Samsung Dealt 3 Blows in Apple Case: Banned in Australia, Looks Bad in U.S. & More

[medicdave]

Considering all this litigation seems to simply be related to Samsung's customization of Android's appearance, why not just switch to stock Honeycomb? I realize they perceive some value-add in their TouchWiz interface, but it's getting them in a lot more trouble, costing them a lot more legal fees, hindering sales and tarnishing their reputation a lot more than it's worth.

Push Honeycomb out to all currently-unsold tablets as a mandatory update upon activation. Offer it as an option to current customers, so you don't get them all riled-up. Then let's get on with our lives.

[medic]Dave

 

[kodiak799]

Most people can't. Unless people have a good eye for technology.

Sent from my DROID2 using DroidForums

Which is why this is all so silly to most people.

I'm not sure what patent law is around the world, but in the US it's supposed to be "non-obvious". I simply don't get what is so "non-obvous" about a rectangular screen with a black border. My laptop screen has a black border. My plasma tv has a silverish/black border.

 

[Oowoon]

Which is why this is all so silly to most people.

I'm not sure what patent law is around the world, but in the US it's supposed to be "non-obvious". I simply don't get what is so "non-obvous" about a rectangular screen with a black border. My laptop screen has a black border. My plasma tv has a silverish/black border.

Maybe giving it a red border will make Apple be quiet.

Sent from my DROID2 using DroidForums

 

[czerdrill]

Which is why this is all so silly to most people.

I'm not sure what patent law is around the world, but in the US it's supposed to be "non-obvious". I simply don't get what is so "non-obvous" about a rectangular screen with a black border. My laptop screen has a black border. My plasma tv has a silverish/black border.

I think the problem is most people, including myself, have no idea what apple is actually arguing. It sounds great to say "haha apple is patenting rectangles" and "maybe oems should make triangle tablets so apple won't sue them" but I think its obvious its a little deeper then that.

As mentioned, the fact that samsung is repeatedly being ruled against in several countries says something. There's only two possible reasons: samsung is in fact infringing, or the judges are apple fanboys haha. I think logic dictates that its the former....

 

[kodiak799]

I think the problem is most people, including myself, have no idea what apple is actually arguing. It sounds great to say "haha apple is patenting rectangles" and "maybe oems should make triangle tablets so apple won't sue them" but I think its obvious its a little deeper then that.

As mentioned, the fact that samsung is repeatedly being ruled against in several countries says something. There's only two possible reasons: samsung is in fact infringing, or the judges are apple fanboys haha. I think logic dictates that its the former....

Maybe, but an preliminary injunction is not a ruling of fact. There seems to be some disagreement on the Supreme Court over whether an substantial issue of invalidity is still grounds for denying a preliminary injunction, because even a substantial challenge does not mean the plaintiff won't win. These judges are not ruling on the validity of the patent, but merely whether undue harm results lacking clear evidence of invalidity.

I always assumed there was more to it than Apple patenting a rectangle, but a judge holding them up side-by-side for comparison would appear to indicate otherwise.

Also don't read too much into the lack of challenge of other manufacturers. Samsung is rapidly gaining on Apple's smartphone share, and you don't sue all potential infringers at once. You try to get a favorable judgement and use to leverage license agreements with other potential infringers. I think Apple targeted Samsung because of additional claims with the icons and UI - i.e. the most likely target to get a favorable judgement on.

Looks like the ruling in Australia has to do with "touchscreen technology and other features". Samsung could very well be infringing on the architecture Apple patented (but otherwise I doubt touchscreen interface is patentable, Apple wasn't even the first). As a key supplier, Samsung could very well have stolen or piggy-backed some underlying Apple engineering or software to power various functionality.

In the Netherlands, they've apparently modified banned phones and are set to release them. According to Reuters, the patent at issue was a method of scrolling through photos!

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-...d-on-samsung-as-sides-square-up-on-u.s.-soil/
"
Patent blogger Florian Mueller points out that the patent in question that was exercised in the case is one registered to the late Steve Jobs (among others) and concerns “heuristic touchscreen” technology.
The generality of the patent, he speculates, could be applied to a number of other tablets, not just Samsung’s, and the fact that the Australian court has chosen to support it means that Apple may now have the legal ammunition to go after other competitors looking to launch products in Australia."


Anyway, it seems like all the hub-bug over Samsung getting taken to the woodshed for "copying the look" has been a little off-target.

