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

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 71


    I use both Apple and Samsung products, but some of these comments are way too bias toward how great Apple products are.


     


    Blocking someone because their product looks like a glossy rectangle is quite ridiculous and has nothing to do with patent infringement. 


    Its Apple's way of using some of their pyramids of cash to strangle their competition or slow them down. Apple has sued everyone!


     


    Samsung, ASUS, Google, HTC, Motorola, etc will eventually topple Apple together.  Apple's one ace they had was touchscreen technology and an OS with gestures, but that was years ago. Now everything has gestures, touch screens and gyroscopes. The comments about iPad being superior in specs is wrong. Even the Nexus 7 tablet released yesterday has better specs


    than the iPad 3 or even 4. Guess what the price is....$199    :o   So if you enjoy being a brand zombie and paying 30-50% more for a product that has older specs, go for it...


     


    Apple has definitely reached its peak, unless they can pull off something as great as a computer to brain interface.

  • Reply 22 of 71
    markbyrnmarkbyrn Posts: 662member
    [quote]If Apple wins this case, they will be releasing the thermo-nuclear warheads on all the Android device makers.
    [/quote]

    So Apple will drop the fly-swatter and pull out the LGM-30G Minuteman-IIIs. Reminds me of the MAD Doctrine.
  • Reply 23 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post


     


    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.



    This design patent used to secure the Tab injunction has nothing to do with smartphones and can't be used against those. Apple had argued the utility patent claims apply to the smartphones and thus warranted an immediate injunction. Judge Koh disagreed and the same Appeals Court that sent the Tab decision back affirmed her reasoning on all the utility patents. There won't be an immediate injunction on those.

  • Reply 24 of 71
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


     


    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. 



     


    Wrong in part.  Samsung is actually quite distinguishable from the others:  They're winning the East Asian electronics sweepstakes across many fronts, "get" marketing, and are beginning to have the brand cachet Sony once had, but began surrendering back in the '80's in a series of both small and spectacular missteps.  Samsung's growth is also part of a pattern of South Korea's industries' coming of age and becoming at least competitive in quality and design with Japanese companies while beating them on price - Hyundai is the other signal example of this.  


     


    Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, China and others have all followed distinct strategies here.  Taiwan's companies and the lower tier Japanese companies, in fact, have more followed the churn out tons of "we sell that too" product (not without some design distinctions, but nothing iconic and world-beating), while China more resembles the earlier days of post WWII Japan - starting off making all kinds of cheap junk, then working up to manufacturing parts, then subassemblies and now assembly of products for foreign makers (e.g., Foxconn for Apple), but with few brands of their own with a world-wide presence. Yet.



    Lenovo is arguably one such Chinese brand - but while it's large, influential and executes, it got its critical leg up by taking on IBM's notepad (ThinkPad) business, i.e., in that purchase, inherited the tech and whatever panache existed from the original "IBM PC-compatible" maker and have generally run very well with it - especially in marketing to the business world - placing them ahead of Dell and behind only HP in the PC market - even if they're not "hot" among the developed world's individual consumers.  


     


    But do keep your eyes on China.  Foxconn and others have learned a great deal manufacturing the guts of the world's electronics - and won't likely be content to be sub-contractors forever.


     


    And don't think of Asian companies - or Asia - as some undifferentiated mass that's not relevant to where the world - let alone our prized digital gadgets - is going.



    Footnote:  Look at how long the word "pad" has been associated with leading edge mobile computing (and see below - way pre-computing) tech!  


     


     


    Quote:


    The name "ThinkPad" is a product of IBM's corporate history and culture. Thomas J. Watson, Sr, had first introduced "THINK" as an IBM slogan in the 1920s. For decades IBM distributed small notepads with the word "THINK" emblazoned on a brown leatherette cover to customers and employees.[3] The name ThinkPad was suggested by IBM employee Denny Wainwright, who had a "THINK" notepad in his pocket.[4][5] The name faced disagreements from the IBM corporate naming committee because the nomenclature system for the IBM computers was then numerical; however, the brand name "ThinkPad" was kept as the press showed appreciation for the title.[6]


    [edit]Early models


    The first three ThinkPad models introduced were the 700, 700C, and 700T, which debuted in October 1992




     


    And in 2008, Lenovo introduced their own IdeaPad line.  Just a "DEA" away from......  ....well, you know.....

  • Reply 25 of 71
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    shinjitsu wrote: »
    I use both Apple and Samsung products

    No, you don't.
    but some of these comments are way too bias toward how great Apple products are.

    Praise for Apple products on an Apple fan site? Holy crap, that's the discovery of the century.
    Blocking someone because their product looks like a glossy rectangle is quite ridiculous and has nothing to do with patent infringement. 

    Fortunately, that's not what's happening.
    Its Apple's way of using some of their pyramids of cash to strangle their competition or slow them down. Apple has sued everyone!

