Apple Tells Retailers To Stop Selling Certain Samsung Devices 308
walterbyrd writes with news that Apple has been sending out letters to carriers and retailers who sell the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the Galaxy Nexus, informing them of a court-mandated ban on sales and warning them against continuing to market the devices. The court order for the patent case on the Galaxy Tab says Samsung and "those acting in concert" with them are enjoined from selling the devices, and Apple has used the letters to point this out. Samsung, of course, disagrees: "Apple’s menacing letters greatly overreach, incorrectly claiming that third-party retailers are subject to the prohibitions of the preliminary injunction, which they clearly are not."
annoying? (Score:2)
I own a mbp, 2 iPhones, and an iPad... but this is getting annoying. think I'll go buy a
galaxy s3 today.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? it's an inferior phone. Grab a nexus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:annoying? (Score:4, Informative)
You can't buy one, really?
https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=galaxy_nexus_hspa [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Have you used the Galaxy S3? It is far superior to the Galaxy Nexus. In fact I plan on buying one for myself next month now that I have had a chance to play with one.
Re: (Score:2)
How's it getting annoying? How's it even affecting you?
Re:annoying? (Score:5, Insightful)
How's it getting annoying? How's it even affecting you?
It's annoying to support this kind of bickering with my dollars. At least since I really want 75% of all tech patents invalidated (because they are too obvious) and don't think software patents should exist at all. If you buy from a company you are supporting their business practices, all of them. Don't know about "annoying" but it's quite legitimate to scrutinize what you are patronizing. It's no surprise that not everyone will like how a given company does business.
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to change the system is to actually push for this kind of legal warfare until governments realize that it's causing more harm than good (assuming it actually is)
Except that patents are specifically designed TO cause competitive harm. They're designed to protect an innovator from being copied by a competitor, for a while at least.
So if you really don't want this legal warfare, you're going to have to get rid of patents, and even the ideas behind patents, and instead let competition be an all out warfare. Which sounds great in theory, until it's your time & money you put into building something only to be scooped by another company with a spy.
Re:annoying? (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore these big guys have the distribution networks and the manufacturing advantages to profit without such protections.Apple would not going to stop creating new things because Samsung or anybody else could copy them. For God's sake. To tell the truth nobody copied other people's ideas more than Apple in this World.
Re: (Score:3)
There were no 'big guys' when US patent law was written.
Re:annoying? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
how they do business with others in order to serve your needs, however, should be no concern to you.
Perhaps, if you're a sociopath. There are many business practices which are abhorrent, and by purchasing a product from those businesses the profit margin from that product purchase further supports their bottom line and tends to reinforce the methods they use to do business as legitimate (in that it makes them money).
The only reference needed is DeBeers and their practices regarding trading precious stones p
Anti-competition patent scams affect us all (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't kid yourself. These actions by Apple drive up prices, kill innovation, and limit choice.
Apple: You do the nice gear... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and leave the law to the authorities.
Mmmmk?
Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... (Score:4, Insightful)
Samsung should just stop selling components to Apple...
Let them invent & manufacture that stuff themselves.
Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh come on ... Apple's completely exhausted from inventing the rectangle! The rectangle!
What more do you want from them?!
Re: (Score:3)
Blasphemy! Apple invented the rounded rectangle. I hope you get poked by the corners of the same rectangle you claim apple had invented. You might then learn to appreciate how innovative the rounded rectangle is.
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung should just stop selling components to Apple...
Let them invent & manufacture that stuff themselves.
That's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face". Apple is one of (maybe the?) biggest customer of Samsung's components. Cutting them off would be a huge financial hit for Samsung.
I should mention, for the record, I think this move by Apple is massively overstepping their authority. Leave enforcement of court rulings to the courts and regulatory agencies. No need to go all vigilante.
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, Apple is not enforcing anything, only ensuring that nobody can claim lack of knowledge. Secondly, all regulatory agencies that I know only act on complaints, so Apple would have to file them either way, and in the event that they have to, being able to prove that they tried to address the s
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, because it's one of Samsung's largest revenue sources.
