Curiously, it doesn't matter whether Samsung copied Apple or not. It's only relevant that: (1) Samsung's product looks like Apple's; (2) Apple has patents on the design and features; and (3) Samsung produced its designs and features after Apple's patent applications were filed.
Not correct. You're confusing wishful thinking with legal reality..
It is not enough to show that Samsung's product looks like Apple's. In a patent case, you must show that they violate the specific, written claims in the patent. It is perfectly legal to have a similar (or even identical) appearance if you can do so without violating the patent.
And if it's a copyright case, then you need to show that the copyright is valid and that the copyist duplicates relevant specifics of the copyright and that the copy creates risk of confusion for the customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
If a cup holder was an intrinsic feature of a particularly swell brand of car, like snap-back is intrinsic to an iOS device, then I'd say an injunction is warranted. Cup holders aren't so highly thought of, though, in which case the Judge's cup holder example is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
Sorry, but you're the one that's incompetent. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. As I explained above, in order get an injunction, you must show that the plaintiff has a likelihood of winning AND that a cash award would not be sufficient recompense.
To use your example, if Toyota sued Tesla Motors for copying a design element, they would have a much better chance of getting an injunction than if Tesla sued Toyota. If the plaintiff wins and is awarded damages, it is far more likely that Toyota could pay the damages than Tesla.
In this case, Samsung can clearly afford to pay any likely fine and Apple failed to show that there would be damages that money wouldn't make up for, so they rightfully lost the injunction request.
I don't think the defendant's ability to pay is the determining factor in whether a court allows a preliminary injunction. Moto got one against Apple and is probably going to get one ordered on Microsoft as well. Neither of those came to court with empty pockets. In other cases Apple has been successful in getting preliminary injunctions against Samsung, altho they were either overturned or worked around so far.
In this particular case Judge Lucy Koh wasn't convinced that Apple's market was being harmed by Samsung (True, since they sell everything they can produce). In fact it was reported she was of the opinion that the beneficiary of a Samsung injunction would be other smartphone vendors, not Apple. They were unable to show they were being damaged in the marketplace to the judge's satisfaction. Whether Samsung had deep pockets or not wasn't why the injunction was denied according to anything I've read about the case.
You're the one twisting the words and intent of the article. The very first picture in the article is what they're addressing - a picture that has been posted countless times by Apple haters to insinuate that the iPhone copied the F700. Look at the headline from the picture:
"LOL @ APPLE - Suing someone you stole the design from to begin with."
By showing that the F700 is nothing like the iPhone the article proves that Apple didn't copy the F700, which is the real point of the article. They then go on to say...
What you can't seem to understand is that I'm not contending their intent at all. I'm contending their method.
By showing that the F700 is nothing like the iPhone because the homescreen operates in a completely different manner than iOS opens the door for
The Galaxy S is nothing like the iPhone because the homescreen operates in a completely different manner than iOS
which is not something I think they want to do.
Quote:
"In many ways, the F700 does nothing but underline Apple's overall contention: that there are thousands of ways to design and package a phone interface, but Samsung chose drop its differentiated interface and instead lift elements of Apple's style for TouchWiz."
Another quote from the article:
"Ironically, if Samsung had just continued to develop the interface ideas shown in the F700, it likely wouldn't be facing this particular lawsuit -- Apple's cases against Motorola, HTC, and Nokia are all based on technical system-level utility patents, not trade dress, trademark, or design patents."
And that is why I take issue with the article focusing on the homescreen of the F700.
Because what elements of the Galaxy S' homescreen are lifted from Apple? the widgets? the desktop concept? Those elements don't even exist on iOS.
However, if you look at the homescreen of the F700, you see evidence of a desktop, and what appears to be a calendar widget. So from that, it would seem that "Samsung had just continued to develop the interface ideas shown in the F700."
Quote:
I'm curious how you think the F700 hurts Apple's case?
Again, twisting my words. At no point did I mention Apple's case. The article you linked was written by The Verge, and AFAIK, The Verge is not affiliated with Apple in anyway.
Since you seem to confuse The Verge with Apple, let me clarify my statement for you:
Quote:
The Verge makes the claim that the F700 is not like the iPhone [while the Galaxy S is], and as evidence The Verge present how different the homescreen on the F700 is from the iPhone.
