Samsung fails to convince court to stay Galaxy Tab injunction

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    mac.world wrote: »
    yeah, because it's not like Apple has copied ideas from Android or anything. Oh wait, forgot about that notification center thing or alert banners, or turn by turn navigation... so, are you prepared for the epic smack down on Apple, since they copied? or are you a hypocrit?

    Why do people keep bringing up the notification center? It was "copied" from the iOS jailbreak version, Apple hired the developer. What patent for the notification center do you think Apple violated?
  • Reply 22 of 44
    bestkeptsecretbestkeptsecret Posts: 4,270member
    Speaking of Samsung, slight off-topic, but from the past few months they have been advertising their Smart TV like crazy. It has 'voice control, motion control and facial recognition'. It almost like they had a checklist that read "functions in the rumored Apple HDTV" and checked everything off with a smug "now let's see what they come out with, which we can't claim to have had before"!

    Too bad I bought mine much earlier, when the Smart TV option was just another passive thing buried under one of the menu options! Lovely TV by the way, the Samsung Series 7 3D one.
  • Reply 23 of 44

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post





    Nope. Google filed a patent in 2009 for a notification bar and drop down list. It still hasn't been approved, which is why Apple can steal the idea. However, once the patent is approved, Apple will be in for a world of hurt.

    And yes Android is open source, but it is still licensed.


     


    Looks like apple were planning on notification centre before that .. before the release of the first android phone in fact... 


     


    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/09/18/potential_iphone_usability_and_interface_improvements.html

  • Reply 24 of 44
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post





    Didn't say they invented it. However, baking it into the OS is copying an Android feature that has been incorporated into the OS for years. But I'm sure all the Apple faithful will hail turn by turn mavigation on the iphone as 'innovative and new', just like they did with the notification center in ios5.


    Apple can integrate the text to speech feature first demonstrated by Steve Jobs at the launch of the Macintosh in 1984, to read out a list of directions compiled by their navigation and mapping software.


     


    As far as the drop down notifications go they have been part of OSX for years, iOS is a cut down version of OSX, in 2007, while accessing the menu on a phone call a green bar across the top of the screen served as notification of an active call in progress, a tap (zero length swipe) on this green bar, slid down the in call menu, obviously Google copied this for Android.


     


    How do you say prior art?

  • Reply 25 of 44
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wovel View Post





    Why do people keep bringing up the notification center? It was "copied" from the iOS jailbreak version, Apple hired the developer. What patent for the notification center do you think Apple violated?


     


    They don't, it's one of the last refuges of the desperate.


     


    Just think Samsung devices have now been banned on three continents due to blatant copying of Apple.

  • Reply 26 of 44
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member


    According to Bloomberg Business Week, the Judge Koh said in the ruling that


     


    “As Samsung itself concedes, the injunction will cause Samsung minimal harm because it has other tablet products on the market,”


     


    So, the Judge acknowledges that there would be minimal harm to Apple if PI was not awarded to Apple.  So where is the irreparable harm to Apple?

  • Reply 27 of 44
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Why would Google defend Samsung? If Samsung hadn't infringed, they wouldn't be in this mess. This is Samsung's mess.

    Because the infringing items are in Android, as well. That makes Google a contributory infringer.

    From Apple's perspective, it's easier to go after the device manufacturer first. Once they get one or more clear court decisions that the technology infringes Apple's patents, it's easier to go after Google.

    From Google's perspective, if they can prevent Apple from getting a win against a hardware manufacturer, then Google is probably relatively safe. So it is in Google's interest to help Samsung to defend itself.
  • Reply 28 of 44
    raptoroo7raptoroo7 Posts: 140member


    So how does one mistake a Galaxy Tab 10.1(n) for an iPad when it says Samsung on the front of it.  Clearly some require better vision than others.  Beyond that it was obvious Judge Koh was not going to reverse her ruling so onto the Federal Court of Appeals where logic will prevail.  Also its about precedent, Samsung cannot and should not have to face injunctions on the Galaxy Nexus and Galaxy S3 for supposedly looking like an iPhone which they clearly do not have any look, feel or design elements.  Samsung should just go pure Android OS (no Touch Whiz Skin) on every device, and add in their free apps and be done with it.  Then it becomes a Samsung/Google vs Apple courtroom battle since it will be an untouched UI implementation and Google would have to get into it as well.


     


    Seems to me that Apple is very scared of the Samsung products that are coming to market.  Not for the look and feel crap they tout, but because Samsung is actually bringing solutions that challenge Apple.  I don't plan on getting a Galaxy S3, I am waiting for the iP5, but the legal crap is irritating.

  • Reply 29 of 44
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    hill60 wrote: »
    Apple can integrate the text to speech feature first demonstrated by Steve Jobs at the launch of the Macintosh in 1984, to read out a list of directions compiled by their navigation and mapping software.

    As far as the drop down notifications go they have been part of OSX for years, iOS is a cut down version of OSX, in 2007, while accessing the menu on a phone call a green bar across the top of the screen served as notification of an active call in progress, a tap (zero length swipe) on this green bar, slid down the in call menu, obviously Google copied this for Android.