Apple is very deliberately trying to separate themselves from Samsung by funding development of other manufacturing facilities that are not owned by Samsung.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I would much prefer the enforcement of copyright law to be on the copyright holder instead of the taxpayer. If we're stuck with silly copyright laws, we might as well avoid paying to enforce it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a patent issue, not a copyright one .. patents are very different to (and far worse than) copyrights.
Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, firstly, copyrights cover works that are impossible for a second content creator to *accidentally* independently create. It's impossible for an independent film producer to accidentally re-create a virtually exact copy of, say, Avatar, and it's impossible for a second independent author to accidentally re-write a major novel. It's just impossible. This makes it much easier to verify and keep track of the actual creator of some copyrighted content - i.e. there cannot be meaningful (honest) conflicting claims from two separate authors honestly claiming to have independently written the same book. This is completely the opposite of patents, where actual, honest independent invention is not only incredibly common, it's actually to be expected and happens every day, all the time.
Second, patents are basically effecitvely a priori force-based restraints on using your mind. E.g. an independent software author must now, with every single step, wonder if they're violating patents. This is not true for copyrights --- it's impossible to independently rewrite large parts of someone else's source code --- when you program, as long as you are doing your own work, you do not have to sit and wonder "am I violating copyrights, am I violating copyrights". Likewise, if you want to write a book, and you just start writing using your mind, you do not have to worry "am I going to accidentally rewrite someone else's novel" -- you just write. But with patents, you are effectively required by law to avoid inventing or writing code lest you accidentally violate someone's patents.
Third, patents have become unreasonably impossible to implement. Not only are you bound by a priori restraints on using your mind to create --- i.e. you are required to continually search for existing patents every time you write a piece of code --- but there are so many thousands of patents (something like 40,000 software patents now in the US IIRC?) that it's actually impossible to even know if you're violating the patent, you need a team of patent lawyers continually searching and checking. This is NOT TRUE for copyright, where it's easy to know, because it's virtually impossible to accidentally violate in any meaningful way.
Finally, patents operate on a basis that violates 'innocent until proven guilty', a basic principle of a moral justice system. If a second inventor GENUINELY accidentally re-invents something, according to the patent system, he is automatically guilty even if he wasn't copying --- and no evidence of copying is required. In crime, evidence is usually required. With patents, no evidence is required - being 'first to file' is considered 'evidence', which is nonsense. Copyright, however, does not operate on an 'innocent until proven guilty' .. you need evidence in order to be considered guilty of copyright violation.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the grandparent, and that doesn't mean I support the RIAA/MPAA. The main reason why I don't support them is because they abuse the courts in order to gain information about citizens that they should never have access to in order to practice extortion. Instead they should just complain to an authority, mention all the steps they took in order to prevent the violations, and only then expect authorities to take action. This is essentially what A
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of simply notifying Samsung's affiliates, they should have just sued Samsung and the affiliates for violating the order by continuing the sale of the devices.
That would be much nicer, right?
Thanks Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
If you hadn't made such a fuss about the Samsung Tabs they would not be so popular today, Here in Australia they are very hard to find, you have to pre-order it while the ipads sit in the shops. I am not suggesting that they are outselling the ipad, but there is a real demand which, in part, has been created by the market leader. What a weird world we are in today!
Re:Thanks Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, Streisand effect, thanks to Apple I have been hearing more news of Google's offerings then I have Apple's.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are either severely deluded or a troll.
Apple's market share in Australia was last measured at 84% [idc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That was last year, I was hunting a Samsung in June 2012!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if I had the money I'd probably get one of these Samsungs and run Stellarium on it. It must be pretty good seeing as how Apple feels the need to sue about it.
Re:Thanks Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
The degree of self-contradiction that you've allowed yourself boggles the mind.
Re:Thanks Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thanks Apple (Score:5, Funny)
You self-contradicted yourself.
Well, he obviously didn't self-contradict anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly state that iPad shortages have nothing to do with supply and are due exclusively to high demand, in opposition to the Galaxy Tab, which could be in shortage exclusively because of low supply although its demand remains neglectable.
