Slashdot Mirror
Apple Can't Block US Sales of Samsung Devices
An anonymous reader snips this good news (for Samsung fans) from Edible Apple "In April of 2011, Apple kicked off what would soon become a global and complex series of litigation disputes when it sued Samsung in the U.S. claiming that its line of Galaxy smartphones and tablets infringed upon Apple's intellectual property and were nothing more than 'slavish' copies. As part of its suit, Apple requested a preliminary injunction that would bar Samsung from selling said products in the U.S. This past Friday, Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction."
Finally some judges are realizing they are being used for judgements to enforce business ^H^H^H^H^H...monopoly by via litigation.
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
Ok, I'll bite on the bait.
A Samsung fan is just a regular person who doesn't have a deeply compelling brand loyalty. Or at least in the usage in this article summary on Slashdot that is the meaning.
It means, anybody who isn't a Steve-fan.
This is similar to the recent reversal of the Apple-Samsung injunction in Australia - there, the court said that an injunction was unwarranted, but that Samsung would have to keep detailed records of every penny earned on the products, because they could be on the hook for all of them. Same thing here - if the patents are found valid and Samsung is found to have infringed, they'll owe damages to Apple... but there's no reason to preemptively make those damages $0 by stopping the sale of the product.
Plain and simple.
"Oh my god, their tablet is like ours! Ban it!"
Phone Arena:
Apple gives Samsung advice on non-patent infringing designs
In order to disprove Samsung’s claim, Apple needed to provide alternate design options to prove that Samsung did, in fact, blatantly copy Apple’s design. Some samples from these suggestions include:
Smartphones:
* Front surface that isn't black.
* Overall shape that isn't rectangular, or doesn't have rounded corners.
* Display screens that aren't centered on the front face and have substantial lateral borders.
* Non-horizontal speaker slots.
* Front surfaces with substantial adornment.
* No front bezel at all.
Tablets:
* Overall shape that isn't rectangular, or doesn't have rounded corners.
* Thick frames rather than a thin rim around the front surface.
* Front surface that isn't entirely flat.
* Profiles that aren't thin.
* Cluttered appearance.
They also have a great depiction of what such a tablet may look like
I don't want some muslims ripping off American technology and implementing a Muslim Caliphate. Did you know that in the Muslim World, women are raped if they drive a car? That young girls cannot go to school or their heads are cut off and fed to dogs?
This is what is at stake, when terrorist groups like Samsung attack our American values. We have to defend America first, and to hell with everyone else.
The worst part of these preliminary injunctions is they kill the biggest sales time - pre-Christmas.
While there may be merit on both sides, aborting the product in it's first large sales growth period is a sure-fire way of killing off a competitor.
What Apple has done, is polarise a significant portion of people against them. It's almost as if they modelled themselves on Microsoft...
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
Apple is scared to death, because they know Samsung is making a better product.
Apple can control its sheeple users, but they have no right to control other companies or the right to block buyers from the competition.
When will Apple be called out for doing all the horrible shit people think Microsoft does?
What a bunch of horseshit. It would be come immediately clear how stupid those guidelines were if Apple ang Samsung were both car designers squabbling over a car model. I mean, you don't see Bentley suing Chrysler.
When you're pimping a Chrysler, people know it's a Chrysler. Despite the similarities, there's no way in hell anybody with half a brain would confuse a Chrysler with a Bentley. And Bentley, being classy, is aware of that and that suing Chrysler would be a very tacky and un-classy move.
Apple could learn a few things from that little case study, but they want to be tacky and don't have enough faith in consumers to be able to distinguish the two.
Oh, I just clicked preview and saw that you're now at +5 funny and I've been trolled. I may be too dumb to get sarcasm, but I'm still not dumb enough to confuse a Galaxy with an iPad.
Basically the claim is that all phones and tablets after the iPhone and ipad must look nothing like the phones and tablets that existed prior to the iPhone and iPad. Apple has retroactive inventors rights.
Pity really, I like Apple products (other then iOS which is too restrictive for me) but they seem to have some crazy people working there these days.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
this is how Hitler was allowed to invade the Sudetenland, annex Austria, and crash those planes into the Trade Towers.
>do they make ceiling fans or something?
They do make fans. And per ROK specifications, they come with timers.
Because, you know, fan death is a leading killer of Koreans.
--
BMO
Her husband was born in Mexico and lives in the US since childhood, and she was raised in Mississippi and Oklahoma. And her mother is from North Korea, only the father is from South.
