Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Iphone Patents The Courts United States Apple

Galaxy Tab Sales Ban Lifted, Samsung Sues Apple Over iPhone 5 196

Posted by Soulskill
from the where-we-stop-nobody-knows dept.
another random user sends this quote from the BBC: "A temporary sales ban on Samsung Electronics' Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer in the U.S. has been lifted by a U.S. court. District Judge Lucy Koh gave a court order rescinding a ban on U.S. sales that was part of a patent dispute with Apple. ... The ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 had been placed before a month-long patent trial between Apple and Samsung. In August, at the conclusion of that trial Apple was awarded a victory on many of its patent violation claims where it said Samsung had copied Apple's iPhone and iPad designs. It was also awarded more than $1bn (£664m) in damages. However, the jury found that Samsung had not violated the patent that was the basis for the ban on the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Samsung, therefore, argued for the sales ban to be lifted." Samsung also went on the offensive against the iPhone 5 today, filing a motion to add the device to its ongoing patent infringement suit against Apple. Meanwhile, on another front, some good news for Apple: Motorola Mobility, owned by Google, has withdrawn its second complaint against Apple to the ITC. The complaint was filed in August over patent infringement claims involving several minor features. No explanation has been provided for the withdrawal, but Google indicated there was no agreement between the companies.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Galaxy Tab Sales Ban Lifted, Samsung Sues Apple Over iPhone 5

Comments Filter:
  • by squiggleslash (241428) on Tuesday October 02, 2012 @02:03PM (#41529295) Homepage Journal

    So how can Samsung bring a suit against Apple that would not be valid to bring against every other user of that same chip?

    Well, just an idea, but maybe other users of said chip licensed the patent? (Something particularly likely given the amount of cross licensing that goes on.)

  • by DickBreath (207180) on Tuesday October 02, 2012 @02:08PM (#41529381) Homepage
    Before the iPhone, the mobile phone industry was still a patent thicket minefield. Lots of established companies had patents on various parts of what made the whole system work. Standards weren't dead then. Nobody was insane enough to launch the first nuclear weapon. Mutually assured destruction only works if all the parties are rational.

    Enter Apple.

    Apple thinks if you're going to start firing nuclear weapons, you might as well fire lots of them all at once.

    Remember Steve Jobs say he would spend all of Apple's (eg, stockholders) money to destroy Android. Does this sound like a rational statement from a rational person? Really? Destroy Apple in order to destroy Android? Wow.

    Apple's lawsuits aren't about rectangles with round corners. They're not about bouncy scrolling. They're not about any other particular details being claimed. Apple's lawsuits are about competition. Steve Jobs dreamed of having a new Bill Gates like monopoly. Pesky competitors think they should be able to compete. Apple believes that the entire mobile smartphone business is God's gift to Apple by divine right. Even established existing players who've made mobile phones for decades should get out and leave the entire market to Apple.
  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Tuesday October 02, 2012 @02:09PM (#41529389)

    Apple has been and always will be insane in their thinking. "Think different" really meant "do as your told"

  • by the_B0fh (208483) on Tuesday October 02, 2012 @02:10PM (#41529405) Homepage

    Why not actually read what happened? Qualcomm licensed those patents from Samsung. Everyone else buys chips from Qualcomm and these chips included the damned patent licenses (or else why would you buy them?)

    Samsung then throws a hissy fit and claims Apple does not have a right to use those patents and need to license them separately.

    Have you not see the words "patent exhaustion" discussed at all? Sheesh.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine [wikipedia.org]

  • by DickBreath (207180) on Tuesday October 02, 2012 @02:11PM (#41529409) Homepage
    It's not like Apple has ever copied. Or like Steve Jobs proudly boasting about copying. It's the fact that someone dared to compete in what Apple wanted to be a total monopoly market. Nobody else should be able to build smartphones. That is what this is about. Not the trivia of rounded corner rectangles or bouncy scrolling. It's about Apple wanting to have a monopoly market with monopoly pricing. That doesn't work if smartphones become a commodity.
  • by GReaToaK_2000 (217386) on Tuesday October 02, 2012 @02:15PM (#41529445)

    Only now it's mutually assured destruction via patent law.

    The only winners are lawyers, judges and monopolies.

    The rest of us suffer the wounds and sores of stagnating technology and lack of innovation.

    I knew I should have studied to be lawyer.

    Sigh.

  • by SternisheFan (2529412) on Tuesday October 02, 2012 @02:26PM (#41529557)
    Well, you get trollism from both sides here. When you disregard those posts, what you're left with are intelligent arguements on the issue.
  • by squiggleslash (241428) on Tuesday October 02, 2012 @02:44PM (#41529793) Homepage Journal

    Qualcomm licensed those patents from Samsung. Everyone else buys chips from Qualcomm and these chips included the damned patent licenses (or else why would you buy them?)

    Samsung obviously disagrees with you and is willing to go to court over it. They don't believe any licence they gave Qualcomm covers Apple. Given Samsung's usual rate is "% of final product price", I find it hard to believe any license they gave Qualcomm would cover third parties too.

    As for why you'd buy Qualcomm's chips - it's because they're a pre-made component. Why do you think? A business sourcing components from a supplier doesn't assume that any product they make using said components will suddenly become licensed. Why would you?

    What you've read is obviously wrong, or you've taken away a completely false impression from it. Either way, no, it's entirely possible that other users of Qualcomm's chips have negotiated patent licenses, and Apple has done its usual thing of "holding out for a better deal" (or simply ignoring patents held by rivals, in the hope it gets another dumbass Jury foreman on its side.)

  • by lorenlal (164133) on Tuesday October 02, 2012 @02:47PM (#41529833)

    There's also a problem with that. Apple doesn't license their design patents, and will pretty much only license others when under duress.

  • by DickBreath (207180) on Tuesday October 02, 2012 @03:43PM (#41530571) Homepage
    Licensing, as you say. Okay. Then Apple should license one of Samsung's patents that covers, and I kid you not, how smartphone displays change when music is being played.

    It's a good thing Apple and Samsung are both focusing on what is truly important. Kudos to the US Patent and Trademark office for creating a system that helps companies to focus their efforts on what is important.
  • by narcc (412956) on Tuesday October 02, 2012 @04:14PM (#41531033) Journal

    Don't confuse them with facts and reason. The meme is that Samsung made their phones as identical as they could manage. Any differences between their phones and the iPhone was their inability to match Apples pure awesome.

    Besides, no one had anything like rounded corners or icons aligned to a grid or buttons that align neatly before Apple. If they did then they didn't "put them all together" in to the "perfect package". Yes, even their supposedly awful chicklet keyboards and hockey-puck mice were superior to all other alternatives -- the perfect design that give the user the perfect experience.

    All those designs that came before the iPhone that look, well, like an iPhone are all lies created by time-traveling fandroids. Apple invented all that is good. Bow your head and thank Steve Jobs for blessing you with the opportunity to buy a holy iPhone, in all it's glory. Praise be!

  • by cynyr (703126) on Tuesday October 02, 2012 @07:01PM (#41532601)

    It's not that ideas are crap, it's ridiculous that they got a patent for what amounted to letting the first year engineer design the outside of the device. Things with rectangular screens are going to be rectangular with rounded corners.

Hackers of the world, unite!

Working...