Samsung Appeals Apple's Injunction Against Galaxy Nexus

It will come as no surprise that Samsung has filed an appeal in response to the injunction granted to Apple against the Galaxy Nexus phone in the U.S.. From the article: "The motion, filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, seeks a stay of the injunction for the duration of the appeal. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ordered the preliminary injunction on Friday, granting a motion Apple made in February that alleged Samsung infringed on several of its patents. The injunction, which would keep the Samsung device from being sold in stores in the U.S., can go into effect as soon as Apple posts a bond of nearly $96 million."

Comments

Injunction

[AmiMoJo]

Injunction terms are too narrow. Can't we have an injunction against patent related douchbaggery?

Re:Injunction

[SomePgmr]

The upside is that Apple had to post $90 million, payable in some part to Samsung (as I understand it), in case the injunction turned out to be bogus.

Re:Injunction

[SomePgmr]

Figures, I'd read this earlier so I skipped the /. summary (where the bond is mentioned) for the comments. My mistake!

Re:Injunction

[v1]

The upside is that Apple had to post $90 million, payable in some part to Samsung (as I understand it), in case the injunction turned out to be bogus.

They can probably round up that kind of cash by digging in their couch cushions. I'm sure the appeal was expected, and they'll probably wait to see how it pans out before proceeding. The fact that they haven't posted the bond yet does suggest they think the injunction has a chance of being successfully appealed

When you're dealing with companies of this size, an injunction really doesn't mean much until it's withstood at least one appeal.

Re:Injunction

[poetmatt]

90 million is bullshit. The bonds for this stuff (software "patent infringement" via the ITC loophole) should start at a 1-2 billion dollars and go up. That would certainly stop these bogus lawsuits.

Re:Injunction

[alen]

and how many companies have this kind of cash? if you're a small start up and sue a big huge megacorp for abusing some cool tech you made up you can win in court and still lose the war

see the japanese takeover of the consumer electronics in the 1980's

Re:Injunction

[Quila]

Bonds are set by the financial harm the defendant would suffer by the injunction. It makes no sense to have some minimum number, as harm could be well below that.

Let's say you have the reasonable potential to make $1 million on your widgets this year. Some guy gets an injunction, posts a bond, you win. You then show the court your losses, and that is paid out of the bond. Why have a billion dollar bond in cases such as this? You think to discourage such cases? Bonds are equitable, not punitive.

Re:Injunction

[Theaetetus]

90 million is bullshit. The bonds for this stuff (software "patent infringement" via the ITC loophole)...

From the summary: "U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ordered the preliminary injunction on Friday, granting a motion Apple made in February that alleged Samsung infringed on several of its patents."

This has nothing to do with the ITC. This was in federal court in the Northern District of California.

Re:Injunction

[catmistake]

That would certainly stop these bogus lawsuits.

Yeah, because the adversarial court system, jurisprudence, the rule of law and legitimate decisions of the Court just isn't enough for the discriminating slashdotter.

Re:Injunction

[SomePgmr]

I don't know how they figure the financial harm, but I do hope it includes legal fees and some workable formula for intangible damages (beyond lost sales over the previous month).

Being nobody important, I can only shudder at the thought of a company like Apple having your widget spuriously pulled from market for even a month. I imagine the damages would exceed the number of units you sold in a prior month.

Re:Injunction

[Shagg]

Isn't a judge supposed to decide if it's bogus before the injunction is granted?

Re:Injunction

[Anonymous Coward]

Make it a percentage of your total value as a company - say 10% :)
If the tech is worth *sooooo much* then the bond is chicken feed.

Re:Injunction

[n30na]

This. Punishment should scale so it doesn't just become a slap on the wrist.

Re:Injunction

[Anonymous Coward]

Mainly because most people are fed up with what passes for "justice" these days. Obvious corporate/political connections to cases at hand, yet judges are not stepping aside to maintain impartiality. Twisting and perverting the constitution to fit these political agendas. Applying precedence when it fits the agenda, ignoring it when it doesn't... It goes on and on.

The whole stinking system is corrupt and nothing that comes out of it can be trusted.

Re:Injunction

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason there's an injuction process is so that the plaintiff can block sales when sales would cause "irreparable harm". But what if the injunction would cause irreparable harm to the defendant when the plaintiff's lawsuit turns out to be bullshit?

Re:Injunction

[catmistake]

Mainly because most people are fed up with what passes for "justice" these days. Obvious corporate/political connections to cases at hand, yet judges are not stepping aside to maintain impartiality. Twisting and perverting the constitution to fit these political agendas. Applying precedence when it fits the agenda, ignoring it when it doesn't... It goes on and on.

The whole stinking system is corrupt and nothing that comes out of it can be trusted.

What's ridiculous is that you can infer all this from a slashdot summary. If those commenting were in any way actually, you know... informed... these sweeping generalizations that pass for opinions might count for something.

Re:Injunction

[camperslo]

This. Punishment should scale so it doesn't just become a slap on the wrist.

It is NOT a punishment. The bond is a form of insurance that a company whose product was blocked from a market will be compensated for the resulting losses if it turns out they were not in the wrong.

Re:Injunction

[n30na]

I meant more in general, though in this case that seems appropriate as well.

Re:Injunction

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a small start up, the difference between $90 million and $1 billion is pretty much academic. You might, if you're very lucky and supremely confident in your case, be able to raise $1-2 million for a bond like this, but $90 million? Not without selling out to a big player, at whatever knockdown charity price they feel like donating.

Re:Injunction

[Scragglykat]

the 90 million is an estimation of what Samsung would lose due to the injunction. Of course, that doesn't take into consideration what Apple stands to gain in contrary. Maybe they should put the two together and then make them pay that.

Pics or GTFO!

[_merlin]

I am sick of hearing about frivolous patents and their knock-on effects. It makes my depression ever worse than it would otherwise be. However, I would like to know whether judge Lucy Koh is hot. Does anyone have links to pictures to allow me to make up my mind on this important issue?

Re:Pics or GTFO!

[Anonymous Coward]

google it.

the short answer is no, but it is whats inside that counts.

Re:Pics or GTFO!

[Anonymous Coward]

She's no Yuuri Morishita.

Re:Pics or GTFO!

[Noughmad]

the short answer is no, but it is whats inside that counts.

Not for Apple's patents.

Re:Pics or GTFO!

[Hognoxious]

Think Margaret Cho, but slightly more funny.

Re:Pics or GTFO!

[Jello B.]

Hey, fuck you. Women aren't objects.

Re:Pics or GTFO!

[gmhowell]

Hey, fuck you. Women aren't objects.

But they have physical properties. How else could they be chained to the stove?

I like this

[Anonymous Coward]

It will come as no surprise that Samsung has filed an appeal

I think that more supposed news stories should begin "this is not news".

This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Lumpy]

I love apple products, but this is becoming disgusting. I cant see how anyone can think that android is anything like iOS except for where it uses icons, and you use your fingers, and it runs apps.

The whole thing with this is underlining a major flaw in our court system.

1 - Judges are not educated enough to make a ruling need to be retired. Sorry, but why are you presiding over a technology case when you know nothing about technology?

2 - Our patent system is so broken that it's proving to anyone that has a brain that it is causing a strangulation effect. A little guy in his garage has ZERO chance of creating anything without being gunned down in court by a rich company afraid of competition.

The sad part is that we cant change it. No matter WHO get's elected into congress, they are always outnumbered 300 to 1 by the bought and paid for senators that are there to do what the industry tells them to do instead of doing what is right.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[MickyTheIdiot]

Our whole system is broken because it has become totally pay-to-play. An occurrence like this should be ringing alarm bells in Washington DC, but of course it isn't. The lack of knowledge and corruption is rife throughout the entire system right now.

I posted on the previous article about this that Google should step up and take the lead and use it as a concrete example for congresscritters since they are the ones with enough money to actually make a difference.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

1 - Judges don't need to be educated to make these decisions. That's what the attorneys are for. Judges and juries shouldn't be swayed by anything but what the two sides present. Under your system, it's more like Judge Judy or The People's Court. Which isn't exactly legally fair if the Judge is biased one way or another.

2 - Agreed, but we CAN change it. It does matter who gets elected to congress.

First off, you have no idea how the buying and selling of senators even happens, do you? Give this a listen. The economics behind campaign contributions are ridiculous. The situation in Congress is the opposite of what you think. Congress critters stalk and seek the money of moneyed interests. Not the other way around.

Elections are tight, redistricting only can get you so far these days. Same with campaign contributions. By forming informed voter blocks you can actually sway elections by forming political action committees and doing the hard work of trying to be a participant in the representative democratic process.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[StripedCow]

The problem is that engineers almost never take a stand and just keep on doing what management tells them to do, as long as the money keeps flowing in. Basically, we're just prostituting ourselves. And that makes Apple probably the filthiest brothel on the planet, and also the most expensive one.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

So who paid off who?

You're alleging a pretty big corruption crime here. What's your evidence? That it didn't go your way? That somehow you know more than the judge or the lawyers in the case?

You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call. This is not corruption. This is an inconvenience for two major multinational corporations.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[msauve]

"Judges don't need to be educated to make these decisions."

Absolutely correct, especially with regard to a legal education. Decisions should be made based on common sense, not the mess of disingenuous rationalizations which constitute our legal system.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[MickyTheIdiot]

Who paid off who? What universe do you live in?

Go read up about the U.S. lobbying system. It might open your eyes.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[StripedCow]

Oh, and to be fair, Google engineers are essentially a bunch of voyeurs, but that's a different story.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[cyber-vandal]

Taking a stand doesn't pay the mortgage.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Judges don't need to be educated to make these decisions. That's what the attorneys are for. Judges and juries shouldn't be swayed by anything but what the two sides present.

Absolutely. This is a real problem in areas outside the technical arena, where rogue judges and jurors run amok with their outside knowledge. The number of people convicted based on the judge and jury "knowing" such facts as that being repeatedly shot in the head poses a risk of death is shocking. What we actually need is a panel of babies who will consider each case from first principles with "goo goo gaga" and work up from there.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[oakgrove]

Hasn't the "but if you think this is bad, you should see x" strawman been knocked down enough times already? Give the poor guy a break already.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I have. It works the other way around. Congressmen stalk and harass the lobbyists for dough. Planet Money did a great piece on it.

This isn't the result of Congressional lobbying. This is the result of actions taken by the Judiciary. Now if you want to accuse the Judge as being paid off, you're REALLY making a HUGE accusation.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Common sense is neither common nor sensible.

We're talking matters of law here. The Judge needs to weigh ALL evidence regardless of personal biases here. That's how our legal system works.

This isn't disingenuous rationalization we're talking about. This is the foundation for a fair and free legal system. If you really think this isn't working, the alternative is MUCH worse.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[MickyTheIdiot]

There has been *nothing* I've written that has talked about the judge in this case. We aren't dealing with judicial corruption.

The reason the laws are the patent system are the way they are now is because big money wants it that way. The "patent reform" act last year made the situation worse. Why do you think it got pushed through? Because it was paid for. That is the only way things happen in this congress. There is no sense of the common good whatsoever.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

No, because they're making a value judgement with zero perspective from a privileged point of view.

One that happens to be factually wrong.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one of the reasons I'm leaving one of the big corps at the moment. They're pushing harder, ever harder for patents. I don't feel like I can be a part of that, in good conscience.

A lot of the other guys like the name-on-a-patent thing , and the (small) bonus they get for it. I can't reconcile that with myself.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[MickyTheIdiot]

If it's factually wrong show contradicting facts. Or shut up.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Do you have evidence this is what "big money" wants? Do you have documents from groups like ALEC or the the US Chamber of Commerce showing that this is what they want?

Just blindly throwing out that OMG BOUGHT AND PAID FOR doesn't exactly mean proof. What proof do you have? I need evidence, not innuendo and conspiratorial thinking.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[msauve]

So now you saying that judges _should_ be educated. Please try to be consistent.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Nerdfest]

This could actually just be a case of judicial 'fanboi' bias. You see it even more in the news media and TV fields, where the poor downtrodden minority that had been using Macs for years now have the opportunity to spread the gospel.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then don't get a mortgage.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Judges need to know how the law works, not be pre-biased on the case.

I mean, this is pretty simple stuff.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[LordLucless]

You're alleging a pretty big corruption crime here. What's your evidence?

He's not alleging anything. He's describing systemic corruption, not some incident specific to this case. U.S. politicians are taught to look to industry for funding, and therefore, for policy, rather than the electorate. This means that without some lobby with money, there's no reason to change the status quo, unless it's an election year, or it's something that's really riling large segments of the population.

Why do you think there's so much movement behind "piracy", and so little behind patent reform? Because there's a lobby splashing money around for copyright reform, whereas all the guys with money have already bought into the patent system.

You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call. This is not corruption.

Uh-huh. Just like you shouldn't complain if take a dump on your doorstep. Going down to the sewerage plant would be a huge fucking wake up call. You'd realize that my excrement isn't actually shit, because there's so much more of it at the sewerage plant than there is on your front porch.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[msauve]

How does knowledge of the subject at hand "pre-bias" a case? For "simple stuff," you're adding a lot of complexity.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[cheekyjohnson]

You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call.

The fact that it could be worse does not mean that it's not corruption.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[squiggleslash]

Decisions should be made based on common sense, not the mess of disingenuous rationalizations which constitute our legal system

I think the most obvious solution to this is to rewrite our code of law to be a collection of car analogies...

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[sensei moreh]

No matter WHO get's elected into congress, they are always outnumbered 300 to 1 by the bought and paid for senators

It's not that bad. There are only 100 senators.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[msauve]

It's an adversarial system. I think sports analogies would work better.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are way over complicating the issue. Samsung is using something that Apple patented (data detectors if I recall), and they failed to remove those from their products, hence the ban. Claiming that this is corruption, when it is frankly working as designed is a bit of a stretch don't you think.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

> I cant see how anyone can think that android is anything like iOS except for where it uses icons, and you use your fingers, and it runs apps.

I looked at today's Woot:
TODAY'S WOOT
Samsung Galaxy 5" Wi-Fi 8GB Tablet

Stand four feet back from your monitor and explain how you'd know the difference between that and an iPhone.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's only 100 senators, so they would be outnumbers 99 to 1 at the worst.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[drinkypoo]

Our whole system is broken because it has become totally pay-to-play. An occurrence like this should be ringing alarm bells in Washington DC,

It is. It's the money alarm. They're looking forward to being able to steal some from someone.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[heckler95]

Judges need to have a basic understanding (beyond that of your average grandparent) about how the underlying technology works in order to make a fair legal decision. One example that comes to mind are the lawsuits brought by the RIAA against John Does based on records of an IP address downloading or uploading a file. IP Addresses do not uniquely identify a person or even (most of the time) a single computer yet they allow these companies to harass individuals without sufficient evidence linking a specific person to any crime. I'm willing to bet that at one point in your life, you have probably operated a WiFi router either without security or using easily-broken WEP. If a stranger used your network to commit a crime, wouldn't you prefer a judge with a basic understanding of how networks and IP addresses work so that you could make an adequate defense? Or would you be ok with the prosecution dumbing it down for the judge and convincing them that "IP addresses are like social security numbers for computers"?

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the good in HAVING patents if the government isn't going to ENFORCE them?

In 2007 Steve made a point he had taken out patents on as many features of the new iPhone as he could... The very day he demoed it. Google and Samsung proceeded to get as close as possible to the key features as they possibly could. It has taken 4 YEARS to get the case to this point. A regular company could never maintain the case this long. Frankly, I'm surprised Apple didnt have Tim Cook on standby with the checkbook in hand.

Apple wants Samsung and Google SHUT OUT. Both companies used inside information Apple gave to them as "subcontractors" while Apple was PAYING THEM big bucks for their work. This mirrors what Microsoft did with MS Word for MAC then copying all that into early Windows.

Steve wanted BLOOD over this one because Apple's own partners cut in on their dance. Apple wants them shut out. They don't want to cross-license, or negotiate... They want their patents enforced. Steve SAID they were going to do this back in 2007... And it's taken this long to get action out of courts.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Theaetetus]

1 - Judges are not educated enough to make a ruling need to be retired. Sorry, but why are you presiding over a technology case when you know nothing about technology?

Just because you don't like the ruling doesn't mean the judge doesn't understand technology. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Koh spent a decade doing patent litigation.

Tellingly, when Judge Koh has decided the other way in the past - invalidating patents or denying injunctions - Slashdot posters have repeatedly said, "finally, a judge that understands technology!"

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Quila]

This case is quite a bit different.

1 - Generally true, but this is mainly about design patents, not a very technical issue, more akin to trademark and copyright. If one looks like the other, and consumer confusion could result, there's likely infringement.

2 - This is big guy vs. big guy. One big guy thinks the other is copying. If you've seen Samsung phones and tablets before and after the iPhone and iPad, this is pretty obvious, down to the packaging and the design of the AC charger.

This injunction goes along very fair rules. Apple has to show the judge their potential harm if Samsung continues to copy, and Samsung has to show the judge their potential harm if their sales are stopped. In a patent case, Samsung raising serious questions of patent validity will also tip the balance in their favor. Samsung has apparently failed to do this for all of the patents.

In the end, the court found that Apple would suffer more harm from continued infringement than Samsung would suffer from a wrongful injunction. But to make sure Samsung doesn't get screwed, Apple has to post a bond covering any potential Samsung losses.

How much more fair can this be?

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[oztiks]

You either haven't been watching this case, or we're talking about another case.

There is 1 legal hurdle samsung has to clear in order to remove the injunction and that is deceiving the end user by introducing a product into the market that would confuse them to buy their product. It's not a hard hurdle for samsung to bound over and I'm certain they will.

If there are other infringing patients like you say, I'd say pulling the product would be moot, how would Apple file for damages if the product is pulled? Rather they would sit back let samsung sell the product and the request royalties or sue.

Which begs the question wouldn't that be a more typical / plausible course of action. Wait 6 months to a year and go "hey, samsung where's my payout?"

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Judges need to understand the law and it's the litigators who are responsible for educating the judges and juries on cases is simple.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[fast turtle]

it'll only ring alarm bells when the damn pols quit making money from it or people get so disgusted they start shooting them. Once that happens the damn pols are screwed because their corporate overlords sure as hell wont protect them.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Brannoncyll]

1 - Judges don't need to be educated to make these decisions. That's what the attorneys are for. Judges and juries shouldn't be swayed by anything but what the two sides present.

If judges are not sufficiently educated how are they going to be able to discriminate the facts from the bullshit the attorneys are spouting?

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Hognoxious]

The defense lawyer's job is to point out that they aren't.

They're more like the license plates on rental cars or seat numbers at the theatre.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

"2 - Our patent system is so broken that it's proving to anyone that has a brain that it is causing a strangulation effect. A little guy in his garage has ZERO chance of creating anything without being gunned down in court by a rich company afraid of competition."

Sounds like it's working exactly as -intended- by corporations.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[msauve]

You have a rather naive view of the law. Judges have to decide matters of both law and fact. You're saying that they should be knowledgeable about matters of law, but not about matters of fact. You're saying that judges should depend on attorneys informing them about matters of fact.

Nonsense. Why can't the litigators be responsible for educating them about both law and fact? Conversely, why should they not be educated on matters of both law and fact?

Attorneys do, in fact, brief the court about matters of both law and fact. Judges are best able to weigh the relative merits of those arguments if they are knowledgeable about them.

You still haven't explained how knowledge of a subject matter makes a judge "pre-biased."

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[NickFortune]

I have. It works the other way around. Congressmen stalk and harass the lobbyists for dough.

So you're apparently saying that instead of the lobbyists offering bribes to the politicians to do something, the politicians are actively extorting money from the lobbyists or they won't do what the lobbyists want.

And apparently this means that the system is less corrupt because the lobbyists have their integrity intact?

And to think I was worried for a minute.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[heckler95]

Both analogies (rental car license plates, theater seats) are great and fit the situation very well... 2 of the best I've heard.

My point is that the case should be focused on determining whether or not there is sufficient evidence that the defendant violated the law, and most cases against a John Doe based solely on an IP address should be dismissed immediately based on that criterion. It shouldn't hinge on which side's lesson in network infrastructure resonates better with a technology-ignorant judge. Instead, these suits are allowed to stand and defendants are shaken-down for settlements without a judge ever getting the chance to be enlightened by biased lawyers on the nuances of TCP/IP. I'm not saying they need to be certified Network Engineers, but a basic understanding of the underlying technology (and how the laws apply to it) should be required.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[catmistake]

The whole thing with this is underlining a major flaw in our court system.

Your entire comment underlines major flaws in your reasoning.

1) you list two "flaws" ... two is more than one... that is, plural... thus not "a major flaw"

2) the second flaw you list has nothing to do with the court system

3) with no credentials, you assume that you know better, know more about the law, than the judges and lawyers that graduated with advanced degrees and have real world experience working with the law, and advanced professionally to the positions they now hold.

4) with no credentials, you assume that you know better, know more about patents and the patent system... and oddly enough you insinutate that Samsung is somehow comparable to the "little guy in his garage," when, in fact, it was Apple that started out with a couple guys in a garage.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[zarthrag]

So, by your statement, I assume that you think Apple's patent is valid?

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Shagg]

John Doe has a defense lawyer?

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Shagg]

If you've seen Samsung phones and tablets before and after the iPhone and iPad, this is pretty obvious

If you think Samsung copied the iPad, then just about every current tablet on the market must have copied it too.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's your proof that they *weren't*? I need solid, incontrovertible evidence that they weren't bought and paid for. Not just wild innuendo and corporate thinking.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

You either haven't been watching this case, or we're talking about another case.

These are the disputed patents. Foot, meet mouth:

U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 for a "system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data."
U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 for a "method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations" or predictive text.
U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 for a system describing "unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image" or the "slide to unlock" function found on iOS device.

The primary issue is the first, which allows the OS to recognize structured data like phone numbers, dates, addresses, etc. Apple filed for that patent back in 1996.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Rasperin]

Oh man, that planet money piece was really great! For those of you who haven't heard of it, it basically explains how lobbyists actually dodge congressmen calls because a congressman has to find something like $10k/day to stay elected. It also talks about how money is appropriated by the party and how what committee you stand on makes a huge difference. I think this is it http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/27/145923803/the-friday-podcast-a-former-lobbyist-tells-all (can't verify at work) it's a pretty bad ass story.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Shagg]

In that case...

No matter who gets elected into congress, they are always outnumbered 100 to 0 by the bought and paid for senators.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[d3ac0n]

Strictly speaking, proving a statement or a position to be "factually wrong" merely requires showing the facts. NOT an "alternate" or "Contradicting" set of "facts".

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[KingSkippus]

Or put another way, the fact that there are starving kids in Africa does not mean that I couldn't go for some tacos right now.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. politicians are taught to look to industry for funding, and therefore, for policy

Are you implying that politicians are somehow less than 100% responsible for accepting the bribe?

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[future assassin]

>1 - Judges are not educated enough to make a ruling need to be retired. Sorry, but why are you presiding over a technology case when you know nothing about technology?

If judges have to be educated in distinguishing recangular round cornered objects I don't think they should be presiding over tech cases.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, the iPhone software looks and works a lot like the Symbian UIQ software you'd find in a Sony Ericsson P800 back in 2002. Apps, full web, full touch, no/optional keyboard.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andyrkett/4368260369/

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Demolition derby analogies it is, then!

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[jrroche]

Not that I'm a patent lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there was prior art for a "system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data" in 1996. The issue some here are getting worked up about is that Apple and other companies are able to patent wide-reaching and obvious ideas like "a method for performing an action with a computer" and then use said patents to reduce competition, and consequently, innovation.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[catchblue22]

The sad part is that we cant change it. No matter WHO get's elected into congress, they are always outnumbered 300 to 1 by the bought and paid for senators that are there to do what the industry tells them to do instead of doing what is right.

Three words: Campaign Finance Reform

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

The ridiculous rulings coming out of these courts should be proof enough.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[savuporo]

1 - Judges don't need to be educated to make these decisions. That's what the attorneys are for. Judges and juries shouldn't be swayed by anything but what the two sides present.

Which would make machines the best judges. It follows all the rules, processes all input in unbiased manner, and outputs the decision based on rules.

Unless you get GIGO ( and that would be the responsibility of attorneys, NOT to feed garbage in ), thats the fairest judge you can get. And if the decisions don't seem to make sense, you have to recheck your laws.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[savuporo]

Taking a stand doesn't pay the mortgage.
Or, following the OPs analogy above, giving blowjobs is necessary as you really like these new dresses ?

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just reading the TITLES of these patents immediately brings the terms "trivial", "obvious", and "frivolous" to mind. Seriously, THIS is the crap that's passing for patentable these days?

The whole US system is going to collapse under the weight of its own bullshit.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[catchblue22]

You know, if this is your idea of corruption, living in a third world nation would be a huge fucking wake up call. This is not corruption. This is an inconvenience for two major multinational corporations.

The corruption in the US occurs at high levels of power. It doesn't happen as much at the local level, as you might see, say, in many South American countries, where bribes to local officials are par for the course. For examples, google the three words "industry", "written", and "legislation" in a single search. For me, the among the top matches are "Koch, Exxon Mobil Among Corporations Helping Write State Laws" and "Drone plane manufacturing industry is writing the legislation that governs their use in the US". Further cursory searching will show that this practice is endemic. And this doesn't include the already endemic practice of powerful corporations using their power to corrupt the public good by supporting or sabotaging other legislation not written by them.

If you don't think the above examples are corruption, I suggest you find a clear definition of the word. Here is the Oxford Concise Dictionary definition:

Corruption: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.

If you explore further the concept of corruption, you will see it is intricately tied with powerful politicians being dishonestly influenced by private interests into neglecting their sacred duty to support the Public Good. Read Rousseau's "The Social Contract" for a good introduction.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? You're asking him to prove something isn't happening? Are you really that much of a douche?

