×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samsung Appeals Apple's Injunction Against Galaxy Nexus

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the the-circle-is-complete dept.

Android 217

It will come as no surprise that Samsung has filed an appeal in response to the injunction granted to Apple against the Galaxy Nexus phone in the U.S.. From the article: "The motion, filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, seeks a stay of the injunction for the duration of the appeal. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ordered the preliminary injunction on Friday, granting a motion Apple made in February that alleged Samsung infringed on several of its patents. The injunction, which would keep the Samsung device from being sold in stores in the U.S., can go into effect as soon as Apple posts a bond of nearly $96 million."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

217 comments

Injunction (3)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#40516127)

Injunction terms are too narrow. Can't we have an injunction against patent related douchbaggery?

Re:Injunction (5, Informative)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#40516347)

The upside is that Apple had to post $90 million, payable in some part to Samsung (as I understand it), in case the injunction turned out to be bogus.

Re:Injunction (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#40516365)

Figures, I'd read this earlier so I skipped the /. summary (where the bond is mentioned) for the comments. My mistake!

Re:Injunction (5, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | about 2 years ago | (#40516517)

The upside is that Apple had to post $90 million, payable in some part to Samsung (as I understand it), in case the injunction turned out to be bogus.

They can probably round up that kind of cash by digging in their couch cushions. I'm sure the appeal was expected, and they'll probably wait to see how it pans out before proceeding. The fact that they haven't posted the bond yet does suggest they think the injunction has a chance of being successfully appealed

When you're dealing with companies of this size, an injunction really doesn't mean much until it's withstood at least one appeal.

Re:Injunction (5, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#40516649)

90 million is bullshit. The bonds for this stuff (software "patent infringement" via the ITC loophole) should start at a 1-2 billion dollars and go up. That would certainly stop these bogus lawsuits.

Re:Injunction (2)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#40516827)

and how many companies have this kind of cash? if you're a small start up and sue a big huge megacorp for abusing some cool tech you made up you can win in court and still lose the war

see the japanese takeover of the consumer electronics in the 1980's

Re:Injunction (3, Interesting)

Quila (201335) | about 2 years ago | (#40516887)

Bonds are set by the financial harm the defendant would suffer by the injunction. It makes no sense to have some minimum number, as harm could be well below that.

Let's say you have the reasonable potential to make $1 million on your widgets this year. Some guy gets an injunction, posts a bond, you win. You then show the court your losses, and that is paid out of the bond. Why have a billion dollar bond in cases such as this? You think to discourage such cases? Bonds are equitable, not punitive.

Re:Injunction (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 2 years ago | (#40516983)

90 million is bullshit. The bonds for this stuff (software "patent infringement" via the ITC loophole)...

From the summary: "U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ordered the preliminary injunction on Friday, granting a motion Apple made in February that alleged Samsung infringed on several of its patents."

This has nothing to do with the ITC. This was in federal court in the Northern District of California.

Pics or GTFO! (0, Offtopic)

_merlin (160982) | about 2 years ago | (#40516145)

I am sick of hearing about frivolous patents and their knock-on effects. It makes my depression ever worse than it would otherwise be. However, I would like to know whether judge Lucy Koh is hot. Does anyone have links to pictures to allow me to make up my mind on this important issue?

Re:Pics or GTFO! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516169)

google it.

the short answer is no, but it is whats inside that counts.

Re:Pics or GTFO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516213)

She's no Yuuri Morishita.

Apples lawyers think so (2)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#40516501)

She stimulates their cash flow every time she makes a ruling, and for lawyers that is an exceedingly attractive trait in a woman.

I like this (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516165)

It will come as no surprise that Samsung has filed an appeal

I think that more supposed news stories should begin "this is not news".

This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#40516171)

I love apple products, but this is becoming disgusting. I cant see how anyone can think that android is anything like iOS except for where it uses icons, and you use your fingers, and it runs apps.

The whole thing with this is underlining a major flaw in our court system.

1 - Judges are not educated enough to make a ruling need to be retired. Sorry, but why are you presiding over a technology case when you know nothing about technology?

