There's a lot of misunderstanding of these issues.
Injunctions on the sale of product are not meant to be routine. They should only be used in a preliminary hearing (which is what this was) when the court is convinced that:
1.The plaintiff can prove that infringement has occurred
2. The plaintiff can show that damages occurred due to the infringement.
and
3. The plaintiff can show that a simple fine or financial penalty can not rectify the damage. (i.e., that the infringement will cause irreparable harm if not stopped)
If the plaintiff fails to prove any one of the 3 items, then there should not be an injunction.
In this case, the appeals court said that Apple failed to prove #2 - and Samsung's admission that no one was buying the product supports that. The decision does not in any way affect the matter of whether infringement occurred or whether Apple might actually win damages later.
So, to answer your question, the repercussions for Samsung will be at the full trial. Apple will have a chance to prove infringement and, if they do, ask for damages.
Collectively true, but that's not why the court over turned it. Apple couldn't prove and the court didn't believe people were buying the product because of a feature related to the patent, therefore damages can't be proven. Samsung could have said they sold 10 million of them, it wouldn't matter.
So the injunction was granted because a) the product was found to infringe, and b) the infringing product may have decreased Apple's sales
The verdict was overturned because the infringement itself (a) did not necessarily produce a product that was more likely to decrease Apple's sales than a similar non-infringing product (b).
So what alternative measures are being taken due to the infringement instead? There must surely still be repercussions for Samsung. Has it been ascertained whether they wilfully infringed on the patent or not, and if Samsung have profited from the sales, why does it matter how Apple's sales were affected?
First of many reversals to occur, based on how bad US patent laws are and not just by Apple. In the last 5 years, the number of lawsuits initiated by "patent trolls" who bought up patents, but make no products and have a single intent to just sue for money has doubled and will triple if patent laws aren't better governed... soon.
Good thing the Galaxy Nexus is a high quality product.
I have a friend at work who has one.
He's a typical teenager, who couldn't make up his own mind if he tried because he's always too busy 'rebelling' by doing the opposite of what people say. He'd jump in front of traffic if you told him not to, and he bought this thing because he 'hates Apple' (despite admitting that he reckons their gear is superb).
Did you read that bit?
He bought a product, not because I thinks the product is great, but because he hates the competition.
Anyway, I've had the chance to use it a lot and, with an utterly open-mind, I can honestly say it's cheap nasty rubbish, and is a strong reinforcement for the old 'Ford and Ferrari' argument.
There's a lot of misunderstanding of these issues.
Injunctions on the sale of product are not meant to be routine. They should only be used in a preliminary hearing (which is what this was) when the court is convinced that:
1.The plaintiff can prove that infringement has occurred
2. The plaintiff can show that damages occurred due to the infringement.
and
3. The plaintiff can show that a simple fine or financial penalty can not rectify the damage. (i.e., that the infringement will cause irreparable harm if not stopped)
If the plaintiff fails to prove any one of the 3 items, then there should not be an injunction.
In this case, the appeals court said that Apple failed to prove #2 - and Samsung's admission that no one was buying the product supports that. The decision does not in any way affect the matter of whether infringement occurred or whether Apple might actually win damages later.
So, to answer your question, the repercussions for Samsung will be at the full trial. Apple will have a chance to prove infringement and, if they do, ask for damages.
JR, I think #1 is close but not entirely accurate. At this stage Judge Koh would not be ruling that infringement has occurred. In a preliminary finding the injunction ruling would only require that it's likely Apple's patent is both valid and infringed, among some other requirements. Judge Koh never ruled that Samsung was infringing on Apple's IP in the case of the Nexus. That would come later during the trial phase.
He's a typical teenager, who couldn't make up his own mind if he tried because he's always too busy 'rebelling' by doing the opposite of what people say. He'd jump in front of traffic if you told him not to, and he bought this thing because he 'hates Apple' (despite admitting that he reckons their gear is superb).
Did you read that bit?
He bought a product, not because I thinks the product is great, but because he hates the competition.
