Apple posts $2.6M bond to block sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Almost immediately after the company won an injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, Apple posted the necessary $2.6 million bond to block sales of the iPad competitor in the U.S.

Apple's posting of the bond means that the injunction has taken effect and Samsung must cease stateside sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, or the company could be sanctioned for contempt, according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents.

The $2.6 million bond posted by Apple is necessary to protect Samsung in the event that the Korean electronics maker appeals the injunction and succeeds. If the current injunction is found to have been improperly granted, Samsung could be awarded that money to compensate for any losses.

Apple was granted the injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 on Tuesday by U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh. In her ruling, she said that Samsung "does not have a right to compete unfairly by flooding the market with infringing products."

In response to Koh's ruling, Samsung has already filed a motion to stay the injunction pending its own forthcoming appeal. As noted by Mueller, Samsung's motion to stay asserts that the company's appeal is likely to succeed, as Samsung feels the court "erred by issuing a preliminary injunction based on a stale and incomplete record."

Galaxy Tab 10.1


The injunction comes a month before Apple and Samsung are set to square off in court, with their patent infringement lawsuits scheduled to go to trial in late July. Ahead of that trial, Apple has also succeeded in having portions of Samsung's expert reports excluded from the case.

In fact, Mueller said that Apple won that showdown with Samsung "by an extraordinarily wide margin," as the iPhone maker had many portions of Samsung's expert reports excluded and defeated most of Samsung's motions. However, Samsung's own motions against Apple's expert reports "were much less successful."

"Apple goes into this summer's trial with a fundamentally stronger case than Samsung," Mueller said. "That belief is mostly based on the strength of the asserted intellectual property rights and the fact that Samsung mostly relies on FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents. Both parties have great lawyers, but no lawyer can change the fact that Samsung is in a strategically weaker position here."
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 71
    Afraid of a little competition.
  • Reply 2 of 71
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Narcosis View Post



    Afraid of a little competition.


     


    Yep. SameSung can't manage to make something that will sell without copying apple so much that their own lawyers can't tell the two apart at a mere 10 feet away. So they have to play these scared tactics. 


     


    Apple on the other hand is doing as the laws demand and defining their IP. Something even Samesung does all the time, even when they should back down a little because they put the IP into FRAND status and were possibly demanding terms out of those rules. 


     


    As many have said the 10.1 is going end of life anyway to be replaced by a model that isn't in this suit. So really there's little financial harm to be had for Samsung which is likely why the bond is so low. The real value here is the hope that the courts will invalidate the design patent. Because if the courts don't then Apple is likely to file against the newer Tab model as well and it will be a lot harder to win that case unless it is radically different than the one currently under exam (and from what I hear it isn't) if Apple wins this case and the patent is affirmed

  • Reply 3 of 71
    aizmovaizmov Posts: 989member
    This will make the Samsung GalaxyTab a household name. This could backfire. The public won't know that this is nothing but a shameful copycat by corrupt Samsung, they will assume Apple is being anticompetitive.
  • Reply 4 of 71
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,446member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post



    This will make the Samsung GalaxyTab a household name. This could backfire. The public won't know that this is nothing but a shameful copycat by corrupt Samsung, they will assume Apple is being anticompetitive.


     


    No it won't. No one cares about this crap.

  • Reply 5 of 71
    So did Tim Cook dig down behind the seat cushions in his office to come up with the $2.6 million?
  • Reply 6 of 71
    narcosis wrote: »
    Afraid of a little competition.

    Hey, I didn't study last night, but I know you did, so I copied your answers on the test.
    What's the matter? Afraid of a little competition?
  • Reply 7 of 71
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Narcosis View Post



    Afraid of a little competition.


    Except it isn't. No Android tablet currently on the market is even remotely competitive with the iPad. 


     


    But that isn't the point. The point is that Apple feels their IP is being misappropriated. And there most certainly *is* the potential for harm here. Even if Samsung barely sells any of these tablets, the *next* Android tablet that comes along which might actually be competitive will simply continue the "let's *borrow* from Apple" trend that Samsung started. 