2 - Our patent system is so broken that it's proving to anyone that has a brain that it is causing a strangulation effect. A little guy in his garage has ZERO chance of creating anything without being gunned down in court by a rich company afraid of competition.

The sad part is that we cant change it. No matter WHO get's elected into congress, they are always outnumbered 300 to 1 by the bought and paid for senators that are there to do what the industry tells them to do instead of doing what is right.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40516207)

Our whole system is broken because it has become totally pay-to-play. An occurrence like this should be ringing alarm bells in Washington DC, but of course it isn't. The lack of knowledge and corruption is rife throughout the entire system right now.

I posted on the previous article about this that Google should step up and take the lead and use it as a concrete example for congresscritters since they are the ones with enough money to actually make a difference.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1, Interesting)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 years ago | (#40516255)

So who paid off who?

You're alleging a pretty big corruption crime here. What's your evidence? That it didn't go your way? That somehow you know more than the judge or the lawyers in the case?

You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call. This is not corruption. This is an inconvenience for two major multinational corporations.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40516265)

Who paid off who? What universe do you live in?

Go read up about the U.S. lobbying system. It might open your eyes.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 years ago | (#40516303)

I have. It works the other way around. Congressmen stalk and harass the lobbyists for dough. Planet Money did a great piece on it.

This isn't the result of Congressional lobbying. This is the result of actions taken by the Judiciary. Now if you want to accuse the Judge as being paid off, you're REALLY making a HUGE accusation.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40516335)

There has been *nothing* I've written that has talked about the judge in this case. We aren't dealing with judicial corruption.

The reason the laws are the patent system are the way they are now is because big money wants it that way. The "patent reform" act last year made the situation worse. Why do you think it got pushed through? Because it was paid for. That is the only way things happen in this congress. There is no sense of the common good whatsoever.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 years ago | (#40516381)

Do you have evidence this is what "big money" wants? Do you have documents from groups like ALEC or the the US Chamber of Commerce showing that this is what they want?

Just blindly throwing out that OMG BOUGHT AND PAID FOR doesn't exactly mean proof. What proof do you have? I need evidence, not innuendo and conspiratorial thinking.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516627)

You are way over complicating the issue. Samsung is using something that Apple patented (data detectors if I recall), and they failed to remove those from their products, hence the ban. Claiming that this is corruption, when it is frankly working as designed is a bit of a stretch don't you think.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

oztiks (921504) | about 2 years ago | (#40517063)

You either haven't been watching this case, or we're talking about another case.

There is 1 legal hurdle samsung has to clear in order to remove the injunction and that is deceiving the end user by introducing a product into the market that would confuse them to buy their product. It's not a hard hurdle for samsung to bound over and I'm certain they will.

If there are other infringing patients like you say, I'd say pulling the product would be moot, how would Apple file for damages if the product is pulled? Rather they would sit back let samsung sell the product and the request royalties or sue.

Which begs the question wouldn't that be a more typical / plausible course of action. Wait 6 months to a year and go "hey, samsung where's my payout?"

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#40516399)

This could actually just be a case of judicial 'fanboi' bias. You see it even more in the news media and TV fields, where the poor downtrodden minority that had been using Macs for years now have the opportunity to spread the gospel.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40516299)

Hasn't the "but if you think this is bad, you should see x" strawman been knocked down enough times already? Give the poor guy a break already.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 years ago | (#40516341)

No, because they're making a value judgement with zero perspective from a privileged point of view.

One that happens to be factually wrong.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (5, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | about 2 years ago | (#40516425)

You're alleging a pretty big corruption crime here. What's your evidence?

He's not alleging anything. He's describing systemic corruption, not some incident specific to this case. U.S. politicians are taught to look to industry for funding, and therefore, for policy, rather than the electorate. This means that without some lobby with money, there's no reason to change the status quo, unless it's an election year, or it's something that's really riling large segments of the population.

Why do you think there's so much movement behind "piracy", and so little behind patent reform? Because there's a lobby splashing money around for copyright reform, whereas all the guys with money have already bought into the patent system.

You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call. This is not corruption.