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right that apple wants them shut out. Its cool to watch them argue that patents used against the iphone should be forced to be FRAND patents so that apple can license them, but when it comes to apples own patents, no way, THOSE are not FRAND patents. Hypocrites, imo.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably thinking of the Newton which was the first gui to use these data detectors to automatically turn non-clickable recognizable data into clickable links automatically. Prior to the advent of the GUI interface into the mainstream, it wasn't possible to click a phone number, or to click an address, or to click a date and it wasn't possible that the OS react by opening up a dialer, an address book contact, or a calendar event. Claiming these were in use and obvious 30 years ago is highly unlikely, or they would have been challenged and knocked down by now. The patent is nearly 15 years old.

I love how everyone is so quick to claim 'obvious' yet no one patented it before the fact. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the Galaxy Tab case, this article is about the Galaxy Nexus which infringes something else, although I'm not clear what.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[bill_mcgonigle]

1 - Judges are not educated enough to make a ruling need to be retired. Sorry, but why are you presiding over a technology case when you know nothing about technology?

Yep. The judges don't understand the technology, but neither do the lawyers or the jury.

This is how we create precedents in our system. Oh, but they told me it was the best on Earth in 5th grade, so nothing to see here then.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stand four feet back from your monitor and explain how you'd know the difference between that and an iPhone.

I'll grant you that the rows of icons look the same, but comparing an iphone to a *picture* of a 5" tablet on your monitor while standing four feet away from your monitor is pretty moronic... No one in their right mind would mistake an actual 5" tablet for 3.5" phone. By your logic, if any two cars look alike one company should be able to file an injunction against the sale of the other, cause you know: 4 wheels and "look and feel" and such.

It's a case of life imitating art: http://www.droid-life.com/2011/09/14/fridge-vs-apples-ipad-banned/

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Earth calling ever heard of lobbyists? Just take a look at Adelson and other corrupting factors such as he.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it does! If someone who understands law and technology read the judgement and found it to be faulty. Or if it's obviously faulty as some cases are. Some of us don't take authority's word as law against what is known and obvious to anyone with a minute capacity to understand the issue.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just go to Truth.org an see how much money each senator and congressmen get from X-corporation. They are all bought and sold. And for those millions the coprs spent on their campaigns, you don't think they want anything in return. Open up you eyes, they system has been like this since Nixon when I was you and it just got worse under Reagan and worse under Clinton. open you eyes and brain.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[cyber-vandal]

How do I get somewhere to live without paying for it? If I don't get a mortgage then I'll have to pay someone else's mortgage instead in the form of rent which is a worse option.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[oztiks]

A friend of a friend has a patent on touchscreen technology. He sits in his beachhouse never having to work again because some manufacturer pays him for it's use. No it's not Apple or Samsung, some smaller vendors use the specific technology he "invented".

The problem with the patents you mentioned are the same with my friend's friend patent. If you design something a certain way, you own that certain specific invention, not the same concept applied in different ways.

Samsung creates a box if that box has 1% different polymer whatever plastic to make that box then it steps around the patent, it becomes a matter for the courts yes, because they need to prove the specifics behind the patent and the offenders use but I'd imagine that won't be hard for samsung, besides if it sits on the use of android that alone will absolve samsung as it then falls on googles shoulders.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lumpy, I do not agree with you on Apple products, as I hate them along with Apple. However, I will agree with every other thing you said. Taste in companies aside, you're a very smart person.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Anonymous Coward]

This has absolutely nothing to do with design patents. The nexus injunction is over a patient on search functionality.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Quila]

If you think Samsung copied the iPad, then just about every current tablet on the market must have copied it too.

Samsung goes much further, which is probably why they attracted Apple's ire. As I said, packaging and even the AC adapter changed to copy Apple. Their little stores copied the layout and design of Apple stores. They even screwed up and put Apple App Store icons on the walls of their stores where they advertised apps available for their Android products. Their connection port even looks almost exactly like an Apple dock connector. Basically, Samsung's idea of what a tablet should be, and how it is packaged and sold, looked nothing like an iPad, until after the iPad.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[cheesybagel]

The AC adapter is black and has sharper edges so its different. Apple does all white and flimsy peripherals.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[cheekyjohnson]

I love how everyone is so quick to claim 'obvious' yet no one patented it before the fact. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Perhaps no one patented it because it's garbage.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Grudge2012]

You either haven't been watching this case, or we're talking about another case.

These are the disputed patents. Foot, meet mouth:

U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 for a "system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data." U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 for a "method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations" or predictive text. U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 for a system describing "unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image" or the "slide to unlock" function found on iOS device.

The primary issue is the first, which allows the OS to recognize structured data like phone numbers, dates, addresses, etc. Apple filed for that patent back in 1996.

Funny that you forgot to mention the one patent that actually made the case.

Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness.

[Quila]

Oooh, wow. Again, compare Samsung AC adapters before and after. Even compare Samsung phone adapters. Nope, it was designed to ride the coattails of the iPad, with only a color scheme change.

Re: It makes my depression ever worse

[MRe_nl]

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/lhk

I have an idea

[slashmydots]

Maybe all smartphone makers should review other companies' patents BEFORE they make a phone. Then if there's something legit, don't put it in your phone. If there's something not legit, try to get the patent invalidated. That would definitely save some money. But I guess "screw it, let's just make a phone and deal with it later" works too.

Re:I have an idea

[MickyTheIdiot]

I'd agree if the patents weren't bogus and obvious. If we had a patent system that actually granted patents of merit and not a rubber stamp this would make sense.

Go read some of these patent. It's isn't revolutionary stuff, it's just who won the horse race for patenting "clicking icon to make something happen" and the like.

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's something not legit, try to get the patent invalidated.

That might work if there were penalties for the companies that claim patents that are later invalidated. But there isn't any. So the effect of this would be to grant a temporary monopoly to anyone who get any stupid patent.

(In fact the actual solution should be to penalise the patent examiners that let crap through, because at the moment that seems to be the easy way for them. If they were subject to extreme physical pain every time one of their patents was invalidated they'd soon improve their performance)

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

If i recall correcly (please corrent me if I'm wrong), you can read the paper about the specific patent if you know its number. The trick is to know the number of specyfic patent because there are soo many of them... Microsoft was accusing Linux for breaking their patents abut they didn't tell witch patents were in the case.

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You are either trolling or completely clueless about the state of patents these days. Patents these days are horribly vague, and just sifting through all *possibly* relevant patents and checking whether they apply or not is probably going to take twice as much time as actually developing the phone.

If there's something not legit...

... then it should not have been granted in the first place, and yet here we are.

I really hope you are trolling for your sake, because the only other possibility is that you have been living under a rock for the last 20 years.

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think these patents are bogus and obvious why can't the expensive and able Samsung lawyers convince a judge or the patent office of this. And if there is a massive conspiracy here why doesn't Samsung complain about it? Attributing legal judgements contrary to your own to massive corruption is basically paranoia

Re:I have an idea

[MickyTheIdiot]

Not going to reply to this other than to say that you need to look up the definition of the word conspiracy. If people are working as single individuals or groups IN THE OPEN then it isn't a conspiracy. You're just trying to use "conspiracy theory" as a putdown.

Re:I have an idea

[SternisheFan]

U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 for a "system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data" which was validated in Apple's U.S. International Trade Commission case against HTC. U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 for a "method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations" or predictive text. U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 for a system describing "unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image" or the "slide to unlock" function found on iOS devices which was successfully used against Motorola in Germany. U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 for a "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system" that was the basis of Friday's ruling." http://www.informationweek.com/byte/news/personal-tech/smart-phones/240003036?nomobile=1

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, have you actually looked at the patents in question? We have a slide lock switch for the touchscreen. Slide locks are not particularly novel. But of course the idea of using them on a touchscreen is perfectly novel and non-obvious.

The other two are of similar caliber. There is no way you can avoid those totally obvious things if you are going to create a touchscreen user interface for a phone.

Basically Apple thinks it is entitled to a monopoly on touchscreen phones because they were first to, uh, sue (other products were in the market first), and would suffer irreparable harm if others were allowed to enter into the market, something known as "competition".

Because they are an American company (never mind that they avoid producing stuff in the U.S.A.), a U.S. judge swallows the "we want the market to ourselves" sob story.

The "patents" are merely a pretense for getting the judicial system's active help monopolizing the U.S. market. One needs to sue over something, however ridiculous, or one does not get a judge involved in this sort of perversion.

Re:I have an idea

[Nerdfest]

They most likely will be able to do that. The problem here is that they can't sell their product while they do it and the court system is slow.

