Slashdot Mirror


Apple Tells Retailers To Stop Selling Certain Samsung Devices

walterbyrd writes with news that Apple has been sending out letters to carriers and retailers who sell the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the Galaxy Nexus, informing them of a court-mandated ban on sales and warning them against continuing to market the devices. The court order for the patent case on the Galaxy Tab says Samsung and "those acting in concert" with them are enjoined from selling the devices, and Apple has used the letters to point this out. Samsung, of course, disagrees: "Apple’s menacing letters greatly overreach, incorrectly claiming that third-party retailers are subject to the prohibitions of the preliminary injunction, which they clearly are not."

35 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. Apple: You do the nice gear... by craznar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... and leave the law to the authorities.

    Mmmmk?

    --
    EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
    1. Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Samsung should just stop selling components to Apple...
      Let them invent & manufacture that stuff themselves.

    2. Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... by macshit · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh come on ... Apple's completely exhausted from inventing the rectangle! The rectangle!

      What more do you want from them?!

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    3. Re:Apple: You do the nice gear... by BeanThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, firstly, copyrights cover works that are impossible for a second content creator to *accidentally* independently create. It's impossible for an independent film producer to accidentally re-create a virtually exact copy of, say, Avatar, and it's impossible for a second independent author to accidentally re-write a major novel. It's just impossible. This makes it much easier to verify and keep track of the actual creator of some copyrighted content - i.e. there cannot be meaningful (honest) conflicting claims from two separate authors honestly claiming to have independently written the same book. This is completely the opposite of patents, where actual, honest independent invention is not only incredibly common, it's actually to be expected and happens every day, all the time.

      Second, patents are basically effecitvely a priori force-based restraints on using your mind. E.g. an independent software author must now, with every single step, wonder if they're violating patents. This is not true for copyrights --- it's impossible to independently rewrite large parts of someone else's source code --- when you program, as long as you are doing your own work, you do not have to sit and wonder "am I violating copyrights, am I violating copyrights". Likewise, if you want to write a book, and you just start writing using your mind, you do not have to worry "am I going to accidentally rewrite someone else's novel" -- you just write. But with patents, you are effectively required by law to avoid inventing or writing code lest you accidentally violate someone's patents.

      Third, patents have become unreasonably impossible to implement. Not only are you bound by a priori restraints on using your mind to create --- i.e. you are required to continually search for existing patents every time you write a piece of code --- but there are so many thousands of patents (something like 40,000 software patents now in the US IIRC?) that it's actually impossible to even know if you're violating the patent, you need a team of patent lawyers continually searching and checking. This is NOT TRUE for copyright, where it's easy to know, because it's virtually impossible to accidentally violate in any meaningful way.

      Finally, patents operate on a basis that violates 'innocent until proven guilty', a basic principle of a moral justice system. If a second inventor GENUINELY accidentally re-invents something, according to the patent system, he is automatically guilty even if he wasn't copying --- and no evidence of copying is required. In crime, evidence is usually required. With patents, no evidence is required - being 'first to file' is considered 'evidence', which is nonsense. Copyright, however, does not operate on an 'innocent until proven guilty' .. you need evidence in order to be considered guilty of copyright violation.

  2. Thanks Apple by Kangburra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you hadn't made such a fuss about the Samsung Tabs they would not be so popular today, Here in Australia they are very hard to find, you have to pre-order it while the ipads sit in the shops. I am not suggesting that they are outselling the ipad, but there is a real demand which, in part, has been created by the market leader. What a weird world we are in today!

    --
    Common sense is not so common
    1. Re:Thanks Apple by firex726 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yep, Streisand effect, thanks to Apple I have been hearing more news of Google's offerings then I have Apple's.

    2. Re:Thanks Apple by DRJlaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's no more evidence of strong demand than it is of short supply.

      The iPad 3 was on a worldwide short supply for months, and that was effectively due to huge demand!

