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."

32 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. All I can say is by Rexdude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Excellent!.

    --
    "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    1. Re:All I can say is by siddesu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And all I can add is:

      • there should be stiff penalties for frivolous lawsuits and
      • here's one more piece of solid proof that "IP" is mostly used to stiffle competition and innovation, not to promote it.
    2. Re:All I can say is by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Informative

      there should be stiff penalties for frivolous lawsuits and

      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.

    3. Re:All I can say is by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are. If a company is requesting the (temporary) ban on importing or selling a competitor's product, it has to feet the bill if it doesn't prevail in court. Basicly Apple has (from a legal point of view) bought all the potential shipping of the competing product for the time being.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:All I can say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Steve's dead, we're fucked. Better double the staff in the legal department to protect our position while we figure out what the hell we're gunna do."

    5. Re:All I can say is by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 2

      Basicly Apple has (from a legal point of view) bought all the potential shipping of the competing product for the time being.

      But these companies are also competing for market share and getting their foot through the door first. Apple might well buy up all the competitors' products, burn them in a pile and sell their own for several times the price to recover the cost. They're certainly immoral enough to do this and then this arrangement would make it seem like a mistake.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    6. Re:All I can say is by JAlexoi · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, they don't have to buy anything. They have to pay for the lost sales. I just hope that the German lawsuit falls through for Apple and they actually have to pay a lot. Samsung is no NT-K in volumes and price is comparable to iPad.

    7. 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.

    8. Re:All I can say is by tbannist · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, not really. Bill Gates has been a bit of a douche bag going all the way back to when he was complaining about people copying his implementation of basic while he was still in college. Microsoft has always been a company aimed at market domination and rolling in the fat monopoly rents that domination would create. When they first started out they used to publicly say they wanted to the be the only company in the computer business, which if you think about it, is a completely obnoxious goal to have. Microsoft has always been fundamentally dedicated to being evil*.

      * Though Microsoft and it's peons are rarely able to recognize the inherent evil in deliberately trying to limit other people's choices and take money that they don't truly deserve (by using monopoly power to increases prices above what a fair market would settle on).

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    9. Re:All I can say is by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 4, Informative
      Too bad that this is mostly bullshit: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/11/translation-and-explanation-of-spanish.html

      Based on what the document says, I think the implications of this case for Apple's enforcement of its design-related rights are probably much less wide-ranging than it initially appeared. It seems that even in Spain Apple could still assert its iPad design-related rights under civil law. Also, the nature of Apple's involvement may have been limited to that of an initial complainant (who according to nt-k also filed an indictment) as opposed to that of a party litigating a case all the way through. That's what my sources say, and it's possible.

      IOW Apple didn't lose the case because they weren't really involved.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    10. Re:All I can say is by idontgno · · Score: 2

      Well, Florian Mueller's not a lawyer, and I'm not, and I'm pretty sure you're not... but that phrase "initial complainant as opposed to that of a party litigating a case" makes no sense. Does Spanish court procedure allow a party to launch a lawsuit against another and then disengage and let it fly unattended? I'm skeptical. If there's a distinction, it's an irrelevant technical one, and doesn't change anything.

      Sorry. Regardless of the legal trickeration, if Apple initiates the lawsuit, and doesn't petition for dismissal, they're the plaintiff. You don't get to say "lol, just trolling" if it doesn't go your way.

      The fact that the defendant is countersuing to recover legal expenses tells me that SOMEONE credibly thinks Apple was the active plaintiff in the suit, and the prime actor behind the injunction attempt.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  2. Live by the sword, die by the sword by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We can only hope a few more judgements like these get the whole industry to settle down and allow a little more leeway in advancing tablet design.

    If lots of smaller companies like this start fighting back now that they see they can win, the cost of legal action all over the globe will hopefully make so little financial sense Apple will stop suing others, and with them desisting the other companies can back away too.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately Apple has almost unlimited cash reserves and the stakes are very high, so I doubt they will relent. If they can kill or cripple all competing products it will have huge financial ramifications for years, and not just for tablets by all future devices they can patent. Pumping a few hundred million into open warfare via the courts is easily justifiable.

      The best solution would be for the EU to revise patent law to prevent its abuse. For that to happen some big EU companies will have to be attacked with clearly ridiculous patents, e.g. Airbus falling foul of a Boeing patent on "cylindrical flying machine with forward facing observation glass" or being forced to replace "rounded rectangular rubber rolling devices" with sled skis.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... by IrrepressibleMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The third article has an update stating that Apple didn't litigate this case, but MAY have been behind the original complaint. Surely we need something a bit more substantial than this before we break out the standard pro/anti-Apple rhetoric?

    1. Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... by X.25 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The third article has an update stating that Apple didn't litigate this case, but MAY have been behind the original complaint. Surely we need something a bit more substantial than this before we break out the standard pro/anti-Apple rhetoric?

      Of course, Apple was not behind this. It was my dog.

      Because he's known to sue everyone (using retarded design patent claims), and he is gaining a lot from this.

      Bad dog.

    2. Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... by gggggggg · · Score: 2

      The company's blog actually contradicts this: http://www.nt-k.com/blog/

      This started back in November 2010, when customs blocked import due to a request from Apple. An official notice was sent to the spanish company from Apple requesting they destroy the tablets. (Funny how they expected this to be done if they were blocked by customs...).
      On the 9th of December Apple officially fully took the case to court as they'd warned they would unless the action (destroying the blocked import) was taken.

