Apple wins 3G patent battle with Samsung in UK court ruling
Apple this week secured another patent win over rival Samsung, this time in a U.K. court over a standard-essential patent related to 3G connectivity.
Samsung had attempted to assert that Apple's products infringe on patents it owns, but Judge Christopher Floyd ruled in London that Apple did not infringe, according to ZDNet. The case involved 3G patents related to the way devices send and receive data over a wireless network.
In filing the lawsuit, Samsung had hoped to take about 2.5 percent in royalties from Apple's 3G-enabled devices ? a demand that intellectual property expert Florian Mueller characterized as "ridiculous."
He also noted that Apple has successfully fought off 24 standard-essential patent claims by Samsung, while the South Korean company has prevailed on three standard-essential patents, with two of those cases in its home country.
Samsung responded to the ruling by saying officials are "disappointed" by the decision. The company plans to review the judgment before deciding whether to appeal.
The legal battles between Samsung and Apple began in April of 2011, when Apple sued Samsung and accused the company of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad with its own smartphones and tablets. Samsung has fired back with its own complaints, and the two companies are now embroiled in dozens of lawsuits that span around the globe.
Apple's accusations of copying have not prevented Samsung from introducing similar products. Last month, the South Korean handset maker introduced a new application for its devices called "Wallet," which bears numerous similarities to Apple's Passbook, including the design of the icon.
Samsung had attempted to assert that Apple's products infringe on patents it owns, but Judge Christopher Floyd ruled in London that Apple did not infringe, according to ZDNet. The case involved 3G patents related to the way devices send and receive data over a wireless network.
In filing the lawsuit, Samsung had hoped to take about 2.5 percent in royalties from Apple's 3G-enabled devices ? a demand that intellectual property expert Florian Mueller characterized as "ridiculous."
He also noted that Apple has successfully fought off 24 standard-essential patent claims by Samsung, while the South Korean company has prevailed on three standard-essential patents, with two of those cases in its home country.
Samsung responded to the ruling by saying officials are "disappointed" by the decision. The company plans to review the judgment before deciding whether to appeal.
The legal battles between Samsung and Apple began in April of 2011, when Apple sued Samsung and accused the company of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad with its own smartphones and tablets. Samsung has fired back with its own complaints, and the two companies are now embroiled in dozens of lawsuits that span around the globe.
Apple's accusations of copying have not prevented Samsung from introducing similar products. Last month, the South Korean handset maker introduced a new application for its devices called "Wallet," which bears numerous similarities to Apple's Passbook, including the design of the icon.
Comments
Just kidding ... Good news indeed!
So, of course, AAPL is down in pre-market trading.
Will Samsung be forced to take out full page ads to proclaim their agreement with this ruling? Or is that only for Apple?
Excellent question!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyPaul
Will Samsung be forced to take out full page ads to proclaim their agreement with this ruling? Or is that only for Apple?
As long as Samsung doesn't continue to claim Apple guilty of the IP violation despite the ruling and outside of any appeal there shouldn't be a posting requirement. That's where Apple got dinged in the previous case.
Apple were initially only required to put a statement via a small link on their website (they claimed would take two weeks to organise) which they did in a few days. However the content of the linked statement was so petulant and did not meet the requirements of the court that they were THEN required to take out the adverts.
Originally Posted by JollyPaul
Will Samsung be forced to take out full page ads to proclaim their agreement with this ruling?
Nonsense. Even when Apple wins, Apple loses.
Originally Posted by emcomments
Apple were initially only required to put a statement via a small link on their website (they claimed would take two weeks to organise) which they did in a few days. However the content of the linked statement was so petulant and did not meet the requirements of the court that they were THEN required to take out the adverts.
No, they never needed to take out advertisements, and no, the content met the requirements perfectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
As long as Samsung doesn't continue to claim Apple guilty of the IP violation despite the ruling and outside of any appeal there shouldn't be a posting requirement. That's where Apple got dinged in the previous case.
I think the question of corruption on the part of the judge in that case is fully answered. It had nothing to do with anything Apple did, and everything to do with the judge looking to line his pockets. And his subsequent actions are all the proof that's needed. It's a sad day for the justice system in the UK when judges are so easily and openly bought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGeek Pro
Samsung has been using the court cases with Apple as a marketing strategy to make Apple look like the bad guy and so far it seems to be working among the younger generation. The younger generation seem to have a distaste for older generations using apple products that they have to " rebel" against the older people and use Samsung.