Re:I have an idea

[Nerdfest]

... I was also just thinking that it's unlikely that when the injunction is appealed, that it's unlikely that Samsung will be paid enough for the lost sales, marketing time, etc. Perhaps the cost of having these bullshit injunctions overturned should be that the claimant have sales of their products blocked for a similar amount of time.

Re:I have an idea

[serviscope_minor]

Well, perhaps Samsung should try inventing things themselves, rather than let Apple invent everything.

Here is what all touchscreen smartphones looked like before Apple came along and showed how the world how to do it (complete link).

Apple were first people to do anything like that at all, so they should obviously have a patent.

They basically invented the entirely featureless tablet and the touch based user interface.

(for the impared: please actually look at links before flaming)

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

They haven't gotten to the stage where they discuss the invalidity of the patents in-depth. This is a prelim injunction. Typically, under the current law, they are VERY hard to get. I'm surprised it was ordered and I suspect it will be overturned on appeal. Nevertheless, the fact it was granted is totally Samsung and their lawyers fault. No sympathy from me.

Re:I have an idea

[oztiks]

Oh yes, the misuse of the English language yet again.

Invent implies they had something to do with the r&d into the development of touch screens. They "integrated" touch screens into a product which they received after acquiring fingerworks.

For yor reference see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch

Re:I have an idea

[serviscope_minor]

Oh yes, the misuse of the English language yet again.

I wasn't aware that sarcasm was mis-use.

Re:I have an idea

[txsable]

Actually, that illustration you have for "Apple were [sic] first" is not an apple device at all, but a Compaq IPAQ, originally released by Compaq in 2000. it's nominally a predecessor of the Touchpad, along with Palm. Perhaps you were trying to reference the Apple Newton, which first released in 1993? However, if you are looking for the first touchscreen telephony device that would be the IBM Simon Personal Communicator, of which the initial prototype was demo'd at COMDEX in 1992.

So...no, Apple was not the first. They were one of several companies working on similar technology through the 80's and 90's, each of which had their own take on things. Oddly enough, the iDevices remind me of the Palm IIIx and m500 devices I used back in the late 90's/early 2000's with the "screen full of icons" layout.

Re:I have an idea

[FireFury03]

Maybe all smartphone makers should review other companies' patents BEFORE they make a phone. Then if there's something legit, don't put it in your phone. If there's something not legit, try to get the patent invalidated. That would definitely save some money. But I guess "screw it, let's just make a phone and deal with it later" works too.

When I was working for a well known big tech company, their legal department advised us not to look at patents and just to blindly implement away. This advice is based on several premises:
1. There are so many patents, looking through them and figuring out which might be infringing is extremely expensive (if all the engineers do it, the company would be spending way more on looking for patents than they would actually end up paying out on the odd occasion that a court decided they were infringing).
2. If the company gets sued for patent infringement, and it is discovered that the company had looked at the patent they were infringing, the court will probably impose a much harsher penalty than if you infringed by accident.
3. In the software world at least (and I imagine this is also largely true in other sectors, for example, sectors where you can patent rectangles with rounded corners), it is basically impossible to write any non-trivial piece of software without infringing a great number of patents. So the entire software industry revolves around the principle that you _are_ infringing someone else's patents and you just hope they don't notice and sue you for it. If they do sue you for it, then you're better off if you didn't know which patent you were infringing (see (2)).

Point (1) is also one good reason why patents have become a waste of time for society. It used to be that if you had a good invention, you patented it and the patent documented lots of detail about how it works. If someone else wanted to build something similar after the patent had expired, they could do so from the detail in the patent. These days, patents have become so numerous and trivial that if you want to implement something it is usually easier to just figure out how to implement it yourself rather than find a relevant expired patent. Coupled with the fact that modern patents are so vague it's basically impossible to implement them based soley on the description in the patent, and that technology is so fast paced that by the time a patent expires, the thing it is describing is probably useless and has been superceeded many times over.

A truely fair patent system would recognise the difference between something you invented independently (even if someone else had, unbeknownst to you, already invented it) and something you copied. Unfortunately proving which is which is a problem, so I'm of the opinion that its about time to scrap the entire patent system - it no longer does what it was intended to do, is being openly abused and is harmful to society.

Re:I have an idea

[serviscope_minor]

I know that they say that sarcasm on the internet is difficult, but really? Do you really think I managed to not see the giant AT&T logo and misread the entire article? In case anyone got confused, I linked to the article with text and everything.

The IPaq link was not as a predecessor to anything else, it was to show that the boradband phone interface (the grid of icons one which looks startlingly like th iP* and even more like the Samsung interface) had been used on a mobile device. Just in case anyone pointed out that the original interface was on a wired device.

Re:I have an idea

[Hognoxious]

He wasn't aware that you were being sarcastic.

And I'm sure he checked the links like you suggested. 110% sure.

Re:I have an idea

[Hognoxious]

Actually, that illustration you have for "Apple were [sic] first"

See what my sig says about Latin? The same applies to editorial interventions derived from it.

Re:I have an idea

[shutdown -p now]

Are you seriously arguing that, say, "swipe to unlock" should be classified as a genuine patent-worthy invention?

(I realize that it is considered one in US and German legal system in practice, but I'm talking common sense here, not the realm of legal absurdities)

Re:I have an idea

[serviscope_minor]

Are you seriously arguing that, say, "swipe to unlock" should be classified as a genuine patent-worthy invention?

um, no.

Did you actually look at the pictures in the links (as I begged readers to do)? They're all of things which have a remarkable similarity in appearance to Apple products and predate the respective products by a long way.

Re:I have an idea

[shutdown -p now]

Those pictures are irrelevant - the ban on Galaxy Nexus in question has nothing to do with "remarkable similarity in appearance", and everything with a bunch of silly software patents that Apple has.

Even setting that aside, if you've ever seen Nexus, you'd know it looks nothing like an iPhone. Even a blind person could tell the difference because the shape is profoundly different.

Re:I have an idea

[serviscope_minor]

I'm kind of confuesd.

You seem to be arguing against me vociferously while agreeing with me at the same time.

I was making the point rather sarcastically that many of Apple's "inventions" are not original. The sarcasm seems to be lost on a lot of people.

Re:I have an idea

[shutdown -p now]

You have me thoroughly pwned, sir. My apologies.

To my excuse, this is Slashdot. If we don't even read the summary beyond the title, much less the article, before posting , then links in a comment have exactly zero chance of being opened. ~

Re:I have an idea

[oztiks]

My comment is full of typos but my mis-use was less mis-useir than the GP okay!

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

None of which has anything at all to do with this case. The nexus injunction is about a patent on search functionality that Apple applied for before the iphone existed.

Re:I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple were" is correct usage in British English. The plural is used there when referring to corporations and other collective entities, unlike American English which uses the singular.

Re:I have an idea

[robsku]

I'd agree if the patents weren't bogus and obvious. If we had a patent system that actually granted patents of merit and not a rubber stamp this would make sense.

Go read some of these patent. It's isn't revolutionary stuff, it's just who won the horse race for patenting "clicking icon to make something happen" and the like.

Not to mention "clicking icon to make something happen - on a mobile device".

Re: It makes my depression ever worse

[dontclapthrowmoney]

:-\ Oh well. Maybe she has a sister...

Monopoly?

[Murdoch5]

Call me stupid here but I thought that no company was allowed to gain an entire monopoly in one area, after all IBM was taken on by the government and finally disbanded. By blocking Samsung from being allowed to release there phone your effectively saying that a monopoly is fine as long as you put a big shiny apple on your product and up sell it like never before seen in marketing. If this injunction isn't lifted then any company the government has taken on for being a monopoly should be reinstated all costs plus all loses.

Re:Monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me stupid here

You're stupid.

Monopolies are fine. Abusing a dominant market position is not. Apple doesn't dominate any market.

Re:Monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me stupid here but I thought that no company was allowed to gain an entire monopoly in one area, after all IBM was taken on by the government and finally disbanded.

I don't want to worry you or anything but you may have accidentally stumbled into a parallel universe in which IBM wasn't disbanded. You should have taken a left back at the horses.

Re:Monopoly?

[Dog-Cow]

He's also stupid because he apparently has no clue what-so-ever about the patent system. The whole point is to grant a monopoly!

Re:Monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me stupid here

You're stupid.

Monopolies are fine. Abusing a dominant market position is not. Apple doesn't dominate any market.

Apple dominates the gay market.

Court date set for 2014

[SternisheFan]

If the ban on Samsung isn't lifted, the date for this hearing will be in March, 2014. Meanhile, Samsung is preparing an updated Galaxy Nexus debut for this November 2012. I imagine this version will avoid any disputed patent issues.

Not News...

[whisper_jeff]

It will come as no surprise...

