Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Cellphones Handhelds IOS Patents The Courts Apple

Apple Seeks To Block 8 Samsung Products After Court Win 396

Posted by timothy
from the rent-seeking-isn't-the-free-market dept.
angry tapir writes "Apple has asked a U.S. court to block sales of eight Samsung Electronics products, following the iPhone maker's victory in a patent lawsuit against Samsung. In a filing to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple asked for preliminary injunctions against seven smartphones carrying its Galaxy brand, plus the Droid Charge. It based the requests on a jury's ruling on Friday that Samsung had infringed several Apple patents. Apple said it wants the preliminary injunction pending a final injunction."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Seeks To Block 8 Samsung Products After Court Win

Comments Filter:
  • by div_2n (525075) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:02AM (#41147413)

    I used to recommend people to buy their computers. I actually specifically tell people "just about anything but Apple" now.

    Congratulations Apple. You might have won this battle (for now, appeal pending) but I assure you that you've lost the war.

  • by Tastecicles (1153671) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:02AM (#41147417)

    So Samsung "copied" Apple's use of corners and low profile SMCs to create thinner devices? You know what? I'll still buy Samsung over Apple even if they were the same price, and you want to know why?

    It's because no company that resorts to litigating its competition out of existence because it can't offer something as good, if not better, for the same money, *deserves* my money. End of.

    To anyone that says I'm jumping on the pro-Samsung bandwagon just because they're the little guy in all this: fuck off.

  • The problem is that whatever you might think of, someone has already a patent on it or a patent that's broad enough to cover what you do. Not because they ever thought of using the phone like you, but because they sought to cover as broad base as possible with their patent.

    If Apple had been held to your standards they would never have gotten into the mobile industry at all since its impossible to build a mobile phone without infringing on thousands of patents on hardware alone from thousands of different companies and private inventors. If a fucking bounce effect costs billions to use, how fucking much do you think a fucking complete mobile phone would cost? Its not like Apple waddled into a vacuum and suddenly made a phone nobody had ever done before with never unheard of components.

  • by Tastecicles (1153671) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:10AM (#41147461)

    except the Samsung phones aren't running iOS.

    Would you like to play again?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:12AM (#41147479)

    The problem is a F'd Up IP system that makes all this possible, and quite possibly the most prudent way to do business. Take these litigation tools away and businesses will go back to needing real innovation rather than punting all competitors with some lame "Button displayed in center of screen" or "Electronics in a plastic enclosure" patent. Patents were supposed to protect the little guy, but how do you even break into a market where every aspect of doing anything is owned by someone?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:13AM (#41147499)

    Let's remove the older, slower phones from the market so you'll have to compete only against the SIII, which people say beats the iPhone hands down.

    Smart move Apple.

  • by Tastecicles (1153671) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:16AM (#41147527)

    I understand where you're coming from, really I do. What I'm objecting to is a company that sells for $600, something that is functionally and visually similar to a device that another company sells for $100 - made out of the same component parts, even! - and has a hissy fit when they can't figure out why their market's being eaten away.

  • by arcite (661011) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:25AM (#41147635)
    Most Apple buyers don't need advice, they already know they want an Apple.
  • by openfrog (897716) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:29AM (#41147693)

    Apple does not realize the ill-will it is creating with this. It may think this will be limited to a few slash-dotters whining on a forum. The usual stuff. But this is not usual.

    I often read on Slashdot that Bill Gates at Microsoft was a good businessman. I don't believe so. Microsoft awful practices have earned it a reputation that has led to its current decline. Apple, as the David against Goliath, use to have a lot of sympathy as a result. But its reputation was also earned on the basis of a preoccupation for the product and for the user experience that was lacking at Microsoft. We believed that Apple was on our side.

    If you take Apple as superseding Microsoft on the basis of a better understanding of users' interests, you can then see Google as going further on that account, and greatly benefiting from the confidence they earn as a result. The understanding of the user's interests is much clearer in Google's case, and more sustained (despite all attacks on this account by its enemies) than it ever was in the case of Apple, despite the great show they made of it, 1984 and all.