What a lot of nonsense.
Thanks for the laugh!
I guess this judge isn't getting a new job working for Samsung
Removed. See Below
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGeek Pro
Samsung has been using the court cases with Apple as a marketing strategy to make Apple look like the bad guy and so far it seems to be working among the younger generation. The younger generation seem to have a distaste for older generations using apple products that they have to " rebel" against the older people and use Samsung.
Then when they grow-up & get older & wiser, the majority realise their error & switch to Apple.
As has been said numerous times before, the reverse, the move from Apple to Samsung, does not come anywhere near the same figures. For the majority, once with Apple they stay with Apple, the retention rates always show it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
As long as Samsung doesn't continue to claim Apple guilty of the IP violation despite the ruling and outside of any appeal there shouldn't be a posting requirement. That's where Apple got dinged in the previous case.
Actually, Jacob ordered it in the original trial, as requested by Samsung. In fact the entire UK trial was initiated by Samsung suing Apple for this reason. It was not as a result of or as a response to Apple's appeal. It was the original ruling.
Apple got dinged when Samsung made certain ridiculous and unprecedented suggestions and the Judge bizarrely used them in his ruling. Now that we know the trial was possibly a job interview, his erratic and irrational behavior during the trial makes more sense. To be honest, I attributed his weird behavior and rulings to him being a glory hound backing in the light of a big Apple trial. Now that we know he came out of retirement, sought out this specific trial and pushed to have it assigned to him and that shortly there after he was hired into a lucrative consulting position in support of Samsung, it obviously wasn't just glory seeking.
So, by all rights, Samsung should face similar punishments in this trial, right now. Perhaps worse, because they were engaged in what other regulators might consider illegal by suing over FRAND SEP patents, which is a no-no elsewhere. But then Apple would have to find a judge willing to take instruction. I guess they have enough law firms hired that they could find the guy a job in exchange. I don't expect Apple will sink to those levels. Samsung has a long history of dealing dirty, leave it to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGeek Pro
Samsung has been using the court cases with Apple as a marketing strategy to make Apple look like the bad guy and so far it seems to be working among the younger generation. The younger generation seem to have a distaste for older generations using apple products that they have to " rebel" against the older people and use Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
What a lot of nonsense.
I actually agree with MGP. Since all of these trials started, the Android vendors, and especially Samsung, have been able to convince the media to position Apple and the bully. Even in trials that where Apple was being sued, the media willfully or ignorantly portrays Apple as the aggressor. Look at just the UK case last year. That was Samsung suing Apple, as documented in the court records. Yet the media continually reported it as "Apple sued Samsung". The media never reports that Motorola sued Apple first or that Nokia sued Apple before Apple sued any cellular competitor. Samsung is riding high on these perceptions. Go to any forums that discuss anything Apple and you will see that the general consensus is that Apple is the aggressor, that Apple is suing everyone, that Apple's lawsuits are without merit. These are all meme's that Samsung (and Google) have been actively seeding for years and it is taking hold. Samsung is portraying themselves as the victim and as the cool, hip underdog. That used to be Apple spot but Samsung has used the lawsuits to usurp that image.
I don't think there is any doubt that Apple's "coolness" factor is slowing with the younger generation. The question is, does that matter. Teens are the same demo that was still using BB when the rest of the world had moved to iOS and Android. They are not the mindshare leaders in this market. Twenty/thirty somethings are, and I am getting the feeling that this demo is starting to shed at least some of their exuberance towards Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Actually, Jacob ordered it in the original trial, as requested by Samsung. In fact the entire UK trial was initiated by Samsung suing Apple for this reason. It was not as a result of or as a response to Apple's appeal. It was the original ruling.
I didn't say the order came from an appeal. What I said was as long as Samsung doesn't continue to claim Apple is guilty, other than in an appeal, there wouldn't be any need for "clarification" in the form of a published announcement by Samsung. After the UK trial last summer Apple continued to publicly claim Samsung guilty anyway, and went even further in muddying the water by attempting to continue a German case that no longer mattered, having been settled by the UK ruling. Thus the admittedly unusual Apple publication order to sift the dirt and mud out of the water. making the court's judgement of non-infringement crystal-clear again.
As far as I know Samsung is not continuing to make public claims that Apple is guilty despite what the court ruled. That's the difference. If you're really as aware of the facts as you imply you are you should have already known that.