I'm saying that that The Verge's argument is bad because the difference in homescreen also exists between the Galaxy S and the iPhone, and thus actually hurts The Verge's case.
"However, courts have denied preliminary injunctions to plaintiffs on the ground that patent infringement can be remedied by the defendant's paying damages to the plaintiff once infringement has been found in a trial."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Moto got one against Apple and is probably going to get one ordered on Microsoft as well. Neither of those came to court with empty pockets.
Motorola's was in a different country. Since no one seems to have explained it to you, different countries have different rules.
And Microsoft? What are you referring to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
In other cases Apple has been successful in getting preliminary injunctions against Samsung, altho they were either overturned or worked around so far.
Name a U.S. case where Apple has gotten a preliminary injunction against Samsung. Obviously, different countries have different rules. But in the U.S., the rules are as I stated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
In this particular case Judge Lucy Koh wasn't convinced that Apple's market was being harmed by Samsung (True, since they sell everything they can produce). In fact it was reported she was of the opinion that the beneficiary of a Samsung injunction would be other smartphone vendors, not Apple. They were unable to show they were being damaged in the marketplace to the judge's satisfaction. Whether Samsung had deep pockets or not wasn't why the injunction was denied according to anything I've read about the case.
{Judge Koh} "It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed,"
There are two factors here. First, Apple must show potential damages - and Koh didn't think they had done that (and the appeals court agreed). Then, if Apple had been able to show damages, Samsung could have used the defense of "we have lots of money" as shown above.
Not correct. You're confusing wishful thinking with legal reality..
It is not enough to show that Samsung's product looks like Apple's.
Whoa, doggies! You seem to be confusing what little knowledge of the case and the law you have with being an expert, or a quick little note of mine with being a treatise.
(Appearance is enough for design patents, btw).
Quote:
In a patent case, you must show that they violate the specific, written claims in the patent. It is perfectly legal to have a similar (or even identical) appearance if you can do so without violating the patent.
Duh
Quote:
And if it's a copyright case, then you need to show that the copyright is valid and that the copyist duplicates relevant specifics of the copyright and that the copy creates risk of confusion for the customers.
That's irrelevant and immaterial.
Quote:
Sorry, but you're the one that's incompetent. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. As I explained above, in order get an injunction, you must show that the plaintiff has a likelihood of winning AND that a cash award would not be sufficient recompense.
You call me incompetent, then dump me with all that responsibility? Let's leave it to Apple's legal team, shall we?
Quote:
To use your example, if Toyota sued Tesla Motors for copying a design element, they would have a much better chance of getting an injunction than if Tesla sued Toyota. If the plaintiff wins and is awarded damages, it is far more likely that Toyota could pay the damages than Tesla.
In this case, Samsung can clearly afford to pay any likely fine and Apple failed to show that there would be damages that money wouldn't make up for, so they rightfully lost the injunction request.
It isn't over. And it isn't right(ful) that an entity (person or corporation) can do whatever they please merely because they have deep pockets. An injunction is very important to reverse the tide.
IMHO Apple's main problem is that Samsung isn't alone in ripping off Apple's IP via Android, so it looks like blocking Samsung wouldn't change the overall appearance of the marketplace. That doesn't make Samsung any more justified or less important to stop, just as stopping one criminal is as important as stopping others.
Perhaps the Galaxy S doesn't look anything like the 3GS when you hold it "in person"; but I remember the front-pic (with the icon grid and all) being featured on the covers of many tech magazines here in Japan. Looks pretty much 3GS-ish in that context (and no hint about its real size). It looked pretty lame if you ask me.
Samsung: The korean company that secretly wishes it were chinese.
I never "insinuated" that they "copied and rushed" it to market. Please show me where I said anything of the sort.
Your original post claimed the market was heading in that direction. You failed to show any product that proves your point as both the F700 and LG Prada were not only significantly different from the iPhone, but they were vastly inferior in how they worked.
