Apple contacts US carriers, resellers to enforce Samsung product ban
Apple has reached out to carriers and resellers of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Nexus, demanding that they stop selling banned products.
Apple's actions were revealed in a court filing made by Samsung this week, summarized by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. The enforcement of the ban involved letters "to many carriers and retail companies that currently sell" the banned products.
Those companies were told to "immediately" remove the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in letters that went on on June 28. Similar letters related to the Galaxy Nexus smartphone were sent on July 3.
"Apple's menacing letters greatly overreach, incorrectly claiming that third-party retailers are subject to the prohibitions of the preliminary injunction, which clearly they are not," Samsung argued in its court filing. The Korean electronics maker is of the opinion that retailers "are permitted to sell their existing inventory, even without a stay."
In his analysis, Mueller said Apple's approach is "aggressive," but he also believes that Apple's understanding of the injunction against Samsung's products is "not baseless."
Apple's enforcement of court-ordered injunctions against Samsung's products comes as the two companies are headed toward a legal showdown when their patent infringement trial kicks off on July 30. Each company has accused the other of infringing upon their intellectual property with products like smartphones and tablets.
In late June, Apple won temporary U.S. injunctions against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet and Galaxy Nexus. Samsung, however, won a stay on the injunction against the Galaxy Nexus earlier this month.
Apple's actions were revealed in a court filing made by Samsung this week, summarized by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. The enforcement of the ban involved letters "to many carriers and retail companies that currently sell" the banned products.
Those companies were told to "immediately" remove the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in letters that went on on June 28. Similar letters related to the Galaxy Nexus smartphone were sent on July 3.
"Apple's menacing letters greatly overreach, incorrectly claiming that third-party retailers are subject to the prohibitions of the preliminary injunction, which clearly they are not," Samsung argued in its court filing. The Korean electronics maker is of the opinion that retailers "are permitted to sell their existing inventory, even without a stay."
In his analysis, Mueller said Apple's approach is "aggressive," but he also believes that Apple's understanding of the injunction against Samsung's products is "not baseless."
Apple's enforcement of court-ordered injunctions against Samsung's products comes as the two companies are headed toward a legal showdown when their patent infringement trial kicks off on July 30. Each company has accused the other of infringing upon their intellectual property with products like smartphones and tablets.
In late June, Apple won temporary U.S. injunctions against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet and Galaxy Nexus. Samsung, however, won a stay on the injunction against the Galaxy Nexus earlier this month.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple has reached out to carriers and resellers of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Nexus, demanding that they stop selling banned products.
i don't think the definition of "reach out" includes "demand", which is what apple is doing.
I hope Apple know what they're doing and this, or some other patent they may possibly infringe upon, doesn't blow up in their face. As a shareholder, that's my biggest fear. I'm all for protecting IP but no one should be an a-hole about it. It's all about the 'karma/burning bridges' thing.
Why? They didn't make any demands - just a request. They even provided the wording of the order so the retailer could figure out if they needed to act.
I can't imagine that it would hurt Apple. Reputable dealers will comply with the intent and wording of a court order. Apple has no need for the other kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
In his analysis, Mueller said Apple's approach is "aggressive," but he also believes that Apple's understanding of the injunction against Samsung's products is "not baseless."
Here's what the judge ordered:
Quote:
Accordingly, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC; its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees,
attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them, are enjoined from making,
using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States
Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus and any product that is no more than colorably different from the
specified product and infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604.
Mueller seems to be correct when he says that Apple's position is "aggressive...but not baseless".
One or more of the bolded categories might apply to third party retailers, if one applies enough spin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter
I hope Apple know what they're doing and this, or some other patent they may possibly infringe upon, doesn't blow up in their face. As a shareholder, that's my biggest fear. I'm all for protecting IP but no one should be an a-hole about it. It's all about the 'karma/burning bridges' thing.
If this was done by the legal department, then if one takes thier track record into account, this may well turn out to be a losing strategy.
OTOH, if it was implemented by the PR department, I'd not question its likelihood of success in generating additional profits.
Samsung won a stay on the injunction against the Galaxy Nexus. I guess that is why it is back for sale on Google Play.
*Looks at the Acer A700, ASUS Transformer Infinity, Samsung Galaxy SIII, HTC One X, HTC One S, etc.*
And nothing of value was lost to the Android community if these two old Samsung products disappeared from the face of the earth.
It feels like Apple is just trying to flick ants in a line and rather than try to go after the colony itself. In the end, these efforts are just pointless as the line will just curve around their attempts to disrupt the trail.
But Apple is not a law enforcing entity. They have no authority. The best they can do is contact local authorities and have them handle it. If any of these providers tell's Apple to pound sand, there is Zero Apple can do about it. What, breach contract and pull Apple products? Go to other carriers? Right, Apple needs the carriers more than the carriers need Apple. Here Jimmy, a nice new iPhone but it has no network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen
Samsung won a stay on the injunction against the Galaxy Nexus. I guess that is why it is back for sale on Google Play.
Yeah, and no one is purchasing a 2 year old tablet. Nice win Apple, not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen
Samsung won a stay on the injunction against the Galaxy Nexus. I guess that is why it is back for sale on Google Play.
Saw that, and with a patch from Google it will stay on sale, and with a little root action, all prior capabilities can be restored and if an individual has no idea what root is then it is safe to assume they will not miss anything lost in the patch so either way Apple lost and looks like a bunch of tools in the process.
This is nothing more or less then for example a company contacting a website to demand they pull down infringing IP. Apple is well within their rights to make these demands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
But Apple is not a law enforcing entity. They have no authority. The best they can do is contact local authorities and have them handle it. If any of these providers tell's Apple to pound sand, there is Zero Apple can do about it. What, breach contract and pull Apple products? Go to other carriers? Right, Apple needs the carriers more than the carriers need Apple. Here Jimmy, a nice new iPhone but it has no network.
you may want to tell that to TMOBILE and Sprint (before they got their iphone)
It's really amazing how prone the Apple haters are to simply ignoring the facts.
