Apple posts $2.6M bond to block sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 71
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    LOL! Thanks. I'm sure that's all Jr meant from the beginning. Just filing a little paperwork... :lol:
    What do you think filing a case entails?
    If proof had to be entered at time of filing, why would it go any further than that?
  • Reply 62 of 71
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for those exact copies you're referring to. I'll admit TouchWiz does look much like iOS but what Samsung device is an exact copy of a Apple one?

    Since you're obviously not interested in joining us in the real world, it's probably pointless, but how about the Galaxy Tab - which was so close to the iPad that even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.

    Or, perhaps the fact that Koh just issued an injunction because of the Tab's infringement of Apple's design patents means something?

    It's really amazing how the Apple haters manage to simultaneously hold and espouse two completely contradictory opinions:

    1. The competitors' products look nothing at all like Apple's products.

    2. The competitors' products have to look just like Apple products because it's simply the nature of how the device functions. There's no other way to make a mobile phone.
  • Reply 63 of 71
    lvidallvidal Posts: 158member


    I do not agree with the impediment. What I do agree is that they force Samsung to change the design and the interface. Until that they can't sell it. 

  • Reply 64 of 71
    fredaroonyfredaroony Posts: 619member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Since you're obviously not interested in joining us in the real world, it's probably pointless, but how about the Galaxy Tab - which was so close to the iPad that even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.

    Or, perhaps the fact that Koh just issued an injunction because of the Tab's infringement of Apple's design patents means something?

    It's really amazing how the Apple haters manage to simultaneously hold and espouse two completely contradictory opinions:

    1. The competitors' products look nothing at all like Apple's products.

    2. The competitors' products have to look just like Apple products because it's simply the nature of how the device functions. There's no other way to make a mobile phone.


    How do you know it wasn't based on this design?


     


    samsung-ipad-photo-frame.jpeg

  • Reply 65 of 71
    chris_ca wrote: »
    Keep in mind that the bond is posted in case it is overturned. If the injunction is upheld, Apple gets that money back so it's not costing them anything

    The procedural posture is not accurately stated. We have a cause of action - an infringement action pursuant to Title 35 - and several other claims for relief - presently before the District Court (the trial court). Apple pleaded for a preliminary injunction against Samsung during the pendency of the case in District Court. If Apple wins the Title 35 count(s) that formed the basis for the grant of the prelinary injunction, the bond (posted with the trial court) will be returned to Apple upon entry of an appropriate judgment (likely, making the injunction permanent).

    The only route of appeal of the amount/grant of the bond is a single interlocutory action to the Circuit Court. That interlocutory appeal of the Order granting the Preliminary Injunction has been heard and ruled upon. Samsung lost. That issue is res Juticata "final" - there is nothing left to "overturn" - it is merely a single issue within the case that Samsung lost. If Samsung prevails on the subject matter of the bond in the case in chief, the Court will award the bond to Samsung as a part of any appropriate judgment.

    After a trial on the merits, an appeal of the entire case is possible if either, or both, parties have preserved the record of substantive error at the trial court stage.
  • Reply 66 of 71
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,354member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bought_it@AAPL View Post



    That interlocutory appeal of the Order granting the Preliminary Injunction has been heard and ruled upon. Samsung lost. That issue is res Juticata "final" - there is nothing left to "overturn" - it is merely a single issue within the case that Samsung lost. 


    Perhaps I misunderstand your post. Samsung has filed notice of intent to appeal the injunction order, a copy of Samsung's notice here:


    http://www.scribd.com/doc/98393047/Samsung-s-Notice-of-Appeal


     


    The grounds for it, in plain English terms, is that they were denied their right to present more current evidence before Judge Koh rendered her order. In other words the injunction was granted based on an incomplete record. No assurance or even likelihood that they will be successful but it's surprising that the Honorable Judge Koh would leave herself open to a possible stay of her order by ignoring the majority opinion of the Appeals Court that a new equitable analysis would be in order before consideration of the injunction.


     


    So it does appear that there is "something left to overturn", or at least stay for the time-being.


    http://blogs.findlaw.com/federal_circuit/2012/06/apple-samsung-lawsuit-headed-back-to-federal-circuit.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FederalCircuit


     


    EDIT: This evening Reuters reports that Judge Koh may reconsider her injunction and put a stay in place pending an appeal, deciding on it as soon as Sunday.

  • Reply 67 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Since you're obviously not interested in joining us in the real world, it's probably pointless, but how about the Galaxy Tab - which was so close to the iPad that even Samsung's attorneys couldn't tell the difference.
    Or, perhaps the fact that Koh just issued an injunction because of the Tab's infringement of Apple's design patents means something?
    It's really amazing how the Apple haters manage to simultaneously hold and espouse two completely contradictory opinions:
    1. The competitors' products look nothing at all like Apple's products.
    2. The competitors' products have to look just like Apple products because it's simply the nature of how the device functions. There's no other way to make a mobile phone.

    Wow so the front looked similar, why didnt he then turn them around and see if they were discernible? They're vastly different from behind so there goes your exact copy out the window or how about powered on? the icons aren't arranged the same so again no exact copy, or why not hold up a white iPad? The Galaxy Tab doesn't come in white, so again I ask you show me an exact copy.
  • Reply 68 of 71
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    If Apple wins the Title 35 count(s) that formed the basis for the grant of the prelinary injunction, the bond (posted with the trial court) will be returned to Apple upon entry of an appropriate judgment (likely, making the injunction permanent)
    Yeah, isn't that what I wrote?
    GadgetCanada indicated that simply by posting a bond, it cost Apple $2.6 million.
  • Reply 69 of 71
    A judge can always reconsider a prior ruling. A case can be made that material facts were absent from the first interlocutory appeal of the injunction ruling.

    Clearly, finality is a fleeting pursuit.

    I stand by my statement of the posture and rules made at the time that I made them, if only to be found guilty of tilting at windmills.

    Good night, Sancho.
  • Reply 70 of 71
    chris_ca wrote: »
    Yeah, isn't that what I wrote?
    GadgetCanada indicated that simply by posting a bond, it cost Apple $2.6 million.

    Apple does not incur a significant "cost" by merely posting the bond. Apple loses (experiences a cost) the investment interest on the bond, but it has not transferred $2.6 to another "owner" and "cost" the company that sum. The bond is held by the court as security for damages (if any) incurred by Samsung. A win on the underlying case by Apple (or, vacating / staying the Injunction) will see those funds returned to Apple.
  • Reply 71 of 71
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Apple does not incur a significant "cost" by merely posting the bond. Apple loses (experiences a cost) the investment interest on the bond, but it has not transferred $2.6 to another "owner" and "cost" the company that sum. The bond is held by the court as security for damages (if any) incurred by Samsung. A win on the underlying case by Apple (or, vacating / staying the Injunction) will see those funds returned to Apple.
    Uh, thanks. I s there some reason you keep telling me what I just wrote?
    You should respond to http://forums.appleinsider.com/u/174599/gadgetcanada since he wrote
    It's a smart play by Apple because going after the Tab 10.1 only costs them $2.6 million in bond.
    (emphasis mine)
Sign In or Register to comment.