Samsung argues 4G Galaxy Tab not in direct competition with Apple's 3G iPad 2
Samsung is fighting Apple's requests for a preliminary injunction against its Galaxy Tab with the argument that the 4G capability of its tablet means it does not directly compete with Apple's 3G-equipped iPad 2.
Earlier this month, Apple succeeded in reactivating a motion for a preliminary injunction against its rival's tablet. The appeals court overturned Judge Lucy Koh's denial of an injunction for the Galaxy Tab, but it left intact Koh's ruling against an injunction on smartphones.
Korean handset maker Samsung filed on Friday its opposition to Apple's claims, FOSS Patents has discovered. According to author Florian Mueller, Apple is "starting from a far better position" with its new motion for an injunction, though a win is hardly guaranteed.
To succeed, Apple would need to convince the court of four factors: "likelihood of success on the merits; likelihood of irreparable harm; balance of the equities; public interest." Since the appeals court overturned Koh's assertion that Apple's design patent was invalid, Apple is more likely to convince the court of the merits of its case. Meanwhile, both Judge Koh and the federal Court of Appeals are in agreement that the case for irreparable harm has been established.
Mueller noted that at least one circuit judge believed Apple should prevail on all four factors.
"Judge O'Malley indicated between the lines that she considers Samsung a reckless infringer whose Galaxy Tab 10.1 should be shut down sooner rather than later, and she clearly wants patent holders to have great access to injunctive relief," he wrote, adding that she "makes a number of good points."
A large part of Samsung's argument against the injunction in Friday's filing hinges on the claim that, since Apple lacks a 4G version of the iPad 2, the 4G Galaxy Tab doesn't compete directly with the device. The company also claimed that an injunction would disrupt its partnership with carriers. Samsung has teamed up with carriers to sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 with 4G contracts.
Mueller noted in his report that Samsung's argument is "not without merit," while adding that he believes it's "too weak to avoid a preliminary injunction." According to him, Samsung didn't take into account that "4G devices are backward-compatible" and that customers might use them in off-line mode or on 3G networks.
"Even if someone thinks that 4G is desirable, I doubt that the number of customers who are out to buy only a 4G tablet is limited," he said.
The report also pointed out that Samsung is likely to lose during the injunction phase because it could have modified its product in the time since Apple first filed its preliminary injunction motion. Samsung released a redesigned Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany last year in order to work around a sales ban there.
"While Apple continues to believe that the 10.1N still infringes (under EU law), the fact that Samsung made an effort to avoid further infringement calls into question that continued infringement must be allowed by the court for hardship and public interest reasons," Mueller concluded.
The chief executives from both Apple and Samsung met earlier in the week for court-appointed settlement talks, but they were unable to reach an agreement. The legal dispute between the two companies has spread to ten countries with over 30 cases.
Earlier this month, Apple succeeded in reactivating a motion for a preliminary injunction against its rival's tablet. The appeals court overturned Judge Lucy Koh's denial of an injunction for the Galaxy Tab, but it left intact Koh's ruling against an injunction on smartphones.
Korean handset maker Samsung filed on Friday its opposition to Apple's claims, FOSS Patents has discovered. According to author Florian Mueller, Apple is "starting from a far better position" with its new motion for an injunction, though a win is hardly guaranteed.
To succeed, Apple would need to convince the court of four factors: "likelihood of success on the merits; likelihood of irreparable harm; balance of the equities; public interest." Since the appeals court overturned Koh's assertion that Apple's design patent was invalid, Apple is more likely to convince the court of the merits of its case. Meanwhile, both Judge Koh and the federal Court of Appeals are in agreement that the case for irreparable harm has been established.
Mueller noted that at least one circuit judge believed Apple should prevail on all four factors.
"Judge O'Malley indicated between the lines that she considers Samsung a reckless infringer whose Galaxy Tab 10.1 should be shut down sooner rather than later, and she clearly wants patent holders to have great access to injunctive relief," he wrote, adding that she "makes a number of good points."
A large part of Samsung's argument against the injunction in Friday's filing hinges on the claim that, since Apple lacks a 4G version of the iPad 2, the 4G Galaxy Tab doesn't compete directly with the device. The company also claimed that an injunction would disrupt its partnership with carriers. Samsung has teamed up with carriers to sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 with 4G contracts.
Mueller noted in his report that Samsung's argument is "not without merit," while adding that he believes it's "too weak to avoid a preliminary injunction." According to him, Samsung didn't take into account that "4G devices are backward-compatible" and that customers might use them in off-line mode or on 3G networks.
"Even if someone thinks that 4G is desirable, I doubt that the number of customers who are out to buy only a 4G tablet is limited," he said.
The report also pointed out that Samsung is likely to lose during the injunction phase because it could have modified its product in the time since Apple first filed its preliminary injunction motion. Samsung released a redesigned Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany last year in order to work around a sales ban there.
