Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Sues Aussie Patent Office In Apple Suit, Apple Sues Back
schliz writes "Samsung has sued the Australian patent commissioner — and by extension the Australian Government — in an attempt to force a review of patents key to its global battle with smartphone rival Apple. The Korean manufacturer claims that the commissioner should not have been able to grant four patents used by Apple in its case against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1. The Government solicitor will face Samsung in court on June 25." Not to be outdone, niftydude points out that Apple has filed a motion in a California court to prevent Samsung selling its latest smartphone, the Galaxy S III in the US.
Apple called Samsung a doodoo head and is currently grounded.
Mutually Assured Destruction:
This is like the nuclear deterant, but without the massive death toll to keep it at bay.
They should all sue each other out of the market and let companies who are not such tools have a shot at the market.
What a strange outfit to sue someone
letting the consumer/market decide? Isn't this what capitalism is about, the consumers choose based on price, quality, features etc..... We seem to be in some sort of meta capitalist market now where the courts decide who can buy what. "All working as intended" ?
Ultimately, lawyers and courts (when used for stuff like this) are overhead costs that are to be minimized. Don't get me wrong: the individual companies can come out better, but the customer always loses. All those lawyers are paid by the customers.
And I think we'd be better off without them.
Apple claimed that the new phone, which is yet to go on sale in the US but went on sale in Australia last week, could cause it "irreparable harm," citing press reports that mobile companies had already sold more than nine million units in pre-orders.
Hardly surprising that Apple is worried, according to the Telegraph the Samsung Galaxy S3 has now overtaken the iPhone 4S as the UK's most popular phone.
This technology IP "war" is ridiculous. If motor manufacturers had the same intent there would only ever be one model with an IP registered "internal combustion engine" No other such engine would pass these idiotic patent laws. This is the greatest limitation to the development of new technology solutions. It is a fact that all new developments are built on previous knowledge. If this continues all development will stall, we might as well go back to the stone age.
I was wondering how you thought your upcoming iPhone5 stacked up against the S3. It's too close to launch to change it now, so these desperate acts speak volumes.
I've been a pragmatically happy iPod owner, but one of the reasons I bought an Android phone was Apples behavior wrt patent lawsuits. If they want to continue to shoot their own foot, so be it.
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
Isn't Apple that all the time sues Samsung or, (... put another Android phone maker here).
When it comes to tablets, I think Apple is the lead horse regarding lawsuits, but the entire technology industry uses the courts as a 'business partner'. Just look at all the patents that are bought and sold when troubled or failing companies need to raise money, or when large companies want to strengthen their positions against their competitors.
Would it mean that Apple is losing more and more ground compared to Android ? Patent justice is the last method when you have no more alternative to compete.
Apple has no other option but to lose ground to competitors. They were the first largely successful tablet on the market and grabbed a huge percentage of sales. As competition comes along Apple can't realistically hold onto its entire marketshare. That doesn't mean that they are failing or being driven out of the market, it's just the reality of the numbers.
Don't think that Apple can't compete just because they're spending as much time on legal maneuvers as they do on R&D. They're still the market leader in tablets, they're near the top in smart phones, and they're only going to branch out further into the new areas of consumer electronics. They may act like dicks a lot of the time but that doesn't mean being a dick and being competitive are mutually exclusive.
Am I the only one whose mind went straight to the fruit of the loom guy dressed as an apple when reading the headline "samsung sues aussie patent office in apple suit?"
Samsung is only dependent on iPhone as long as iPhone is a major player. If the Samsung phones take top spot, and Samsung have enough power to no longer need to make components for Apple, then guess who's screwed? What does bewilder me is that yes, Samsung has a contract to manufacture the components now, but how long does that contract last for? What happens when it's time to renew?
I work in Pharma, and our production site was bought by another company some time ago. We agreed to continue to manufacture the old company's products until they could transfer manufacture of them to other sites. It is looking like that transfer might take longer than initially agreed. But, due to the nature of our business, the Irish Medical Board might insist that we continue to manufacture the product for the old company beyond the contractually agreed time, because we can't have a stock-out of the product.
Somehow, I don't think there's a similar enforcement for the iPhone. If Samsung no longer needs/wants to supply Apple when their contract is up, I don't see there being anyone who can force them to continue. iPhone enters a time of shortage, Samsung S3 is out there on the shelves. What happens next would be quite interesting.
The USPTO in particular should be drowning in a sea of lawsuits by now. They'll only change their grant-by-default policy when rubberstamping idiotic obvious non-inventions costs them more than it earns them.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Those two should just screw and get it over with.
The courts get fed up and ban every single mobile company on the planet from selling phones for a year. Then they can come back in to apologize for their shit and maybe they'll be allowed to play again.
Your business is making and selling phones, not preventing other people from making and selling phones. I'm no longer buying any electronics product of any company who is plaintiff in a patent infringement case.
They would have patented the use of four wheels.
The point is that in other industries, we do not see the petty suits over similarities. Perhaps we don't see them because we aren't looking. But the only issue I recall even remotely similar to this in terms of pettiness is the patent on "rotating table inside of microwave oven." For the longest time, people had to buy little devices or turn their food by hand because the ones with rotating tables inside were too expensive and the patent holder's license was too high.
I suppose we are seeing SOME patent issues in cars now that I think about it. Toyota holds patents related to the Prius pretty close and it's literally keeping hybrids from being developed. Yes, there are other hybrids out there. Just not many and not as successful. It's not that people don't want them, it's that they don't all want the same frikken car!
Lawyers don't want this to end. The judges aren't tired of this either... perhaps some are, but certainly not the ones in East Texas. The other parts of government are too busy collecting contributions and donations, walking through revolving doors and anything except "bribery" to even consider reform or intervention.
We'll just have to be content watching goliaths tear each other apart and all that.