Uh-huh. Just like you shouldn't complain if take a dump on your doorstep. Going down to the sewerage plant would be a huge fucking wake up call. You'd realize that my excrement isn't actually shit, because there's so much more of it at the sewerage plant than there is on your front porch.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (-1, Troll)

Grudge2012 (2662391) | about 2 years ago | (#40516505)

Uh-huh. Just like you shouldn't complain if take a dump on your doorstep. Going down to the sewerage plant would be a huge fucking wake up call. You'd realize that my excrement isn't actually shit, because there's so much more of it at the sewerage plant than there is on your front porch.

Funny that you use this metaphor, but complain that Apple doesn't like it that Samsung keeps shitting on their doorstep.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (4, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#40516485)

You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call.

The fact that it could be worse does not mean that it's not corruption.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#40516759)

Our whole system is broken because it has become totally pay-to-play. An occurrence like this should be ringing alarm bells in Washington DC,

It is. It's the money alarm. They're looking forward to being able to steal some from someone.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516875)

What's the good in HAVING patents if the government isn't going to ENFORCE them?

In 2007 Steve made a point he had taken out patents on as many features of the new iPhone as he could... The very day he demoed it. Google and Samsung proceeded to get as close as possible to the key features as they possibly could. It has taken 4 YEARS to get the case to this point. A regular company could never maintain the case this long. Frankly, I'm surprised Apple didnt have Tim Cook on standby with the checkbook in hand.

Apple wants Samsung and Google SHUT OUT. Both companies used inside information Apple gave to them as "subcontractors" while Apple was PAYING THEM big bucks for their work. This mirrors what Microsoft did with MS Word for MAC then copying all that into early Windows.

Steve wanted BLOOD over this one because Apple's own partners cut in on their dance. Apple wants them shut out. They don't want to cross-license, or negotiate... They want their patents enforced. Steve SAID they were going to do this back in 2007... And it's taken this long to get action out of courts.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 years ago | (#40516223)

1 - Judges don't need to be educated to make these decisions. That's what the attorneys are for. Judges and juries shouldn't be swayed by anything but what the two sides present. Under your system, it's more like Judge Judy or The People's Court. Which isn't exactly legally fair if the Judge is biased one way or another.

2 - Agreed, but we CAN change it. It does matter who gets elected to congress.

First off, you have no idea how the buying and selling of senators even happens, do you? Give this a listen. [thisamericanlife.org] The economics behind campaign contributions are ridiculous. The situation in Congress is the opposite of what you think. Congress critters stalk and seek the money of moneyed interests. Not the other way around.

Elections are tight, redistricting only can get you so far these days. Same with campaign contributions. By forming informed voter blocks you can actually sway elections by forming political action committees and doing the hard work of trying to be a participant in the representative democratic process.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40516263)

"Judges don't need to be educated to make these decisions."

Absolutely correct, especially with regard to a legal education. Decisions should be made based on common sense, not the mess of disingenuous rationalizations which constitute our legal system.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 years ago | (#40516325)

Common sense is neither common nor sensible.

We're talking matters of law here. The Judge needs to weigh ALL evidence regardless of personal biases here. That's how our legal system works.

This isn't disingenuous rationalization we're talking about. This is the foundation for a fair and free legal system. If you really think this isn't working, the alternative is MUCH worse.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40516383)

So now you saying that judges _should_ be educated. Please try to be consistent.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 years ago | (#40516421)

Judges need to know how the law works, not be pre-biased on the case.

I mean, this is pretty simple stuff.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40516455)

How does knowledge of the subject at hand "pre-bias" a case? For "simple stuff," you're adding a lot of complexity.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 years ago | (#40517083)

Judges need to understand the law and it's the litigators who are responsible for educating the judges and juries on cases is simple.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (3, Funny)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#40516507)

Decisions should be made based on common sense, not the mess of disingenuous rationalizations which constitute our legal system

I think the most obvious solution to this is to rewrite our code of law to be a collection of car analogies...