"While Apple continues to believe that the 10.1N still infringes (under EU law), the fact that Samsung made an effort to avoid further infringement calls into question that continued infringement must be allowed by the court for hardship and public interest reasons," Mueller concluded.
The chief executives from both Apple and Samsung met earlier in the week for court-appointed settlement talks, but they were unable to reach an agreement. The legal dispute between the two companies has spread to ten countries with over 30 cases.
Comments
Ah, yes, waiter, I'm afraid I'll have to order some new sides. My old ones have split, you see, from laughter.
radio speed alone does not a tablet make
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
The noose around Scamsung's neck is slowly getting tighter.
In what why? What do you really think is going to happen to the biggest Smartphone vendor in the world?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
In what why? What do you really think is going to happen to the biggest Smartphone vendor in the world?
the biggest smart vendor in the world by using someone elses operating system and copying someone elses design. Every phone in which they have used they're own ideas has sucked. I have no idea what people like Android cause imo that sucks too
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoadm
the biggest smart vendor in the world by using someone elses operating system and copying someone elses design. Every phone in which they have used they're own ideas has sucked. I have no idea what people like Android cause imo that sucks too
What a well thought out and intelligent post. Are you 12?
The injunction will be a financial hit. Deny Samsung access to the largest tablet market in the world and they lose market share. They won't be able to sell the devices already manufactured and it will force a redesign. Continued losses to Apple in court will force either licensing infringing IP, and if Apple refuses, removing or finding a work around. This will degrade the user experience. So, there you have it... The noose is tightening!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jregooden
They may be the biggest in mobile phones, but this case is about tablets, where Apple is clearly the undisputed market share and profit share leader. In smart phones, Samsung lead last quarter (Q1 2012). However, that may change back to Apple this quarter. In both markets, Apple is profit share leader.
The injunction will be a financial hit. Deny Samsung access to the largest tablet market in the world and they lose market share. They won't be able to sell the devices already manufactured and it will force a redesign. Continued losses to Apple in court will force either licensing infringing IP, and if Apple refuses, removing or finding a work around. This will degrade the user experience. So, there you have it... The noose is tightening!
While it may be a financial hit they are hardly going to go bankrupt.
That was the point I was trying to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
What a well thought out and intelligent post. Are you 12?
In all fairness you were baiting him. So by that measure you are both 12.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
In all fairness you were baiting him. So by that measure you are both 12.
How was replying to another poster baiting this poster? How was what I said considered baiting at all?
I'm sure there's only a handful of people in the world that care where Android comes from, stolen or not. Consumers just don't care about things like that. It's like people buy stolen goods all the time if it's cheaper and it suits them. That much speaks for itself and that's why Android OS runs on most of the smartphones in the world. Considering how poorly Oracle fared against Google in court, you just know that Apple's protestations will fall on deaf ears for the most part. When it comes to court arguments, Apple is weak and Android OS will not be slowed. I'll bet the courts think all of Apple's suits are a waste of time and are in a hurry to dismiss the whole mess. Anyway, that's how I see it.
How does Samsung's answer differ from "does not directly compete because they run Android and not iOS"? Surely what is important is that they all compete in the space of tablets and that any diversion of customers caused by a look-alike product is injunction-worthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
What a well thought out and intelligent post. Are you 12?
Haven’t seen a smart 12 year old? Seriously?
Really. How clever is Samsung. When making a tablet. I honestly think that they are doing the best they can with what they got. I have to give credit to Apple for showing the industry how it should be done.
I am new to this forum, this is really very interesting and best forum for me and other also.
thankss!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo
I'm sure there's only a handful of people in the world that care where Android comes from, stolen or not. Consumers just don't care about things like that. It's like people buy stolen goods all the time if it's cheaper and it suits them. That much speaks for itself and that's why Android OS runs on most of the smartphones in the world. Considering how poorly Oracle fared against Google in court, you just know that Apple's protestations will fall on deaf ears for the most part. When it comes to court arguments, Apple is weak and Android OS will not be slowed. I'll bet the courts think all of Apple's suits are a waste of time and are in a hurry to dismiss the whole mess. Anyway, that's how I see it.
So you don't actually read these articles, if I understand what you're trying to tell us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
How was replying to another poster baiting this poster? How was what I said considered baiting at all?
You're right, it was more like an irrelevant insult because you couldn't think of anything to say to the point.
That makes as much sense as saying that the Apple product comes in a box that says "iPad" while the Samsung product comes in a box that says "Tab" so they can't be competing.
So Vito can argue that it should be OK for him to continue to sell the truckload of stolen electronics because an injunction would disrupt his partnership with his suppliers?
Samsung is really struggling to come up with a rational argument here.
Considering how much Samsung copies Apple, did they totally miss the fact that the new iPad can be had with 4G LTE? Are they saying their tablet can only barely compete with last year's iPad?