaxy III like a iPhone 4S?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
They've had a number of smaller wins. More importantly, the entire world now knows that Samsung and Motorola and Android are incapable of innovation and have to copy Apple.
anyone who thinks the galaxy s 3 looks like an iphone 4s needs to have an eye examination.
In all my years I have never seen more far fetched reasoning/assumptions/babble over the ones people come up with to defend most iOS/iphone nonsens