Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Handhelds Patents Android The Courts Apple

Apple Wins EU Ban of Smaller Samsung Tablet, Demands $2.5 Billion In Damages 377

Posted by Soulskill
from the go-big-or-go-home dept.
walterbyrd writes with news that Apple has won a preliminary injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 across the European Union, thanks to a decision in a German regional court today. At the same time, the court re-affirmed the denial of an injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1N, a version of Samsung's 10.1" tablet that was modified to avoid infringing upon the same patents Apple had asserted earlier. The two companies are still fighting on the other side of the Atlantic as well. In a filing today in a San Diego, California court, Apple is claiming $2.5 billion in damages. "Samsung's infringing sales have enabled Samsung to overtake Apple as the largest manufacturer of smartphones in the world. Samsung has reaped billions of dollars in profits and caused Apple to lose hundreds of millions of dollars through its violation of Apple's intellectual property." Samsung, of course, thinks it should owe much less — $0.0049 per unit per patent — if anything.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Wins EU Ban of Smaller Samsung Tablet, Demands $2.5 Billion In Damages

Comments Filter:
  • Why foss patents? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @01:38PM (#40752459)

    The story links almost entirely to FOSS Patents, which is the Microsoft-paid Florian Schillers website. Did no one else report this story ?

    • by RanCossack (1138431) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @01:43PM (#40752551)

      The story links almost entirely to FOSS Patents, which is the Microsoft-paid Florian Schillers website. Did no one else report this story ?

      Seriously. This is *slashdot*. We should know better.

    • Re:Why foss patents? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Baloroth (2370816) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @01:49PM (#40752663)
      Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] did as well, but it isn't terribly in-depth.
    • by kervin (64171) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @04:17PM (#40755185) Homepage

      Because Florian is one of the best and most prolific law bloggers on the web today. I read his site just about every day and I haven't seen a pro Microsoft slant as yet.

      • Re:Why foss patents? (Score:5, Informative)

        by CowTipperGore (1081903) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @04:35PM (#40755489)

        Because Florian is one of the best and most prolific law bloggers on the web today.

        Florian is not a lawyer, not a patent expert, and not a good law blogger. He is a paid shill and prolific blogger. I avoid his site these days but I've read a lot of his stuff over the past few years and it is generally trash. During the Google v. Oracle case, he routinely misrepresented what was said by the judge, the attorneys, and the witnesses. His analysis was obviously shoddy to anyone not relying on FOSSpatents for 100% of their reporting. His predictions did not pan out. He is a shill paid by Microsoft and Oracle. He is an enemy of FOSS and a proponent of software patent abuse, exactly counter to what he claims. His background is in software marketing, not legal, and it shows.

        Anyone quoting him or linking to his blog is demonstrating their ignorance of who he is and what he represents.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by kervin (64171)

          Anyone quoting him or linking to his blog is demonstrating their ignorance of who he is and what he represents.

          That or maybe they simply disagree with you on the subject of his bias.

          Not everyone that disagrees with you is dishonest or bought and paid for.

          Some opinions I agree with, some I don't. I just factor those as someone elses opinion. Who knows, I could be wrong. It's known to happen.

          • by CowTipperGore (1081903) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @10:05PM (#40759807)

            Not everyone that disagrees with you is dishonest or bought and paid for.

            Absolutely, but Florian is. I'm sorry if you are somehow completely unaware of Florian's status as a paid shill who is terrible at his supposed job. That doesn't mean everything he says is wrong, but his well-funded bias makes him a worthless source of actual information. It is public information that he is paid by Microsoft and Oracle. It is relatively simple to read his blog for any amount of time and see that his opinions driving his analysis do not square with his claimed support of FOSS and opposition to software patents. You can review his history and see that he moved from marketing and PR to a well-placed position as an analyst and blogger in the software patent world.

  • I always wondered (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zero.kalvin (1231372) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @01:39PM (#40752469)
    How high these people have to be to demande few billions in damages ? Remember Oracle and Google ?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I think that the number is based on the profit Samsung made from these devices, Apple's alleged "losses" due to these products, and some punitive amount added in for good measure.

      Just goes to show how much is at stake.

