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

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    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.


    I'm more convinced than ever that at least this particular set of issues is beyond your ability to comprehend. I gave you a link to the reasoning and the suggested action from the Appeals Court. Either you didn't read it of you don't understand what your read. They did not remand to have an injunction ordered. The majority opinion was that another equitable analysis was in order before an injunction should be granted on only the design patent claims against the Tab.  She did not do that, denying Samsung's request to submit new evidence that had not yet been considered before granting the injunction. That gives Samsung a valid claim that the injunction should not yet have been orderd Thus the Samsung appeal and a possible stay granted by the Appeals Court panel pending further hearings on the matter.


     


    Here's Florian Mueller comments on the Samsung request for a stay:


     


    "I don't want to overstate the merits of Samsung's appeal and its request for a stay. It's going to be difficult for Samsung at this stage. But I reiterate my belief that Samsung's arguments aren't entirely implausible. Just like I wrote yesterday, Samsung also notes that the CAFC actually wanted Judge Koh to perform another equitable analysis, but her order instead relied on the opinion of Circuit Judge O'Malley. It's possible that none of Samsung's "new" arguments have merit and that none of its new proposed pieces of evidence makes a difference. But if there's only one item that should have been and wasn't considered, then Judge Koh's decision to grant a preliminary injunction is less than waterproof. Since Judge O'Malley's position (that there was no need for a new equitable analysis as the record was supposedly clear) wasn't adopted by the majority of the CAFC, it can't necessarily be relied on. The safer alternative would have been to set a tight schedule and let Samsung produce its new evidence, to hear the parties, and to perform a new equitable analysis based on the latest record.


     


    Now Jr, go make believe you understand some other subject,  or perhaps find a something written by some random internet guy in some unknown forum as proof you were right all along.  You've done so before. That's all you'll find because. . .


    You're wrong. 

  • Reply 42 of 71
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I'm more convinced than ever that at least this particular set of issues is beyond your ability to comprehend. I gave you a link to the reasoning and the suggested action from the Appeals Court. Either you didn't read it of you don't understand what your read. They did not remand to have an injunction ordered. The majority opinion was that another equitable analysis was in order before an injunction should be granted on only the design patent claims against the Tab.  She did not do that, denying Samsung's request to submit new evidence that had not yet been considered before granting the injunction. That gives Samsung a valid claim that the injunction should not yet have been granted. Thus the Samsung appeal and a possible stay granted by the Appeals Court panel pending further hearings on the matter.

    Here's Florian Mueller comments on the Samsung request for a stay:

    <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Georgia, serif;line-height:20px;">"I don't want to overstate the merits of Samsung's appeal and its request for a stay. It's going to be difficult for Samsung at this stage. But I reiterate my belief that Samsung's arguments aren't entirely implausible. Just like I wrote yesterday, Samsung also notes that the CAFC actually wanted Judge Koh to perform another equitable analysis, but her order instead relied on the opinion of Circuit Judge O'Malley. It's possible that none of Samsung's "new" arguments have merit and that none of its new proposed pieces of evidence makes a difference. But if there's only one item that should have been and wasn't considered, then Judge Koh's decision to grant a preliminary injunction is less than waterproof. Since Judge O'Malley's position (that there was no need for a new equitable analysis as the record was supposedly clear) wasn't adopted by the majority of the CAFC, it can't necessarily be relied on. The safer alternative would have been to set a tight schedule and let Samsung produce its new evidence, to hear the parties, and to perform a new equitable analysis based on the latest record.</span>


    <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Georgia, serif;line-height:20px;">Now Jr, go make believe you understand some other subject,  or perhaps find a something written by some random internet guy in some unknown forum as proof you were right all along.  You've done so before. That's all you'll find because. . .</span>

    <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Georgia, serif;line-height:20px;">You're wrong. </span>

    Blah, blah, blah, blah.

    Do you think that repeating the same lies over and over again makes them come true?

    Here, let's put the facts together again.

    1. Initially, Koh declined to issue an injunction.
    2. I stated at the time that her reasons were invalid and her decision would be overturned.
    3. You and the other Apple haters were dancing around saying that Apple lost and would continue to lose and would never get an injunction.
    4. The appeals court overturned Koh's decision and her new decision was exactly what I said it would be - an injunction.

    It's really that simple. I called it and you were wrong.