Dilbert RSS feed
That's because I was in a hurry and couldn't readily find a picture of an older, boxier Bentley. Here are the obvious similarities:
- The headlights are recessed from the Grille. Think of the center grille section as kind of a "nose" between the "eyes."
- The fender areas are tightly "wrapped" around the wheel wells and there is a small distance between the top of the wheel and the hood. Also note that both vehicles have big, spoked rims and small street-tires, all contributing to both models' "low-slung" appearance.
- On both vehicles, the angle of the front windshield is larger than the angle of the back windshield, and the roof itself is sloping downward toward the rear.
- Both vehicles are black with silver trim, and are generally intended to evoke a luxury appearance. Chrysler is obviously paying homage to Bentley.
- An obvious difference between the two pics I provided is that the Chrysler's grille extends to the bottom, and there are fog lights on its bumper. However, using this bentley pic as a reference, once again there is more similarity.
- While we're talking about the fronts, take into consideration the logos of the Bentley and the Chrysler here. Both logos are encapsulated in an oval, adorned with wings, and located on the top center of the grille.
I was saying earlier that Apple should appreciate that others are paying homage to them instead of trying to stop their shipments. It is apparent to anybody with half a brain which is which, especially when the GUIs are visible.
If Apple still wanted to stop Samsung, they could have at least compared the radius of the corners rather than just saying, "rounded corners," for example.
Looks like you've got Samsung's lawyers beat, then: Even Samsungâ(TM)s Lawyers Can't Tell the Difference Between Its Tablet and an iPad
You act like that's Samsung's problem.
I wonder if they (or Apple's lawyers) could tell this apart from the front of the Galaxy Tab... because if not, Apple has a serious problem, because that's a Samsung Digital Photo Frame from 2006, predating the iPad by 4 years.
Now, the back looks nothing like a Galaxy Tab, but that's not likely to be the part the court was showing when asking the question.
Here's a tip: If you rip off someone's design, don't sue the person you ripped off for ripping off said design in a different product.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
You know, one of the great things about the Internet (and the slashdot posting system) is the relative anonymity it provides.
I'm glad because it has limited my embarrassment for making such an ill-considered statement without doing the most cursory investigation. (If you Google "Lucy Koh", the very first listing is the Wikipedia entry with her bio.). At least I don't have to face up to my mistakes in my "real" public life.
However, the other nice thing about the anonymity the Internet provides is that it helps keep one's ego from getting in the way of an admission of being wrong.
So, boy I was wrong to imagine that Ms. Koh might have been unduly influenced; with her upbringing, education and qualifications, it is very unlikely that this would've happened. My apologies to all the other posters who wasted their time on this thread.
Hmm. I looked at a whole bunch of flat screen monitors and generally preferred the picture from the Samsungs, so I bought one. I looked at a whole bunch of Android phones August of last year, and wound up buying a Galaxy S because I liked the AMOLED screen and disliked Motorola's policy on requiring signed kernels on their droids. I since haven't been too thrilled with how long it's taken to get Android updates, but now that the warranty is expired, I'll probably switch to Cyanogen soon when it supports Android 4 for the Galaxy.
So technology wise, they seem to be above average, although their update support leaves something to be desired. When I next have to buy home electronics, I'll probably take a close look at anything Samsung has to offer, keeping in mind their supposed limitations. You could call me a Samsung fan because I have bought two of their products and would consider buying more, or you could call me a careful shopper. I'm willing to give the other guy the benefit of the doubt that he just appreciates the good qualities of their products.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
The law doesn't and can't define where the line is between patentable and unpatentable designs; that is for the courts to sort out, and they are trying to sort it out.
The reasons this is coming up now and is such a problem are twofold. First, product cycles and market opportunities are very short lived. Samsung had a few months to turn a profit on the 10.1 and Apple killed that. Now, the Transformer Prime is coming out and the lawsuit doesn't matter anymore. Second, most companies focus on making good products and don't, as a habit, go around suing each other over trivialities--it wastes everybody's time.
The last point may also be the solution to this problem: Samsung and everybody else being sued by Apple should tie up Apple's designers and executives in court, for years. Given how marginal Apple's claims are, the court should grant wide latitude to the defense to depose and question these people. When Apple's employees spend more time in court than doing work, maybe they'll figure out that these kinds of lawsuits are not productive for anybody.