You're right - it isn't a surprise. It isn't newsworthy. Anyone with a vague clue of how the legal process works knew that they were going to appeal. Had they just given up and submitted to the ban, _THAT_ would have been news. This amounts to "legal process continues as expected - nothing to see - move along".

While I know this is about Apple and Samsung, two companies that interest many on Slashdot (may not like, but are at least interested in) and I know this is about a patent dispute which, again, interests people, _THIS_ story about filing an appeal is _NOT_ news.

Seriously, Slashdot was once a much better site and one could actually learn a hell of a lot reading the site (and the comments). It has gone down a lot over the past few years.

Now get off my lawn...

Winning the case is not the goal

[ebonum]

If Apple can keep Samsung out of the the market for 1 or 2 years, Apple wins. If Apple loses the case and pays out the 96 million to Samsung, Apple wins.

The 96 million is a wonderful investment in trying to crush Samsung. MS has all the cash in the world. Cash does not equal smart phone market share. Samsung has momentum. If Apple can break that momentum, Samsung getting 96 million won't help much.

Apple's strategy is to win in the long run. If people can't by Samsung products for 1 year, what are they going to do? Switch. Samsung will lose hard earned market share, time and momentum. When Samsung re-enters the market, the 96 million will not cover their true losses.

Re:Winning the case is not the goal

[Nerdfest]

A punishment could be valued at much more than 96 million, but it's unlikely to be even close to what being blocked from the market for that long truly costs. If Apple loses, the punishment should be that their products are blocked for the same length of time.

Re:Winning the case is not the goal

[squiggleslash]

I seriously doubt Apple will keep Samsung out of the market for 1-2 years, and even if it did there are many other quality Android manufacturers, HTC being the most obvious example.

The thing is that at least one of the patents (I'll be honest and say I don't know the others) is trivially easy to side step: the "slide to unlock" patent. Leaving aside whether the "slide" on ICS is remotely similar (I guess you drift your finger in a pre-determined direction on screen, which might be the way the patent is worded, I don't know), all you have to do is ship the phone such that you unlock it in another way, say, entering a PIN.

It would take Samsung's engineers a few hours to fix that particular problem. They probably haven't yet because (a) It's an ICS feature, and the entire point of the Galaxy Nexus is that it's supposed to be pure ICS, and (b) they, and their lawyers, probably don't see the ICS "drag circle to icon" unlocker as being "slide to unlock".

I seriously doubt that any other patents Apple has thrown in the mix are similarly impossible to workaround. If an injunction hits the GN, and somehow Apple prevails and it's permanent, I think Samsung will come up with an updated version that fixes the issues the very same day.

Re:Winning the case is not the goal

[Grudge2012]

If Apple can keep Samsung out of the the market for 1 or 2 years, Apple wins. If Apple loses the case and pays out the 96 million to Samsung, Apple wins.

The 96 million is a wonderful investment in trying to crush Samsung.

There is a tiny flaw in your argument: Samsung still has several dozen(*) non-infringing phone models on the US market - how does that amount to a lock-out? Unless you are talking of the "near perfect clone of the iPhone" market.

(*) Samsung's web page can't quite decide between 149 and 148 - but that's counting many phones once for each provider.

Re:Winning the case is not the goal

[Anonymous Coward]

As posted in a previous Slashdot article, Apple is arguing that a tap on an unlock button is just a zero distance swipe. Don't think they'll give up quite that easily...

Re:Winning the case is not the goal

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately Apple is claiming that just tapping something to unlock still breaks the patent. Reason being "A tap is just a zero length slide."

Re:Winning the case is not the goal

[Anonymous Coward]

Which of course risks invalidating the whole claim by showing that it's taught in the prior art (because there were tap-to-unlocks before this, on XP-rockin' Tablet PCs, and probably elsewhere).

I think that's what you call bluffing all-in?

Re:Winning the case is not the goal

[shutdown -p now]

trivially easy to side step: the "slide to unlock" patent. Leaving aside whether the "slide" on ICS is remotely similar (I guess you drift your finger in a pre-determined direction on screen, which might be the way the patent is worded, I don't know)

Samsung has already tried to dodge that bullet, actually. In Galaxy S2 (and, more generally, any Android 2.x phone), slide to unlock was implemented in exact same way as on iOS - a horizontal bar with a thingy you'd slide to the side. In ICS, which is what comes on Galaxy Nexus, they had replaced it with a circle, and now the thingy has to be dragged out of that circle (in any direction you want) to unlock - but, apparently, Apple still asserts that this violates their patent.

all you have to do is ship the phone such that you unlock it in another way, say, entering a PIN.

You can set up the phone to unlock with a PIN, but it's very inconvenient, and most users don't really need that kind of thing and will just view it as an unnecessary and annoying complication if forced to use it.

Re:Winning the case is not the goal

[robsku]

Unless you are talking of the "near perfect clone of the iPhone" market.

Different case, different model.

Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent wars are retarded. These guys are getting patents on things that are pretty generic. "Volume is adjustable, including the ability to increase and decrease the sound output". I hope my nexus ships before they shutdown sales.

Lucy Koh

[Kupfernigk]

There is a complication in the case which makes me wonder if this is why Apple has chosen this court. Lucy Koh is of Korean descent. I guess that, had she ruled the other way, Apple would have demanded a new hearing because of judicial bias in favor of a Korean company. Therefore she has to give Apple the benefit of the doubt and, basically, kick it upstairs.

She may perhaps privately think that Apple will lose, but again the more publicly it loses, and the more expensively, the better.

The message of the case is actually that Apple is being outgunned technically by Samsung and is worried. If they thought the next iPhone would be a huge winner, why bother over these really rather trivial patents? The simple fact that they are trying to use litigation to keep a competitor product which is not a knock-off out of the US tells us that, just like the people who litigated to try and stop Henry Ford making cars, they are aware that the writing is on the wall for their business model.

Re:Lucy Koh

[darkmeridian]

Federal judges in the United States serve lifetime appointments and can only be removed by impeachment, which requires high crimes and misdemeanors. I really doubt that Judge Koh was biased against Samsung because she was concerned about how she would seem. In fact, if someone had suggested that Judge Koh, who was born in Washington, D.C., and earned a law degree from Harvard, had went in favor of Samsung because she's Korean, they would be run out of town on rails.

Re:Lucy Koh

[Kartu]

She's a former patent lawyer: From 2002 until 2008, Koh worked as a litigation partner at the Silicon Valley office of the law firm McDermott Will & Emery representing technology companies in patent, trade secret and commercial civil matters.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_H._Koh

Apples lawyers think so

[Kupfernigk]

She stimulates their cash flow every time she makes a ruling, and for lawyers that is an exceedingly attractive trait in a woman.

Samsung appeals to the Supreme Court

[Compaqt]

Chief Justice Roberts will rule that Congress is authorized to "tax" Americans who don't have an iPhone.

Re:Samsung appeals to the Supreme Court

[msauve]

Nah. iPhones come from China, so they fall under the interstate commerce clause.

Re:Samsung appeals to the Supreme Court

[Anonymous Coward]

Lessing already debated that over copyright. Basically, Congress is free to write the laws and establish the agency rules for them. Don't like it, take it up with them.

For all the hoopla over healthcare that's basically what they ruled again. Congress has passed DOZENS of crazy laws worse than healthcare. Unless you want the Court to rule Congress can't pass ANY health care law.. Then they would undo medicare which has already been tested. A "tax" on healthcare is relatively equal to all persons.

People tend to forget that the Feds could just tax everybody $1000 for the heck of it, they don't even have to give a reason. That's what "taxes" means and the Court isn't going to open op that debate.

Re:Samsung appeals to the Supreme Court

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I don't get why people are so surprised over the SCOTUS decision -- disappointed, yes, but not surprised.

The exact same trick of taxing things to influence behavior you're constitutionally prevented from restricting with policy was long ago permitted with respect to guns (NFA). The only difference here is politicians denying it's a tax -- but the Court is not concerned with attempting to make politicians honest, only with judging the law. The law, regardless of politicians' claims, makes a selective tax to control behaviour -- which, despicable as it may or may not seem, is long established to be legal.

Now, I don't like it, and if I am by chance involved in drafting the constitution from some future nation or federation, I'll put some serious thought into how to restrict permissible bases for taxation, so taxes can only be used for revenue, not for policy. But we don't currently have those restrictions, so the ruling was exactly as expected.

Re:Your math is a bit off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since there are only two senators per state, there are a total of 100 U.S. Senators. Therefore, the ratio of being outnumbered can never be any higher than 99 to 1.

Which patent?

[synapse7]

So which patent is the base for the injunction? I did some clicking and just found some spokesperson's comments. Don't tell me this injunction was granted because this phone looks like a phone.