    Oh, and btw, the majority of the appeals court ruled that Koh's denial of an injunction was incorrect. What more do you need?
  • Reply 43 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member


    I'm proud of you! At least you've started to pay a little bit of attention to what I've been telling you for the past two days. And what the hell was I wrong about? Was it I, 2, 3, or 4?? Perhaps none of the above? I've pointed out specific quotes of yours that are plainly incorrect. Link mine so I can reply. Instead I'm nearly 100% sure you'll ignore the request for proof as you normally do.


     


    Surprise me, it's a slow night.

  • Reply 44 of 71

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post




    "announced strategy of Global Thermonuclear War"?


     


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



     


     


    What would you call it?  It was a strategy.  It was announced.  


     


    The writing quality of the bio is wholly irrelevant.

  • Reply 45 of 71


     


    Quote:  By JRAGosta



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post



    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.



     


     


     


    Here's what you said:


     


     


     


    Quote:


    First, Apple can easily file to extend the injunction to cover products that did not exist at the time of the original filing.



    and


    Quote:


    All they have to do is show that the patented technologies are the same in the newer product. 



     


    And despite repeated requests, you have failed to provide any support for the contention.  Now you claim that you never said it in the first place.

  • Reply 46 of 71
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member

    Here's what you said

    and

    And despite repeated requests, you have failed to provide any support for the contention.  Now you claim that you never said it in the first place.

    What I said is that Apple can easily file. That's absolutely true. They actually don't need to prove a darned thing to file for the injunction to be extended.

    Ergo, you're wrong. Again.
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I'm proud of you! At least you've started to pay a little bit of attention to what I've been telling you for the past two days. And what the hell was I wrong about? Was it I, 2, 3, or 4?? Perhaps none of the above? I've pointed out specific quotes of yours that are plainly incorrect. Link mine so I can reply. Instead I'm nearly 100% sure you'll ignore the request for proof as you normally do.

    Surprise me, it's a slow night.

    Funny how Foss Patents is an unreliable source when you don't like it, but it's suddenly God's gift to the universe when you like what he says.

    The only thing that matters is the court decision - where Apple was granted an injunction --- in spite of the two of you arguing for months that Apple had no protectable IP and that Samsung was going to get away with it.

    You lose.
  • Reply 47 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jragosta wrote: »
    What I said is that Apple can easily file. That's absolutely true. They actually don't need to prove a darned thing to file for the injunction to be extended.
    Ergo, you're wrong. Again.
    Funny how Foss Patents is an unreliable source when you don't like it, but it's suddenly God's gift to the universe when you like what he says.
    The only thing that matters is the court decision - where Apple was granted an injunction --- in spite of the two of you arguing for months that Apple had no protectable IP and that Samsung was going to get away with it.
    You lose.

    But they did exactly just that, get away with it. Congratulations you got an injunction on a device at the end of life. They stalled and stalled until when an injunction was awarded when it could do minimal harm. Yes it is a victory but a hollow one, do you really think Samsung is scrambling to get a work around done? No they are not.
  • Reply 48 of 71
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    But they did exactly just that, get away with it. Congratulations you got an injunction on a device at the end of life. They stalled and stalled until an injunction was awarded when it could do very little harm. Yes it is a victory but a hollow one.

    Not at all.

    As was explained repeatedly, these legal battles are not that big a deal in and of themselves. Apple is after the big prize - forcing competitors to stop copying them so closely that it's difficult to tell the difference and misleading consumers.

    Even if this battle doesn't net Apple any significant money, that's not the point. The point is to make Samsung and others stop copying. And the design of the new Galaxy SIII suggests that Apple might have won the war, although it's still too early to know for sure.
  • Reply 49 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    What I said is that Apple can easily file. That's absolutely true. They actually don't need to prove a darned thing to file for the injunction to be extended.

    Ergo, you're wrong. Again.

    Funny how Foss Patents is an unreliable source when you don't like it, but it's suddenly God's gift to the universe when you like what he says.

    The only thing that matters is the court decision - where Apple was granted an injunction --- in spite of the two of you arguing for months that Apple had no protectable IP and that Samsung was going to get away with it.

    You lose.


    Funny how when you're wrong you change the discussion. You're also wrong again. Apple won't have to "prove a darned thing" to extend the injunction to what? A different tablet model? They would have to prove that tablet infringes on Apple's design patent! That's a new action! New filing! New pleadings! Geesh!! Stop already. The misinformation you're spreading is ridiculous.