Anyway, I've had the chance to use it a lot and, with an utterly open-mind, I can honestly say it's cheap nasty rubbish, and is a strong reinforcement for the old 'Ford and Ferrari' argument.
Your opinion, I find the software to be much more advance than ios 6, love the on screen buttons, its large but not too large, curved screen is awesome. Its not cheap. Every android phone is cheap in your eyes. If its not an iphone, its cheap in your mind.
Your opinion, I find the software to be much more advance than ios 6, love the on screen buttons, its large but not too large, curved screen is awesome. Its not cheap. Every android phone is cheap in your eyes. If its not an iphone, its cheap in your mind.
My opinion?
Thanks for clearing that up, Captain Obvious.
Did I give it away when I used the expression 'I can honestly say'?
Why is you offering your opposing opinion any different from what I did?
Did I give it away when I used the expression 'I can honestly say'?
Why is you offering your opposing opinion any different from what I did?
You are clearly delusional when it comes to apple products. You would sacrifice animals to steve jobs, if that was asked of you. I love Apple products, I own an ipad 3 and a macbook, but I know good products when I see them. Galaxy nexus is a dam good product, there are many non apple good products out there. Just not for you.
First of many reversals to occur, based on how bad US patent laws are and not just by Apple. In the last 5 years, the number of lawsuits initiated by "patent trolls" who bought up patents, but make no products and have a single intent to just sue for money has doubled and will triple if patent laws aren't better governed... soon.
I get it now. Slapppy's spores were a long-term thing. He was here, he sowed the seeds, and they hibernated for a few years before popping up in many different forms.
Either that or you're just LizSanford back again.
Originally Posted by Techstalker
Every android phone is cheap in your eyes. If its not an iphone, its cheap in your mind.
And in the minds of the telecoms who sell the things and who would know what is cheaper. Or do you contest that?
I love google now, google products, mail, calender, maps, voice, talk. multitasking is way better, notifications is way better, I get to pick my default apps (Biggest gripe with ios), basically I make my phone what I want it to be. ios has the quality apps lead, Apps look better on ios, but android has the same apps just not good looking. But I tried to use an iphone for 2 months, and while there are many things I love about it, I cant give up what android offers for pretty colors, and after android 4.1 and jelly bean, I can't go back. Now when it comes to tablets ipad is where its at, android tablets lack apps and they are but ugly and no functionality and freedom can make up for that. Nexus 7 was a step in the right direction but its not there yet. But when it comes to phones ios is a joke compared to android. To me. I only use macs for desktop and laptops. But I got a samsung series 9. about 4-5 months ago and that thing is a sexy beast. I can't wait for the lumia 920, the hardware looks amazing, and windows 8 might be fun. we will see.
Unlike you I don't worship Apple products. (All Hail Apple). I use the ones that please me, but plenty companies have services that are as good and sometimes better than apple.
You are clearly delusional when it comes to apple products. You would sacrifice animals to steve jobs, if that was asked of you. I love Apple products, I own an ipad 3 and a macbook, but I know good products when I see them. Galaxy nexus is a dam good product, there are many non apple good products out there. Just not for you.
How am I clearly delusional?
How do you know me well enough to back up these statements of 'sacrificing an animal to Steve Jobs' and 'every Android phone is cheap in your eyes'?
If so, why was I the previous owner of a SII?
Are you attempting to dismiss my very valid arguments by trying to make me out as being like yourself?
I get it now. Slapppy's spores were a long-term thing. He was here, he sowed the seeds, and they hibernated for a few years before popping up in many different forms.
Either that or you're just LizSanford back again.
And in the minds of the telecoms who sell the things and who would know what is cheaper. Or do you contest that?
I don't buy products from telecoms, got my gnex unlocked from google. Apple has the highest profit margin in the industry. But if you go by parts and manufacturing cost, sites like ifix it have made it clear that high end android phones like SGSIII and the HTC one x cost about the same as the iphone.
Apple has the ability to sell their products at a higher cost and rightly so, the demand is higher. But high end android cost cost just as much, they just can't sell them at the cost that apple does, they don't have the demand.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
There's a lot of misunderstanding of these issues.