     


    Apple *must* make an example of someone early on. And if they do it to the big boys like Samsung, then all the other small fry will be less willing to take that risk. 

  • Reply 8 of 71
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post



    This will make the Samsung GalaxyTab a household name. This could backfire. The public won't know that this is nothing but a shameful copycat by corrupt Samsung, they will assume Apple is being anticompetitive.


     


    The public doesn't even know this stuff is going on. They hardly care about tech-company litigation. 


     


    Apple's been tying all these companies up in court for, what, almost two years now. Has it backfired in terms of public reaction?  Nope.


     


    LOL Samsung is already a household name, as faceless Asian tech companies go. They make TVs and some other electronics. That are virtually indistinguishable from the other faceless Asian tech companies that do the same thing. 

  • Reply 9 of 71
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    quadra 610 wrote: »
    Except it isn't. No Android tablet currently on the market is even remotely competitive with the iPad. 

    But that isn't the point. The point is that Apple feels their IP is being misappropriated. And there most certainly *is* the potential for harm here. Even if Samsung barely sells any of these tablets, the *next* Android tablet that comes along which might actually be competitive will simply continue the "let's *borrow* from Apple" trend that Samsung started. 

    Apple *must* make an example of someone early on. And if they do it to the big boys like Samsung, then all the other small fry will be less willing to take that risk. 

    The Apple haters seem to miss that part of it. Apple's not concerned about the relatively small amount of money involved. A $2.6 M bond doesn't even rise to the level of chump change for them. They're also not focused on the specific legal battles. While people are running around in circles trying to follow all the legal battles in detail and define a 'winner', Apple's objective is to make competitors stop copying. If they can do that, then whether they won or lost any specific court battle is irrelevant.

    And if you look at the Galaxy SIII, Apple may be winning that important battle. Samsung's newest phone finally doesn't look like as close a copy of the iPhone as they thought they could get away with. That means two things:
    1. If it's the start of a trend, then Apple won the war - putting a stop to everyone making slavish copies.
    2. It thoroughly debunks the mantra of the Apple haters: "there's only one way to make a phone and a phone MUST look like an iPhone if it's to work, so the design shouldn't be protected." Clearly, the fact that Samsung has managed to make a new model phone that isn't a slavish copy demonstrates that it's possible to give your phone a unique appearance without giving up all of its unique characteristics.
  • Reply 10 of 71
    markbyrnmarkbyrn Posts: 646member
    [quote]The $2.6 million bond posted by Apple is necessary to protect Samsung in the event that the Korean electronics maker appeals the injunction and succeeds.[/quote]

    So Apple temporarily gets one device off the sales shelves of one country and with a small bond, it's obvious that Samsung will be minimally impacted. Essentially it's another pyrrhic victory and the weakness of Apple's overall legal strategy continues to be exposed - the Android juggernaut continues unabated.
  • Reply 11 of 71

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    Hey, I didn't study last night, but I know you did, so I copied your answers on the test.

    What's the matter? Afraid of a little competition?


     


    And, OBTW, now that we got the same score on the test... I pulled the curve up and you got a B instead of an A.   

  • Reply 12 of 71
    kozchriskozchris Posts: 209member


    I hope this sticks. I remember Samsung coming out with some tag line along "The device Apple tried to block". Everything after this is going to be "The device we tried to copy but were found guilty of illegally copying". I can't wait to beat down the trolls.

  • Reply 13 of 71
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post





    So Apple temporarily gets one device off the sales shelves of one country and with a small bond, it's obvious that Samsung will be minimally impacted. Essentially it's another pyrrhic victory and the weakness of Apple's overall legal strategy continues to be exposed - the Android juggernaut continues unabated.


     


    Apple isn't necessarily looking for big wins or even far-reaching injunctions. 


