Forgot your password?
Iphone Patents Apple

Apple Again Seeks Ban On 20+ Samsung Devices In US 235

Posted by Soulskill
from the kicking-'em-when-they're-down dept.
An anonymous reader notes that Apple has renewed its patent attack against Samsung, asking U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh to prohibit Samsung from selling over 20 different phones and tablets. Apple made a similar request after it won a $1 billion judgment in 2012, but Koh did not allow it. An Appeals court later ruled that Apple could resubmit its request if it focused on the specific features at the center of the 2012 verdict, and that's what we're seeing today. Apple's filing said, "Samsung’s claim that it has discontinued selling the particular models found to infringe or design around Apple's patents in no way diminishes Apple’s need for injunctive relief. ... Because Samsung frequently brings new products to market, an injunction is important to providing Apple the relief it needs to combat any future infringement by Samsung through products not more than colorably different from those already found to infringe."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Again Seeks Ban On 20+ Samsung Devices In US

Comments Filter:
  • How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZorinLynx (31751) on Friday December 27, 2013 @01:19PM (#45797347) Homepage

    Competition is good for the market place. Apple is already doing well enough; no need to do them any favors.

  • eh ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pop69 (700500) <> on Friday December 27, 2013 @01:22PM (#45797373) Homepage
    Apple want an injunction to ban the import of future devices that the court hasn't found to be infringing?

    How does that work ?
  • Re:How about no? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27, 2013 @01:27PM (#45797413)

    This is a matter of law. Why don't we wait for the judge to determine how the law applies here?

  • by NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) on Friday December 27, 2013 @01:30PM (#45797447)
    LOL. This from a company that uses rounded corners as a patentable way to differentiate themselves from the rest of the market. By that light, being a different color sounds like "innovation" to me ;)
  • Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday December 27, 2013 @01:31PM (#45797463) Journal

    The law is an ass.

  • by Chas (5144) on Friday December 27, 2013 @01:35PM (#45797513) Homepage Journal

    I think you're misunderstanding why this is done this way.
    You have multiple devices partly due to having multiple, mutually exclusive carriers.

    In addition, you may have a couple tiers of products, as not everyone is going to go for the Uber-'spensive top end device.

    Their approach allows them to hit multiple carriers at multiple price points.

    On top of that, having multiple offerings means they have a better chance of finding the devices people want and then slimming down their offering portfolio later, as they refine the devices that people are buying and abandon the ones that don't sell and finding a way to roll any possible unique/desirable features down into other devices.

    Apple gets away with "You will fit your lifestyle to what we offer you. And LIKE IT!". They get away with it because they're Apple and people know that they're expected to put up with Apple's crazy bullshit for "teh schmexy".

    For people who refuse to be cookie cutter'ed (see "sane people"), there's a plethora of choices and you can pick the one that intersects someplace acceptable along your "needs" and "budget limits" lines.

  • Re:How about no? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sarten-X (1102295) on Friday December 27, 2013 @01:37PM (#45797533) Homepage

    This is Slashdot! We don't care what any silly judge says, or what the law says! We'll voice support for what we want the law to be, specially tailored to our limited knowledge of this situation, based on our own prejudices for or against the companies in question.

  • Poor Apple. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27, 2013 @01:43PM (#45797593)

    Poor Apple. They just can't compete in a market that doesn't care about status symbols as much as basic functionality. Their only recourse, rather than making better products, is to keep others from making them, thus forcing users to pay more for less. So much for that little company seeing themselves as heros fighting against Big Brother in television ads, you're just another bully fighting over the mass market carcass now. You've fallen so far you're making Samsung look like David.

  • by spike6479 (205716) on Friday December 27, 2013 @01:48PM (#45797639)

    If we had the same crazy patent environment when cars were being developed, every car would have a different way to control it. Patents should protect true invention for a relatively short period of time to allow the inventor to capitalize on his work. Now they are just barriers to keep the markets closed. Big companies cross license patents to keep their monopolies.

  • Re:Poor Apple. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mythosaz (572040) on Friday December 27, 2013 @01:52PM (#45797669)

    The top end Samsung devices are status symbols as well.

    iPhones are ubiquitous. At a glance, people can't tell one from another, especially once they're in their protective case.

