Apple wins U.S. injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 107


    android sucks, how shameful to have all these poor disillusioned fools here trolling an apple forum.


    Of course if there were a decent dork(android user) forum they could go there and spew their BS. Unfortunately for these dorks, there couldn't be a decent dork(android user) forum. There just aren't enough literate dorks(android users) to have a forum.


    Quick joke - What do you call a million dorks(android users) at the bottom of the ocean? pollution?  No, just a bunch of worthless dorks(android users) at the bottom of the ocean.

  • Reply 62 of 107
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,399member


    Absolutely the right decision. US design patents such as this one are fairly easy to avoid. Granted, some claims might be just a tad broad in some cases, but still not much of a problem as far as I understand it.  Product imitation has gone on forever. If someone has an idea that makes a lot of money of course there will be imitators. I'm sure that some of those imitators are even better than the originals. Apple is very aggressive at protecting their turf, much more so than some other companies. Samsung obviously got the memo a while back, but this is an older Tab design that's much too close to the look of the iPad.


     


    Going forward I don't think design patent infringement is going to be a continuing problem for Samsung. . .


    unless Apple starts suing over sample designs that were never used in the first place, but simply made it onto a piece of paper at some point. I don't think Apple would go that far in the US. The PR would be pretty negative IMO.

  • Reply 63 of 107
    rabbit_coachrabbit_coach Posts: 1,114member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by LizSandford View Post



    • My bf loves his Tab.


    •  


    •  



    Hmm,


     


    obviously some people are satisfied with the least.

  • Reply 64 of 107
    sleepy3sleepy3 Posts: 244member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post


    Hmm,


     


    obviously some people are satisfied with the least.



    Wow...that seems like a personal attack there. Why not keep it restricted to the gadgets?


     


    Well done. Hope you feel good about yourself for telling someone that. You must be one of those who said the judge is a korean american therefore not fit to try a case that involves white americans. Sounds like something you would say after reading that. 

  • Reply 65 of 107
    kilrushkilrush Posts: 1member


    Good result, the less competition Apple has the worse their product line becomes keep on trucking US judges.


    Judging by a brief read of some of the comments Apple need to fail. Go Google Go MS. 

  • Reply 66 of 107
    radarradar Posts: 271member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post



    Just wait till nightfall when the trolls, iHaters, Fandroids, and other vermin infesting this site to spew their own bile on how Scamsung is the innocent party...

    About time! Hopefully Samesung will figure out how to use their ill-gotten gains to create their own R&D department instead of using Apple's shop.

    Next in the crosshairs, Scamsung's phones.


     


     


    :)

  • Reply 67 of 107
    radarradar Posts: 271member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post



    Just wait till nightfall when the trolls, iHaters, Fandroids, and other vermin infesting this site to spew their own bile on how Scamsung is the innocent party...

    About time! Hopefully Samesung will figure out how to use their ill-gotten gains to create their own R&D department instead of using Apple's shop.

    Next in the crosshairs, Scamsung's phones.


     


     


    I believe you meant Scamdung?


     


    :)

  • Reply 68 of 107

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    That's not the point. First, Apple can easily file to extend the injunction to cover products that did not exist at the time of the original filing.


     


     


     


    I'm not sure that is true.  ISTM that they are at square one with respect to a different product.  

  • Reply 69 of 107
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member


    singletear.gif

  • Reply 70 of 107
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    quadra 610 wrote: »
    LL

    Because of all the Galaxy Tabs that litter the road… I see, I see…
  • Reply 71 of 107
    roos24roos24 Posts: 170member


    Hmm, so when Apple introduces their 7" iPad mini, will Samsung not have the exact same arguments to block the sale of it too?

  • Reply 72 of 107
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    roos24 wrote: »
    Hmm, so since Apple won't be introducing their 7" iPad mini, will Samsung will not have the exact same arguments to block the sale of it too? .

    Tablets are only gonna get bigger. In three years' time, you'll say 9.7" is "too small to use".
  • Reply 73 of 107
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    • My bf loves his Tab.
    Hmm,

    obviously some people are satisfied with the least.
    sleepy3 wrote: »
    Wow...that seems like a personal attack there. Why not keep it restricted to the gadgets?

    Well done. Hope you feel good about yourself for telling someone that. You must be one of those who said the judge is a korean american therefore not fit to try a case that involves white americans. Sounds like something you would say after reading that. 

    "YOU" meaning sleepy3?, or "YOU" meaning Rabbit_coach?... because sleepy3, you typed those words(in your post) not rabbit_coach, thus you must think them?... hmmm?

    YES, Rabbit_coach!... being satisfied with a Tab is to be Ok with the least, because the iPad can perform more things than the Tab, due to the Apple app store.
    Thus rabbit_coach's comment is true, and not an attack.... but as an attack, it is genius.