Injunctions on the sale of product are not meant to be routine. They should only be used in a preliminary hearing (which is what this was) when the court is convinced that:
1.The plaintiff can prove that infringement has occurred
2. The plaintiff can show that damages occurred due to the infringement.
and
3. The plaintiff can show that a simple fine or financial penalty can not rectify the damage. (i.e., that the infringement will cause irreparable harm if not stopped)
If the plaintiff fails to prove any one of the 3 items, then there should not be an injunction.
In this case, the appeals court said that Apple failed to prove #2 - and Samsung's admission that no one was buying the product supports that. The decision does not in any way affect the matter of whether infringement occurred or whether Apple might actually win damages later.
So, to answer your question, the repercussions for Samsung will be at the full trial. Apple will have a chance to prove infringement and, if they do, ask for damages.
Collectively true, but that's not why the court over turned it. Apple couldn't prove and the court didn't believe people were buying the product because of a feature related to the patent, therefore damages can't be proven. Samsung could have said they sold 10 million of them, it wouldn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
If there is no harm from the Samsung products how come AAPL stock dropped so much in reaction the lifting of the sales ban?
Recent drop in AAPL has been mainly due to the concerns of 'yield' rate on key iOS devices, including the iPad mini and iPhone 5 shell.
Cheap, nasty, rubbish should always be banned. ;-)
Great should not have been banned to begin with. I love my Galaxy Nexus!!!
Im glad google has figured out a way to get pass, slide to unlock, pinch to zoom, and universal search on a mobile device, rubber banding on android.
I have no idea if double tap, and hyperlink whatever link system apple has "patented" has been worked through yet.
I hate software patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Cheap, nasty, rubbish should always be banned. ;-)
Good thing the Galaxy Nexus is a high quality product.
Since when is a billion dollars chopped liver?
? ? ?
Your entire life on these forums revolves around attempting to prove that, and I'm utterly astonished that you could even attempt to claim otherwise.
Or was your posting history done by your other personality?
Roses are red
Apple makes you blue
You're a schizophrenic
And so are you...
I have a friend at work who has one.
He's a typical teenager, who couldn't make up his own mind if he tried because he's always too busy 'rebelling' by doing the opposite of what people say. He'd jump in front of traffic if you told him not to, and he bought this thing because he 'hates Apple' (despite admitting that he reckons their gear is superb).
Did you read that bit?
He bought a product, not because I thinks the product is great, but because he hates the competition.
Anyway, I've had the chance to use it a lot and, with an utterly open-mind, I can honestly say it's cheap nasty rubbish, and is a strong reinforcement for the old 'Ford and Ferrari' argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
There's a lot of misunderstanding of these issues.
Injunctions on the sale of product are not meant to be routine. They should only be used in a preliminary hearing (which is what this was) when the court is convinced that:
1.The plaintiff can prove that infringement has occurred
2. The plaintiff can show that damages occurred due to the infringement.
and
3. The plaintiff can show that a simple fine or financial penalty can not rectify the damage. (i.e., that the infringement will cause irreparable harm if not stopped)
If the plaintiff fails to prove any one of the 3 items, then there should not be an injunction.
In this case, the appeals court said that Apple failed to prove #2 - and Samsung's admission that no one was buying the product supports that. The decision does not in any way affect the matter of whether infringement occurred or whether Apple might actually win damages later.
So, to answer your question, the repercussions for Samsung will be at the full trial. Apple will have a chance to prove infringement and, if they do, ask for damages.
JR, I think #1 is close but not entirely accurate. At this stage Judge Koh would not be ruling that infringement has occurred. In a preliminary finding the injunction ruling would only require that it's likely Apple's patent is both valid and infringed, among some other requirements. Judge Koh never ruled that Samsung was infringing on Apple's IP in the case of the Nexus. That would come later during the trial phase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
I have a friend at work who has one.