 

[kodiak799]

A bit OT, but this is too funny:

Update 2: Dutch Court Sides With Apple, Samsung Says It Has A Workaround | mocoNews
The Advertising Standards Agency ruled that Motorola could no longer call its Atrix the “world’s most powerful smartphone” in advertisements in the UK: that honor, it said, goes to Samsung for the Galaxy S II i9100. Ironically, if the Dutch ruling holds up, Samsung won’t be able to sell the world’s fastest device on these shores.

 

[GBH2]

Agree. While there might not be a million and one ways to make a tablet, samsungs offerings look like direct ripoffs both in presentation and advertising. Its not really a question of whether or not ppl buy ipads and then get home and realize they actually bought a galaxy tab. Our resident armchair patent lawyers don't seem to get that...but glad the courts see past the "is it fair" crap and go with what's right.

But yeah as long as I get my nexus I'm happy haha

I agree with you, for the most part.

I don't think the US court decision is a surprise - but it is not the end of the matter.

I haven't read the Apple patent that is involved here but I do think that Apple has a tendency to "over reach". Although the standard of proof to invalidate the issued Apple patent is high, it is still a possibility.

I do think that with the great and innovative products that they make Samsung was stupid to make these products so close in resemblance to Apple products without clear evidence that Apple did not hold the "rights" to the specific design in question or that the patent to the specific Apple design in question is clearly invalid based on strong prior art.

 

[tjk629]

Apple products are the most recognizable items in the world. EVERYONE of all ages know what they look like.

I wish someone would go to a mall or something and have an iPad/Galaxy 10.1 and iPhone 4/Unlocked Galaxy S II. Go up and ask random people to pick the iPhone/pad. Well over 90% of people will know the difference.

The idea that someone would mistaken them is hard for me to grasp. If they did I wouldn't be surprised if they think everything is an iPhone/pad. Hell I've seem people call random MP3 players iPods before. We got my niece a sansa clip for Christmas one year. She opened and screamed "OMG an iPod". WELL I guess Apple should sue SanDisk for making products that confuse people.

There is no doubt in my mind that the iPhone/iPad influenced Samsungs designs for their products. But influencing and copying are two different things. I could easily make an argument that the iPhone shares a lot of striking similarities with PalmOS and my TX.

 

[czerdrill]

Maybe, but an preliminary injunction is not a ruling of fact. There seems to be some disagreement on the Supreme Court over whether an substantial issue of invalidity is still grounds for denying a preliminary injunction, because even a substantial challenge does not mean the plaintiff won't win. These judges are not ruling on the validity of the patent, but merely whether undue harm results lacking clear evidence of invalidity.

I always assumed there was more to it than Apple patenting a rectangle, but a judge holding them up side-by-side for comparison would appear to indicate otherwise.

Also don't read too much into the lack of challenge of other manufacturers. Samsung is rapidly gaining on Apple's smartphone share, and you don't sue all potential infringers at once. You try to get a favorable judgement and use to leverage license agreements with other potential infringers. I think Apple targeted Samsung because of additional claims with the icons and UI - i.e. the most likely target to get a favorable judgement on.

Looks like the ruling in Australia has to do with "touchscreen technology and other features". Samsung could very well be infringing on the architecture Apple patented (but otherwise I doubt touchscreen interface is patentable, Apple wasn't even the first). As a key supplier, Samsung could very well have stolen or piggy-backed some underlying Apple engineering or software to power various functionality.

In the Netherlands, they've apparently modified banned phones and are set to release them. According to Reuters, the patent at issue was a method of scrolling through photos!

Apple Gains Patent Ground On Samsung As Sides Square Up On U.S. Soil | paidContent
"
Patent blogger Florian Mueller points out that the patent in question that was exercised in the case is one registered to the late Steve Jobs (among others) and concerns “heuristic touchscreen” technology.
The generality of the patent, he speculates, could be applied to a number of other tablets, not just Samsung’s, and the fact that the Australian court has chosen to support it means that Apple may now have the legal ammunition to go after other competitors looking to launch products in Australia."


Anyway, it seems like all the hub-bug over Samsung getting taken to the woodshed for "copying the look" has been a little off-target.

Not a ruling of fact, no. But this was a prima facie ruling, so clearly the judge sees something that shows that Apple may have a point. I think its a safe bet that Samsung needs to come with some other defense other then showing Stanley Kubrik films. Its interesting to note that the whole "Apple photoshopped" crap was completely irrelevant as I knew it would be. Those stories were simply forum fodder and ways for sites to get hits. Only the courts have all the evidence, and prima facie it appears that Samsung is in fact infringing on the patents:

"Despite the force of Samsung's submissions I have found that Apple has established a prima facie case of infringement of claims of both (its) patent(s)," Justice Annabelle Bennett told the court.
"That is, it has established a probability, not necessarily in a mathematical sense, that it will, on the present evidence, succeed at trial."