     


    The *very act* of Apple tying up a major player in tech over (alleged) IP misappropriation sends a message to everyone else, especially the smaller players who can't afford to throw money at lawyers. 


     


    It isn't a "weak" legal strategy, since Apple loses nothing (aside from pocket change), but gains a great deal in terms of what they communicate to competitors, current infringers and prospective infringers. It's a long-term strategy whose effects are only truly felt over time, especially in terms of what competitors choose *not to do*, or what they feel discouraged from doing. 

  • Reply 14 of 71
    The purpose of the bond is to make Samsung whole if it were to prevail on the merits of the underlying action for infringement.

    Put simply, all that Samsung could show the Court in potential lost profit from the Injunction was a pittance: $2.6 Meg. The measure of Samsung's damages is the bond and nothing more.

    The, very low, bond certainly indicates that the Court had clear and convincing proof that this knockoff: (a) doesn't have a chance of winning the underlying case; and, (b) that Samsung's potential lost profits are a small fraction of its attorney's fees prosecuting this case.

    In short: stick a fork in that knockoff, it's done!
  • Reply 15 of 71

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post





    So Apple temporarily gets one device off the sales shelves of one country and with a small bond, it's obvious that Samsung will be minimally impacted. Essentially it's another pyrrhic victory and the weakness of Apple's overall legal strategy continues to be exposed - the Android juggernaut continues unabated.


    It would be pyrrhic if it were Elbonia... but the U.S.  and a 2 possibly longer stay?  As a stockholder, the victory is solid, and the strategy is sound.  If we spend the money to protect our investement's IP, then use it until that IP is superceded with a new IP.


     


    yes, their strategy is exposed... we make stuff, we got patent protections on stuff... you copy it, you can't sell it without our approval... and we don't approve (unlike how the 'old PC' market was set up with licencing and royalties...  and the courtrooms were just negotiation tactics to lower the per unit costs)


     


    Eventually Cheap will overrun the tablet market, I agree.  It's the nature of the advancement.   Apple just wants to earn their 'better mousetrap' dollars today, to invest in something completely different tomorrow.   

  • Reply 16 of 71

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post





    So Apple temporarily gets one device off the sales shelves of one country and with a small bond, it's obvious that Samsung will be minimally impacted. Essentially it's another pyrrhic victory and the weakness of Apple's overall legal strategy continues to be exposed - the Android juggernaut continues unabated.


     


    This court case may seem like small potatoes but Apple is just stretching up for the big game. If they win this, it sets precedent to go after all the other models. It's a smart play by Apple because going after the Tab 10.1 only costs them $2.6 million in bond. If they went after a new popular model like the GSIII, they probably would have to pay a $100 million bond. If Apple wins this case, they will be releasing the thermo-nuclear warheads on all the Android device makers.

  • Reply 17 of 71
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,727member
    narcosis wrote: »
    Afraid of a little competition.

    Drive-by troll posters coming out!
  • Reply 18 of 71
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    The purpose of the bond is to make Samsung whole if it were to prevail on the merits of the underlying action for infringement.
    Put simply, all that Samsung could show the Court in potential lost profit from the Injunction was a pittance: $2.6 Meg. The measure of Samsung's damages is the bond and nothing more.

    True, but the chances of that are very, very slim. The appeals court already looked at this one and basically told Koh "you have one more chance to file an injunction and if you don't, we will".

    There's no way Samsung is going to win this one in the end.
  • Reply 19 of 71


    This $2.6 mil bond should cover sales of this tablet for between six months and a year...

  • Reply 20 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,162member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    True, but the chances of that are very, very slim. The appeals court already looked at this one and basically told Koh "you have one more chance to file an injunction and if you don't, we will".


    No they didn't. One judge out of the three felt an immediate injunction was warranted. I gave you a link several posts back to the written decision remanding it and the reason behind it. You should read it.


     


    In fact it's because of her hasty decision granting the injunction despite Samsung's request to submit more recent evidence in support of their arguments that they may be successful in having it overturned on appeal for now.

Sign In or Register to comment.