Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Patents The Courts Apple

Samsung Appeals Apple's Injunction Against Galaxy Nexus 217

Posted by samzenpus
from the the-circle-is-complete dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Appeals Apple's Injunction Against Galaxy Nexus

Comments Filter:
  • by AmiMoJo (196126) <{ten.3dlrow} {ta} {ojom}> on Monday July 02, 2012 @07:07AM (#40516127) Homepage

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

    • Re:Injunction (Score:5, Informative)

      by SomePgmr (2021234) on Monday July 02, 2012 @07:50AM (#40516347) Homepage
      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.
      • by SomePgmr (2021234)
        Figures, I'd read this earlier so I skipped the /. summary (where the bond is mentioned) for the comments. My mistake!
      • Re:Injunction (Score:5, Insightful)

        by v1 (525388) on Monday July 02, 2012 @08:14AM (#40516517) Homepage Journal

        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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by poetmatt (793785) on Monday July 02, 2012 @08:35AM (#40516649) Journal

        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.

        • by alen (225700)

          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 (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Quila (201335) on Monday July 02, 2012 @09:11AM (#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.

          • by SomePgmr (2021234)

            I don't know how they figure the financial harm, but I do hope it includes legal fees and some workable formula for intangible damages (beyond lost sales over the previous month).

            Being nobody important, I can only shudder at the thought of a company like Apple having your widget spuriously pulled from market for even a month. I imagine the damages would exceed the number of units you sold in a prior month.

        • 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.

        • That would certainly stop these bogus lawsuits.

          Yeah, because the adversarial court system, jurisprudence, the rule of law and legitimate decisions of the Court just isn't enough for the discriminating slashdotter.

      • by Shagg (99693)

        Isn't a judge supposed to decide if it's bogus before the injunction is granted?

  • I like this (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02, 2012 @07:14AM (#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".

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Monday July 02, 2012 @07:14AM (#40516171) Homepage

    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.

    • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Monday July 02, 2012 @07:24AM (#40516207) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        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.

      • it'll only ring alarm bells when the damn pols quit making money from it or people get so disgusted they start shooting them. Once that happens the damn pols are screwed because their corporate overlords sure as hell wont protect them.

    • 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 liste [thisamericanlife.org]

      • by msauve (701917)
        "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.
        • 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.

          • by msauve (701917)
            So now you saying that judges _should_ be educated. Please try to be consistent.
            • Judges need to know how the law works, not be pre-biased on the case.

              I mean, this is pretty simple stuff.

              • by msauve (701917)
                How does knowledge of the subject at hand "pre-bias" a case? For "simple stuff," you're adding a lot of complexity.
                • Judges need to understand the law and it's the litigators who are responsible for educating the judges and juries on cases is simple.

                  • by msauve (701917)
                    You have a rather naive view of the law. Judges have to decide matters of both law and fact. You're saying that they should be knowledgeable about matters of law, but not about matters of fact. You're saying that judges should depend on attorneys informing them about matters of fact.

                    Nonsense. Why can't the litigators be responsible for educating them about both law and fact? Conversely, why should they not be educated on matters of both law and fact?

                    Attorneys do, in fact, brief the court about matters of
        • by squiggleslash (241428) on Monday July 02, 2012 @08:14AM (#40516507) Homepage Journal

          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...

        • by heckler95 (1140369) on Monday July 02, 2012 @08:55AM (#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"?
          • The defense lawyer's job is to point out that they aren't.

            They're more like the license plates on rental cars or seat numbers at the theatre.

            • Both analogies (rental car license plates, theater seats) are great and fit the situation very well... 2 of the best I've heard.

              My point is that the case should be focused on determining whether or not there is sufficient evidence that the defendant violated the law, and most cases against a John Doe based solely on an IP address should be dismissed immediately based on that criterion. It shouldn't hinge on which side's lesson in network infrastructure resonates better with a technology-ignorant judge.
            • by Shagg (99693)

              John Doe has a defense lawyer?

      • 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.

        If judges are not sufficiently educated how are they going to be able to discriminate the facts from the bullshit the attorneys are spouting?

    • 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.

    • Lucy Koh (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Kupfernigk (1190345)
      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 cas

      • by Kartu (1490911)
        She's a former patent lawyer: From 2002 until 2008, Koh worked as a litigation partner at the Silicon Valley office of the law firm McDermott Will & Emery representing technology companies in patent, trade secret and commercial civil matters.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_H._Koh [wikipedia.org]
    • 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.

      • by Shagg (99693)

        In that case...

        No matter who gets elected into congress, they are always outnumbered 100 to 0 by the bought and paid for senators.

    • 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!"

    • by Quila (201335) on Monday July 02, 2012 @09:31AM (#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?

      • by Shagg (99693)

        If you've seen Samsung phones and tablets before and after the iPhone and iPad, this is pretty obvious

        If you think Samsung copied the iPad, then just about every current tablet on the market must have copied it too.