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40516579)

It's an adversarial system. I think sports analogies would work better.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (3, Interesting)

heckler95 (1140369) | about 2 years ago | (#40516777)

Judges need to have a basic understanding (beyond that of your average grandparent) about how the underlying technology works in order to make a fair legal decision. One example that comes to mind are the lawsuits brought by the RIAA against John Does based on records of an IP address downloading or uploading a file. IP Addresses do not uniquely identify a person or even (most of the time) a single computer yet they allow these companies to harass individuals without sufficient evidence linking a specific person to any crime. I'm willing to bet that at one point in your life, you have probably operated a WiFi router either without security or using easily-broken WEP. If a stranger used your network to commit a crime, wouldn't you prefer a judge with a basic understanding of how networks and IP addresses work so that you could make an adequate defense? Or would you be ok with the prosecution dumbing it down for the judge and convincing them that "IP addresses are like social security numbers for computers"?

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516293)

Judges don't need to be educated to make these decisions. That's what the attorneys are for. Judges and juries shouldn't be swayed by anything but what the two sides present.

Absolutely. This is a real problem in areas outside the technical arena, where rogue judges and jurors run amok with their outside knowledge. The number of people convicted based on the judge and jury "knowing" such facts as that being repeatedly shot in the head poses a risk of death is shocking. What we actually need is a panel of babies who will consider each case from first principles with "goo goo gaga" and work up from there.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 years ago | (#40516237)

The problem is that engineers almost never take a stand and just keep on doing what management tells them to do, as long as the money keeps flowing in. Basically, we're just prostituting ourselves. And that makes Apple probably the filthiest brothel on the planet, and also the most expensive one.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 years ago | (#40516273)

Oh, and to be fair, Google engineers are essentially a bunch of voyeurs, but that's a different story.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (5, Insightful)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 2 years ago | (#40516275)

Taking a stand doesn't pay the mortgage.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516401)

Then don't get a mortgage.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516363)

That's one of the reasons I'm leaving one of the big corps at the moment. They're pushing harder, ever harder for patents. I don't feel like I can be a part of that, in good conscience.

A lot of the other guys like the name-on-a-patent thing , and the (small) bonus they get for it. I can't reconcile that with myself.

Lucy Koh (1, Interesting)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#40516463)

There is a complication in the case which makes me wonder if this is why Apple has chosen this court. Lucy Koh is of Korean descent. I guess that, had she ruled the other way, Apple would have demanded a new hearing because of judicial bias in favor of a Korean company. Therefore she has to give Apple the benefit of the doubt and, basically, kick it upstairs.

She may perhaps privately think that Apple will lose, but again the more publicly it loses, and the more expensively, the better.

The message of the case is actually that Apple is being outgunned technically by Samsung and is worried. If they thought the next iPhone would be a huge winner, why bother over these really rather trivial patents? The simple fact that they are trying to use litigation to keep a competitor product which is not a knock-off out of the US tells us that, just like the people who litigated to try and stop Henry Ford making cars, they are aware that the writing is on the wall for their business model.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516473)

"I cant see how anyone can think that android is anything like iOS"

You must have missed the part where Android was a Blackberry clone before iPhone and then became an iPhone clone. Android looks and works almost exactly like iPhone. Why it's even marketed and sold as being just like an iPhone.

Re:Your math is a bit off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516513)

Since there are only two senators per state, there are a total of 100 U.S. Senators. Therefore, the ratio of being outnumbered can never be any higher than 99 to 1.

Re:Your math is a bit off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516597)

Too bad he did not say SENATOR but instead said CONGRESS.

But I can see how that can be confused, They are both really Big Words, and people with substandard education get them confused easily.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (1)

sensei moreh (868829) | about 2 years ago | (#40516573)

No matter WHO get's elected into congress, they are always outnumbered 300 to 1 by the bought and paid for senators

It's not that bad. There are only 100 senators.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516631)

> I cant see how anyone can think that android is anything like iOS except for where it uses icons, and you use your fingers, and it runs apps.

I looked at today's Woot:
TODAY'S WOOT
Samsung Galaxy 5" Wi-Fi 8GB Tablet

Stand four feet back from your monitor and explain how you'd know the difference between that and an iPhone.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516743)

There's only 100 senators, so they would be outnumbers 99 to 1 at the worst.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (5, Insightful)

Theaetetus (590071) | about 2 years ago | (#40517005)

1 - Judges are not educated enough to make a ruling need to be retired. Sorry, but why are you presiding over a technology case when you know nothing about technology?

Just because you don't like the ruling doesn't mean the judge doesn't understand technology. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Koh spent a decade doing patent litigation.

Tellingly, when Judge Koh has decided the other way in the past - invalidating patents or denying injunctions - Slashdot posters have repeatedly said, "finally, a judge that understands technology!"

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (4, Informative)

Quila (201335) | about 2 years ago | (#40517007)

This case is quite a bit different.

1 - Generally true, but this is mainly about design patents, not a very technical issue, more akin to trademark and copyright. If one looks like the other, and consumer confusion could result, there's likely infringement.

2 - This is big guy vs. big guy. One big guy thinks the other is copying. If you've seen Samsung phones and tablets before and after the iPhone and iPad, this is pretty obvious, down to the packaging and the design of the AC charger.

This injunction goes along very fair rules. Apple has to show the judge their potential harm if Samsung continues to copy, and Samsung has to show the judge their potential harm if their sales are stopped. In a patent case, Samsung raising serious questions of patent validity will also tip the balance in their favor. Samsung has apparently failed to do this for all of the patents.

In the end, the court found that Apple would suffer more harm from continued infringement than Samsung would suffer from a wrongful injunction. But to make sure Samsung doesn't get screwed, Apple has to post a bond covering any potential Samsung losses.

How much more fair can this be?

I have an idea (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#40516219)

Maybe all smartphone makers should review other companies' patents BEFORE they make a phone. Then if there's something legit, don't put it in your phone. If there's something not legit, try to get the patent invalidated. That would definitely save some money. But I guess "screw it, let's just make a phone and deal with it later" works too.

Re:I have an idea (5, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40516257)

I'd agree if the patents weren't bogus and obvious. If we had a patent system that actually granted patents of merit and not a rubber stamp this would make sense.

Go read some of these patent. It's isn't revolutionary stuff, it's just who won the horse race for patenting "clicking icon to make something happen" and the like.

Re:I have an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516317)

If you think these patents are bogus and obvious why can't the expensive and able Samsung lawyers convince a judge or the patent office of this. And if there is a massive conspiracy here why doesn't Samsung complain about it? Attributing legal judgements contrary to your own to massive corruption is basically paranoia

Re:I have an idea (3, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40516359)

Not going to reply to this other than to say that you need to look up the definition of the word conspiracy. If people are working as single individuals or groups IN THE OPEN then it isn't a conspiracy. You're just trying to use "conspiracy theory" as a putdown.

Re:I have an idea (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#40516423)

They most likely will be able to do that. The problem here is that they can't sell their product while they do it and the court system is slow.

Re:I have an idea (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#40516479)

... I was also just thinking that it's unlikely that when the injunction is appealed, that it's unlikely that Samsung will be paid enough for the lost sales, marketing time, etc. Perhaps the cost of having these bullshit injunctions overturned should be that the claimant have sales of their products blocked for a similar amount of time.

Re:I have an idea (5, Informative)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#40516385)

U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 for a "system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data" which was validated in Apple's U.S. International Trade Commission case against HTC. U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 for a "method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations" or predictive text. U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 for a system describing "unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image" or the "slide to unlock" function found on iOS devices which was successfully used against Motorola in Germany. U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 for a "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system" that was the basis of Friday's ruling." http://www.informationweek.com/byte/news/personal-tech/smart-phones/240003036?nomobile=1 [informationweek.com]

Re:I have an idea (5, Interesting)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#40516539)

Well, perhaps Samsung should try inventing things themselves, rather than let Apple invent everything.

Here [xorl.org] is what all touchscreen smartphones looked like before Apple came along and showed how the world how to do it (complete link) [xorl.org].

Apple were first [xorl.org] people to do anything like that at all, so they should obviously have a patent.

They basically invented [painterfun.com] the entirely featureless tablet and the touch based user interface.

(for the impared: please actually look at links before flaming)

Re:I have an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516837)

They haven't gotten to the stage where they discuss the invalidity of the patents in-depth. This is a prelim injunction. Typically, under the current law, they are VERY hard to get. I'm surprised it was ordered and I suspect it will be overturned on appeal. Nevertheless, the fact it was granted is totally Samsung and their lawyers fault. No sympathy from me.

Re:I have an idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516271)

If there's something not legit, try to get the patent invalidated.

That might work if there were penalties for the companies that claim patents that are later invalidated. But there isn't any. So the effect of this would be to grant a temporary monopoly to anyone who get any stupid patent.

(In fact the actual solution should be to penalise the patent examiners that let crap through, because at the moment that seems to be the easy way for them. If they were subject to extreme physical pain every time one of their patents was invalidated they'd soon improve their performance)

Re:I have an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516287)

If i recall correcly (please corrent me if I'm wrong), you can read the paper about the specific patent if you know its number. The trick is to know the number of specyfic patent because there are soo many of them... Microsoft was accusing Linux for breaking their patents abut they didn't tell witch patents were in the case.

Re:I have an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516297)

You are either trolling or completely clueless about the state of patents these days. Patents these days are horribly vague, and just sifting through all *possibly* relevant patents and checking whether they apply or not is probably going to take twice as much time as actually developing the phone.

If there's something not legit...

... then it should not have been granted in the first place, and yet here we are.

I really hope you are trolling for your sake, because the only other possibility is that you have been living under a rock for the last 20 years.

Re:I have an idea (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516391)

Uh, have you actually looked at the patents in question? We have a slide lock switch for the touchscreen. Slide locks are not particularly novel. But of course the idea of using them on a touchscreen is perfectly novel and non-obvious.

The other two are of similar caliber. There is no way you can avoid those totally obvious things if you are going to create a touchscreen user interface for a phone.

Basically Apple thinks it is entitled to a monopoly on touchscreen phones because they were first to, uh, sue (other products were in the market first), and would suffer irreparable harm if others were allowed to enter into the market, something known as "competition".

Because they are an American company (never mind that they avoid producing stuff in the U.S.A.), a U.S. judge swallows the "we want the market to ourselves" sob story.

The "patents" are merely a pretense for getting the judicial system's active help monopolizing the U.S. market. One needs to sue over something, however ridiculous, or one does not get a judge involved in this sort of perversion.

Monopoly? (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 2 years ago | (#40516249)

Call me stupid here but I thought that no company was allowed to gain an entire monopoly in one area, after all IBM was taken on by the government and finally disbanded. By blocking Samsung from being allowed to release there phone your effectively saying that a monopoly is fine as long as you put a big shiny apple on your product and up sell it like never before seen in marketing. If this injunction isn't lifted then any company the government has taken on for being a monopoly should be reinstated all costs plus all loses.

Re:Monopoly? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516311)

Call me stupid here

You're stupid.

Monopolies are fine. Abusing a dominant market position is not. Apple doesn't dominate any market.

Re:Monopoly? (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 2 years ago | (#40516395)

He's also stupid because he apparently has no clue what-so-ever about the patent system. The whole point is to grant a monopoly!

Re:Monopoly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516315)

Call me stupid here but I thought that no company was allowed to gain an entire monopoly in one area, after all IBM was taken on by the government and finally disbanded.

I don't want to worry you or anything but you may have accidentally stumbled into a parallel universe in which IBM wasn't disbanded. You should have taken a left back at the horses.

Court date set for 2014 (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#40516327)

If the ban on Samsung isn't lifted, the date for this hearing will be in March, 2014. Meanhile, Samsung is preparing an updated Galaxy Nexus debut for this November 2012. I imagine this version will avoid any disputed patent issues.

Not News... (0)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 2 years ago | (#40516345)

It will come as no surprise...

You're right - it isn't a surprise. It isn't newsworthy. Anyone with a vague clue of how the legal process works knew that they were going to appeal. Had they just given up and submitted to the ban, _THAT_ would have been news. This amounts to "legal process continues as expected - nothing to see - move along".

While I know this is about Apple and Samsung, two companies that interest many on Slashdot (may not like, but are at least interested in) and I know this is about a patent dispute which, again, interests people, _THIS_ story about filing an appeal is _NOT_ news.

Seriously, Slashdot was once a much better site and one could actually learn a hell of a lot reading the site (and the comments). It has gone down a lot over the past few years.

Now get off my lawn...

Winning the case is not the goal (3, Insightful)

ebonum (830686) | about 2 years ago | (#40516433)

If Apple can keep Samsung out of the the market for 1 or 2 years, Apple wins. If Apple loses the case and pays out the 96 million to Samsung, Apple wins.

The 96 million is a wonderful investment in trying to crush Samsung. MS has all the cash in the world. Cash does not equal smart phone market share. Samsung has momentum. If Apple can break that momentum, Samsung getting 96 million won't help much.

Apple's strategy is to win in the long run. If people can't by Samsung products for 1 year, what are they going to do? Switch. Samsung will lose hard earned market share, time and momentum. When Samsung re-enters the market, the 96 million will not cover their true losses.

Re:Winning the case is not the goal (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#40516493)

A punishment could be valued at much more than 96 million, but it's unlikely to be even close to what being blocked from the market for that long truly costs. If Apple loses, the punishment should be that their products are blocked for the same length of time.

Re:Winning the case is not the goal (2)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#40516543)

I seriously doubt Apple will keep Samsung out of the market for 1-2 years, and even if it did there are many other quality Android manufacturers, HTC being the most obvious example.

The thing is that at least one of the patents (I'll be honest and say I don't know the others) is trivially easy to side step: the "slide to unlock" patent. Leaving aside whether the "slide" on ICS is remotely similar (I guess you drift your finger in a pre-determined direction on screen, which might be the way the patent is worded, I don't know), all you have to do is ship the phone such that you unlock it in another way, say, entering a PIN.

It would take Samsung's engineers a few hours to fix that particular problem. They probably haven't yet because (a) It's an ICS feature, and the entire point of the Galaxy Nexus is that it's supposed to be pure ICS, and (b) they, and their lawyers, probably don't see the ICS "drag circle to icon" unlocker as being "slide to unlock".

I seriously doubt that any other patents Apple has thrown in the mix are similarly impossible to workaround. If an injunction hits the GN, and somehow Apple prevails and it's permanent, I think Samsung will come up with an updated version that fixes the issues the very same day.

Re:Winning the case is not the goal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516775)

As posted in a previous Slashdot article, Apple is arguing that a tap on an unlock button is just a zero distance swipe. Don't think they'll give up quite that easily...

Re:Winning the case is not the goal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516877)

Unfortunately Apple is claiming that just tapping something to unlock still breaks the patent. Reason being "A tap is just a zero length slide."

Re:Winning the case is not the goal (1, Troll)

Grudge2012 (2662391) | about 2 years ago | (#40516637)

If Apple can keep Samsung out of the the market for 1 or 2 years, Apple wins. If Apple loses the case and pays out the 96 million to Samsung, Apple wins.

The 96 million is a wonderful investment in trying to crush Samsung.

There is a tiny flaw in your argument: Samsung still has several dozen(*) non-infringing phone models on the US market - how does that amount to a lock-out? Unless you are talking of the "near perfect clone of the iPhone" market.

(*) Samsung's web page can't quite decide between 149 and 148 - but that's counting many phones once for each provider.

Lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516459)

Patent wars are retarded. These guys are getting patents on things that are pretty generic. "Volume is adjustable, including the ability to increase and decrease the sound output". I hope my nexus ships before they shutdown sales.

Samsung appeals to the Supreme Court (0)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 2 years ago | (#40516509)

Chief Justice Roberts will rule that Congress is authorized to "tax" Americans who don't have an iPhone.

Re:Samsung appeals to the Supreme Court (1)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40516793)

Nah. iPhones come from China, so they fall under the interstate commerce clause.

Re:Samsung appeals to the Supreme Court (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40517017)

Lessing already debated that over copyright. Basically, Congress is free to write the laws and establish the agency rules for them. Don't like it, take it up with them.

For all the hoopla over healthcare that's basically what they ruled again. Congress has passed DOZENS of crazy laws worse than healthcare. Unless you want the Court to rule Congress can't pass ANY health care law.. Then they would undo medicare which has already been tested. A "tax" on healthcare is relatively equal to all persons.

People tend to forget that the Feds could just tax everybody $1000 for the heck of it, they don't even have to give a reason. That's what "taxes" means and the Court isn't going to open op that debate.

Which patent? (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about 2 years ago | (#40516541)

So which patent is the base for the injunction? I did some clicking and just found some spokesperson's comments. Don't tell me this injunction was granted because this phone looks like a phone.

Re:Which patent? (2)

plaut (42347) | about 2 years ago | (#40516611)

It's based on the "unified database search" function (Siri) because Apple claimed (and the judge accepted without critique) that this is a major reason why people by iPhones, and hence copying it posses a potentially serious threat to sales. Nonsense in every respect, but there it is.

What I find curious... (3, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#40516621)

In this case, it is my understanding that the patents are not for 'rectangular devices possessing a touchscreen on the front'; but for certain software features.

I have to wonder why Samsung doesn't flip the disable bit on the features Apple is suing about(for extra credit, in some manner that allows firmware modders to oh-so-deviously flip it back, if they want) so that they can start moving units without having to clear up any legal issues, and then push a firmware update once the legal wrangling is sorted out...

You can't do that with hardware-related patents, obviously; but I would think that the financial impact of an injunction that keeps you from shipping on time(especially given the percentage of the US phone market dictated largely by what phones carriers feel like flogging today, and the carriers' distinct dislike for delay: see also Microsoft Kin's horrible death) would be overwhelmingly greater than the financial impact of having to ship without a few bullet points for whatever crap skin you are slapping on top of your Android build, especially if you can turn those back on with an update once the lawyers clear.

It is the Google phone that is blocked (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#40516725)

The Apple attack is directed at Google, as well as Samsung, as a big hit here is more devastating.

Re:What I find curious... (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#40516769)

There's no need to 'flip bits' to re-enable any of these ridiculously simple features. Android lets you replace pretty much any piece of functionality, including lock screens, etc. People can just install the features from the market (or directly as APK files).

What Would Really Be Funny... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 years ago | (#40516729)

You play the patent game as mutually-assured destruction, holding your portfolio against competitors who might be interested in suing you over their patents. So now that Apple has launched the missiles, metaphorically speaking, what would really be funny would be if the resulting patent war would completely shut down the smart phone market for a couple of years. The end result has to be that everyone is enjoined from selling any sort of smart phone until all the dust settles. I don't think it would last that long if that actually happened -- I think the various players would come to their senses if no one was doing any business. But it would be pretty damn funny!

You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous (1, Troll)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about 2 years ago | (#40516765)

Compare Samsung's hardware design for phones and tablets before and after the release of the iPhone and iPad.

http://photos.appleinsider.com/samsungvsapple.081911.jpg [appleinsider.com]

Apple is using the only mechanism available to fight this blatant theft of IP.

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516829)

Yeah but look at Apples tablet before the JooJoo,

http://oldcomputers.net/apple-newton.html

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous (3, Informative)

plaut (42347) | about 2 years ago | (#40516895)

There's no denying that Apple's designs have permeated the industry - but that's not what this injunction is about. It's about the ability of a device to have a uniform interface to search multiple databases (implemented by Siri in iOS and by the Google search bar in Android). *This* function predates iPhones/iOS, should not be the basis of a patent, and is not Apple's "intellectual property".

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous (3, Interesting)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#40517065)

Even though I like Apple products quite a bit, I thought it was BS that they were claiming Samsung's were too similar and that they were confusing consumers...

Until I walked into a Best Buy one day (a friend dragged me in, I swear), went up to what I thought was an iPad display area next to the Apple section, and picked up what I thought was an iPad on display (though something seemed off, which I later realized was the camera located on the other side of the device than it is on an iPad). It became clear a few seconds after I turned it on and didn't see the typical iOS home screen that the device in my hands was not an iPad, but was actually a Galaxy Tab 10.1. I''ve been using Apple products for years, so you'd think I'd recognize their devices, but I was unable to identify that it wasn't an iPad until I had the device in my hands for a few seconds.

After that, my opinion changed, to say the least.

This FP fo8 GNAA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40516851)

thaT" comprise
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...