      The degree of self-contradiction that you've allowed yourself boggles the mind.

    3. Re:Thanks Apple by fredprado · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You self-contradicted yourself. There is simply no way around it. Just admit it and get done with it. The burden of the proof of the proof of any claim is always on the person who does it. You did it on the second sentence, and in exact the same way the poster you criticized did.

    4. Re:Thanks Apple by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Funny

      You self-contradicted yourself.

      Well, he obviously didn't self-contradict anyone else.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  3. Weird... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's almost like in this sector, patents are hurting innovation. No wait, that can't be right...

    1. Re:Weird... by fredprado · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes I do. Everything is a copy of many many things with a little bit of originality (if any). It is ridiculously arrogant to think that your little bit of originality is so important that you have a divine mandate to exclusivity over it.

  4. eventually by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The USA, with its abyssmal right wing social and economic policies will mean the USA will fall to second rate status in the world. By then China, Brazil, Korea, India, etc will grow wise to this lame "intellectual property" scam, and the next American Steve Jobs wont stand a chance.

    When that day comes, and other countries say it was us who invtented this aggressive international enforcememt of this completely bullshit monopoly maintenance technique, just be happy there is and was an alternative strand of thought on the concept of intellectual property: no.

    Then maybe we can fnally rid the world of this abomination. It is not ised to protect small inventors, it is used to enforce anti-market monopolistic practices.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:eventually by Kharny · · Score: 4, Informative

      LOL, you really think the dems are leftwing?
      They talk slightly more leftwing than reps, but their politics are the same

      --
      Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
  5. So that means lots of fire sale by Pecisk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ....and more Samsung Androids in the streets. Really smart tactics Apple. Obsessive as your former master. In fact, insane. But who cares if shiny is there.

    Just one simple promise - I will never buy any Apple product in my life. Sorry, you simply can't have it both ways.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  6. Re:annoying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How's it getting annoying? How's it even affecting you?

    It's annoying to support this kind of bickering with my dollars. At least since I really want 75% of all tech patents invalidated (because they are too obvious) and don't think software patents should exist at all. If you buy from a company you are supporting their business practices, all of them. Don't know about "annoying" but it's quite legitimate to scrutinize what you are patronizing. It's no surprise that not everyone will like how a given company does business.

  7. Re:Pretty Soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ya, no. Retailers that have already purchased product and have them in inventory are free to sell those items. Samsung and it's distributors are no longer allowed to sell the devices to retailers or end-users. If a retailer is holding inventory on behalf of Samsung or it's distributors in a form of consignment, then no, they can't sell them.

    You see it the way Apple does; that ALL sales must stop and that's not the case. Selling inventory you've already paid for is not working in concert with the manufacturer. Samsung listing your website or store as a place to get the product, is.

  8. Re:Pretty Soon... by kelarius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Except there is no injunction against the Nexus, just the Tab 10.1 (the old version noone sells anymore). The Nexus was cleared for US sale last week. This is not only overreaching but blatantly fraudulent. Samsung needs to get their lawyers warmed up.

    --
    Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
  9. You know what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck Apple. I've been thinking about replacing the 3 year old Mac Pro that I use for music production with a new one, but I'm about done with Apple's stormtrooper bullshit.

    Seriously. Fuck Apple. You know fads come and go, and nerds and geeks carried Apple through some bad spots. Let's see how long Apple's dominant position in the market lasts when people start to realize that the corporation behind those snappy ads and shiny products are greedy, heavy-handed scum.

    I've just decided Apple products are no longer cool. The Apple logo is not cool and owning anything Apple is not cool. Since I was among the first who decided that Apple was cool, decades ago, I feel I have the responsibility now end this thing.

    It doesn't matter if I'm the only one. When I see someone with an iPhone or iPad, I'm going to see them as particularly uncool. I will tell them.