Hehe... you made the Sesame Street reference, so I just went with it. Anyway I meant toward touch screen. I showed concurrent examples. They weren't entirely successful. The long term trend was there. Apple accelerated it, and riding trends isn't the same as copying. With the F700 I was showing a similar large display similar shape design which spun off the current. Remove the physical keyboard part and it's fairly comparable in overall look and feel. If you felt I was saying Apple copied here, you misinterpreted the post. I was trying to show that they weren't the only ones trending in this direction at the time. Fortunately for Apple, they were further ahead (addressing the vastly inferior comment), but this isn't the same thing as saying everyone else copied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeforce
Android in 2005 bore absolutely no resemblance to Android of 2007/2008. It was redsigned to mimic iOS
You can't actually prove that, but you clearly believe it, so I'll leave it alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeforce
The row of icons on a device like this originated on the Apple Newton but the reason why everybody brings up the app drawer photo is that is exactly what Samsung did - the App drawer view is what is featured in all Samsung's publicity shots, not the "home screen".
The SGS was a clear attempt to piggyback off iPhones success by producing a very similar product
Apple vastly accelerated a design trend. There's nothing illegal about dumping more R&D dollars into products that match that trend. Keep in mind here I'm not an Android fan, but all of the copying claims are overblown with marketing kool-aid and trash journalism. Regarding the Newton, I'm not sure whether they looked back that far for design inspiration. I've never seen the Newton. The earliest example I can recall that used that kind of design was the Palm Pilot, but even there I don't recall its full details as I didn't personally own one.
{Judge Koh} "It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed,"
In making her decision, California district Judge Lucy Koh said that a preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy." Apple had to prove that it would suffer irreparable harm unless the Samsung products were pulled from the market, but at this stage, Judge Koh wasn't convinced.
"It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed," she wrote. "Indeed, given the evidence Samsung presented, it seems likely that a major beneficiary of an injunction would be other smartphone manufacturers."
Whether Samsung was wealthy or destitute had nothing to do with Apple not getting the requested injunction. You forgot the rest of the quote.
"Apple had to "establish the following: (1) some likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying litigation; (2) immediate irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted; (3) the balance of the hardships to the parties weighs in its favor; and (4) the public interest is best served by granting the injunctive relief."
There's a definite possibility that the single patent that Apple is asserting (every other claim is design related) will be either invalid or not infringed, so that's why Apple couldn't get an injunction on the Tab. It was not because Samsung could afford to pay damages later.
Of course courts have denied a preliminary injunction because of a posted bond or some evidence assuring that damages can be paid if later required, mitigating the emergency in a specific case. That's no where near the same your claim that if a defendant can pay damages later that there will be no injunction ordered. That's just plain ridiculous. By your argument Apple is plainly foolish for requesting preliminary injunctions on well-heeled competitors since they wouldn't be granted anyway. I don't consider Apple that stupid.
Imagine that, the truth being exactly the opposite of what GG says it is.
Although, frankly, Judge Kohl's logic seems a little twisted, but it's not the first time I've thought her rulings didn't make any sense.
No, I don't think her decision was wrong. Apple apparently didn't prove that they'd suffer irreparable harm - which is one of the requirements to get an injunction. Since they didn't prove irreparable harm (as affirmed by the appeals court), the injunction wasn't justified.
Apple hurt themselves with their own documents that said that they weren't going to lose iPhone sales to Samsung. With that in evidence, it was pretty hard for Apple to claim irreparable harm (or any harm at all, for that matter).
No, I don't think her decision was wrong. Apple apparently didn't prove that they'd suffer irreparable harm - which is one of the requirements to get an injunction. Since they didn't prove irreparable harm (as affirmed by the appeals court), the injunction wasn't justified.
Apple hurt themselves with their own documents that said that they weren't going to lose iPhone sales to Samsung. With that in evidence, it was pretty hard for Apple to claim irreparable harm (or any harm at all, for that matter).
Her wording, at least, implied that they would suffer irreparable harm, but that an injunction wouldn't prevent it.
Perhaps the Galaxy S doesn't look anything like the 3GS when you hold it "in person"; but I remember the front-pic (with the icon grid and all) being featured on the covers of many tech magazines here in Japan. Looks pretty much 3GS-ish in that context (and no hint about its real size). It looked pretty lame if you ask me.
Samsung: The korean company that secretly wishes it were chinese.
Why do Asians consider national origins so highly?
"For all patents, Koh denied the motion finding that Apple failed to establish it would suffer irreparable harm if Samsung were not immediately enjoined. Apple?s irreparable harm argument asserted that the entrance of Samsung?s infringing phones/tablets into the market would erode Apple?s design distinctiveness. Apple also argued that it would likely lose market share as a result of Samsung?s infringing products along with ancillary sales from applications and accessories. Apple has now appealed this holding arguing that Koh abused her discretion in failing to recognize this alleged harm. "
Koh ruled very clearly that Apple would not suffer irreparable harm. The appeals court decision affirmed that.