    How do you say prior art?

    Next time you get punched in the face make sure you tell the police it was a zero length caress.
  • Reply 30 of 44
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,407member
    hjb wrote: »
    According to Bloomberg Business Week, the Judge Koh said in the ruling that

    <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Georgia, serif;font-size:16px;line-height:23px;">“As Samsung itself concedes, the injunction will cause Samsung minimal harm because it has other tablet products on the market,”</span>


    So, the Judge acknowledges that there would be minimal harm to Apple if PI was not awarded to Apple.  So where is the irreparable harm to Apple?

    Really? The judge acknowledged that?

    On which planet?
  • Reply 31 of 44
    shidellshidell Posts: 187member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Apple can integrate the text to speech feature first demonstrated by Steve Jobs at the launch of the Macintosh in 1984, to read out a list of directions compiled by their navigation and mapping software.


     


    As far as the drop down notifications go they have been part of OSX for years, iOS is a cut down version of OSX, in 2007, while accessing the menu on a phone call a green bar across the top of the screen served as notification of an active call in progress, a tap (zero length swipe) on this green bar, slid down the in call menu, obviously Google copied this for Android.


     


    How do you say prior art?



     


    You're arguing that iOS had a "Notification Shade" a-la Android, which Android had in version 1.0, before they implemented it in iOS 5, just like Android--yet that Android stole Slide to Unlock from them?


     


    Then you cite Prior Art?


     


    lol.

  • Reply 32 of 44
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    raptoroo7 wrote: »
    So how does one mistake a Galaxy Tab 10.1(n) for an iPad when it says Samsung on the front of it.
    What does this have to do with this story (about the Galaxy Tab 10.1, not the Galaxy Tab 10.1(n) )?
  • Reply 33 of 44
    hjb wrote: »
    According to Bloomberg Business Week, the Judge Koh said in the ruling that

    <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Georgia, serif;font-size:16px;line-height:23px;">“As Samsung itself concedes, the injunction will cause Samsung minimal harm because it has other tablet products on the market,”</span>


    So, the Judge acknowledges that there would be minimal harm to Apple if PI was not awarded to Apple.  So where is the irreparable harm to Apple?

    The judge quoted Samsung's suggestions in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction. That Samsung wouldn't suffer danages that monetary relief could not remedy says nothing about the damages that Apple would suffer absent the preliminary injunction.
  • Reply 34 of 44
    I have a few things to say on this matter: what I think the requirements for patent eligibility should be and this lawsuit. I contend that Samsung copied design elements From the iPhone in the iPad. I do not think that exclusive rights should be able to be granted on the those particular design elements. They are too simplistic and tooI fundamental to be patentable subject matter. Apple's claim to these design elements is much too broad. Please understand that I am not talking about my interpretation of current law, I am talking about what I think the guidelines should be.
  • Reply 35 of 44
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member
    The judge quoted Samsung's suggestions in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction. That Samsung wouldn't suffer danages that monetary relief could not remedy says nothing about the damages that Apple would suffer absent the preliminary injunction.

    So, what would be the irreparable harm that Apple would suffer when PI was not given?
  • Reply 36 of 44
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member
    Really? The judge acknowledged that?
    On which planet?

    Maybe not on your planet. It called the EARTH, lol.
  • Reply 37 of 44
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    hjb wrote: »
    So, what would be the irreparable harm that Apple would suffer when PI was not given?

    It gave Samsung a foothold in the market that they would otherwise not have had. Once market share is lost, it's extremely difficult to recover it later.
  • Reply 38 of 44
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    It gave Samsung a foothold in the market that they would otherwise not have had. Once market share is lost, it's extremely difficult to recover it later.


    Hahaha, you are joking right?  You and Koh gave me the best laugh this year.  What a joke!!!

  • Reply 39 of 44
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    hjb wrote: »
    Hahaha, you are joking right?  You and Koh gave me the best laugh this year.  What a joke!!!


    It's very clear that Samsung's copycat tactics have clearly given it a leg up in the Android-based market. Samsung is the only such vendor that is thriving and most of them aren't even in the black at all. Regardless of how one feels about their ethics their stealing of Apple's IP has clearly been highly profitable and has given them a production-level understanding of how to build superior handsets that other Android-based vendors can't match.
  • Reply 40 of 44
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    It's very clear that Samsung's copycat tactics have clearly given it a leg up in the Android-based market. Samsung is the only such vendor that is thriving and most of them aren't even in the black at all. Regardless of how one feels about their ethics their stealing of  Apple's IP has clearly been highly profitable and has given them a production-level understanding of how to build superior handsets that other Android-based vendors can't match.


    I liked and actually enjoyed your comments even though I did not agree with you.  But, you are pouring out full of nonsense in this comment.  


     


    How about this?


    Regardless of how one feels about their Apple's ethics, their stealing of Apple's IP other's has clearly been highly profitable and has given them a production-level understanding of how to build superior handsets that other Android-based vendors can't match.(stealing, a quote by SJ)

Sign In or Register to comment.