    They haven't sued farmers, auto manufacturers, doctors…
    Samsung, ASUS, Google, HTC, Motorola, etc will eventually topple Apple together.

    BA HA HA!
    Apple's one ace they had was touchscreen technology and an OS with gestures, but that was years ago.

    Wow, that's wrong. … WOW, that's wrong…
    Even the Nexus 7 tablet released yesterday has better specs than the iPad 3 or even 4.

    Man, you trolls sure are stupid. And I can absolutely say that, as you ARE nothing but an anti-Apple troll who came here to make one post.

    Better specs than the iPad 3?

    375

    And don't even get me started on how you think you can know what's in the next iPad.
    Guess what the price is....$199

    I'm waiting for this to be profound in some way. I think you mean for something to click inside me, like a realization or something, but it's just not coming.
    :o

    Sorry, still nothing.

    So if you enjoy being a brand zombie and paying 30-50% more for a product that has older specs, go for it…
    Apple has definitely reached its peak

    So you're ignoring the mile-long line of dump trucks heading up to the peak to make it taller, then.
    …unless they can pull off something as great as a computer to brain interface.

    You realize that's another 30 years away, right?
  • Reply 26 of 71
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bigpics View Post


     


    Wrong in part.  Samsung is actually quite distinguishable from the others:  They're winning the East Asian electronics sweepstakes across many fronts, "get" marketing, and are beginning to have the brand cachet Sony once had, but began surrendering back in the '80's in a series of both small and spectacular missteps.  Samsung's growth is also part of a pattern of South Korea's industries' coming of age and becoming at least competitive in quality and design with Japanese companies while beating them on price - Hyundai is the other signal example of this.  


     


    Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, China and others have all followed distinct strategies here.  Taiwan's companies and the lower tier Japanese companies, in fact, have more followed the churn out tons of "we sell that too" product (not without some design distinctions, but nothing iconic and world-beating), while China more resembles the earlier days of post WWII Japan - starting off making all kinds of cheap junk, then working up to manufacturing parts, then subassemblies and now assembly of products for foreign makers (e.g., Foxconn for Apple), but with few brands of their own with a world-wide presence. Yet.



    Lenovo is arguably one such Chinese brand - but while it's large, influential and executes, it got its critical leg up by taking on IBM's notepad (ThinkPad) business, i.e., in that purchase, inherited the tech and whatever panache existed from the original "IBM PC-compatible" maker and have generally run very well with it - especially in marketing to the business world - placing them ahead of Dell and behind only HP in the PC market - even if they're not "hot" among the developed world's individual consumers.  


     


    But do keep your eyes on China.  Foxconn and others have learned a great deal manufacturing the guts of the world's electronics - and won't likely be content to be sub-contractors forever.


     


    And don't think of Asian companies - or Asia - as some undifferentiated mass that's not relevant to where the world - let alone our prized digital gadgets - is going.

     



     


    As a Joe Lunchbox user, I can't tell. 


     


    Sony is Lenovo is Samsung is Toshiba is LG . . . .


     


    These products have no culture. Nor does it help when they're running some hodge-podge, universally-licensed OS.   

  • Reply 27 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    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. 

    +1 Well written, but one product being competitive against another is exactly the point of preliminary injunctions. Winning an injunction almost a year later and on a product that's already been replaced by another model isn't that impressive and nothing to brag about. Whatever damage Apple tried to stop has already been done. I'd wait to gloat if and when Apple wins the patents case and Samsung is ordered to pay damages.
  • Reply 28 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.


     


    Another reason for the minimal impact is that the enjoined product is no longer in production.  It is obsolete.  It has been replaced.  It doesn't matter one whit to Samsung.


     


    Cue to JRAGOSTA:   This is where you claim that the Galaxy Tab 2 will be easily and quickly enjoined, without providing any support for the contention.

  • Reply 29 of 71

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


     


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


     


     


     



     


     


    How do you square that with the announced strategy of Global Thermonuclear War?  It seems to me that what you say is VERY different from what Apple says.


     


    Personally, I believe that Apple knows its strategy better than you know Apple's strategy.

  • Reply 30 of 71

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bought_it@AAPL View Post







    The, very low, bond certainly indicates ... that Samsung's potential lost profits are a small fraction of its attorney's fees prosecuting this case.

     


     


     


    Given that Samsung no longer sells the enjoined product, I beleive that you are correct.

  • Reply 31 of 71
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bigpics View Post


     


    But do keep your eyes on China.



     


    Got that part right.  Only not quite in the sense you meant.


     


    Thieving little darlings have just nicked over $2 Billion worth of Samsung and LG's large OLED panel production secrets.


     


    ww.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/06/117_113978.html

  • Reply 32 of 71
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member


    You steal, you get sued. It's that simple.


     


    Don't want to get sued? Don't steal.