"For all patents, Koh denied the motion finding that Apple failed to establish it would suffer irreparable harm if Samsung were not immediately enjoined. Apple?s irreparable harm argument asserted that the entrance of Samsung?s infringing phones/tablets into the market would erode Apple?s design distinctiveness. Apple also argued that it would likely lose market share as a result of Samsung?s infringing products along with ancillary sales from applications and accessories. Apple has now appealed this holding arguing that Koh abused her discretion in failing to recognize this alleged harm. "
Koh ruled very clearly that Apple would not suffer irreparable harm. The appeals court decision affirmed that.
So, were these not actually Judge Koh's words?
Quote:
"It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed," she wrote. "Indeed, given the evidence Samsung presented, it seems likely that a major beneficiary of an injunction would be other smartphone manufacturers."
It would be comforting to discover that she was misquoted because the above seems like gibberish. Perhaps it's taken so out of context that it appears not to make sense, but, on its own, it doesn't seem to follow any rules of logic, or even rationality.
It would be comforting to discover that she was misquoted because the above seems like gibberish. Perhaps it's taken so out of context that it appears not to make sense, but, on its own, it doesn't seem to follow any rules of logic, or even rationality.
What she said is that:
1. Apple failed to show any damage.
2. (in the part you quoted): EVEN IF Apple were able to show damages, it is not clear that Apple would be irreparably harmed.
Comments
This isn't a question of "opinion". Android is obviously a knockoff of iOS.
That is merely your opinion.
Curiously, it doesn't matter whether Samsung copied Apple or not. It's only relevant that: (1) Samsung's product looks like Apple's; (2) Apple has patents on the design and features; and (3) Samsung produced its designs and features after Apple's patent applications were filed.
Not correct. You're confusing wishful thinking with legal reality..
It is not enough to show that Samsung's product looks like Apple's. In a patent case, you must show that they violate the specific, written claims in the patent. It is perfectly legal to have a similar (or even identical) appearance if you can do so without violating the patent.
And if it's a copyright case, then you need to show that the copyright is valid and that the copyist duplicates relevant specifics of the copyright and that the copy creates risk of confusion for the customers.
If a cup holder was an intrinsic feature of a particularly swell brand of car, like snap-back is intrinsic to an iOS device, then I'd say an injunction is warranted. Cup holders aren't so highly thought of, though, in which case the Judge's cup holder example is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
Sorry, but you're the one that's incompetent. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. As I explained above, in order get an injunction, you must show that the plaintiff has a likelihood of winning AND that a cash award would not be sufficient recompense.
To use your example, if Toyota sued Tesla Motors for copying a design element, they would have a much better chance of getting an injunction than if Tesla sued Toyota. If the plaintiff wins and is awarded damages, it is far more likely that Toyota could pay the damages than Tesla.
In this case, Samsung can clearly afford to pay any likely fine and Apple failed to show that there would be damages that money wouldn't make up for, so they rightfully lost the injunction request.
Thank goodness you are not a judge.
AHHAHAHA! Thank goodness for you, troll!
In this particular case Judge Lucy Koh wasn't convinced that Apple's market was being harmed by Samsung (True, since they sell everything they can produce). In fact it was reported she was of the opinion that the beneficiary of a Samsung injunction would be other smartphone vendors, not Apple. They were unable to show they were being damaged in the marketplace to the judge's satisfaction. Whether Samsung had deep pockets or not wasn't why the injunction was denied according to anything I've read about the case.
You're the one twisting the words and intent of the article. The very first picture in the article is what they're addressing - a picture that has been posted countless times by Apple haters to insinuate that the iPhone copied the F700. Look at the headline from the picture:
"LOL @ APPLE - Suing someone you stole the design from to begin with."
By showing that the F700 is nothing like the iPhone the article proves that Apple didn't copy the F700, which is the real point of the article. They then go on to say...
What you can't seem to understand is that I'm not contending their intent at all. I'm contending their method.
By showing that the F700 is nothing like the iPhone because the homescreen operates in a completely different manner than iOS opens the door for
The Galaxy S is nothing like the iPhone because the homescreen operates in a completely different manner than iOS
which is not something I think they want to do.