  • Hey Apple (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nyder (754090) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @01:40PM (#40752493) Journal

    Fuck Off

    Love

    Samsung

  • by cyberspittle (519754) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @01:41PM (#40752509) Homepage
    When Microsoft had a majority in the PC market they behaved just as badly. With Apple have their lead in tablets, looks like they are now the new Microsoft.
    • by 0123456 (636235) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @01:47PM (#40752635)

      I don't remember Microsoft ever being quite as evil as Apple now are.

      • by geek (5680)

        Microsoft couldnt be that evil. It didn't control the hardware. Apple owns the whole ball of wax and can swing it any way they wish. Microsoft had to do most of its evil behind the scenes via contracts and licensing. Apple can just come right and bend you over some judges desk and stick the gavel up your ass.

        • by cyberspittle (519754) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @02:00PM (#40752855) Homepage
          I think that you are mistaken, or perhaps young. Microsoft had restrictive licensing agreements that stated you could not install other operating systems if you used MS-DOS / Windows preinstalled. This essentially killed IBMs OS/2. At the same time, other DOS vendors were pushed out. Some were even a multi-tasking version of DOS. I guess that is all history now. The main reason to the rise of Linux is that it was free. How can you compete with free? No one would want to pay extra for an operating system, such as IBM OS/2, when the computer was already installed with Microsoft MS-DOS/Windows or latter Windows 95. Consider yourself schooled.
      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        .
        hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha

        Good one.
        Wait, you were serious?

      • Then you clearly haven't made any effort at looking up Microsoft's history.

        The only difference between Microsoft and Apple is that Apple is taking it's battles head on. Microsoft prefered to do things like illegal distribution contracts (eg: if you sell a competitors products, you can't sell ours), subverting standards bodies (eg: the OOXML fiasco), etc.

        • by Pieroxy (222434)

          You forgot blatantly stealing a competitor product and releasing as their own whanging just the name, not even recompiling it ! That, and on many occasions!

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @02:03PM (#40752925)

        I don't remember Microsoft ever being quite as evil as Apple now are.

        Loathe as I am to admit to a greater evil than Microsoft in the computing world, I must agree. Microsoft's major thing was making proprietary solutions we already had other solutions for and strong-arming everyone else out of a market via manipulation of their OS monopoly. In hindsight and in the light of Apple, there was a subtlety to Microsoft's tactics, still allowing even the illusion of competition (and some cases where they failed in their tactics and were forced to compete). You could almost be convinced that Microsoft wasn't just bludgeoning everyone else into submission by coasting in on a substandard, nonstandard OS that everyone used at the time. Almost.

        Apple, on the other hand, straight-up refuses to compete. At all. A threat in one of their markets? Sue them out of existence. A better product shows up outside of their precious pre-ordained release/marketing schedule and threatens their bottom lines? Sue them out of existence. Someone else beats them to the punch on a technology? Get really, really bitter and sue them out of existence with obscure, obvious patents. Microsoft didn't go straight to the courts when they were threatened. Sure, they came back with either substandard or trivially improved products inextricably linked to their OS, or they bought the company out and absorbed the products, but they only went to the courts when there was actually a case to be made. Apple's very clearly on a slash-and-burn strategy, hell-bent on destroying the entire industry if they have to just to avoid any competition.

        I tried a MacBook once a few years back (before Apple went apeshit). I thought it was cute, but didn't see the whole obsession angle, and my next laptop was a ThinkPad. Now I'm glad I made that choice. Shame I'll never be able to sell the MacBook, owing to Apple's not only planned, but FORCED obsolescence...

        I read once before that there was a time when IBM was the Evil Empire(tm). It was then mentioned, by someone who was there for both, that in light of Microsoft, the old-timers never knew how good they had it with IBM in charge. I guess history's repeated itself once again.

        • by Dog-Cow (21281)

          Forced obsolescence? I own a Macbook that I bought in 2005. Only now, with the upcoming release of Mountain Lion, will it be unsupported. That's a hell of a lot longer than most companies support their hardware. Try installing Windows 8 on a 2005 Thinkpad. Let me know how well it works for you.

    • by kthreadd (1558445)

      Apple is far away from having a majority.
      It just happens that they make all the money.

  • Question to Apple (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @01:44PM (#40752577)

    Of all those people that bought the Galaxy Tab would had bought the iPad if the Galaxy Tab didn't have round corners? Hmm.. All of them? Your damage claim is bull shit. Stop looking at the Movie and Music industry for business tactics. You are being insane!

