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."
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.
I.e. who's wining? Because customers are surely on the losing side.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Does it really matter at this point?
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is over a year old at this point and probably not selling in large volume any longer. Other competing Android tablets have already supplanted it in nearly every area and it will probably be replaced by Samsung's next offering in the near future. Unless this ruling also makes it a lot easier for Apple to get an injunction against any of Samsung's future tablet products, I can't see this making a difference at all.
I haven't read the ruling yet, but in several past cases, usually the injunction prevents Samsung from importing additional product. That would mean that inventory already in the US and in the hands of retailers could continue to be sold so long as Apple doesn't pursue legal action against retails, which they won't as many of those retailers also likely sell Apple's products. Given that Samsung will probably have a new tablet out soon, I can't see them even caring if they can't restock supplies of the Galaxy Tab 10.1.
I'd be interested in hearing the full implications from this ruling from someone more versed in the relevant laws. Is this victory as hollow as I think it is, or is there actually some value in this for Apple?
Perhaps you missed the ".1", that's a pretty innovative bit at the end there.
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.
You keep insinuating that people replying to your posts don't know how to read. I would postulate that you don't know how to think.
They're both called patents, and they're both based upon intellectual property.
It's not really a patent. Much closer to a trademark. Design patents are what stops all the other drink companies from selling cola in those distinctive Coke bottles. Doesn't mean that Coke has a patent on glass bottles, or on bottles with rounded bits, although I'm sure variations of both those are part of the design patent. They have a specific design that is protected.
Apple does not have a patent (or even claim to have a patent) on rounded corners. They have a design patent on a specific design that happens to include rounded corners.
R'd the F.A. I don't see anywhere it says that a design patent is not a patent.
OTOH, there is USPTO which disagrees with you when they say:
"A patent is an intellectual property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.
There are three types of patents. Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. ... Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant."
Note the three types: design, utility, and plant. Design is most assuredly a type of patent.
Yes, I am. If Samsung's tablet was green, this case wouldn't be happening.
Then why is it happening even though the size and aspect ratio is different? And the existence of button and branding on the front? If you're going to assert that a change like color is what the whole case hangs upon then surely you can quantify the weight of that one element to the case with regard to the others. For example what about if they changed the corner radius? And how much would they have to change it for that element of the design patent to not be considered infringing, and at that point would the lack of consideration of that part of the design patent invalidate the case as you suggest would happen with the color of the device?
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.
Wow, big surprise!
American judge awards American company an injunction against an overseas competitor. Again. We (the rest of the world) never saw that coming...
And yes, I know to Americans this comment is going to seem trolly but I am willing to risk karma over it because this is precisely how these cases are viewed, outside your borders. For right or wrong, we see it that the US controlled ITC and US court system are used to prop up US companies against competition.
I don't need a tablet ... But I almost feel obliged to buy a Galaxy. Out of sheer spite.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
"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.
Especially when they are going after HTC for things like contextual menus. "Oh that's a phone number would you like to call it?" or I see you have two browsers which would you like to open the link in and would you like it to be your default?". It's not like that shit hasn't been around fir years ... oh wait.
"Don't Panic!"
for granting these silly patents.
Whilst the system allows for this sort of shite then companies are DUTY bound to protect the interests of their shareholders over what they see as a perfectly LEGAL asset.
Apple, MicroSoft and a gazillion others are all playing the system. If you want to stop this then
Fix the frigging system.
I'd like to abolish the USPTO and start again but I have no influence as I'm not a US Citizen so what I would like to do is an irrelevance.
Sitting 3K miles away, I do get the impression of Nero fiddling whilst Rome burns as I watch this M.A.D ness going on accross the pond.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
No, they created a device that looks like an iPad because anything that does the same job will look pretty much they same. Hammers, for example, tend to have a heavy end that hits and a handle end that you hold.
The things Apple are crying about are practical and part of its functionality. Design patents cover the decorative aspects. Should everyone else have to build heptagonal tablets with bayonets sticking out of the corners?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What was so "innovative" about the shape of the corners on the iPad that it needs this much legal protection?
No sig today...
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."
1993 Apple early tablet
2006 Samsung digital photo frame
2010 Apple iPad
I'm really tire of tweedle dee vs tweedle dum choices for presidential elections.
You're lucky.
Over in Australia, our elections are normally between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dumber.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
1993 Apple early tablet
2006 Samsung digital photo frame
2010 Apple iPad
2006 Samsung digital photo frame viewed from other angles.
Disclaimer: I think that these patents are ridiculous, and would be happy if they went away completely.
However, are you saying that attractive and distinct product design plays no role in a purchasing decision?
Of course not, but there's only so many shapes a corner can be and 'rounded' is probably the most obvious. Patents are supposed to be for "non-obvious" things.
If Apple had patented spiky, razor-sharp corners then they might have a point if other people started doing the same. Spiky isn't a natural choice for the corners of a consumer product.
No sig today...
Let's not forget the fact that the only pictures where the items DO look the same were doctored by Apple. (The comparison photos were not to scale, which hides the fact that the aspect ratios and dimensions of the two devices are completely different, and also I think Apple may even have done some stretching to make the aspect ratios look the same!)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
ust like the woman who burned herself on McD's super hot coffee through her own clumsiness and ill-advised driving with it between her legs didn't sue McD because they "sold coffee".
People like to trot out that case all the time as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, but having actually read the facts of the case, I'm not so quick to dismiss it.
From Wikipedia:
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard S.E. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg). Two years of medical treatment followed.
Additionally, she only sued for $20,000 initially; $10,500 to cover current her medical expenses, anticipated medical expenses to the tune of $2,500, and an additional $5,000 for loss of income due to the amount of time she was out of work (she had third degree burns to her crotch, after all, how productive would any of us be with 3rd degree burns to our crotch?). It was only when McDonald's offered $800 and refused to budge an inch that she hired an attorney and he filed suit against them for gross negligence related to the temperature the coffee was being served at.
During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180–190 F (82–88 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 F (60 C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 F (82 C) coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 F (71 C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false, finding that 149 F (65 C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
I don't know about you guys, but I've ordered coffee at McDonald's and gotten scalded on both my mouth and hands several times, it is served ridiculously hot, much hotter than coffee I have gotten pretty much anywhere else, certainly much hotter than the coffee that comes out of my own coffeepot here at home. Did it really need to be served at such a high temperature? Probably not, becaus