"In many ways, the F700 does nothing but underline Apple's overall contention: that there are thousands of ways to design and package a phone interface, but Samsung chose drop its differentiated interface and instead lift elements of Apple's style for TouchWiz."
Another quote from the article:
"Ironically, if Samsung had just continued to develop the interface ideas shown in the F700, it likely wouldn't be facing this particular lawsuit -- Apple's cases against Motorola, HTC, and Nokia are all based on technical system-level utility patents, not trade dress, trademark, or design patents."
And that is why I take issue with the article focusing on the homescreen of the F700.
Because what elements of the Galaxy S' homescreen are lifted from Apple? the widgets? the desktop concept? Those elements don't even exist on iOS.
However, if you look at the homescreen of the F700, you see evidence of a desktop, and what appears to be a calendar widget. So from that, it would seem that "Samsung had just continued to develop the interface ideas shown in the F700."
I'm curious how you think the F700 hurts Apple's case?
Again, twisting my words. At no point did I mention Apple's case. The article you linked was written by The Verge, and AFAIK, The Verge is not affiliated with Apple in anyway.
Since you seem to confuse The Verge with Apple, let me clarify my statement for you:
The Verge makes the claim that the F700 is not like the iPhone [while the Galaxy S is], and as evidence The Verge present how different the homescreen on the F700 is from the iPhone.
I'm saying that that The Verge's argument is bad because the difference in homescreen also exists between the Galaxy S and the iPhone, and thus actually hurts The Verge's case.
I don't think the defendant's ability to pay is the determining factor in whether a court allows a preliminary injunction.
You don't think a lot of things - and you're wrong more often than you're right.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...ters-9712.html
"However, courts have denied preliminary injunctions to plaintiffs on the ground that patent infringement can be remedied by the defendant's paying damages to the plaintiff once infringement has been found in a trial."
Moto got one against Apple and is probably going to get one ordered on Microsoft as well. Neither of those came to court with empty pockets.
Motorola's was in a different country. Since no one seems to have explained it to you, different countries have different rules.
And Microsoft? What are you referring to?
In other cases Apple has been successful in getting preliminary injunctions against Samsung, altho they were either overturned or worked around so far.
Name a U.S. case where Apple has gotten a preliminary injunction against Samsung. Obviously, different countries have different rules. But in the U.S., the rules are as I stated.
In this particular case Judge Lucy Koh wasn't convinced that Apple's market was being harmed by Samsung (True, since they sell everything they can produce). In fact it was reported she was of the opinion that the beneficiary of a Samsung injunction would be other smartphone vendors, not Apple. They were unable to show they were being damaged in the marketplace to the judge's satisfaction. Whether Samsung had deep pockets or not wasn't why the injunction was denied according to anything I've read about the case.
As usual, you are misinterpreting the facts.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397195,00.asp
{Judge Koh} "It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed,"
There are two factors here. First, Apple must show potential damages - and Koh didn't think they had done that (and the appeals court agreed). Then, if Apple had been able to show damages, Samsung could have used the defense of "we have lots of money" as shown above.
Not correct. You're confusing wishful thinking with legal reality..
It is not enough to show that Samsung's product looks like Apple's.
Whoa, doggies! You seem to be confusing what little knowledge of the case and the law you have with being an expert, or a quick little note of mine with being a treatise.
(Appearance is enough for design patents, btw).
In a patent case, you must show that they violate the specific, written claims in the patent. It is perfectly legal to have a similar (or even identical) appearance if you can do so without violating the patent.
Duh
And if it's a copyright case, then you need to show that the copyright is valid and that the copyist duplicates relevant specifics of the copyright and that the copy creates risk of confusion for the customers.
That's irrelevant and immaterial.
Sorry, but you're the one that's incompetent. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. As I explained above, in order get an injunction, you must show that the plaintiff has a likelihood of winning AND that a cash award would not be sufficient recompense.
You call me incompetent, then dump me with all that responsibility?
To use your example, if Toyota sued Tesla Motors for copying a design element, they would have a much better chance of getting an injunction than if Tesla sued Toyota. If the plaintiff wins and is awarded damages, it is far more likely that Toyota could pay the damages than Tesla.