    It may take time, but Apple will pay dearly for what they are doing. They are trashing their name, and their reputation. What a shame.

  • by Dinghy (2233934) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:30AM (#41147705)

    ...since when did everyone's purchasing habits depend on you?

    When people want to buy something (short of an impulse buy), they research it. During their research [wikipedia.org] they will ask the opinions of people they respect and feel are knowledgeable on the subject. I'm sorry if your friends and family don't consider you an expert (or consider you too much of a jerk to approach) but there's a rather significant number of people on Slashdot who routinely get asked for computer/electronics purchase advise.

  • by Missing.Matter (1845576) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:31AM (#41147721)

    Its not like Apple waddled into a vacuum and suddenly made a phone nobody had ever done before with never unheard of components.

    This is what always kills me about those "Before iPhone, after iPhone" and "Before iPad, after iPad" images Apple fans constantly post. They completely miss the fact that Samsung had phone before iPhone and Samsung had tablets before iPad. Apple gets defensive about broad patents on trade dress, but completely neglect the fact that the iPhone has a speaker on the top, which is not so loud as to conform to the sensitivities of the human ear; a mic on the bottom, which is sensitive enough to pic up the human voice; is shaped to fit the human hand and the human head; contains radio technology which enables voice conversations between people across the planet, at the speed of light; relies on networking technology developed by other companies to enable as such.... all the myriad technologies that enable the iPhone to even exist, were in place before the iPhone, and were invented by many of the same companies Apple is so keen to sue for frivolities like scroll bounce.

    These "Before iPhone, after iPhone" images are a direct consequence of the touch screen becoming the primary input device, just as the fact that the iPhone has a speaker on top and a mic on the bottom is a direct consequence of mouth/ear placement on the human head.

  • by noh8rz8 (2716593) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:32AM (#41147747)

    umm, no... you're right, to build a phone you need patents for 3g, etc. these are standards essential. you can buy them on frand terms. but design patents are just one way of doing things.

    if the rubber band bounceback is patented, then figure out a different visual cue. i've seen some nice ones elsewhere. if slide to unlock is patented, then figure out a different way. circle to unlock? spin a wheel? there are infinite varieties.

    the OP's point still stands... if you use a little creativity it's no problem to skirt these patents. and it will make for a more vibrant marketplace.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:34AM (#41147781)

    Android normally doesn't use a bounce effect during scrolling, it uses a glow effect. Pretty much all of the claims only apply to Samsung's modifications to the base Android system (what they call "TouchWiz"), which is why you don't see, e.g., the Galaxy Nexus named in this injunction.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:37AM (#41147819)

    That would be because Microsoft screwed Apple over on the GUI front back in the 80s and 90s and because of that combined with mismanagement after Jobs was fired, Apple almost ended up dying. And Steve Jobs learned the lesson "if you let someone else steal your own technology they might just beat you to death with it" so well that he vowed he'd never let it happen again.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:41AM (#41147879)

    Your limited knowledge means nothing.
    Search for Lindt vs Hauswirth for an example of a chocolate company suing another.
    You can easily find more examples.

  • by kryliss (72493) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:52AM (#41148029)

    Sardine cans have had this design for decades with a pull to unlock feature included.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @09:57AM (#41148119)

    Which addresses the issue with Samsung. Apple warned them they were infringing and they ignored it at the direction of their management, hence the willfull finding.

    Samsung blatantly copies Apple as directed by upper management, was found guilty in a court of law, and somehow they are the victim?

    Many on here can't seem to separate open source from IP. You aren't entitled to someone else's work. Android avoided this but Samsung didn't.

    Spend your tears on someone who did the work and deserves it.

  • by squiggleslash (241428) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @10:02AM (#41148201) Homepage Journal

    Only one of these two companies is trying to prevent you from owning the other's products.

    View of Samsung? Neutral to positive. They employ people, build good stuff, and don't appear to have significant negatives.

