Slashdot Mirror

Judge rejects Samsung's request to lift ban on U.S. tablet sales

(Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Monday rejected a request by South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co. to lift a ban on U.S. sales of its Galaxy Tab 10.1, a tablet computer that competes with Apple Inc.'s iPad.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/03/us-apple-samsung-stay-idUSBRE86201G20120703?

Judge Koh deals next blow to Samsung, denies all 12 of its summary judgment requests against Apple Sunday, July 1, 2012
“On Saturday, Judge Koh denied the entirety of a comprehensive summary judgment motion that Samsung brought in May,”

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/judge-koh-deals-next-blow-to-samsung.html

He has hasn't he?

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/judge-says-google-only-used.html

Basically: "this court doesn't matter, there will be an appeal" mixed in with a healthy lack of recognition that APIs have been de facto uncopyrightable for years, it's just never been said by a judge before.

Here it is...

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/judge-says-google-only-used.html

You gotta say that he keeps his end of his Oracle employment contract.

Motorola Mobility is now a subsidiary of Google.

According to this article, the actions started in Nov 2010, before the acquisition, but it's now a patent war case of Google vs Microsoft.

The law-blogger Florian Müller has a more in-depth explanation of this issue. He especially explains how this is not an US court interfering with a German court's decision. The US court merely prevents Motorola from enforcing the injunction, should it win it.

The blog http://www.fosspatents.com/ tracks these lawsuits quite closely and is quite informative (and accurate).

Google v Oracle specific information can probably be found here http://www.fosspatents.com/search/label/Oracle

The blog http://www.fosspatents.com/ tracks these lawsuits quite closely and is quite informative (and accurate).

Google v Oracle specific information can probably be found here http://www.fosspatents.com/search/label/Oracle

true, but it does make it so any FRAND licensing from the IP holders for current SIM tech becomes worthless.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/03/apples-us-patent-application-61481114.html
As long as Nokia adheres to FRAND licensing obligations, the Finnish company's position that it wants to cash in on its SIM card-related patents is just as legitimate, from a shareholder value point of view, as Apple's proposal that everyone adopt a royalty-free standard. But Nokia's desire to monetize standard-essential patents is not in the public interest unless its proposal offers major advantages that offset the cost of licensing and the higher transaction cost (which in connection with FRAND patents sometimes involves litigation as I see all the time now).

Nokia could really use the money. no wonder they're fighting against it.. even pomoting their own "standard" which I'm sure they have no intentions of giving away. RIM is also against the nano-SIM - wonder why.. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-29/rim-earnings-sales-fall-short-as-blackberry-demand-wanes.html