        • by Quila (201335)

          If you think Samsung copied the iPad, then just about every current tablet on the market must have copied it too.

          Samsung goes much further, which is probably why they attracted Apple's ire. As I said, packaging and even the AC adapter changed to copy Apple. Their little stores copied the layout and design of Apple stores. They even screwed up and put Apple App Store icons on the walls of their stores where they advertised apps available for their Android products. Their connection port even looks almost exa

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

      Your entire comment underlines major flaws in your reasoning.

      1) you list two "flaws" ... two is more than one... that is, plural... thus not "a major flaw"

      2) the second flaw you list has nothing to do with the court system

      3) with no credentials, you assume that you know better, know more about the law, than the judges and lawyers that graduated with advanced degrees and have real world experience working with the law, and advanced professionally to the positions they now hold.

      4) with no credentials,

  • 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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Monday July 02, 2012 @07:36AM (#40516257) Homepage Journal

      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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by SternisheFan (2529412) on Monday July 02, 2012 @07:55AM (#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]
        • "poking a picture" (see the pre-computer definition of "icon" or "glyph")
          "autocomple text" (see any idiot that has ever cut you off mid-sentence bark out what he thinks you are going to say)
          "using a slide-bolt latch" (found at any hardware store since the invention of same, an any wood-worker for before that)
          "searching multiple things like in gopher" (see things like gopher)

          All of these things are unspeakably innovative for their age (their age being "bronze", except for gopher, which was "computer relative

      • Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Interesting)

        by serviscope_minor (664417) on Monday July 02, 2012 @08:19AM (#40516539) Journal

        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 (Score:4, Insightful)

          by oztiks (921504) on Monday July 02, 2012 @09:46AM (#40517101)

          Oh yes, the misuse of the English language yet again.

          Invent implies they had something to do with the r&d into the development of touch screens. They "integrated" touch screens into a product which they received after acquiring fingerworks.

          For yor reference see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch [wikipedia.org]

        • June 19, 2012
          Apple Wins Patent for Mobile Device Aided Navigation
          Apple Wins Patent for Methods & GUI's for Conducting Searches on iOS Devices

          http://www.patentlyapple.com/

        • by txsable (169665)

          Actually, that illustration you have for "Apple were [sic] first" is not an apple device at all, but a Compaq IPAQ [wikipedia.org], originally released by Compaq in 2000. it's nominally a predecessor of the Touchpad, along with Palm. Perhaps you were trying to reference the Apple Newton [wikipedia.org], which first released in 1993? However, if you are looking for the first touchscreen telephony device that would be the IBM Simon Personal Communicator [wikipedia.org], of which the initial prototype was demo'd at COMDEX in 1992.

          So...no, Apple was not t

        • Funny part is... (Score:4, Informative)

          by IBitOBear (410965) on Monday July 02, 2012 @03:28PM (#40520887) Homepage Journal

          Samsung -makes- the multi-touch screens for Apple. That is, Apple never went to Samsung with plans for the screen and said "make this please".

          Apple is just yelling "how dare you" while whispering the "use the stuff you make to make a phone, like you do, after we claimed to invent the stuff you make that was invented by someone totally else like twenty years ago".

    • Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02, 2012 @07:58AM (#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.

    • 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.

      When I was working for a well known big tech company, their legal department advised us not to look at patents and just to blindly implement away. This advice is based on several premises:
      1. There are so many patents, looking through them and figuring out which might be infringing is extremely expensive (if all the engineers do it, the company would be spending way more on looking for patents than they would actually end up paying out on the odd occasion that a court decided they were infringing).
      2. If the

  • by ebonum (830686) on Monday July 02, 2012 @08:03AM (#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.

    • by Nerdfest (867930)

      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.

    • 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 w

  • 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.
    • by plaut (42347)

      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.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday July 02, 2012 @08:31AM (#40516621) Journal
    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.
    • The Apple attack is directed at Google, as well as Samsung, as a big hit here is more devastating.
    • by Nerdfest (867930)

      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).

    • by CompMD (522020)

      "I have to wonder why Samsung doesn't flip the disable bit on the features Apple is suing about"

      Samsung didn't write any of the features Apple is suing over. The Galaxy Nexus is running AOSP Android 4.0. Outside of the modem, there is *zero* Samsung code running on the device. They're suing Samsung over something they don't like that Google wrote.

    • Because Apple don't care about any particular patent or feature. They've demonstrated it clearly, many times. They care about destroying Samsung and others, period, end of story. The Galaxy S3 does in fact, work around many of the more stupid Apple patents. Their lawyers simply come back again and again with either (a) new bogus patents or (b) stupid arguments that the workaround doesn't apply like the "a tap is a zero length slide" garbage. They aren't going to stop, ever, unless they are forced to.
  • 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 tha
  • Google just announced that they will be teaming up with Samsung to fight this patent case. http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-were-working-on-an-apple-attack-with-google-02236690/ [slashgear.com] Now we've got a fight!

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie

Working...