Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Judge Grants Apple Injunction Against Samsung Galaxy Tab
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."
Patents long ago stopped protecting the small inventor ...
This isn't a patent case, try to keep up. ;)
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
People must be blind if they can't see how much current intellectual property regulations are stifling innovation.
Well, I guess it's just too bad for Samsung that they weren't innovative enough to use a different radius on the corners, or use a white accent or logo, or a different color, or something different rather than the 25 design details that they copied exactly.
Since a patent is not a design patent. Go read the article.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Certainly sounds like a patent case to me.
That would be because you see the word 'patent' and not the word 'design'.
From the f'n article that you and the idiot with the mod point didn't read:
Reached for comment, Apple reiterated the same message itâ(TM)s been hammering at since this debacle began. âoeItâ(TM)s no coincidence that Samsungâ(TM)s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,â spokeswoman Kristin Huguet told AllThingsD. âoeThis kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as weâ(TM)ve said many times before, we need to protect Appleâ(TM)s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.â
Go look up what a design patent is. It's a point that's been hammered into the ground only a million times in the comments section here since late last year.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
I really don't understand why my comment was modded down. The complaint is that IP Law is stifling innovation, right? There are plenty of examples of that happening, right right? Great. So what about in this context? Samsung is in trouble for copying the iPad. If Apple wins, Samsung has to change their design. And what do you call a change in design? Innovation!
Now you may have an issue with that statement. Fine, argue with it, maybe the word 'Insightful" will appear next to your post. But before you hit reply, I just have one question: If Samsung is just copying details of a successful product (as opposed to spending the time to try out ideas of their own that might... *gasp* .. come up with an unexpected benefit that the consumer will like..), how does that lead to innovation? This is a serious question, I mean the Tab wasn't even cheaper than the iPad.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Really? You're going to try to be that pedantic?
Yes, I am. If Samsung's tablet was green, this case wouldn't be happening.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
They're both called patents, and they're both based upon intellectual property.
Can you tell the difference between a man and woman? They both have the word 'man' in their names.
Now if we're done pretending to be intellectual here, the difference is that if this were a patent dispute, this would be about preventing technology from being used. This has nothing to do with a small inventor, unless of course he goes to Samsung's lengths to duplicate an existing product.
You keep insinuating that people replying to your posts don't know how to read.
I wouldn't have to explain this if you had read about it the first thirty times it had been discussed on this site over the last few months.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Samsung isn't innovating. They created a device that looks ridiculously like an iPad, because they know people love iPads. There's plenty of innovation going on in the tablet world. Many of these products are of course dead or dying in the marketplace, not because of a design patent injunction, but because no one was buying any. This injunction affects Galaxy Tabs that look like iPads, not the next great tablet device that will do something so much different or better that it destroys the iPad's market share.
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
It's still regulated by IP LAW.
This isnt: "IP law sucks cos nobody else can make a tablet!" What you're saying is: "IP law sucks because it won't let Samsung closely copy the casing to the iPad!"
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?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Geeeee boss... didn't know apple users were so stupid! But then, you only confirm my hypothesis...
It seems the stupid one is you. What a lack of logical thinking. The people in questions are _not_ Apple users. They are prospective buyers of iPads, so they are _not_ Apple users. The clever ones turn into Apple users, and the stupid ones turn into Samsung users.
Well ain't that a bunch of deceitful malarky. Those trademarks are about confusing products ie people buying the Samsung product when they thought they were buying the Apple product. No one can claim that. These choice is not hardware but a choice about operating systems and online sales resources. The Android operating system and the Google store versus iOS and the Apple store, no confusion there, Apple's who premise is a lie. People buy the Galaxy Tab specifically because they do not want Apple operating system or the Apple store, no confusion, they are avoiding Apple and the Judge stole their choice, the judge eliminated competition, the judge handed sown an extremely questionable verdict one that stinks of corruption.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen