|
||||||||
Apple has won a preliminary injunction blocking the sale of Samsung's 10.1 tab |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#126 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,916
|
Quote:
Apple failed to convince a U.S. judge to block Samsung Electronics from selling Galaxy smartphones and tablets in the U.S. market, depriving the iPhone and iPad maker of crucial leverage in a global patent battle between the two companies.
http://www.themobilelinks.com/Samsun...-galaxy-sales/ Well done to the judge on making the correct decision on this. *Flips the finger up at Apple* ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#127 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Essex
Posts: 3,901
|
Quote:
How much did that cost you ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#128 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,474
|
Its a sad state of affairs ....
Microsoft used to be 'the bad guys' and Apple 'the loveable underdog' ... Bill Gates ? He has vowed to spend his fortune on eradicating Malaria .... Steve Jobs ? He (allegedly) vowed that he would spend his entire fortune eradicating Android .... sad, eh ..... |
|
|
|
|
|
#129 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
I wonder if this is some of the background to it.
When scrolling on a touch screen, a change of texture or colour indicates that you have reached the end. Samsung seem to have said 'what a load of rubbish' to this patent back in 2010. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/...tent-licensing |
|
|
|
|
|
#130 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 25,199
|
Quote:
Microsoft used to be 'the bad guys' and Apple 'the loveable underdog' ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#131 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 2,935
|
Quote:
Agree well done to that judge. Hopefully other countries will look at this ruling and do the same.
Samsung look quite likely at this stage to be found guilty on infringing some of the rights asserted by Apple in this case at the main proceeding, which is scheduled to take place on July 30 2012. To have won a preliminary injunction Apple would have to had demonstrated that they would be likely to be done irreparable harm by Samsung's devices being on sale, which is specifically what the judge disagreed with. She did however indicate that Apple are indeed asserting valid rights that do appear to have been infringed on. In particular Judge Koh said: "Samsung appears to have created a design that is likely to deceive an ordinary observer" and "Apple has established a likelihood of success on the merits at trial." and she also rejected Verizon and T-Mobile's 'public interest' arguments (which are actually rather self serving arguments): "The Court granted third parties, Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile, administrative motions seeking leave to file amicus curiae briefs. These third parties have voiced concerns regarding the effects of a preliminary injunction on their ability to sell products to customers. While the Court is cognizant of the consequences to third parties of granting preliminary injunctions, no additional weight was placed upon the arguments contained in the briefs of amicus curiae. The amicus briefs focus either on private interests (the interests in being able to sell products) or are duplicative of arguments made by Samsung. If Samsung is infringing upon Apple's patents, it is no more acceptable for third parties to benefit from Samsung’s unlawful actions than it is for Samsung itself to benefit." Samsung can breathe a sigh of relief for the moment, but at this stage the case looks likely to go Apple's way in the summer, which could lead to a permanent injunction and significant damages due to Apple. |
|
|
|
|
|
#132 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
Likelihood =chance.
If chance was zero then it would not be allowed go any further. So if we pull any wool from our eyes it means Apple are now allowed to be a chancer. The fact that Apple arrived with quite a basket of complaints may or may not help. |
|
|
|
|
|
#133 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,916
|
Quote:
It's interesting that you say that, as Judge Koh delivered quite a lot of bad news for Samsung in her ruling, along with the good news (for Samsung) of denying a preliminary injunction.
Samsung look quite likely at this stage to be found guilty on infringing some of the rights asserted by Apple in this case at the main proceeding, which is scheduled to take place on July 30 2012. To have won a preliminary injunction Apple would have to had demonstrated that they would be likely to be done irreparable harm by Samsung's devices being on sale, which is specifically what the judge disagreed with. She did however indicate that Apple are indeed asserting valid rights that do appear to have been infringed on. In particular Judge Koh said: "Samsung appears to have created a design that is likely to deceive an ordinary observer" and "Apple has established a likelihood of success on the merits at trial." and she also rejected Verizon and T-Mobile's 'public interest' arguments (which are actually rather self serving arguments): "The Court granted third parties, Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile, administrative motions seeking leave to file amicus curiae briefs. These third parties have voiced concerns regarding the effects of a preliminary injunction on their ability to sell products to customers. While the Court is cognizant of the consequences to third parties of granting preliminary injunctions, no additional weight was placed upon the arguments contained in the briefs of amicus curiae. The amicus briefs focus either on private interests (the interests in being able to sell products) or are duplicative of arguments made by Samsung. If Samsung is infringing upon Apple's patents, it is no more acceptable for third parties to benefit from Samsung’s unlawful actions than it is for Samsung itself to benefit." Samsung can breathe a sigh of relief for the moment, but at this stage the case looks likely to go Apple's way in the summer, which could lead to a permanent injunction and significant damages due to Apple. Like you say what happens in July will be key. I got a feeling apple will win some, lose some. |
|
|
|
|
|
#134 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Anywhere but here
Posts: 10,736
|
Quote:
Its a sad state of affairs ....
Microsoft used to be 'the bad guys' and Apple 'the loveable underdog' ... Bill Gates ? He has vowed to spend his fortune on eradicating Malaria .... Steve Jobs ? He (allegedly) vowed that he would spend his entire fortune eradicating Android .... sad, eh ..... |
|
|
|
|
|
#135 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,474
|
Quote:
No he didn't vow to spend his fortune he vowed to spend Apples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#136 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 25,199
|
They lost that edge they had, before Android there were not many real choices. One would expect they try to compete and offer the best product. Instead they bully the competition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#137 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Anywhere but here
Posts: 10,736
|
Quote:
cant decide if that makes it better or worse
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#138 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The arse end of no where
Posts: 8,616
|
Apple using holes in patent legislation to wipe out anything that looks like competition to their products. This is why I never buy Apple products
|
|
|
|
|
|
#139 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ammanford, South Wales
Posts: 7,911
|
Yep, me too. Wish I could dump MS too, but it is the O/S of choice at work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#140 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Deathstar
Posts: 15,385
|
Quote:
$499 which equates to about £305 (at the rate at the time), they knocked a few $ off for cash
![]()
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:21.