    View of Apple? Negative. While they also employ people and build "good" stuff (I don't like iPhones myself, but others do and should have the right to be able to buy them), they do use lawsuits to attack my choices at the end of the day, and prevent others from being employed, and others from building good stuff I actually want.

    Fuck Apple.

  • by squiggleslash (241428) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @10:10AM (#41148331) Homepage Journal

    This is a Droid Charge:

    http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/02/droid-charge-review/ [engadget.com]

    Now, perhaps you should rewrite your comment changing who, exactly, is "purposely trying to muddle the differences between (the products of Apple and Samsung)"! You might also want to look at the court evidence that Apple submitted, such as the infamous "pre" and "post" iPhone images - that looked absurd when Samsung produced its own version with a much wider, less edited, range of phones on show.

  • by jedidiah (1196) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @10:41AM (#41148849) Homepage

    Apple is a bit more evil than Samsung.

    It's like you're watching the cold war as a spectator in a 3rd country and suddenly one of them decides to start World War III. It makes a differences who that perpetrator is.

    Your attempt to ignore the relevant moral difference there is not convincing.

    It does matter who lobbed the first nuke. That party is responsible for the everything that happens after that.

    Patents used to be a game of mutual assured destruction except Apple was actually stupid enough to flip the switch.

  • by Karlt1 (231423) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @11:37AM (#41149781)

    "I often read on Slashdot that Bill Gates at Microsoft was a good businessman. I don't believe so. Microsoft awful practices have earned it a reputation that has led to its current decline."

    You really think that MS's reputation led to it's "decline"?

    1. Microsoft is more profitable than it was during the trial

    2. Windows is still on 90% + of the world's computers

    3. Office still has the largest share of the productivity market by a wide margin,

    Microsoft didn't "decline" it just didn't rise as fast as Apple.

    MS just hasn't succeeded in anything lately -- search, phones, tablets, etc. because of shoddy execution -- not because of it's "reputation".

    "If you take Apple as superseding Microsoft on the basis of a better understanding of users' interests, you can then see Google as going further on that account, and greatly benefiting from the confidence they earn as a result. The understanding of the user's interests is much clearer in Google's case"

    Google hasn't "succeeded" at anything besides being an advertising company. As far as profitability, Android (especially with the money-losing $10B + MMI acquisition) has been a net loss for Google. Even now, according to Google 66% of all mobile revenue comes from iOS.

  • by pseudofrog (570061) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @12:12PM (#41150357)
    Again, a bounce effect. It's a bounce effect. It's a meaningless bit of visual flair that should not be patentable. The fact that you can be sued and lose based on something so trivial is the problem.

    Oh wait, it's a bounce effect on a touchscreen device. I guess this should change things?
  • by Missing.Matter (1845576) on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @01:06PM (#41151289)

    Are you saying it is impossible to build a phone without pinch-to-zoom or scroll bounce-back?

    No, I'm saying pinch-zoom and scroll bounce back are both obvious and natural ways to interact with devices and should not be patentable. Akin to click-drag, pinch zoom is one of the most natural gestures for zoom, and in fact has plenty of prior art [billbuxton.com], the earliest pre-dating the iPhone by over 20 years. Aside from Samsung's own expert testimony on coll bounce prior art, it is also natural and obvious, as any spring loaded mechanism contains the exact same feedback the iPhone's emulates on the screen. Same goes for slide to unlock.

    But the jury didn't even consider the patents validity in their decisions. They went so far as to say such matters bogged down the process, and proceeded diligently as if the patents were valid, as instructed by a patent-holder foreman.

    With such copious examples of prior art and physical analogs, these patents are analogous to Apple patenting the placement of speakers and microphones in a phone. Sure you could make a phone without a speaker on the top and a microphone on the bottom, but it would be completely counterintuitive. If the patent system is designed to encourage innovation and not obviousness, yet we have patents on obviousness, the patent system is completely fucked.

Uncompensated overtime? Just Say No.

Working...