That is basically what you said. You required a proof for the refutation of the second statement, but failed to provide a proof of the first statement yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
The iPad 3
Officially there's no such thing as an "iPad 3" - it's just "the New iPad". It might be the worst product name ever, but it is what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
What will Apple call it when the next iPad comes out? It's going to need a moniker; "The New iPad" is ambiguous.
As far as I'm concerned it's the iPad 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's just iPad, "the new" is not part of the name and isn't referenced anywhere on the box. That said, even the iPad 2 was just iPad on the box (unlike the iPhone boxes, which prominently display the model), the only thing actually mentioning iPad 2 was the sticker with the specs. This one is only referred to as an iPad Wi-Fi 4G 64GB Black.
Re: (Score:3)
If there is assumption bias, it is not mine [appleinsider.com], though you can always wait for the earnings conference calls to be sure.
The term you're looking for is rational, and if you avoid something when it's a reasonable alternative then you are not being rational yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
That trait is not just common to Apple fanboys.
Re: (Score:2)
No,
I didn't claim otherwise.
I don't think you actually understood my post. Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
One day I have to figure out where this stereotype came from. Following that I have to figure out the reason for homophobia, because, honestly, I DON'T GIVE A CRAP if people think I'm gay! Actually, I'd rather they thought so, because that would make my interaction with females feel less sex-driven. Of course I can't just tell people I'm gay, because then I'd be lying, but I don't see any drawbacks with causing confusion.
Weird... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's almost like in this sector, patents are hurting innovation. No wait, that can't be right...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What innovation? Neither Apple nor Samsung sell innovative products...
I guess it depends on what one means by "innovation". Myself, I think the only actual recent innovation in the field of anything hardware-related was the invention of memristors. Everything else are just iterations over iterations of the same old resistor/capacitor/inductor, under the same old principles of computer science. But if you expand the definition of innovation to include some of those iterations, then at some point, yes, Apple can be seen as an innovator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me wonder if Apple is going to start suing other manufacturers when/if they ever release their iPad mini...
I bought the Nexus 7 yesterday, and one of the reasons I bought it immediately is because of that thought.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are smartphones only innovative on the inside?
Legalese isn't pretty; don't look at it if you don't understand it. You can disa
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Weird... (Score:4, Insightful)
eventually (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA, with its abyssmal right wing social and economic policies will mean the USA will fall to second rate status in the world. By then China, Brazil, Korea, India, etc will grow wise to this lame "intellectual property" scam, and the next American Steve Jobs wont stand a chance.
When that day comes, and other countries say it was us who invtented this aggressive international enforcememt of this completely bullshit monopoly maintenance technique, just be happy there is and was an alternative strand of thought on the concept of intellectual property: no.
Then maybe we can fnally rid the world of this abomination. It is not ised to protect small inventors, it is used to enforce anti-market monopolistic practices.
It won't happen ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need oil to live. Literally, a lot fertilizer is energetically deroved from fossil fuels.
But no one needs IP. Its not going to get to that. besides, military status is a direct corollary to economic status. As the USA's economic status fades due to horrible right wing social and economic policies our military status will fade as well.
Re: (Score:2)
As the USA's economic status fades due to horrible right wing social and economic policies our military status will fade as well.
There are so many things wrong with this sentence, I'm not even sure where to start.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The USA, with its abyssmal right wing social and economic policies
Apparently you fell asleep in 2008 and just now woke up. The "right wing" hasn't had the presidency for nearly 4 years now. It hasn't had Congress for even longer.
Sorry. This is pure Left. As is NDAA, Fast & Furious, Solyndra et al, etc etc etc. And now the destruction by Executive Order, completely bypassing Congress and effectively nullifying the law by fiat, of one of Bill Clinton's biggest successes, welfare reform.
I, for one, welcome our government-cheese, foodstamp, and welfare-Cadillac-driving ov
Re:eventually (Score:5, Informative)
LOL, you really think the dems are leftwing?
They talk slightly more leftwing than reps, but their politics are the same
unfortunately (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it appears as if some of the countries you've mentioned are suffering from even more regressive political and economic policies. Take for instance, Korea. Samsung dominates Korea in a manner that would put shame any claims that Microsoft or Apple are monopolies. China's government and private sector partnerships make US defense contractors seem like angels. And note how the income disparity between China's billionaires and the peasant poor is greater than that of the US.
ok (Score:2)
and what will it be like when the chaebol and the CPC start wielding intellectual property law internationally?
it will exactly as you describe, now pointed at weaker countries and trading partners, with the same brutality
so then you agree with me on the absurdity and evil of intellectual property law, right?