  • by spikestabber (644578) <spike@[ ]kes.net ['spy' in gap]> on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @01:44PM (#40752581) Homepage
    Samsung just needs to stop making A5 cpu's in Texas and cut a ton of American jobs, see how quick will get the government's attention on this whole patent mess.
  • If Samsung got their way, they'd pay very little in damages.

    • Rounded to the nearest cent, it's $0.00 per unit. Maybe they're hoping to write Apple a check for zero dollars and zero cents.
  • by MrDoh! (71235)
    Well, that's further confirmation that Apple's about to release a 7" tab. Sue everyone else for a design you don't even have a product for yet. Interesting they've gone after the 7.7 and not the old first Tab perhaps (maybe just what's being sold still I guess). 7.7 + Jellybean is probably going to compete very favourably with whatever Apple brings out at that size too. I just hope that when it IS released, the media holds up existing tablets and says 'Apple's done a great job of copying other 7" tablet
  • by hawguy (1600213) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @01:58PM (#40752821)

    I thought the Galaxy Tab 10 and 7.7 were tablets, but Apple was quoted saying:

    "Samsung's infringing sales have enabled Samsung to overtake Apple as the largest manufacturer of smartphones in the world. Samsung has reaped billions of dollars in profits and caused Apple to lose hundreds of millions of dollars through its violation of Apple's intellectual property."

    Why does Samsung's status as a smartphone manufacturer have anything to do with tablets?

    And why is Apple suing for $2.5B in damages when by their own admission, they lost only "hundreds of millions of dollars"?

    • by MrDoh! (71235)
      Projected sales perhaps? And it's interesting that they went after the 7.7, as that IS the one usually with the cellular connection (there's a wifi model as well, but I think Apple's intent was to aim for the 3G version). And as I think we can see the market direction, the difference between smartphones/tablets is shrinking to be smartdevices that use wifi/3g/led blinking/chirping to communicate around them, so Apple's thinking 'lets get this war won now by claiming any device, rather than having to fight
    • And why is Apple suing for $2.5B in damages when by their own admission, they lost only "hundreds of millions of dollars"?

      Lawyers... they use fuzzy math.

    • The culprit is the thrown-together submission/summary of multiple stories. Two different cases have been joined to stimulate a healthy landscape for the usual troll and counter-troll comments. The injunction on the tablets is in the EU and the damages refer to the ongoing US case, which I believe relates to a wider range of Samsung products.
  • by sandytaru (1158959) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @01:59PM (#40752833) Journal
    I don't use Samsung products because they borrowed Apple's intellectual property without permission. I use Samsung products because they are not Apple iOS products. If it wasn't Apple, it'd be HTC, LG, or any other provider of Android based hardware. Your suing Samsung into oblivion and killing market choice is not going to endear me to your products in the future. Frankly, I'd rather just do without. No one needs a tablet.
    • Sadly, 99% of consumers don't give a damn about this issue, and just buys iPads because they're shinier and easier to use.

  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @02:00PM (#40752851)

    Looks like Apple has a new business model.

  • by kawabago (551139) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @02:07PM (#40752981)
    Samsung could have used a circle, a pentagram or even a doughnut. There was no reason to copy Apple's proprietary rectangular design. Samsung needs to do their own research to find the best shape for their product and stop stealing Apple's.
  • In the Apple vs Samsung patent war, it seems like almost every Apple initiated suit results in a win or injunction, but a Samsung initiated suit usually results in a loss followed by a judge that questions why a suit like it should even be brought up. The main outcome is stifling innovation and reducing competition for end consumer.
    • by MrDoh! (71235)
      Does seem that way doesn't it?
    • You know, if it was just a one off that's one thing. But if Apple is *consistently* winning against Samsung across different countries around the world.... they maybe... just MAYBE.... there's more to this than just some box with rounded corners.

      Not that I don't agree that it just stifles innovation and competition, I'm just saying that maybe Samsung really did get caught with it's hand in the cookie jar.

  • These people add a whole new scale of meaning to the phrase ex recto.
  • On one hand you have evil out in the open with visible court cases (Apple) on the other hand you have back door patent threats which make more money through settlement than their own Windows Phone OS (MS). Evil is equal on both ends, but one is more devious and MS is far more successful is their scam. But hey Apple gets more press for their bad deeds so they must be worse.

UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch). -- Andy Tannenbaum

Working...