    Phones are like watches. Gotta have a big one.

  • Re:eh ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nerdfest (867930) on Friday December 27, 2013 @01:54PM (#45797699)

    Since they seem to be able to have the President waive their own bans, I can't see why they wouldn't ask for pretty much anything that would make them happy. There's quite obviously some biased process in place.

  • by NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) on Friday December 27, 2013 @02:06PM (#45797867)
    If the current patent mess had been in place when cars were first industrialized, one automaker would have had the patent on the gas pedal, another on brake lights, another on the turn signal lever, and still another on windshield wipers. They could all either cross-license each other's "IP", or invent a totally different way to do trivially simple operations. The Apple (or Amazon) of the day would have been claiming rights to the concept of "internal combustion". Of course, cell-phones have to interoperate with towers and other infrastructure, so there's really only ONE way to do certain things...
  • Re:eh ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Friday December 27, 2013 @02:08PM (#45797895) Homepage Journal

    How does that work ?

    Corporatism/fascism []. Oh, wait, you mean that rhetorically, didn't you?

  • Re:Um, no. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27, 2013 @02:17PM (#45797985)

    So, no different than any other mega-corporation, then.

  • Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Solandri (704621) on Friday December 27, 2013 @02:30PM (#45798193)
    This particular judge disallowed Samsung from showing the jury its prior art [] (phones that it had in the design pipeline before the iPhone was announced) because the Samsung lawyers missed a filing deadline []. She let the letter of the law (a filing deadline) override the intent of the law (to get to the truth of the matter).

    Apple's tablet infringement claims were thrown out because of the copious amounts of prior art which the jury saw. The $1 billion judgement likely would've been thrown out too if they'd seen Samsung was working on iPhone-like designs before anyone outside Apple even knew what an iPhone was. In this particular case, the prejudice is in the jury, not the general public which got to see the documents the judge disallowed because of a technicality.
  • Big pile 'o Nope (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday December 27, 2013 @02:43PM (#45798383)

    the fact that they are moving
    OSX towards a mandatory App store

    All they did, a few versions ago, is allow developers to sign apps, and distribute through the app store - they have made ZERO moves since then towards a "mandatory" app store.

    If you think allowing developers to sign applications and having the OS ask before running anything unsigned (note that does NOT mean from the app store) is bad then you have not seen the average person's computer.

    and their totally over the top pricing.

    You mean like pricing a Mac Pro $2k less than you can buy the individual parts for it?

    I'm typing on my
    last macbook air here ever... and it's a $1200 value that sold for $2200

    And how much do you think a PC is worth after a year?

    Good luck with the switch but the grass is pretty much DEAD on the other side of the lawn.

  • Re:Um, no. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pablo_max (626328) on Friday December 27, 2013 @03:08PM (#45798677)

    Perhaps not. But who gives a fuck if Samsung hides from taxes in Korea. The US is not in Korea last time I looked.
    But, your buddies at Apple hide out in Ireland and pay only a tiny percentage of taxes they otherwise would. Meanwhile, we are firing teachers left and right. We cannot afford to fix our roads and bridges. But no, lets help companies like Apple and GE make insane profits operating in our society, while they contribute almost nothing back to it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27, 2013 @04:00PM (#45799255)

    Software patents stifle innovation, because I go to all the trouble to create some new software from scratch, and then some greedy shyster walks up and demands I pay money to him. Even though he never created anything. He just patented a list of buzzwords describing some idea he claims to have had, but never implemented.

  • Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cederic (9623) on Friday December 27, 2013 @04:25PM (#45799541) Journal


    Apple's patents were bullshit to start with, and are continually being overturned at the patent office. Samsung shouldn't _have_ to work around them, and it's far from clear that Samsung even infringed in the first place - that trial was a fucking farce.

    Samsung's patents may be FRAND but that doesn't mean that people should be able to use them without paying a fair or reasonable amount. Apple used them and refused to negotiate. Just what the fuck are Samsung meant to do in that circumstance? Ignore the patent?

    Obama was playing petty protectionism and nothing else. Sure, Samsung may own half of Korean politics but that doesn't make Obama's corruption any less.

It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.