Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spanish Firm Wins Tablet Case Against Apple

Posted by samzenpus on from the and-the-sue-goes-on dept.

pmontra writes "A Spanish company has won a legal case against Apple and will be able to sell an Android tablet that Apple had claimed infringes on the iPad patent. It is now seeking damages from Apple for a temporary seizure of its products by Spanish customs. Furthermore they are pursuing an antitrust complaint against Apple, alleging abusive anticompetitive behavior."

3 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Re:All I can say is by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's why only big companies can use this method against small companies to prevent competition. The other way round is too dangerous for the attacker. However, this shall not be confused with so-called patent trolls, who work on technology patents and not on "design" patents.

  2. Frivolous patents and lawsuits by waterbear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >> "there should be stiff penalties for frivolous lawsuits"

    > There are, if you can prove that its frivolous and/or using the court systems as an anti-competitive hammer. If the court really decides that youre a nuisance, they can nail you pretty hard.

    But it's so costly and difficult to run that particular legal marathon, hardly anybody has ever completed the course. (Really, has anybody _ever_ actually completed it?)

    The problem is more fundamental: "The grant of invalid patents is a serious evil insomuch as it tends to the restraint of trade and to the embarrassment of honest traders and inventors..."
    That was the Fry Committee in 1901, recognizing that fundamental truth. The same applies, of course, to other forms of IP as well, not only patents. But which policymakers and legislators in power remember that now?

    -wb-

    1. Re:Frivolous patents and lawsuits by idontgno · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But it's so costly and difficult to run that particular legal marathon, hardly anybody has ever completed the course. (Really, has anybody _ever_ actually completed it?)

      Novell, in SCO v. Novell

      But that instance is legendary for how the respondent stuck to its defense, and the basic bad faith and scummy practices of the plaintiff.

      And it only took 6 1/2 years, from initial complaint to Supreme Court refusing appeal.

      So... yeah, at least ONE someone has actually completed the course. It may be the exception, though.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.