Whiny (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does Apple need to complain and whine about all these stupid patents? It's already the largest and most profitable technology company, and its cash reserves are insane. Everything it's doing is just like the Microsoft of the 1990's. And Steve Jobs was possibly a bigger asshole than Gates and Ballmer. Except, for some reason, people actually liked Jobs.
Re:Whiny (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Apple has nothing in the pipeline. That is the only logical reason for pouring massive resources into slowing the entry of others into the market. Apple is trying to buy time. In 5 years Apple will be listed next to Nokia and RIM.
So that means lots of fire sale (Score:5, Insightful)
....and more Samsung Androids in the streets. Really smart tactics Apple. Obsessive as your former master. In fact, insane. But who cares if shiny is there.
Just one simple promise - I will never buy any Apple product in my life. Sorry, you simply can't have it both ways.
Grade school analogy (Score:2)
If you want be her friend, you can't be mine!
You know what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck Apple. I've been thinking about replacing the 3 year old Mac Pro that I use for music production with a new one, but I'm about done with Apple's stormtrooper bullshit.
Seriously. Fuck Apple. You know fads come and go, and nerds and geeks carried Apple through some bad spots. Let's see how long Apple's dominant position in the market lasts when people start to realize that the corporation behind those snappy ads and shiny products are greedy, heavy-handed scum.
I've just decided Apple products are no longer cool. The Apple logo is not cool and owning anything Apple is not cool. Since I was among the first who decided that Apple was cool, decades ago, I feel I have the responsibility now end this thing.
It doesn't matter if I'm the only one. When I see someone with an iPhone or iPad, I'm going to see them as particularly uncool. I will tell them.
Watch and see if it doesn't start a trend. Not because I'm special, but because I'm NOT special. If this is how I feel, it's almost certain that there are lots of other people who feel this way because I am not special. The not-special people who made Apple cool to begin with will be the ones to remove their cool status.
Re:You know what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"I used to hate on Microsoft for not being open, not allowing everyone to play"
Wait, what?
Seriously, on their platform MS has allowed everyone to play as they see fit for some time. It hasn't been an issue since DOS days, And frankly, I really don't care that much about Lotus 1-2-3 or Wordperfect anymore. On the hardware manufacturing side of things, MS has not limited who can make x86 hardware in any way, shape or form. Infact, they used to even make versions of windows that ran on a number of non-x86 arch
Re: (Score:3)
*sees someone with an iphone*
"hey man, you're not cool!"
Good luck with that. The Internet brings out the hyperbole in people, and what an age we live in where we can find outrage in the smallest things.
Re:You know what? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, I don't know. There is a significant number of people who own iPhones because they believe it is cool to do so. People who do things because they are cool happen to be especially sensitive to any suggestion otherwise.
That's why fads disappear so suddenly. One day it's the coolest thing ever, and the next day, someone says, "Oh, that's so last year" and the next thing you know, the fad has evaporated with nary a trace.
Most, actually (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's rise to prominence is because they managed to become a fashion company. Normally consumer electronics is quite price sensitive. You don't become the biggest charging premium pricing, consumers just won't have it, even if you are offering something that justifies the cost. However fashion doesn't work like that, expensive is ok, even good. People will pay more to be fashionable.
Well that's what Apple did starting with the iPod. They didn't invent MP3 players, you could get them long before the iPod, however few people did. Like walkmen and so on only some people were interested. However Apple made them not a tech device, but a fashion accessory. You were cool if you owned one, complete with the white earbuds, cord hanging out in front to show you had one. Suddenly Shure and Etymotic had demand for white earbuds, something nobody had ever wanted before (because people wanted better sound but still the status symbol). People didn't buy MP3 players, they bought iPods because it was the fashionable thing.
This continues. People buy Apple because they think it is cool to do. Some people buy it for other reasons, as some people have bought Apple in the past, but the majority buy it to be one of the "in crowd". We just saw this at work, one of the secretaries just had to have an iMac for her new computer. She could not give a coherent reason, particularly since all the software she needs is for Windows (sometimes Windows exclusively). Indeed it has Fusion on it and she basically uses Windows exclusively with it. But she had to have a Mac. The real reason was, of course, because the Mac is "cool" and a PC is not. There was no technical reason or business case for it (and indeed reasons not to do it) it was all about fashion.
Apple is in a world of hurt the day that ends. When that day will be, who knows? It could be tomorrow, it could be in 500 years. However when it happens their profitability will take a massive hit. People will stop buying their devices not for any good reason, but just because they are no longer the cool thing to own.
I don't mean to take Apple's side in this, but.... (Score:2)
I think that they are actually right about the scope of the injunction. If I remember correctly, the prohibition was against *ANY* sales of the device within the USA, and retailers should have probably returned any devices that they had.
If somebody else has specific information to indicate otherwise, please feel free to correct me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them [slashdot.org] who are banned from selling, importing, making and using gTabs in US.
"Using" part is funny, will Apple next conduct searches at Samsung's officers, directors, employees etc. homes to enforce the injunction in full? "He's taking the Tab from his desk drawer... H
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But aren't retailers that sell the device "acting in concert" with them?
I'f I buy 1000 widgets from you, then 1 month later turn around and sell those widgets in my store, how am I acting in concert with you? Our transaction ended completely as soon as I handed you the money and you handed me the widgets.
Re: (Score:3)
As long as we have an arrangement where you can return any unsold widgets back to me for a refund, I'm not sure how you would *NOT* be acting in concert with me. If I did not stipulate such a return policy with you, however, then yeah... we wouldn't be acting in concert.
Retailers can, typically, return unsold product back to the distributor.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder when (Score:2)
Three words: (Score:5, Informative)
Remember when... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Pretty Soon... (Score:5, Informative)
Ya, no. Retailers that have already purchased product and have them in inventory are free to sell those items. Samsung and it's distributors are no longer allowed to sell the devices to retailers or end-users. If a retailer is holding inventory on behalf of Samsung or it's distributors in a form of consignment, then no, they can't sell them.
You see it the way Apple does; that ALL sales must stop and that's not the case. Selling inventory you've already paid for is not working in concert with the manufacturer. Samsung listing your website or store as a place to get the product, is.
Florian Mueller (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The last link to fosspatents.com - that's Florian Mueller's blog. The "FOSS" label serves to give him the appearance of an independent party, while he is in fact a paid lobbyist.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? Most significantly, as long as the retailer is permitted to return their inventory for a refund, I'm not sure how it can be argued that they *AREN'T* acting in concert with them.
A return policy, after all, is a type of contract between the buyer and seller... in absence of any such return policy, however, yeah... I'd agree that they aren't acting in concert with Samsung.
I have no appreci
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Who gives a rat's ass? I may go looking for a Samsung. Screw Apple, and screw the judges too. Whatever happened to the concept of free market?
Oooops, my bad. The market is only free if the rich sumbitches agree to make it free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except for this part: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them
Especially considering that there's no ban on Galaxy Nexus. Apple's going the way of 90's era Microsoft, and that's sad.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't recall Microsoft using the courts to uphold patents to prevent copycat competition.
Re:Pretty Soon... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pretty Soon... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except there is no injunction against the Nexus, just the Tab 10.1
Except there was http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/06/30/028234/sale-of-galaxy-nexus-banned-in-the-us [slashdot.org].
Re:Pretty Soon... (Score:4, Informative)
Except there is no injunction against the Nexus, just the Tab 10.1
Except there was http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/06/30/028234/sale-of-galaxy-nexus-banned-in-the-us [slashdot.org].
Keyword: was. Your slashdot article is dated June 30. This engadget article is dated July 6. So, as GP said, there is no ban on the Nexus.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/06/samsung-gets-temporary-stay-on-galaxy-nexus-ban/ [engadget.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not unless you're owned by Samsung.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly certain these are hardware patents, but it's still just as ludicrous.