      The spanish company is now seeking compensation as they've had their import blocked for a full year, and have actually apparently been added to a blacklist of importers. They're a small company, and deeply troubled by the fact Apple has been able to manage to do this.
      Notice they aren't the manufacturer, but a small distributor. They've probably incurred a great loss on this. One full year of market value at least, plus missing delivery dates on their customers.

    3. Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... by Raenex · · Score: 2

      Does your dog have a history of filing criminal complaints?

      I'm guessing not.

      Does Apple?

      Yes. Hmm, do you think maybe it was Apple, and not his dog?!

  4. Re:About time ... by peted56 · · Score: 2

    Yep we pretty much had lots of Nokia phones, what was your point?

  5. Code ownership by andydread · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple's attempt to own the code that other developers write has failed in this case. They will continue their mission though. They are using software-patents to take ownership of other people's code. It a horrible horrible development in the software industry. Filing patents on applications and gestures just so they can claim ownership over code that they did not write. This egregious behavior on the part of Apple is really showing their true colors. Apple followed by Microsoft and Oracle are the most anti-competitive companies in the software industry and people who are aware of this egregious behavior on the part of Apple and still go out and purchase their products are simply willfully supporting this kind of abuse and litigious practice in the software marketplace and are willfully helping Apple to destroy the software marketplace by removing consumer choice with these despicable practices.

    1. Re:Code ownership by JAlexoi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realise that in this case the claims were not grounded in software anything?

    2. Re:Code ownership by tbannist · · Score: 2

      Actually, they most definitely filed this complaint, they even demanded the defendant destroy all of the devices in question before the trial began. However, apparently this was a criminal case that was brought against the defendant. So Apple didn't even have to pay for the lawyers because the Spanish government prosecuted the case.

      Wait, so either you didn't even look at the articles, or you have failed entirely to understand what you read and you are complaining about other people being uninformed and biased?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  6. Re:About time ... by slydder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't have a problem with the fact that Apple defends its IP.

    I do have a problem with HOW they defend their IP.

    Do misunderstand me here. I am NOT an Apple fan. I have a lot of friends that love their iThings and I am happy for them. That said, I wouldn't let them use my computer either. It's a good thing the iThings are available for those not Technically savvy.

    But I do want the option to be able to purchase something that is NOT an iThing and also has the ability to allow me to do what "I" want to do, however I want to do it.

    Whether patents are good or not is a non-issue. Of course they are good. As long as they are based on common sense. And as the entire world can see this is NOT the case and thus needs to be addressed.

    Also think 1 second (if you can) what the mobile phone / smartphone sector looked like BEFORE the iPhone and AFTER the iPhone.

    And when did the E70 come out? hmmm. the E75? don't know about you but the only thing that the iphone brought with it was marketing.

    --
    IT Admins Group: Where you decide the content
  7. New Age by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I take it you didn't see the 60 minutes interview with Walter Isaacson. Apple doesn't care about the money. They have $50 billion. In cash. This has absolutely nothing to do with money.

    To some extent, everyone cares about money - but also simply about success. If it stops working, why continue?

    There's another reason though why we might see Apple let up to some extent - with Steve gone, Tim Cook seems like a guy who would be less passionate about suing other companies.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:New Age by Xest · · Score: 3, Informative

      "There's another reason though why we might see Apple let up to some extent - with Steve gone, Tim Cook seems like a guy who would be less passionate about suing other companies."

      You reckon?

      Apple only stepped up the litigation game when Jobs stepped down back in January, that's when they really took off with it. I'm actually concerned now Steve has gone despite Steve's anger towards the competition that this is more Cook's strategy, it just seems odd it started to head this way as soon as Cook started running things day to day and has escalated more and more the closer Jobs got to his death bed and hence the less involvement he was able to have with the company.

      There may be quotes now saying Jobs wanted to kill Android and such and an angry man he may have been, but he wasn't stupid - I can't say I ever liked Jobs but he didn't do what he did by thinking litigation was the solution to everything, he did it by pursuing strong product design and marketing. Cook? I'm not so sure, I get the feeling the litigation route is his favoured option because under him innovation has plummeted and litigation has rocketed.

  8. Here's the link to a non PAYWALLED news source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=468916

  9. Re:NT-K Pad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of course Apple didn't litigate this case -- it was a criminal case, and was therefore litigated by the public prosecutor *as all criminal cases are*. It would definitely appear, however, that the case was instigated by a *complaint* made by Apple.

  10. Actually, the case hasn't been dismissed... by BlueScreenO'Life · · Score: 4, Informative
    ...but suspended, awaiting further evidence.

    Sobreseimiento (as in the original report) != dismissal

    Just nitpicking, though. I don't think there is a case.

    1. Re:Actually, the case hasn't been dismissed... by JAlexoi · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, criminal cases can be in a suspended state for centuries.

  11. 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.
  12. Re:The iPad Patent by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 3, Funny

    One patent to rule them all!
    My precious!

    --
    BM3
  13. Re:The iPad Patent by tbannist · · Score: 2

    Wait so is Steve Sauron now? I thought he was playing Saruman to Bill's Sauron!

    Why doesn't anyone tell me about these casting changes?

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical