Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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
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?
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.
WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?