Samsung Appeals Apple's Injunction Against Galaxy Nexus

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Appeals Apple's Injunction Against Galaxy Nexus

Posted by samzenpus on Monday July 2, 2012 @12:04AM from the the-circle-is-complete dept.

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."

15 of 217 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This is getting beyond ridiculousness. by Lumpy · 2012-07-02 00:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-02 00:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-02 00:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Who paid off who? What universe do you live in?
  Go read up about the U.S. lobbying system. It might open your eyes.
3. Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. by cyber-vandal · 2012-07-02 00:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Taking a stand doesn't pay the mortgage.
4. Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. by Nerdfest · 2012-07-02 00:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
5. Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 00:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Then don't get a mortgage.
6. Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. by LordLucless · 2012-07-02 01:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
7. Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-02 01:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
8. Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. by Theaetetus · 2012-07-02 02:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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:I have an idea by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-02 00:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 00:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Winning the case is not the goal by ebonum · 2012-07-02 01:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

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:Injunction by v1 · 2012-07-02 01:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:I have an idea by oztiks · 2012-07-02 02:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

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:Injunction by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 05:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.