Pre-lawsuit:
Put an iPad next to a Tab. They are so similar that even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
Post-lawsuit:
Put an iPhone 4S next to a Galaxy SIII. You'd have to be blind to confuse them. (That is not to say, of course, that there might not be patent infringement that isn't visible simply by glancing at the phone).
Apple's strategic goal is to compete on the basis of differentiated products and they wanted to stop the competition from making slavish copies. If the SIII is any indication of that, they succeeded - and that's far more important than any of the legal skirmishes.
Where did Apple say they were going to do anything about it? They simply asked the retailers to comply with the court's decision.
Now, even if the retailers refuse, it's not clear that Apple could simply call law enforcement. My guess is that they'd have to initiate legal action against the retailer and get a court order that applies directly to the retailer before they could file for contempt. While it's possible, in principle, for Apple to win a case like this against the retailer, it's very difficult because the retailer wasn't party to the case. However, it is quite likely that Apple would win such a case.
In the end, it's simply a warning shot. "The decision says that Samsung's partners have to stop selling the product, so please stop doing so if you don't want to get dragged into this mess". And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Where did Apple say they were going to do anything about it? They simply asked the retailers to comply with the court's decision.
Now, even if the retailers refuse, it's not clear that Apple could simply call law enforcement. My guess is that they'd have to initiate legal action against the retailer and get a court order that applies directly to the retailer before they could file for contempt. While it's possible, in principle, for Apple to win a case like this against the retailer, it's very difficult because the retailer wasn't party to the case. However, it is quite likely that Apple would win such a case.
In the end, it's simply a warning shot. "The decision says that Samsung's partners have to stop selling the product, so please stop doing so if you don't want to get dragged into this mess". And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Requesting and demanding are two different things. Demand implies authority. Requesting implies relationship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Right, Apple needs the carriers more than the carriers need Apple. Here Jimmy, a nice new iPhone but it has no network.
In this day and age Apple could release a wifi only phone that does calls via VOIP and folks would probably still buy it.
That said, we know what the letters as it was quoted in the source material. By the wording of the injunction as quoted previously in this thread, carriers could be legally deemed as agents acting in concert with Samsung which would mean that they would be violating the injunction if they sell the banned items. Apple merely sent out letters to make sure that said parties are aware of the injunction in the event that Samsung didn't bother to properly inform their agents of the state of things. There could also be contract clauses in the deals with Apple that the carriers were being reminded of. As well as reminding them that if they don't stop selling said items they could find themselves party to one or more lawsuits. Heck for all we know these letters are part of some required procedure for filing any such suits. Or perhaps Apple wanted to be nice and assume any violation was 'innocent' rather than just slapping folks with a lawsuit under the assumption they were informed and doing it out of malice.
Samsung is the group painting it as malice etc where there is none. Anyone reading it can see that.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsung+-+Galaxy+Tab+10.1+with+16GB+Memory+%28Verizon%29+-+Metallic+Gray/4675935.p;jsessionid=7AD29DE891DEA6745C2CFD7CFC00CE9A.bbolsp-app03-51?id=1218505326112&skuId=4675935&st=galaxy%20tab%2010.1&cp=1&lp=2
Doesnt seem to be working. Still very easy to find.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It's really amazing how prone the Apple haters are to simply ignoring the facts.
Pre-lawsuit:
Put an iPad next to a Tab. They are so similar that even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
Post-lawsuit:
Put an iPhone 4S next to a Galaxy SIII. You'd have to be blind to confuse them. (That is not to say, of course, that there might not be patent infringement that isn't visible simply by glancing at the phone).
Apple's strategic goal is to compete on the basis of differentiated products and they wanted to stop the competition from making slavish copies. If the SIII is any indication of that, they succeeded - and that's far more important than any of the legal skirmishes.
What Apple hater? I own a white 16 GB WiFi iPad 3, 17" MacBook Pro, 2 x iPhone 4S' for my wife and I, and an iPhone 3GS for my four-year-old daughter. I do not even own any Android products.
I would hardly call anything Apple has done thus far a "thermonuclear war" against Android. It is more eye-rolling at best.
Not necessary. The court order already applies to Samsung, it's partners and those acting in concert with them. This includes the retailers. Retailers that don't comply will be reported to the presiding judge, who decides whether to cite them for contempt or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
.
Now, even if the retailers refuse, it's not clear that Apple could simply call law enforcement. My guess is that they'd have to initiate legal action against the retailer and get a court order that applies directly to the retailer before they could file for contempt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
In this day and age Apple could release a wifi only phone that does calls via VOIP and folks would probably still buy it.
That said, we know what the letters as it was quoted in the source material. By the wording of the injunction as quoted previously in this thread, carriers could be legally deemed as agents acting in concert with Samsung which would mean that they would be violating the injunction if they sell the banned items. Apple merely sent out letters to make sure that said parties are aware of the injunction in the event that Samsung didn't bother to properly inform their agents of the state of things. There could also be contract clauses in the deals with Apple that the carriers were being reminded of. As well as reminding them that if they don't stop selling said items they could find themselves party to one or more lawsuits. Heck for all we know these letters are part of some required procedure for filing any such suits. Or perhaps Apple wanted to be nice and assume any violation was 'innocent' rather than just slapping folks with a lawsuit under the assumption they were informed and doing it out of malice.
Samsung is the group painting it as malice etc where there is none. Anyone reading it can see that.
Either way Apple looks like a giant douche, bully.