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."
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.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
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.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
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)
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
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"?
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.
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.