Samsung argues Apple injunction bid meant to 'create fear and uncertainty' for carriers, retailers
In the ongoing Apple v. Samsung patent skirmish, Samsung on Thursday argued against an Apple-sought permanent injunction, saying such an order could have long-lasting repercussions for the Korean tech giant.
A slide from the Apple v. Samsung trial
According to in-court reports from Reuters, Samsung attorney Kathleen Sullivan said a permanent sales ban against older devices would allow Apple to immediately level claims against newer products which are not yet part of the suit.
Further, Sullivan told U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh that an injunction would stymie future dealings with carriers, thus impacting Samsung's ability to compete in the smartphone market.
"An injunction would create fear and uncertainty for the carriers and retailers with whom Samsung has very important customer relationships," Sullivan said.
For its part, Apple counsel William Lee reminded the court that a trial jury found Samsung to have infringed on Apple patents, an action that arguably led to lost sales. As a result, Lee said the only path is an injunction.
Judge Koh previously denied Apple's request for an injunction. After a successful appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the case was returned to Judge Koh's court, which is now hearing arguments as part of the ongoing Apple v. Samsung patent battle in California.
In its request, Apple is not simply asking for a ban on specific devices, but rather all products that not "colorably different" from those already in-suit. This could make current Samsung handsets found to be less than colorably different ripe for litigation.
A slide from the Apple v. Samsung trial
According to in-court reports from Reuters, Samsung attorney Kathleen Sullivan said a permanent sales ban against older devices would allow Apple to immediately level claims against newer products which are not yet part of the suit.
Further, Sullivan told U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh that an injunction would stymie future dealings with carriers, thus impacting Samsung's ability to compete in the smartphone market.
"An injunction would create fear and uncertainty for the carriers and retailers with whom Samsung has very important customer relationships," Sullivan said.
For its part, Apple counsel William Lee reminded the court that a trial jury found Samsung to have infringed on Apple patents, an action that arguably led to lost sales. As a result, Lee said the only path is an injunction.
Judge Koh previously denied Apple's request for an injunction. After a successful appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the case was returned to Judge Koh's court, which is now hearing arguments as part of the ongoing Apple v. Samsung patent battle in California.
In its request, Apple is not simply asking for a ban on specific devices, but rather all products that not "colorably different" from those already in-suit. This could make current Samsung handsets found to be less than colorably different ripe for litigation.
Comments
Uh, isn't this the general idea?
To make you think twice before you again infringe on OPP (Other People's Patent's)...
Uh, isn't this the general idea?
To make you think twice before you again infringe on OPP (Other People's Patent's)...
No, the general idea is that Apple must be shielded from competition, especially foreign competition.
But why even have these laughable kangaroo court cases?
It is a forgone conclusion that all US kangaroo courts will do as Apple demands.
And if a judge has the audacity to rule against the patent trolling fruit company, Obama will quickly come to the rescue.
No, the general idea is that Apple must be shielded from competition, especially foreign competition.
But why even have these laughable kangaroo court cases?
It is a forgone conclusion that all US kangaroo courts will do as Apple demands.
And if a judge has the audacity to rule against the patent trolling fruit company, Obama will come to the rescue.
You're funny.
/S
Since this is your first post, you must have just been hired by Samsung PR this week...
You're funny.
... and you must be an Amerikkkan dumbass.
The more AAPL drops, the more Apple loses market-share, the more aggressive Apple will "compete" via lawsuits.
After all, as the saying goes, those who can't innovate, litigate.
Injunction would not have happened in the first place should Samsung have accepted Apple't licensing terms.
After all, as the saying goes, those who can't innovate, litigate.
Was this part of your new employee training guide?
Sorry. The saying you learned was "those who can't innovate, copy, then litigate when we get caught".Go away, Samsung troll.
Why so bitter?
Upset about AAPL dropping roughly 10% in 3 days, maybe?
The DOJ eBooks case makes it absurd to assume or propose the US courts are in Apple's pocket...
This case was just for show and most assuredly will be overturned upon appeal, or via Obama's veto.
And -- who said anything about US courts being in Apple's pocket?
This is protectionism, plain and simple -- or, as Obama calls it "The America COMPETES act".
-- Those who can't innovate, litigate --
This ought to be good.
[grabs popcorn]
This case was just for show and most assuredly will be overturned upon appeal, or via Obama's veto.
As with the previous case, Obama has nothing to do with it. He didn't overturn anything.
Why so bitter?
Upset about AAPL dropping roughly 10% in 3 days, maybe?
Who gets upset when Apple drops? Its a buying opp.
Apple is going higher in 2014
Injunction would not have happened in the first place should Samsung have accepted Apple't licensing terms.
Too bad, Samsung is no HTC and did not give in to Apple's usual blackmail and strong arm tactics, and thusly at least forces Apple to run to the US government for help in eliminating any and all competition in the US...
-- Those who can't innovate, litigate --