He's a typical teenager, who couldn't make up his own mind if he tried because he's always too busy 'rebelling' by doing the opposite of what people say. He'd jump in front of traffic if you told him not to, and he bought this thing because he 'hates Apple' (despite admitting that he reckons their gear is superb).
Did you read that bit?
He bought a product, not because I thinks the product is great, but because he hates the competition.
Anyway, I've had the chance to use it a lot and, with an utterly open-mind, I can honestly say it's cheap nasty rubbish, and is a strong reinforcement for the old 'Ford and Ferrari' argument.
Your opinion, I find the software to be much more advance than ios 6, love the on screen buttons, its large but not too large, curved screen is awesome. Its not cheap. Every android phone is cheap in your eyes. If its not an iphone, its cheap in your mind.
My opinion?
Thanks for clearing that up, Captain Obvious.
Did I give it away when I used the expression 'I can honestly say'?
Why is you offering your opposing opinion any different from what I did?
Maybe you just have low standards?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
My opinion?
Thanks for clearing that up, Captain Obvious.
Did I give it away when I used the expression 'I can honestly say'?
Why is you offering your opposing opinion any different from what I did?
You are clearly delusional when it comes to apple products. You would sacrifice animals to steve jobs, if that was asked of you. I love Apple products, I own an ipad 3 and a macbook, but I know good products when I see them. Galaxy nexus is a dam good product, there are many non apple good products out there. Just not for you.
Originally Posted by xuselppa
First of many reversals to occur, based on how bad US patent laws are and not just by Apple. In the last 5 years, the number of lawsuits initiated by "patent trolls" who bought up patents, but make no products and have a single intent to just sue for money has doubled and will triple if patent laws aren't better governed... soon.
I get it now. Slapppy's spores were a long-term thing. He was here, he sowed the seeds, and they hibernated for a few years before popping up in many different forms.
Either that or you're just LizSanford back again.
Originally Posted by Techstalker
Every android phone is cheap in your eyes. If its not an iphone, its cheap in your mind.
And in the minds of the telecoms who sell the things and who would know what is cheaper. Or do you contest that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Maybe you just have low standards?
I love google now, google products, mail, calender, maps, voice, talk. multitasking is way better, notifications is way better, I get to pick my default apps (Biggest gripe with ios), basically I make my phone what I want it to be. ios has the quality apps lead, Apps look better on ios, but android has the same apps just not good looking. But I tried to use an iphone for 2 months, and while there are many things I love about it, I cant give up what android offers for pretty colors, and after android 4.1 and jelly bean, I can't go back. Now when it comes to tablets ipad is where its at, android tablets lack apps and they are but ugly and no functionality and freedom can make up for that. Nexus 7 was a step in the right direction but its not there yet. But when it comes to phones ios is a joke compared to android. To me. I only use macs for desktop and laptops. But I got a samsung series 9. about 4-5 months ago and that thing is a sexy beast. I can't wait for the lumia 920, the hardware looks amazing, and windows 8 might be fun. we will see.
Unlike you I don't worship Apple products. (All Hail Apple). I use the ones that please me, but plenty companies have services that are as good and sometimes better than apple.
How am I clearly delusional?
How do you know me well enough to back up these statements of 'sacrificing an animal to Steve Jobs' and 'every Android phone is cheap in your eyes'?
If so, why was I the previous owner of a SII?
Are you attempting to dismiss my very valid arguments by trying to make me out as being like yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I get it now. Slapppy's spores were a long-term thing. He was here, he sowed the seeds, and they hibernated for a few years before popping up in many different forms.
Either that or you're just LizSanford back again.
And in the minds of the telecoms who sell the things and who would know what is cheaper. Or do you contest that?
I don't buy products from telecoms, got my gnex unlocked from google. Apple has the highest profit margin in the industry. But if you go by parts and manufacturing cost, sites like ifix it have made it clear that high end android phones like SGSIII and the HTC one x cost about the same as the iphone.
Apple has the ability to sell their products at a higher cost and rightly so, the demand is higher. But high end android cost cost just as much, they just can't sell them at the cost that apple does, they don't have the demand.