     


    And just as you normally do you make up things that others supposedly said in an attempt to make yourself look better when caught in a misstatement, in this case that I claimed no Apple had no protectable IP and no appeal would be granted, with not one single quote or citation for proof that I ever really did say such a thing. None.


     


    Rather than make up stuff about what others say, pay more attention to your own posts, do proper research before making fun of others (or better yet don't make fun of others at all) as you come off looking quite silly at times, and when you're wrong or make stuff up just admit it.  Men do that sometimes. At least those with self-esteem.

  • Reply 50 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Not at all.
    As was explained repeatedly, these legal battles are not that big a deal in and of themselves. Apple is after the big prize - forcing competitors to stop copying them so closely that it's difficult to tell the difference and misleading consumers.
    Even if this battle doesn't net Apple any significant money, that's not the point. The point is to make Samsung and others stop copying. And the design of the new Galaxy SIII suggests that Apple might have won the war, although it's still too early to know for sure.

    You're more than welcome to believe whatever makes you feel better, but you have absolutely no proof the SGS3 was designed to avoid litigation. As far as the actual patents trial goes you're right Samsung hasn't gotten away with it and will have to pay damages if found guilty but as far as the injunction goes they did indeed get away with it.
  • Reply 51 of 71
    successsuccess Posts: 1,040member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Narcosis View Post



    Afraid of a little competition.


    Actually you are absolutely correct. If all someone does is copy you all day long, you'd be afraid they will release the next copy and thus lower your sales as well as any other negative effects.

  • Reply 52 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    You're more than welcome to believe whatever makes you feel better, but you have absolutely no proof the SGS3 was designed to avoid litigation. As far as the actual patents trial goes you're right Samsung hasn't gotten away with it and will have to pay damages if found guilty but as far as the injunction goes they did indeed get away with it.


    To be fair, tho I have no idea why I would bother supporting Jr, there was an article that claimed the S3 was designed by lawyers, with specific ornamental choices intended to avoid any Apple design patent claims. I don't think there was anything attributed directly to Samsung spokespeople tho.

  • Reply 53 of 71
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member

    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.



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


     


     


     


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



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


     


    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.   



     


    Honest answer, and appreciated.  I also grant you most of your point (again! getting to be a habit....).  When you take an overview, it's like Asus, Acer, who can keep this all straight and who cares (from a "Joe Lunchbox" user POV in particular).


     


    It strikes me that Nintendo - distinctive, quirky and iconic -  is practically the exception that makes your point even clearer.  The Mario brothers may not be exactly "cultured" - but they are indelibly part of our "culture"!


     


    But it does matter - to Apple, to the US economy and the world - and of course, ultimately to users.  


     


    Which I'd written about - having followed the topic for decades - and wanted to focus on the history of Sony for lessons Apple might draw in the present - but lost the draft, so you're spared for now......  :)

  • Reply 54 of 71
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    You're more than welcome to believe whatever makes you feel better, but you have absolutely no proof the SGS3 was designed to avoid litigation. As far as the actual patents trial goes you're right Samsung hasn't gotten away with it and will have to pay damages if found guilty but as far as the injunction goes they did indeed get away with it.

    Where did I say that the SGS3 was designed to avoid litigation?

    What I said was that Samsung apparently decided that making slavish copies wasn't in their best interest - and Apple's litigation may have encouraged them to think that way. There were, however, plenty of rumors that one of the design criteria for the SIII was to avoid looking like an exact copy of the iPhone.

    In any event, all I said was that before the litigation, Samsung's products (like the Tab) looked almost identical to the iPhone. After the litigation started, Samsung's products (like the SIII) had unique appearances. That indicates that Apple got what it wanted - even if Samsung had some other reason for doing what they did.
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Funny how when you're wrong you change the discussion. You're also wrong again. Apple won't have to "prove a darned thing" to extend the injunction to what? A different tablet model? They would have to prove that tablet infringes on Apple's design patent! That's a new action! New filing! New pleadings! Geesh!! Stop already. The misinformation you're spreading is ridiculous.

    No, it's the lies you keep spreading that are ridiculous.

    I never said that Apple wouldn't have to prove a darned thing to extend an injunction. I said that they wouldn't have to prove anything TO FILE. But since you can't read beyond the 2nd grade level, it's obvious that you missed that.

    And having established the validity of the first injunction, a second injunction becomes easier because much of the ground work has been done. For example, much of the discovery is already out of the way, so it's less work to extend an injunction to a new device than to start from scratch.

