Samsung argues Apple injunction bid meant to 'create fear and uncertainty' for carriers, retailers

Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 2014
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.

Apple v Samsung
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.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 80
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    [quote] saying such an order could have long-lasting repercussions for the Korean tech giant[/quote]
    Uh, isn't this the general idea?
    To make you think twice before you again infringe on OPP (Other People's Patent's)...
  • Reply 2 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post





    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. 

  • Reply 3 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ds423ce View Post

     

     

    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.

  • Reply 4 of 80
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    You're funny.

    /S

    Since this is your first post, you must have just been hired by Samsung PR this week...
  • Reply 5 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

     

    You're funny.


     

    ... and you must be an Amerikkkan dumbass.

  • Reply 6 of 80

    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.

  • Reply 7 of 80
    ronmgronmg Posts: 162member
    Wow, what a freaking idiot.
  • Reply 8 of 80
    jason98jason98 Posts: 750member

    Injunction would not have happened in the first place should Samsung have accepted Apple't licensing terms.

  • Reply 9 of 80
    The DOJ eBooks case makes it absurd to assume or propose the US courts are in Apple's pocket...
  • Reply 10 of 80
    ronmgronmg Posts: 162member
    Go away, Samsung troll.
  • Reply 11 of 80
    ronmgronmg Posts: 162member
    Did you not see the embedded picture, ds423ce?
  • Reply 12 of 80
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ds423ce View Post

     

    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".
  • Reply 13 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RonMG View Post



    Go away, Samsung troll.



     



     


    Why so bitter?

     

    Upset about AAPL dropping roughly 10% in 3 days, maybe?


  • Reply 14 of 80
    ronmgronmg Posts: 162member
    Breakdown of ds423ce: dishonest samsung's 423rd copying engineer. Yes, copying engineer is actually on their business cards!! Lmfao.
  • Reply 15 of 80
    ronmgronmg Posts: 162member
    Opportunity to buy more stock, just like the billionaires are doing. Not worried about the drop. All about long-term.
  • Reply 16 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chad.price View Post



    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 --

  • Reply 17 of 80

    This ought to be good. 

    [grabs popcorn]

  • Reply 18 of 80
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ds423ce View Post

     

    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.
  • Reply 19 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ds423ce View Post

    Why so bitter?

     

    Upset about AAPL dropping roughly 10% in 3 days, maybe?



     

    <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> 

     

    Who gets upset when Apple drops? Its a buying opp. :err:

     

    Apple is going higher in 2014 :smokey:

  • Reply 20 of 80

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jason98 View Post

     

    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 --

Sign In or Register to comment.