  • Reply 33 of 71
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shinjitsu View Post


    I use both Apple and Samsung products, but some of these comments are way too bias toward how great Apple products are.


     


    Blocking someone because their product looks like a glossy rectangle is quite ridiculous and has nothing to do with patent infringement. 


    Its Apple's way of using some of their pyramids of cash to strangle their competition or slow them down. Apple has sued everyone!


     


     



    Especially when Samsung had a design that looked just like it prior to the iPad.


     


    samsung-ipad-photo-frame.jpeg

  • Reply 34 of 71
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post



    So did Tim Cook dig down behind the seat cushions in his office to come up with the $2.6 million?




    Straight out of his wallet

  • Reply 35 of 71
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


     


     


    How do you square that with the announced strategy of Global Thermonuclear War?  It seems to me that what you say is VERY different from what Apple says.


     


    Personally, I believe that Apple knows its strategy better than you know Apple's strategy.





    "announced strategy of Global Thermonuclear War"?


     


    A quotation from a poorly written biography is hardly an announced strategy.

  • Reply 36 of 71
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Another reason for the minimal impact is that the enjoined product is no longer in production.  It is obsolete.  It has been replaced.  It doesn't matter one whit to Samsung.

    Apparently, it does - since Samsung has started producing products that are not slavish copies of Apple products. They learned their lesson.
    Cue to JRAGOSTA:   This is where you claim that the Galaxy Tab 2 will be easily and quickly enjoined, without providing any support for the contention.

    Note that I never said any such thing. But, then, honesty was never your strong point.

    I said it was EASIER to get an injunction on new variations of a product that was already enjoined.
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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.

    And the other two judges thought that Koh's decision NOT to grant an injunction was wrong. Which is why they overturned her decision not to grant an injunction.
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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.

    ROTFLMAO.

    You've managed to reverse it entirely. Her first decision was hasty - and the appeals court overturned it. After evaluating what the appeals court said, she granted the injunction. So the more considered decision was to grant the injunction.

    I would love to see your evidence that Samsung is going to get the injunction overturned. The appeals court already ruled on the matter.

    Oh, and btw, I notice that both of you are still ignoring the fact that for months, you crowed about how Apple wasn't able to get an injunction while I was stating that Koh's ruling would be overturned and she would have to grant an injunction in the end. As usual, you were wrong and I was right.
  • Reply 37 of 71
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Apparently, it does - since Samsung has started producing products that are not slavish copies of Apple products. They learned their lesson.

    Note that I never said any such thing. But, then, honesty was never your strong point.

    I said it was EASIER to get an injunction on new variations of a product that was already enjoined.

    And the other two judges thought that Koh's decision NOT to grant an injunction was wrong. Which is why they overturned her decision not to grant an injunction.

    ROTFLMAO.

    You've managed to reverse it entirely. Her first decision was hasty - and the appeals court overturned it. After evaluating what the appeals court said, she granted the injunction. So the more considered decision was to grant the injunction.

    I would love to see your evidence that Samsung is going to get the injunction overturned. The appeals court already ruled on the matter.

    Oh, and btw, I notice that both of you are still ignoring the fact that for months, you crowed about how Apple wasn't able to get an injunction while I was stating that Koh's ruling would be overturned and she would have to grant an injunction in the end. As usual, you were wrong and I was right.


    Be honest now...is slavish your favourite word?

  • Reply 38 of 71
    <vc><strong>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.</strong>
    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, <a href="http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/06/apple-posts-bond-and-wins-battle-over.html">according to</a> Florian Mueller of <em>FOSS Patents</em>.
    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.
    ..."
    Emphasys added.

    Pardon me. That statement about the bond posted in a grant of preliminary injunctive relief is almost entirely wrong.

    The extrodinary remedy of a preliminary injunction, in the instant case, is made where Apple has shown all of the equitable elements necessary - and, it is based upon the underlying infringement action. There is no appeal process available that targets the preliminary injunction. Samsung must prevail on the infringement suit to dissolve that preliminary injunction. Moreover, the bond is the measure of Samsung's damages and that is all that Samsung will receive (assuming that they prevail on the underlying action) for losses arising out of the application of the injunctive relief.

    I realize that extrodinary remedies are quite complex for the layperson and the error, while eggregrious, is understandable where the author is not legally trained.
  • Reply 39 of 71
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    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.
    Keep in mind that the bond is posted in case it is overturned. If the injunction is upheld, Apple gets that money back so it's not costing them anything
  • Reply 40 of 71
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shinjitsu View Post


    I use both Apple and Samsung products, but some of these comments are way too bias toward how great Apple products are.


     


    Blocking someone because their product looks like a glossy rectangle is quite ridiculous and has nothing to do with patent infringement...



    Good, it also has nothing at all to do with this case.  Maybe you should stop parroting Apple Hater talking points and look into the case a bit.

Sign In or Register to comment.