    Besides, I love it how you keep pretending that by saying I'm wrong you win the argument. You and your Apple hating buddies were screaming for months that Koh didn't grant an injunction and Apple would never win one. I said that Koh would have to reverse herself. Who was wrong there?
  • Reply 55 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    No, it's the lies you keep spreading that are ridiculous.

    I never said that Apple wouldn't have to prove a darned thing to extend an injunction. I said that they wouldn't have to prove anything TO FILE. 



     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    They actually don't need to prove a darned thing to file for the injunction to be extended.


    Are you on some new medications perhaps? What the hell does that mean? No one has to prove anything to FILE a complaint. They darn sure have to offer proof of infringement to get an injunction extended to a totally different tablet. 


     


    Then to top it off you keep the lie going that I've said something that never happened. No proof, no quotes, no links,  just your word that I said it. You're demonstrating very clearly how honest your word is.

  • Reply 56 of 71
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Are you on some new medications perhaps? What the hell does that mean? No one has to prove anything to FILE a complaint.
    Correct. File some papers to get some face time with the judge to produce evidence.
    They darn sure have to offer proof of infringement to get an injunction extended to a totally different tablet. 
    Again, correct. In order to extend the injunction, the infringement must be proven but this comes after the filing, which is simply some paperwork.
  • Reply 57 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post





    Correct. File some papers to get some face time with the judge to produce evidence.

    Again, correct. In order to extend the injunction, the infringement must be proven but this comes after the filing, which is simply some paperwork.


    LOL! Thanks. I'm sure that's all Jr meant from the beginning. Just filing a little paperwork... image

  • Reply 58 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    To be fair, tho I have no idea why I would bother supporting Jr, there was an article that claimed the S3 was designed by lawyers, with specific ornamental choices intended to avoid any Apple design patent claims. I don't think there was anything attributed directly to Samsung spokespeople tho.

    And you believed that crap? Now that's funny. How about all the phones before the SGS3 that look nothing like a iPhone? Lawyers design those too?
  • Reply 59 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Where did I say that the SGS3 was designed to avoid litigation?
    What I said was that Samsung apparently decided that making slavish copies wasn't in their best interest - and Apple's litigation may have encouraged them to think that way. There were, however, plenty of rumors that one of the design criteria for the SIII was to avoid looking like an exact copy of the iPhone.
    In any event, all I said was that before the litigation, Samsung's products (like the Tab) looked almost identical to the iPhone. After the litigation started, Samsung's products (like the SIII) had unique appearances. That indicates that Apple got what it wanted - even if Samsung had some other reason for doing what they did.
    No, it's the lies you keep spreading that are ridiculous.
    I never said that Apple wouldn't have to prove a darned thing to extend an injunction. I said that they wouldn't have to prove anything TO FILE. But since you can't read beyond the 2nd grade level, it's obvious that you missed that.
    And having established the validity of the first injunction, a second injunction becomes easier because much of the ground work has been done. For example, much of the discovery is already out of the way, so it's less work to extend an injunction to a new device than to start from scratch.
    Besides, I love it how you keep pretending that by saying I'm wrong you win the argument. You and your Apple hating buddies were screaming for months that Koh didn't grant an injunction and Apple would never win one. I said that Koh would have to reverse herself. Who was wrong there?

    I'm still waiting for those exact copies you're referring to. I'll admit TouchWiz does look much like iOS but what Samsung device is an exact copy of a Apple one?
  • Reply 60 of 71

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Funny how when you're wrong you change the discussion. You're also wrong again. Apple won't have to "prove a darned thing" to extend the injunction to what? A different tablet model? They would have to prove that tablet infringes on Apple's design patent! That's a new action! New filing! New pleadings! Geesh!! Stop already. The misinformation you're spreading is ridiculous.


     


    And just as you normally do you make up things that others supposedly said in an attempt to make yourself look better when caught in a misstatement, in this case that I claimed no Apple had no protectable IP and no appeal would be granted, with not one single quote or citation for proof that I ever really did say such a thing. None.


     


    Rather than make up stuff about what others say, pay more attention to your own posts, do proper research before making fun of others (or better yet don't make fun of others at all) as you come off looking quite silly at times, and when you're wrong or make stuff up just admit it.  Men do that sometimes. At least those with self-esteem.



     


     


    He's a wonderful example of ... I'm not sure.  But he provides enough belly laughs that I hope he never  changes.

Sign In or Register to comment.