Re:Which patent?

[plaut]

It's based on the "unified database search" function (Siri) because Apple claimed (and the judge accepted without critique) that this is a major reason why people by iPhones, and hence copying it posses a potentially serious threat to sales. Nonsense in every respect, but there it is.

Re:Your math is a bit off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad he did not say SENATOR but instead said CONGRESS.

But I can see how that can be confused, They are both really Big Words, and people with substandard education get them confused easily.

What I find curious...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In this case, it is my understanding that the patents are not for 'rectangular devices possessing a touchscreen on the front'; but for certain software features.

I have to wonder why Samsung doesn't flip the disable bit on the features Apple is suing about(for extra credit, in some manner that allows firmware modders to oh-so-deviously flip it back, if they want) so that they can start moving units without having to clear up any legal issues, and then push a firmware update once the legal wrangling is sorted out...

You can't do that with hardware-related patents, obviously; but I would think that the financial impact of an injunction that keeps you from shipping on time(especially given the percentage of the US phone market dictated largely by what phones carriers feel like flogging today, and the carriers' distinct dislike for delay: see also Microsoft Kin's horrible death) would be overwhelmingly greater than the financial impact of having to ship without a few bullet points for whatever crap skin you are slapping on top of your Android build, especially if you can turn those back on with an update once the lawyers clear.

Re:What I find curious...

[Nerdfest]

There's no need to 'flip bits' to re-enable any of these ridiculously simple features. Android lets you replace pretty much any piece of functionality, including lock screens, etc. People can just install the features from the market (or directly as APK files).

Re:What I find curious...

[CompMD]

"I have to wonder why Samsung doesn't flip the disable bit on the features Apple is suing about"

Samsung didn't write any of the features Apple is suing over. The Galaxy Nexus is running AOSP Android 4.0. Outside of the modem, there is *zero* Samsung code running on the device. They're suing Samsung over something they don't like that Google wrote.

Re:What I find curious...

[tommituura]

Well, Samsung is still the ones who are actually manufacturing and selling the device, not Google. Who actually wrote that code is quite irrelevant. If it were not so, projects like x264 would be in deep poo-poo, most probably sued out of existence by MPEG-LA long ago.

Re:What I find curious...

[IamTheRealMike]

Because Apple don't care about any particular patent or feature. They've demonstrated it clearly, many times. They care about destroying Samsung and others, period, end of story. The Galaxy S3 does in fact, work around many of the more stupid Apple patents. Their lawyers simply come back again and again with either (a) new bogus patents or (b) stupid arguments that the workaround doesn't apply like the "a tap is a zero length slide" garbage. They aren't going to stop, ever, unless they are forced to.

It is the Google phone that is blocked

[Kupfernigk]

The Apple attack is directed at Google, as well as Samsung, as a big hit here is more devastating.

What Would Really Be Funny...

[Greyfox]

You play the patent game as mutually-assured destruction, holding your portfolio against competitors who might be interested in suing you over their patents. So now that Apple has launched the missiles, metaphorically speaking, what would really be funny would be if the resulting patent war would completely shut down the smart phone market for a couple of years. The end result has to be that everyone is enjoined from selling any sort of smart phone until all the dust settles. I don't think it would last that long if that actually happened -- I think the various players would come to their senses if no one was doing any business. But it would be pretty damn funny!

You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[the computer guy nex]

Compare Samsung's hardware design for phones and tablets before and after the release of the iPhone and iPad.

http://photos.appleinsider.com/samsungvsapple.081911.jpg

Apple is using the only mechanism available to fight this blatant theft of IP.

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but look at Apples tablet before the JooJoo,

http://oldcomputers.net/apple-newton.html

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[Gumbercules!!]

Except those pictures are photo shopped and this is well documented...

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[plaut]

There's no denying that Apple's designs have permeated the industry - but that's not what this injunction is about. It's about the ability of a device to have a uniform interface to search multiple databases (implemented by Siri in iOS and by the Google search bar in Android). *This* function predates iPhones/iOS, should not be the basis of a patent, and is not Apple's "intellectual property".

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[Anubis IV]

Even though I like Apple products quite a bit, I thought it was BS that they were claiming Samsung's were too similar and that they were confusing consumers...

Until I walked into a Best Buy one day (a friend dragged me in, I swear), went up to what I thought was an iPad display area next to the Apple section, and picked up what I thought was an iPad on display (though something seemed off, which I later realized was the camera located on the other side of the device than it is on an iPad). It became clear a few seconds after I turned it on and didn't see the typical iOS home screen that the device in my hands was not an iPad, but was actually a Galaxy Tab 10.1. I''ve been using Apple products for years, so you'd think I'd recognize their devices, but I was unable to identify that it wasn't an iPad until I had the device in my hands for a few seconds.

After that, my opinion changed, to say the least.

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[Anubis IV]

You do realize that the patent you're talking about predates the launch of iOS by two and a half years and the launch of Android by four years, right? While Siri is indeed an implementation of the patent, they had it patented long before then. In fact, of the other patents being used in this case, all but one predates the launch of Android, and one of them dates back to 1996. So, at least in that regard, it is valid.

As to software patents in general, well, I despise them as much as everyone else here. I just prefer that we argue against them from a solid foundation, rather than arguing out of ignorance.

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

How come smartphones are the only industry where the basic form factor should only belong to one company? Desktop computers, laptops, TVs, cars, washing machines, all have the same basic form factor and the same functionality.

Here's the thing with Apple. Contrary to popular belief, the company's strength is *not* innovation. It's execution. Nothing they have ever done hadn't been done prior. All their success is from simply taking an already existing concept with mass market potential and polishing it up and making it user friendly (and throwing massive marketing behind it, of course).

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

I once mistook a Vizio TV set for an Olevia. And thought a Vivitar CD player was a Memorex. My stupidity proves that all these companies should sue each other.

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[chrb]

It became clear a few seconds after I turned it on and didn't see the typical iOS home screen that the device in my hands was not an iPad, but was actually a Galaxy Tab 10.1

So what you're saying is that, despite all of the supposed similarities and alleged copying going on at the UI and software level, it was immediately obvious to you upon inspecting a running Samsung tablet that it was not an iPad?

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[Anubis IV]

Indeed. I was speaking purely regarding the hardware. I don't support the notion of software patents any more than the typical /.er, nor do I support Apple's litigation against these companies on the basis of software patents, though I do support their right to litigate based on trade dress, copyright, or (non-ridiculous) hardware patents, should they so choose.

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Half the human population cannot see the difference between car models from different car makers.

I think the judge is one of them.

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[Hognoxious]

I'm sure she's too busy being a really excellent driver to notice elements of style and design in other road vehicles.

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

As pointed out by another commenter. There are plenty of people who can't tell the difference between different makes of sedans. That number probably would go up if you removed branding from the car. I don't see car manufacturers suing each other for infringing on "their" four door design in black.

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[swillden]

You didn't notice the lack of the giant home button?

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[cheesybagel]

The iPhone is a lookalike of the LG Prada. The iPad is the same thing with a larger screen. Whoppeedo.

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[cheesybagel]

I wouldn't be surprised if IBM had a similar patent which is already expired. They have been doing speech recognition for yonks. Before Apple was even founded.

Re:You have to admit Samsung is pretty ridiculous

[Anubis IV]

The patent has little to do with speech recognition. It's about providing a uniform search interface for querying multiple databases, then using a set of heuristics to determine what's the best source of information for the query posed. From what I can tell, it's a patent for something similar to the meta search engines that used to be popular, except that it employs more intelligence..

Google+SamsungApple

[SternisheFan]

Google just announced that they will be teaming up with Samsung to fight this patent case. http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-were-working-on-an-apple-attack-with-google-02236690/ Now we've got a fight!

Re:Google+SamsungApple

[robsku]

Këwl, this is something no doubt many people have hoped and waited to happen (or worried that it won't), and I'm rooting for Google on this move :)

the "SAMSUNG" across the top?

[Chirs]

Also, the aspect ratio is slightly wrong (iPhone is longer relative to width), and the back and sides are white.

Sure, it has more resemblance to an iPhone than strictly necessary (the new Galaxy 3 looks different), but at the skinny bezel, edge-to-edge screen, and rounded corners are all natural endpoints in the development of a handheld touchscreen device. Look at the Motorola Motoluxe.

Some Apple patents have been invalidated, but . .

[walterbyrd]

Getting a patent is relatively quick and easy. Even if the paten is 100% bogus. For example, just last June patented: "Mobile Device Aided Navigation " Never mind that GPS makers like Garmin, and TomTom, had this for many years.

On the other hand, getting a patent invalidated is a long, expensive, complicated process.

It's just the way the system is set up.

