Apple wins US ban of Samsung software features, only affects obsolete products

Posted:
in General Discussion
After months of back-and-forth litigation, Apple won a US sales ban against certain Samsung software features found in infringement of three patents, though the ruling has no real bearing on either company's business.




California district court judge Lucy Koh on Monday entered a ruling granting Apple a permanent injunction against Samsung, prohibiting the Korean company from developing, selling, importing, updating or advertising software that helps infringe on Apple's patents. The decision comes eight months after a jury in the second Apple v. Samsung trial found in favor of Apple.

Judge Koh ruled that Apple will suffer irreparable harm if Samsung continues to use infringing features and sell the devices that run it. Specifically, Samsung was found to have illegally implemented Apple's '647 patent for data detectors, '721 patent for "slide-to-unlock" and '172 patent for predictive text input is software running on its Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy S II, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S III, and Stratosphere devices.

As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the win is of little consequence to both companies, aside from being a notch on the belt of Apple's legal team. Two of the patents, Apple's '721 "slide-to-unlock" and '172 "autocorrect," are likely to be found invalid, while the '647 data detectors patent is set to expire on Feb. 1.

Apple was fighting for an injunction ruling to be put into effect immediately instead of the usual 30-day deadline, but Judge Koh rejected the request. It might be a moot point, however, as Mueller believes the '647 patent was not found infringed under the appropriate claim construction.

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    dear judge koh, 
                             please drag your feet a little more next time. 
    tallest skilirelandteejay2012icoco3pscooter63cali
  • Reply 2 of 21
    roakeroake Posts: 602member
    Still, it sets precedence, and is another bullet in the gun (suck-it, left-wingers) at the next trial.
    redraider11
  • Reply 3 of 21
    So ultimately both companies wasted millions in legal fees for a decision that means nothing realistically. 

    Oh well, I guess lawyers gotta eat too. 
    cnocbuinolamacguycali
  • Reply 4 of 21
    tenlytenly Posts: 707member
    ....but what about the rounded rectangles? /s
  • Reply 5 of 21
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,360member
    I think that I have found a solution for Apple to come out ahead in the legal arena.

    Since these lawsuits drag on forever, and even if you win, it doesn't mean much, since the products that the lawsuits were about are now obsolete. Apple should sue Samsung in advance, if that was possible.

    As an example, if Samsung currently has a Galaxy 13 available, then Apple should sue over the Galaxy 15, or whichever Samsung models will be out in a few years. This way, when Apple wins, perhaps the ban will cover currently available products, and not obsolete ones.

    Does it matter that the exact details or specifications of that future Samsung product are not yet known? Perhaps, but we all know for sure that Samsung will be guilty of copying and infringing upon multiple Apple ideas and concepts, both now and in the future, so it's better to anticipate the treachery of Samsung in advance.

    If Apple is currently working on new features that are not currently found on any devices, then Apple should already be preparing the lawsuits, while the ideas are still in the early stages, because you know for damn sure that the copycats will be coming out with their own, lame, inferior versions of it, as quickly as they can.

    I realize that what I've written is not really feasible, it's more of a "what if" scenario and wishful thinking on my part. :#
    gtr
  • Reply 6 of 21
    So ultimately both companies wasted millions in legal fees for a decision that means nothing realistically. 

    Oh well, I guess lawyers gotta eat too. 

    A successful IP defence is definitely worth millions in terms of the future integrity of same. 
  • Reply 7 of 21
    irelandireland Posts: 17,422member
    Now give Samsung a HUGE bill for wasting all this time.
    calitallest skil
  • Reply 8 of 21
    Did any of you happen to see the "60 Minutes" spot on corporate espionage on Sunday? Is everybody going to be aloud to infringe on everybody else's property? How much of an advantage did Samsung gain in the market (when the market was in a huge growth stage) as a result of what is now classified as theft. The damage to Apple is incalculable. Right or wrong, it's a good thing that Apple has the wherewithal to stage this defense of their property. How many companies have failed because of corporate theft? The one presented on 60 minutes nearly did, and a lot of employees and their families were the victims. Maybe one less wont because of the precedents set by this case.
    ration alcali
  • Reply 9 of 21
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,586member
    ireland said:
    Now give Samsung a HUGE bill for wasting all this time.
    Right! Plus how about damages for the sales from when they did sell the now obsolete products.  Samsung keep losing when it's too late to matter financially. 
    cali
  • Reply 10 of 21
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,563member
    Wish we can sue the same to Chinese Government and companies who through government cyber attack/espionage help stole so much of our companies tech,strategy and future plans putting millions of Americans companies and future jobs growth in danger.
  • Reply 11 of 21
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    wood1208 said:
    Wish we can sue the same to Chinese Government and companies who through government cyber attack/espionage help stole so much of our companies tech,strategy and future plans putting millions of Americans companies and future jobs growth in danger.
    And if the government instigate 'back doors' then absolutely everything becomes valueless. 
    No IP will be defendable. 
  • Reply 12 of 21
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,284member
    roake said:
    Still, it sets precedence, and is another bullet in the gun (suck-it, left-wingers) at the next trial.
    I agree with you. That was all Apple was trying to do, establish precedence in case it were ever needed. 
  • Reply 13 of 21
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,741member
    Apple has always been very litigious – from the very early years, in fact. 