In this case, Samsung can clearly afford to pay any likely fine and Apple failed to show that there would be damages that money wouldn't make up for, so they rightfully lost the injunction request.
It isn't over. And it isn't right(ful) that an entity (person or corporation) can do whatever they please merely because they have deep pockets. An injunction is very important to reverse the tide.
IMHO Apple's main problem is that Samsung isn't alone in ripping off Apple's IP via Android, so it looks like blocking Samsung wouldn't change the overall appearance of the marketplace. That doesn't make Samsung any more justified or less important to stop, just as stopping one criminal is as important as stopping others.
That is merely your opinion.
You're still here, tekstud?
... As usual, you are misinterpreting the facts.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397195,00.asp
{Judge Koh} "It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed,"...
Imagine that, the truth being exactly the opposite of what GG says it is.
Although, frankly, Judge Kohl's logic seems a little twisted, but it's not the first time I've thought her rulings didn't make any sense.
Samsung: The korean company that secretly wishes it were chinese.
Resorting to personal attacks and insults are we?
I never "insinuated" that they "copied and rushed" it to market. Please show me where I said anything of the sort.
Your original post claimed the market was heading in that direction. You failed to show any product that proves your point as both the F700 and LG Prada were not only significantly different from the iPhone, but they were vastly inferior in how they worked.
Hehe... you made the Sesame Street reference, so I just went with it. Anyway I meant toward touch screen. I showed concurrent examples. They weren't entirely successful. The long term trend was there. Apple accelerated it, and riding trends isn't the same as copying. With the F700 I was showing a similar large display similar shape design which spun off the current. Remove the physical keyboard part and it's fairly comparable in overall look and feel. If you felt I was saying Apple copied here, you misinterpreted the post. I was trying to show that they weren't the only ones trending in this direction at the time. Fortunately for Apple, they were further ahead (addressing the vastly inferior comment), but this isn't the same thing as saying everyone else copied.
Android in 2005 bore absolutely no resemblance to Android of 2007/2008. It was redsigned to mimic iOS
You can't actually prove that, but you clearly believe it, so I'll leave it alone.
The row of icons on a device like this originated on the Apple Newton but the reason why everybody brings up the app drawer photo is that is exactly what Samsung did - the App drawer view is what is featured in all Samsung's publicity shots, not the "home screen".
The SGS was a clear attempt to piggyback off iPhones success by producing a very similar product
Apple vastly accelerated a design trend. There's nothing illegal about dumping more R&D dollars into products that match that trend. Keep in mind here I'm not an Android fan, but all of the copying claims are overblown with marketing kool-aid and trash journalism. Regarding the Newton, I'm not sure whether they looked back that far for design inspiration. I've never seen the Newton. The earliest example I can recall that used that kind of design was the Palm Pilot, but even there I don't recall its full details as I didn't personally own one.
YAs usual, you are misinterpreting the facts.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397195,00.asp
{Judge Koh} "It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed,"
In making her decision, California district Judge Lucy Koh said that a preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy." Apple had to prove that it would suffer irreparable harm unless the Samsung products were pulled from the market, but at this stage, Judge Koh wasn't convinced.
"It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed," she wrote. "Indeed, given the evidence Samsung presented, it seems likely that a major beneficiary of an injunction would be other smartphone manufacturers."
Whether Samsung was wealthy or destitute had nothing to do with Apple not getting the requested injunction. You forgot the rest of the quote.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397195,00.asp
Or perhaps you trust Florian Mueller more:
"Apple had to "establish the following: (1) some likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying litigation; (2) immediate irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted; (3) the balance of the hardships to the parties weighs in its favor; and (4) the public interest is best served by granting the injunctive relief."
There's a definite possibility that the single patent that Apple is asserting (every other claim is design related) will be either invalid or not infringed, so that's why Apple couldn't get an injunction on the Tab. It was not because Samsung could afford to pay damages later.
Of course courts have denied a preliminary injunction because of a posted bond or some evidence assuring that damages can be paid if later required, mitigating the emergency in a specific case. That's no where near the same your claim that if a defendant can pay damages later that there will be no injunction ordered. That's just plain ridiculous. By your argument Apple is plainly foolish for requesting preliminary injunctions on well-heeled competitors since they wouldn't be granted anyway. I don't consider Apple that stupid.
http://www.crn.com/news/cloud/229000...2SQ**.ecappj03
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p.../12-15doj.mspx
http://news.cnet.com/HP-hit-with-pre..._3-228237.html
Which one of these guys wouldn't be able to pay damages?