To me that says that Samsung better have an ace in the hole to win this thing. A prima facie injunction in a patent case will be difficult to overcome.

AFP: Apple victory as Australia bans Samsung tablet

 

[kodiak799]

Not a ruling of fact, no. But this was a prima facie ruling, so clearly the judge sees something that shows that Apple may have a point. I think its a safe bet that Samsung needs to come with some other defense other then showing Stanley Kubrik films.

I thought the finding had nothing to do with design, but technical features of the touchscreen heuristics and scrolling through the photo gallery, the latter of which they supposedly already have a work around.

 

[czerdrill]

I thought the finding had nothing to do with design, but technical features of the touchscreen heuristics and scrolling through the photo gallery, the latter of which they supposedly already have a work around.

Yes as far as i know it is the software patents and not the design or trade dress that this injunction was based on (the one in Australia). The US case was found on design. I'm not familiar enough with the actual patents to know whether its an easy fix or not though...

 

[kodiak799]

Yes as far as i know it is the software patents and not the design or trade dress that this injunction was based on (the one in Australia). The US case was found on design. I'm not familiar enough with the actual patents to know whether its an easy fix or not though...

That all sounds correct. The US judge denied a temporary injunction on the design, but we'll have to see what the ultimate ruling is. I think it would be borderline criminal for them to pay on the design patent, but the patent arena is one of the more screwed-up parts of US law, with the issue probably lying more on the side of issuance being too lax.

I think they could be in trouble on the heuristics. The gallery browsing wouldn't seem to be that tough, maybe, and they supposedly have a work around already. The latter is almost as petty as the design deal, but the touchscreen heuristics I would call a pretty major breach of intellectual property, if indeed there has been a breach. And all tech companies do that, trying to change the architecture or code just enough to circumvent the patent. Of course, Apple's lawyers are very good - they'd have to be to patent a freaking rectangle.

 

[czerdrill]

That all sounds correct. The US judge denied a temporary injunction on the design, but we'll have to see what the ultimate ruling is. I think it would be borderline criminal for them to pay on the design patent, but the patent arena is one of the more screwed-up parts of US law, with the issue probably lying more on the side of issuance being too lax.

I think they could be in trouble on the heuristics. The gallery browsing wouldn't seem to be that tough, maybe, and they supposedly have a work around already. The latter is almost as petty as the design deal, but the touchscreen heuristics I would call a pretty major breach of intellectual property, if indeed there has been a breach. And all tech companies do that, trying to change the architecture or code just enough to circumvent the patent. Of course, Apple's lawyers are very good - they'd have to be to patent a freaking rectangle.

I agree 100% that if they lose on design that would suck. Not because Samsung didn't copy the design, because I think they did, but because a patent was even granted in the first place hah.

At the end of the day, both sides will have to go by what the courts rule, although I don't think the fight is anywhere near over.

 

[mrZoSo]

judge Koh held both tablets above her head and asked Samsung attorney Kathleen Sullivan if she was able to distinguish one from the other. “Not at this distance,” Sullivan replied, reinforcing Apple’s claim that Samsung’s tablet is a “copycat” device.

This is ridiculous to me! That's like taking anything that looks similar, gadgets, cars, trucks, whatever, and when it gets so at a certain distance and beyond, you can't distinguish which 'brand' is which. LAME

She indicated that Apple must first establish the validity of the patents in question.

This would be a good place to start.

I'm not saying Samsung is innocent or guilty, but if they are violating patents, then so be it and justice be done, then move on.
One thing for sure though, Apple is just plain out going crazy with law suits. That just tells me they are sort of running scared and losing profits. But hey, that's what competition is about.

Just my 2¢

 

[czerdrill]

This is ridiculous to me! That's like taking anything that looks similar, gadgets, cars, trucks, whatever, and when it gets so at a certain distance and beyond, you can't distinguish which 'brand' is which. LAME


This would be a good place to start.

I'm not saying Samsung is innocent or guilty, but if they are violating patents, then so be it and justice be done, then move on.
One thing for sure though, Apple is just plain out going crazy with law suits. That just tells me they are sort of running scared and losing profits. But hey, that's what competition is about.

Just my 2¢

Scared, maybe. Losing profits? No way