    Where it concerns IP: when given the opportunity, with even the slightest justification, it's important to consider applying to the courts.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 14 of 21
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,284member
    Judge Koh ruled that Apple will suffer irreparable harm if Samsung continues to use infringing features and sell the devices that run it. Specifically, Samsung was found to have illegally implemented Apple's '647 patent for data detectors, '721 patent for "slide-to-unlock" and '172 patent for predictive text input is software running on its Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy S II, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S III, and Stratosphere devices.


     Per Mueller: The injunction only refers to "the slide-to-unlock feature accused at trial as implemented in Samsung's Admire, Galaxy Nexus, and Stratosphere products," but not to the implementation found in other products at issue in the same litigation, such as the Galaxy Note, Note II, S II and S III products.
  • Reply 15 of 21
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    apkrfan77 said:
    Did any of you happen to see the "60 Minutes" spot on corporate espionage on Sunday? Is everybody going to be aloud to infringe on everybody else's property? How much of an advantage did Samsung gain in the market (when the market was in a huge growth stage) as a result of what is now classified as theft. The damage to Apple is incalculable. Right or wrong, it's a good thing that Apple has the wherewithal to stage this defense of their property. How many companies have failed because of corporate theft? The one presented on 60 minutes nearly did, and a lot of employees and their families were the victims. Maybe one less wont because of the precedents set by this case.

    Sammy should definitely be billed and give back all the money they made exploiting Apple's IP's.

    This is sad. I can literally steal tech from another company, make Billions and by the time I get sued, I'll just remove the stolen features and take them off the market. I'm still Billions of dollars ahead without having to give the stolen money back.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 16 of 21
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    apkrfan77 said:
    Did any of you happen to see the "60 Minutes" spot on corporate espionage on Sunday? Is everybody going to be aloud to infringe on everybody else's property? How much of an advantage did Samsung gain in the market (when the market was in a huge growth stage) as a result of what is now classified as theft. The damage to Apple is incalculable. Right or wrong, it's a good thing that Apple has the wherewithal to stage this defense of their property. How many companies have failed because of corporate theft? The one presented on 60 minutes nearly did, and a lot of employees and their families were the victims. Maybe one less wont because of the precedents set by this case.
    The damage to Apple was near non-existent.  Most of it was self inflicted in the form of legal costs.  Apple has over 200 Billion in the bank and at least one pundit thinks Samsung will exit smartphone manufacture within a few years.  If Samsung gained an advantage, where is that evident?  There is nothing in Apple's sales figures to suggest it has been irreparably harmed.

    The alleged infringements are for features so minor in the scheme of things I really find it hard to believe people actually think any purchaser made a purchase decision based on them.  It's like claiming someone bought a Lamborghini instead of a Ferrari because it had the same shaped window winding switches as the Ferrari.
    dasanman69
  • Reply 17 of 21
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,586member
    Samsung should be placed in an IP offender list for ten years and all staff should have to wear an arm band stating this.
  • Reply 18 of 21
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Samsung should be placed in an IP offender list for ten years and all staff should have to wear an arm band stating this.
    Apple would have to join them on such a list, now wouldn't they?
  • Reply 19 of 21
    cnocbui said:
    apkrfan77 said:
    Did any of you happen to see the "60 Minutes" spot on corporate espionage on Sunday? Is everybody going to be aloud to infringe on everybody else's property? How much of an advantage did Samsung gain in the market (when the market was in a huge growth stage) as a result of what is now classified as theft. The damage to Apple is incalculable. Right or wrong, it's a good thing that Apple has the wherewithal to stage this defense of their property. How many companies have failed because of corporate theft? The one presented on 60 minutes nearly did, and a lot of employees and their families were the victims. Maybe one less wont because of the precedents set by this case.
    The damage to Apple was near non-existent.  Most of it was self inflicted in the form of legal costs.  Apple has over 200 Billion in the bank and at least one pundit thinks Samsung will exit smartphone manufacture within a few years.  If Samsung gained an advantage, where is that evident?  There is nothing in Apple's sales figures to suggest it has been irreparably harmed.

    The alleged infringements are for features so minor in the scheme of things I really find it hard to believe people actually think any purchaser made a purchase decision based on them.  It's like claiming someone bought a Lamborghini instead of a Ferrari because it had the same shaped window winding switches as the Ferrari.
    The fact is you or no one else can tell how many sales were lost and it isn't up to you or i to make blind guess's or assertions.  If it affected only one sale by the little old lady from Pasadena it was a financial loss of not only the product but of any software, hardware, 3rd party products, or future products to name the big ones.   If you have the money to buy a Lamborghini, you are definitely going to be paying attention to the shape of windows, because what it looks like is exactly what you care about.  If someone stole your Ferrari for a week to sell Lamborghini's you would be mad wether it was given back unharmed or not, and the folks at Ferrari wouldn't be happy about it either.
  • Reply 20 of 21
    frac said:
    wood1208 said:
    Wish we can sue the same to Chinese Government and companies who through government cyber attack/espionage help stole so much of our companies tech,strategy and future plans putting millions of Americans companies and future jobs growth in danger.
    And if the government instigate 'back doors' then absolutely everything becomes valueless. 
    No IP will be defendable. 
    It was especially hilarious when China wanted Apple's source code for security purposes, ummmm, yeah.
Sign In or Register to comment.