Imagine that, the truth being exactly the opposite of what GG says it is.
Although, frankly, Judge Kohl's logic seems a little twisted, but it's not the first time I've thought her rulings didn't make any sense.
No, I don't think her decision was wrong. Apple apparently didn't prove that they'd suffer irreparable harm - which is one of the requirements to get an injunction. Since they didn't prove irreparable harm (as affirmed by the appeals court), the injunction wasn't justified.
Apple hurt themselves with their own documents that said that they weren't going to lose iPhone sales to Samsung. With that in evidence, it was pretty hard for Apple to claim irreparable harm (or any harm at all, for that matter).
No, I don't think her decision was wrong. Apple apparently didn't prove that they'd suffer irreparable harm - which is one of the requirements to get an injunction. Since they didn't prove irreparable harm (as affirmed by the appeals court), the injunction wasn't justified.
Apple hurt themselves with their own documents that said that they weren't going to lose iPhone sales to Samsung. With that in evidence, it was pretty hard for Apple to claim irreparable harm (or any harm at all, for that matter).
Her wording, at least, implied that they would suffer irreparable harm, but that an injunction wouldn't prevent it.
Perhaps the Galaxy S doesn't look anything like the 3GS when you hold it "in person"; but I remember the front-pic (with the icon grid and all) being featured on the covers of many tech magazines here in Japan. Looks pretty much 3GS-ish in that context (and no hint about its real size). It looked pretty lame if you ask me.
Samsung: The korean company that secretly wishes it were chinese.
Why do Asians consider national origins so highly?
Her wording, at least, implied that they would suffer irreparable harm, but that an injunction wouldn't prevent it.
It helps to read the decision - or at least a summary of it:
http://designpatentattorney.com/my-sample-post/
"For all patents, Koh denied the motion finding that Apple failed to establish it would suffer irreparable harm if Samsung were not immediately enjoined. Apple?s irreparable harm argument asserted that the entrance of Samsung?s infringing phones/tablets into the market would erode Apple?s design distinctiveness. Apple also argued that it would likely lose market share as a result of Samsung?s infringing products along with ancillary sales from applications and accessories. Apple has now appealed this holding arguing that Koh abused her discretion in failing to recognize this alleged harm. "
Koh ruled very clearly that Apple would not suffer irreparable harm. The appeals court decision affirmed that.
It helps to read the decision - or at least a summary of it:
http://designpatentattorney.com/my-sample-post/
"For all patents, Koh denied the motion finding that Apple failed to establish it would suffer irreparable harm if Samsung were not immediately enjoined. Apple?s irreparable harm argument asserted that the entrance of Samsung?s infringing phones/tablets into the market would erode Apple?s design distinctiveness. Apple also argued that it would likely lose market share as a result of Samsung?s infringing products along with ancillary sales from applications and accessories. Apple has now appealed this holding arguing that Koh abused her discretion in failing to recognize this alleged harm. "
Koh ruled very clearly that Apple would not suffer irreparable harm. The appeals court decision affirmed that.
So, were these not actually Judge Koh's words?
"It is not clear that an injunction on Samsung's accused devices would prevent Apple from being irreparably harmed," she wrote. "Indeed, given the evidence Samsung presented, it seems likely that a major beneficiary of an injunction would be other smartphone manufacturers."
It would be comforting to discover that she was misquoted because the above seems like gibberish. Perhaps it's taken so out of context that it appears not to make sense, but, on its own, it doesn't seem to follow any rules of logic, or even rationality.
It's a distinguishing feature of iOS.
In fact it was reported she was of the opinion that the beneficiary of a Samsung injunction would be other smartphone vendors.
Not for long. Apple is/will soon sue them, too.
So, were these not actually Judge Koh's words?
It would be comforting to discover that she was misquoted because the above seems like gibberish. Perhaps it's taken so out of context that it appears not to make sense, but, on its own, it doesn't seem to follow any rules of logic, or even rationality.
What she said is that:
1. Apple failed to show any damage.
2. (in the part you quoted): EVEN IF Apple were able to show damages, it is not clear that Apple would be irreparably harmed.
The two statements are not inconsistent.