    Although, liz's comment contains characters not normally used in posts, and the tab is not qualified with the. brand name... thus is it an inside joke?... (bf likes tab, gf likes slot?)
  • Reply 74 of 107
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member

    I'm not sure that is true.  ISTM that they are at square one with respect to a different product.  

    That's not true. All they have to do is show that the patented technologies are the same in the newer product. If they can't do that, then they have to start from scratch, though.

    roos24 wrote: »
    Hmm, so when Apple introduces their 7" iPad mini, will Samsung not have the exact same arguments to block the sale of it too?

    Only if Apple makes a slavish copy of the Samsung device - and the samsung device is noticeably different than pre-existing products.

    BTW, I called this one. All the Fandroids were bragging about how Koh refused to grant an injunction and I pointed out that she almost had to after the appeals court sent it back to her because of the way she structured her rejection. So much for the argument from all the Google shills that I couldn't possibly know anything because I'm not an attorney.
  • Reply 75 of 107
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    That's not true. All they have to do is show that the patented technologies are the same in the newer product. If they can't do that, then they have to start from scratch, though


    You're mistaken. The injunction wasn't granted on any patented technology (utility patents). This was a design patent issue. 

  • Reply 76 of 107

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    That's not true. All they have to do is show that the patented technologies are the same in the newer product. If they can't do that, then they have to start from scratch, though.


     


     


     


     


    Got a cite for that?  Or are you relying on your extensive legal knowledge?


     


    And besides, this is not a technology patent.  At issue was a design patent. Showing "similar technology" is totally and completely irrelevant.

  • Reply 77 of 107
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    You're mistaken. The injunction wasn't granted on any patented technology (utility patents). This was a design patent issue. 

    So? Are you claiming that something covered by a design patent isn't a patented device? The fact is that the device was patented - regardless of whether it was a design or utility patent. And, as I explained several weeks ago, the way Koh rejected the injunction the first time made it impossible for her to ignore the appeals court ruling and she had to allow the injunction this time.

    You're really strange.
  • Reply 78 of 107
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post


    That's right, the design of a successful tablet computer is so obvious, even caveman could do it. 


     


    Here is clear evidence of prior art:


     gallery_low_tech_1a.jpg


     


     


     


     


     



    Is Apple suing the maker of this too? ;)

  • Reply 79 of 107
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    So? Are you claiming that something covered by a design patent isn't a patented device? The fact is that the device was patented - regardless of whether it was a design or utility patent. And, as I explained several weeks ago, the way Koh rejected the injunction the first time made it impossible for her to ignore the appeals court ruling and she had to allow the injunction this time.

    You're really strange.


    And your claim is still really wrong. Don't let it bother you so much. We all get things confused once in awhile, even you. :)


     


    The injunction was granted for a specific design patent that Judge Koh ruled likely infringed by a specific device, the Galaxy Tab 10.1. It doesn't extend to any other devices, it cannot without a new action, nor does it involve any patented technology like you claimed. Feel free to offer citations if you don't agree with that.


     


    Also FWIW, only one judge out of the three on the Appeals Court panel felt an immediate injunction was appropriate. The remand on the the Galaxy Tab (not the included smartphone claims) was for reconsideration of one specific point, that the Fiddler tablet served as prior art for Apple's design patent claim. It was not an order by the Appeals Court to grant an injunction, instead finding that using the Fiddler example as a reason to deny based on the likelihood of patent invalidity was incorrect. It was Judge Koh's decision alone to move so quickly granting the injunction that Apple requested.


     


    But that now increases the opportunity for the injunction to be stayed on appeal (according to FOSSPatents) since she denied Samsung's request to present new evidence that had been offered in the interim before the quick decision was made. Way too many twists and turns for anyone to claim game over yet.


     


    If you'd like to read the single basis for the remand on the Galaxy Tab (page 28 if you're impatient), as well as the affirmation of Judge Koh's reasons for denial of a preliminary injunction for any of the utility patent claims, the link is here.


    http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1105.pdf

  • Reply 80 of 107
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    And your claim is still really wrong. Don't let it bother you so much. We all get things confused once in awhile, even you. :)

    The injunction was granted for a specific design patent that Judge Koh ruled likely infringed by a specific device, the Galaxy Tab 10.1. It doesn't extend to any other devices, it cannot without a new action, nor does it involve any patented technology like you claimed. Feel free to offer citations if you don't agree with that.

    Are you this dense in real life?

    How is it that something covered by a design patent is not a patented technology?

    Furthermore, Apple won an injunction. If they show that new devices have the same design features covered by the design patent and the injunction, it is fairly easy to add a new device to the existing injunction - certainly easier than starting from scratch.

    I realize that you're hurting because your incessant "Apple is evil and Google is great" crap is wearing thin, but please stop being so dense.
Sign In or Register to comment.