Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Judge Grants Apple Injunction Against Samsung Galaxy Tab

Posted by Soulskill on from the too-pad-roddenberry-never-patented-the-padd dept.

Bill Dimm writes "Apple scores a win against Samsung over a design patent. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh issued a ruling granting Apple's request for a preliminary injunction preventing Samsung from selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the United States. She wrote, 'Although Samsung has a right to compete, it does not have a right to compete unfairly by flooding the market with infringing products. ... While Samsung will certainly suffer lost sales from the issuance of an injunction, the hardship to Apple of having to directly compete with Samsung’s infringing products outweighs Samsung’s harm in light of the previous findings by the Court."

15 of 498 comments (clear)

  1. People must be blind.. by intellitech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    1. Re:People must be blind.. by pete6677 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is why IP related injunctions are such bullshit in the modern economy. Patents long ago stopped protecting the small inventor and are now just used to enforce a new version of the medieval guild system. It is not possible to invent any worthwhile product or service anymore without stepping on multiple patents, many of which are legally dubious.

    2. Re:People must be blind.. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > you should come up with an example that doesn't
      > involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a
      > competitor's design.

      Well, there is Windows Phone 7 and the Nokia Lumia. And while I don't personally care for either, their approach is fairly fresh and distinctive and, unlike the galaxy, does not slavishly imitate the iPhone.

      Oh wait. Apple's not suing Microsoft and Nokia over WP7 and the Lumia, are they?

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    3. Re:People must be blind.. by zaphod777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because no one wants to buy them.

      --
      "Don't Panic!"
    4. Re:People must be blind.. by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If anybody could have thought of it why didn't they?

      They did. My dining room table has rounded edge. So did my old TV. So does my keyboard. They all predated the iPad. Apple patented "round corners on a table form factor". They weren't the first ones to think of it, just the first ones to patent it.

      The fact Apple's products consistently have some of the best designs

      That's not a fact, that's an opinion. Facts need to objective, that is subjective.

      suggests that they are doing something innovative, non-obvious

      No, no it doesn't. It could also mean they are doing progressive, iterative improvements, that may be better than the competition, but only because they have taken the next logical step in product development. Every time someone brings out a product that is a little faster, smaller, cheaper or shinier doesn't necessarily mean they've suddenly come up with an innovative new concept.

      putting in some real work

      Wonderful. So's the guy who collects my garbage. He doesn't get a patent on that either, even if he does it really well.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    5. Re:People must be blind.. by xenobyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, there is Windows Phone 7 and the Nokia Lumia. And while I don't personally care for either, their approach is fairly fresh and distinctive and, unlike the galaxy, does not slavishly imitate the iPhone.

      Oh wait. Apple's not suing Microsoft and Nokia over WP7 and the Lumia, are they?

      Apple's patents on the look and overall design of their iPad are basically null and void. There's prior art galore and they're just imitating what scifi tv and movies have been using for decades before the first idea about an iPad lit up the empty space between the ears of the Apple designer that 'invented' it.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    6. Re:People must be blind.. by azalin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we are talking about the second. You know the one who told record label they would never get into the music business and it would be no problem if they shared a name.

  2. Apple scores a win against Samsung by c0lo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Well, does somebody keep the scores? How many points so far for both sides?

    I.e. who's wining? Because customers are surely on the losing side.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    1. Re:Apple scores a win against Samsung by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What would be funny is "Samsung stops selling Apple parts, every single Apple product now discontinued."

      And Samsung shareholders will go ballistic, literally that they're turning down sales from their #1 customer (Apple beat Sony in parts purchased from Samsung).

      The other effect is a greatly distorted market - with the exception of the A4/A5 processor (though TSMC or Intel is supposed to help out), everything else is multiply-sourced. The NAND flash and RAM, especially. All that would happen is that Toshiba and the like suddenly get the orders and make money while Samsung is stuck with excess stock they have to clearance out. In fact, you'll see arbitrage happening - Toshiba etc. will see that simply relabel Samsung parts and cash in on the difference.

      Also, all those multibillion dollar fabs like the one in Austin Tx that Samsung opened? Idled. And when a fab is idled, it's losing tons of money because the equipment is depreciating fast and will turn into a multibillion dollar sinkhole. Running fabs is horribly expensive and if it's not running at basically 100%, it's losing money. If nothing else, few companies can afford a fab - Apple might just pick one up on the cheap because of it.

      It's a love-hate relationship that's probably giving Samsung more angst than anything because they're pitting two divisions of Samsung against each other - the semiconductor division which makes tons of money making parts for Apple versus the mobile division, which makes money (but likely less since it's spread out over more phones).

  3. Galaxy Tab 10.1N by CanEHdian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps Samsung should sell the German version, the Galaxy Tab 10.1N which passed the 'think different' test in German courts.

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  4. Re:* WHOOSH * by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is that really the argument you want to make? Is this the rally call that'll get all the IP haters out there lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks?

    Fuck Yes.

    There is not anything about rounded edges, thin tablets, flat displays, edge to edge display screens, etc. that are purely ornamental and deserving of protection under IP law. It's incredibly obvious, functional, and fundamental to the very idea of a tablet.

    If Apple wants legal protection, they can innovate inside the fucking casing. Better battery life, sharper and higher PPI screens, better touchscreen, faster processors, etc.

    Or as part of the casing with stronger glass, lighter materials, etc.

    Fuck. With your support of their bullshit the next thing we will know is that Apples owns the color white.

  5. Re:Why do you need an example? by Khyber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If you're going to make a statement about how IP regs are stifling innovation you should come up with an example that doesn't involve a company lazily duplicating 25 details of a competitor's design."

    You're confused because those same 'design ticks' are not unique in any fucking way and are a natural expectation in most things. Would you want an iPhone with corners that stabbed you? No? That's pretty fucking obvious. Certain OS design parts might be infringing, but the PHYSICAL part is total bullshit and you fucking know it, you apologist.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  6. Re:Then Blame the USPTO by zaphod777 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While companies need to enforce their patents to protect their IP Apple and Microsoft use them to bully others because they can't compete on their products own merits. Software patents need a much shorter expiration date. I would say a patent is invalid after 4 years (even that is too long).

    --
    "Don't Panic!"
  7. Re:People must be copying.. by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What was so "innovative" about the shape of the corners on the iPad that it needs this much legal protection?

    --
    No sig today...
  8. Re:People must be copying.. by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What was so "innovative" about the shape of the corners on the iPad that it needs this much legal protection?

    Nothing, but patent trolling is one of the fastest growth industries in the US. In addition, it prevents newer, more agile companies disrupting established revenue streams with novel products. It's no surprise companies like Apple are joining in.

    Patent trolls curb innovation and cost the U.S. $29B in 2011

    A new study shows that patent lawsuits are not only costing the country billions of dollars but are also placing the burden on small and medium-size companies, which slows invention.

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57461110-93/patent-trolls-curb-innovation-and-cost-the-u.s-$29b-in-2011/

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."