Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Android Handhelds Iphone The Courts Apple

Apple Can't Block US Sales of Samsung Devices 213

An anonymous reader snips this good news (for Samsung fans) from Edible Apple "In April of 2011, Apple kicked off what would soon become a global and complex series of litigation disputes when it sued Samsung in the U.S. claiming that its line of Galaxy smartphones and tablets infringed upon Apple's intellectual property and were nothing more than 'slavish' copies. As part of its suit, Apple requested a preliminary injunction that would bar Samsung from selling said products in the U.S. This past Friday, Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Can't Block US Sales of Samsung Devices

Comments Filter:
  • by Bing Tsher E ( 943915 ) on Saturday December 03, 2011 @08:03PM (#38253594) Journal

    Ok, I'll bite on the bait.

    A Samsung fan is just a regular person who doesn't have a deeply compelling brand loyalty. Or at least in the usage in this article summary on Slashdot that is the meaning.

    It means, anybody who isn't a Steve-fan.

  • Re:Good to see. (Score:5, Informative)

    by tysonedwards ( 969693 ) on Saturday December 03, 2011 @08:04PM (#38253614)
    No judgement, but a denial of a preliminary injunction that would presumably prevent Samsung from "further irreparably damaging Apple's Brand, image, copyright and patents".

    Apple's contention within the case is that Samsung is misappropriating Apple's intellectual property, namely patents related to the design of the iPhone devices, user interface designs, icons, images, and methods of operation.

    Samsung's contention is that "there are only so many ways to build a smartphone", and that the elements that Apple is complaining about are either "too broad" or are obvious, and thereby not enforceable.

    The judge in this particular case has decided that Apple had not presented sufficient evidence in pre-trial proceedings that would show that Apple would be irreparably damaged through Samsung continuing to sell the products in question within the United States.
  • Seems fair... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Theaetetus ( 590071 ) <theaetetus,slashdot&gmail,com> on Saturday December 03, 2011 @08:12PM (#38253666) Homepage Journal
    Preliminary injunctions are valid where irreparable harm will ensue if they're not issued, and injunctions generally are issued where monetary damages would be inadequate relief. But that's very rare.

    This is similar to the recent reversal of the Apple-Samsung injunction in Australia - there, the court said that an injunction was unwarranted, but that Samsung would have to keep detailed records of every penny earned on the products, because they could be on the hook for all of them. Same thing here - if the patents are found valid and Samsung is found to have infringed, they'll owe damages to Apple... but there's no reason to preemptively make those damages $0 by stopping the sale of the product.

  • Re:Good to see. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Runaway1956 ( 1322357 ) on Saturday December 03, 2011 @08:52PM (#38253892) Homepage Journal

    Maybe you didn't read all of the article either. The judge felt that Apple's patent was invalid. Meaning, the judge didn't "agree with Apple on almost all points, except the one . . . "

    Nice spin though.

  • Re:Good to see. (Score:5, Informative)

    by ozmanjusri ( 601766 ) <aussie_bob@hotmail . c om> on Saturday December 03, 2011 @09:20PM (#38254044) Journal

    The judge actually agree with Apple on almost all points, except the one that they would suffer irreparable harm.

    Not really true.

    To quote TFA;

    "Nevertheless, Samsung raised questions of validity regarding Apple’s D’899 patent and Apple did not establish that it would likely to succeed at trial."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03, 2011 @09:44PM (#38254148)

    Shape that isn't rectangular and cluttered appearance :-D Brillant!!!!

    Stupid you. Google for "sony tablet" or for "toshiba tablet" and you will find two nice tablet designs that are rectangular and look nothing like an iPad. If Sony and Toshiba can do it, then surely Samsung can do it.

    Actually, the iPad also doesn't look all that much like whatApple filed in its design patent paperwork either.

    But, anyway, many of the Toshiba tablets look similar to the iPad (because they iPad has a very generic design)

    http://www.reviewphones.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/toshiba-thrive-tablet-vs-ipad-21.jpg

    And here is one from Sony:

    http://www.gayakuman.com/uploads/2010/02/sony-tablet.jpg

  • by Missing.Matter ( 1845576 ) on Saturday December 03, 2011 @09:59PM (#38254232)

    You know that "fan" comes from "fanatic", yes?

    Actually according to Wikipedia it could come from the word fancy: "Paul Dickson, in his Dickson Baseball Dictionary, cites William Henry Nugent's work that claims it comes from fancy, a 19th century term from England that referred mainly to followers of boxing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_(person) [wikipedia.org]

    I'm a steelers fan, but I certainly wouldn't get into any arguments or flamewars about them. Does that mean I'm also a Steelers fanatic?

  • by icebraining ( 1313345 ) on Saturday December 03, 2011 @10:20PM (#38254338) Homepage

    Her husband was born in Mexico and lives in the US since childhood, and she was raised in Mississippi and Oklahoma. And her mother is from North Korea, only the father is from South.

  • Re:Good to see. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03, 2011 @11:03PM (#38254582)

    Interestingly, the judge who originally granted an injunction is white.

    (above is just to point out how irrelevant OP's comment is)

  • Re:Obvious to whom? (Score:4, Informative)

    by ninetyninebottles ( 2174630 ) on Sunday December 04, 2011 @02:28AM (#38255384)

    Next, the Court considers whether Samsung’s products, in the eyes of an ordinary observer, would likely be deemed substantially the same as Apple’s iPhone. To this end, the Court finds that an ordinary observer would, in fact, find the Samsung Galaxy S 4G to be substantially the same as the iPhone.

    But I thought the criterion was obviousness to one skilled in the art?

    You're confusing the obviousness clause for granting utility patents with the consumer discernment criteria for design patents. To be granted a utility patent it cannot be obvious to a normal person skilled in the relevant art. To be granted a design patent you have to have a combination of appearance features distinct to your product which, if copied significantly, could confuse a normal consumer about which product was which.

  • by jo_ham ( 604554 ) <joham999@noSpaM.gmail.com> on Sunday December 04, 2011 @05:42AM (#38255896)

    "Firewire" (an IEE standard, like many common interfaces), "Airport" (Apple's name for it's totally standard implementation of 802.11a/b/g/n), and "no USB" (err, on what? All of Apple's devices support USB....) as "weird Apple standards"....

    I'm not really sure what you're driving at here, but the only way you could be more wrong is if you said Hydrogen was the least common element in the universe.

    Anyway, ignoring all your totally ignorant "truthiness" about that, there's plenty of customisation and choice. I take it you've never actually *used* an Apple product before, to actually test this out for yourself? You're just repeating the talking points and wishing really hard that it's true.

    If we're throwing around generalisations... have you ever met a Linux user who doesn't live in their mom's basement? I mean, all they do is troll Apple stories and crow about how everyone else are just "sheeple" because they don;t compile their own OS from scratch every weekend.

The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.

Working...