Apple patents are bullshit

[walterbyrd]

June 19, 2012
Apple Wins Patent for Mobile Device Aided Navigation
Apple Wins Patent for Methods & GUI's for Conducting Searches on iOS Devices

http://www.patentlyapple.com/

Re:Apple patents are bullshit

[Grudge2012]

June 19, 2012 Apple Wins Patent for Mobile Device Aided Navigation Apple Wins Patent for Methods & GUI's for Conducting Searches on iOS Devices

http://www.patentlyapple.com/

What's your point? Ohh, I see, taking the changed title of the patent, scan for words you've heard before and interpreting in into "patent patents something already existing", which turns you into a patent expert.

Hint: patents don't work that way.

Case in point: US Patent 8,204,684: Adaptive mobile device navigation doesn't claim the invention of Mobile Navigation Devices. I could bore you with technical details, but I doubt you would understand, so please don't read the following.

Abstract

Adaptive mobile device navigation system, methods, and apparatus provide location information for a mobile device performing location estimation using dead reckoning. Multiple estimation modes can be selected including a mode for restricting measured movements to surrounding streets. Updated location fixes can be obtained through turn comparison with surrounding map information and user feedback. User feedback prompts can include photographs having geographic tag information corresponding to locations near an estimated location of the device.

IOW, its about an Navigation device that uses information from acceleration and gyroscope sensors to give you information where you have moved even when you don't have a GPS lock, including modes that locks your position in certain bounds (like obviously the streets your car can't leave in normal operation).

Re:Your math is a bit off.

[filthpickle]

a swing and a miss

So wait a minute...

[KingSkippus]

So wait a minute. You're telling me that lobbyists have a scarce resource (money) that Congressmen want--nay, need--to keep their jobs and their livelihoods, and you don't think they use this fact to their advantage to get legislation passed conducive to their interests? That entities with more of this scarce resource that Congressmen need to keep their jobs tend to be more ingratiated in the political process to obtain more of this scarce resource than those with less or none? You don't consider this a form of corruption?

The only reasonable explanation

[KingSkippus]

The only reasonable explanation is that Judge Koh is bipolar. She really should seek help.

Really?

[Kupfernigk]

I am relieved to learn that no such state of affairs as I suggest could possibly occur in the USA.

Incidentally:
"she was concerned about how she would seem" - "she was concerned about how a ruling in their favor might be viewed."
"had went in favor" - "had ruled in favor" or "had found in favor". "Had went" is not English.
"run out of town on rails" - the expression is "on a rail". It's perhaps inadvisable to try and use colloquialisms you don't understand.

Or in other words.

[IBitOBear]

"poking a picture" (see the pre-computer definition of "icon" or "glyph")
"autocomple text" (see any idiot that has ever cut you off mid-sentence bark out what he thinks you are going to say)
"using a slide-bolt latch" (found at any hardware store since the invention of same, an any wood-worker for before that)
"searching multiple things like in gopher" (see things like gopher)

All of these things are unspeakably innovative for their age (their age being "bronze", except for gopher, which was "computer relative (big) iron age").

Yes, we -must- protect this innovation.

Funny part is...

[IBitOBear]

Samsung -makes- the multi-touch screens for Apple. That is, Apple never went to Samsung with plans for the screen and said "make this please".

Apple is just yelling "how dare you" while whispering the "use the stuff you make to make a phone, like you do, after we claimed to invent the stuff you make that was invented by someone totally else like twenty years ago".

Re:Funny part is...

[Grudge2012]

Samsung -makes- the multi-touch screens for Apple. That is, Apple never went to Samsung with plans for the screen and said "make this please".

Prove it.

Boom Zap 13 More Decisions Against Samsung

[4phun]

Judge rejects Samsung's request to lift ban on U.S. tablet sales

(Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Monday rejected a request by South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co. to lift a ban on U.S. sales of its Galaxy Tab 10.1, a tablet computer that competes with Apple Inc.'s iPad.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/03/us-apple-samsung-stay-idUSBRE86201G20120703?

Judge Koh deals next blow to Samsung, denies all 12 of its summary judgment requests against Apple Sunday, July 1, 2012
“On Saturday, Judge Koh denied the entirety of a comprehensive summary judgment motion that Samsung brought in May,”

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/judge-koh-deals-next-blow-to-samsung.html

Ridiculous Patents in Question

[Anonymous Coward]

"The patents at issue in the Samsung case deal with universal search, predictive text, slide-to-unlock and the ability to select an action when you tap on certain types of text"

All of the above were present in the Palm Pilot and Treo smartphones years before iPhone was released. It is a SHAME that such patents are granted and enforced. Apple is the Microsoft of our days. The US patents system should be completely abolished and the patent office closed down. They are a disgrace to the nation!

Cars

[phorm]

Ever had that moment in a parking lot where you couldn't remember exactly where you parked? Ever walked up to somebody else's car before you determined it was yours?
Ever notice that it wasn't even the same make/model of car?

My car is quite similar looks-wise to a lot of others out there. If you took the logos off of 3 similar major vehicles, would you easily be able to tell if one was a Ford, another a Toyota, and the last a Volkswagon? I've wandered up the wrong vehicle (of a different make), and I've been driving my car for years.

Further to that, how about your car stereo? Or any number of other things out there are visibly similar?

But when you get behind the wheel and drive one, or look in the hood... things are different. It's not a huge difference, like comparing a V4 or a V8, but they're still significant.

Think of what the world will be like if automotives and everything else is suddenly subjected to somewhat obscure or intellectually obvious "design" patents? Should Ford will sue Toyota for producing a silver vehicle with 16" tires and black wipers?
Do you buy your car because it's blue with a sloped hood, or is there perhaps something more to it than that? Especially when other manufacturers are now taking steps to further differentiate their products (to avoid being sued), which results in digging further into the obvious bin to find similarities to block competition... because real innovation is just too much damn work these days.

Re:Cars

[Anubis IV]

I wasn't talking about design patents, so much as trade dress. As you said, many of the auto manufacturers have similar designs, much of which is functional, meaning that they would not have a basis for an argument with what I'm talking about, given that their look and feel is not dissimilar and a particular appearance is not widely associated with a brand. In contrast, the appearance of the iPad was distinctive when it launched, was widely associated with a particular brand, and its design characteristics were not functional in nature (e.g. its thinness is not for aerodynamic purposes).

Just because there are thousands of examples of things that look similar and yet are not infringing does not mean that the same is true in this case. Trade dress only applies in select circumstances, all of which apply to the situation with the iPad. And since I was talking about the look and feel of the device being similar to that of the iPad, trade dress is clearly the appropriate form of intellectual property to consider.

Samsung Banned - Android fans also hit by Judge K

[4phun]

Boom another major blow to Samsung and Android Tuesday and then the ruling specifically addresses any Geek's desire for a 'pure Android' to boot.

This could not get any more specific than Tuesday's Judgements. Here are some of them...

"The record contains evidence that, while Apples U.S. market share in unit shipments may have continued to grow from the third to fourth quarters of 2011, even after release of the Galaxy Nexus on December 15, 2011, Apples U.S. market share fell by several percentage points in the first quarter of 2012 i.e., the three months after the Galaxy Nexus was released while Samsungs U.S. market share grew by roughly the same percentage points," the order read.

"The Court found that Apple had shown a clear likelihood that Samsung has and will continue to take market share from Apple, and moreover that it is doing so with a product that likely infringes for of Apple's likely valid patents." ...

Though Samsung attempted to block the injunction with its own argument that it would suffer irreparable harm, the court was not sympathetic to the line of reasoning. "The harms identified by Samsung in the coming weeks or months are no more than the expected harms that accompany any enjoined business" ...

Here is proof Judge Koh clearly knows how to think and reason...

"Furthermore, Samsungs very argument at the hearing that it would be irreparably harmed by lost Galaxy Nexus sales to Apple, due to the strength of Apples platform stickiness and brand loyalty among its customers, undermines the position it has maintained during this litigation that
Galaxy Nexus customers are unlikely to buy Apple products in Samsungs stead. Samsungs argument instead supports Apples position that the Galaxy Nexus is taking sales away from Apple." ...

And the one that startled me the most as quoted from the blog AppleInsider...

"Samsung also made an absurd argument that a sales ban of the Galaxy Nexus would harm "certain "techie" consumers who value the pure Android operating system and who will be unable to find any close substitute within the same price point." The court summarily dismissed the claim, citing Samsung's own frequent assertion that it sells more than one smartphone."

--

There are plenty of cheap older Androids to choose from!

The Injunction against Samsung now stands and is in full effect. ...

Sources
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/03/court_denies_samsungs_motion_to_stay_galaxy_nexus_injunction.html
and
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/3/3136023/samsung-request-stay-galaxy-nexus-injunction-denied-Apple