    Watch and see if it doesn't start a trend. Not because I'm special, but because I'm NOT special. If this is how I feel, it's almost certain that there are lots of other people who feel this way because I am not special. The not-special people who made Apple cool to begin with will be the ones to remove their cool status.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:You know what? by dew-genen-ny · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Couldn't. Agree. More. There's a reason I've ditched my iphone and will be soon to ditch my ipad.... not that they're not totally cool devices, just that Apple are acting like such douches. I remember how much I used to hate on Microsoft for not being open, not allowing everyone to play and now here we are, Apple are doing the EXACT same thing. Thank fuck Android is open source, this bullshit ends here.

      --
      tom-george.comBecause geeks rate higher t
    2. Re:You know what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      *sees someone with an iphone*
      "hey man, you're not cool!"

      Good luck with that.

      Oh, I don't know. There is a significant number of people who own iPhones because they believe it is cool to do so. People who do things because they are cool happen to be especially sensitive to any suggestion otherwise.

      That's why fads disappear so suddenly. One day it's the coolest thing ever, and the next day, someone says, "Oh, that's so last year" and the next thing you know, the fad has evaporated with nary a trace.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Florian Mueller by chrb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Worth pointing out that this article was written by Florian Mueller of "Top Anti-Android Blogger Florian Mueller is Being Paid by Oracle" fame. He has been proven wrong before, and so we should probably wait for some better reporting on this story. That said, I would say he is right about the ban on Samsung extending to third parties that "act in concert" with Samsung to continue selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1, but he is wrong that the ban applies to really independent third parties who are selling the Tab 10.1 without "acting in concert" with Samsung (i.e. third party importers etc.). To stop those guys, Apple needs to take them to court.

  11. Re:I don't mean to take Apple's side in this, but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them who are banned from selling, importing, making and using gTabs in US.

    "Using" part is funny, will Apple next conduct searches at Samsung's officers, directors, employees etc. homes to enforce the injunction in full? "He's taking the Tab from his desk drawer... He's turning it on! Team Bravo, move out!"

  12. unfortunately by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The USA, with its abyssmal right wing social and economic policies will mean the USA will fall to second rate status in the world. By then China, Brazil, Korea, India, etc will grow wise to this lame "intellectual property" scam [...]

    Unfortunately, it appears as if some of the countries you've mentioned are suffering from even more regressive political and economic policies. Take for instance, Korea. Samsung dominates Korea in a manner that would put shame any claims that Microsoft or Apple are monopolies. China's government and private sector partnerships make US defense contractors seem like angels. And note how the income disparity between China's billionaires and the peasant poor is greater than that of the US.

  13. Re:annoying? by fredprado · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In practice patents were never an incentive to research and innovation. The legal costs make them a viable protection only to big business, which means that hundreds of thousands of small and medium business not only are not entitled to have their researches protected but have to be careful not to step in the big guys toes, even by a tortuous stretch of logic when researching anything.It serves absolutely nothing but the big guys. Period.

    Furthermore these big guys have the distribution networks and the manufacturing advantages to profit without such protections.Apple would not going to stop creating new things because Samsung or anybody else could copy them. For God's sake. To tell the truth nobody copied other people's ideas more than Apple in this World.

  14. Re:I don't mean to take Apple's side in this, but. by BradleyUffner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But aren't retailers that sell the device "acting in concert" with them?

    I'f I buy 1000 widgets from you, then 1 month later turn around and sell those widgets in my store, how am I acting in concert with you? Our transaction ended completely as soon as I handed you the money and you handed me the widgets.

  15. Re:Whiny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because Apple has nothing in the pipeline. That is the only logical reason for pouring massive resources into slowing the entry of others into the market. Apple is trying to buy time. In 5 years Apple will be listed next to Nokia and RIM.

  16. Re:annoying? by fredprado · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There were ALWAYS big guys.

  17. Re:Pretty Soon... by dark12222000 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wrong. Retailers are almost always independent parties who are simply reselling a product. The transaction with the OEM is already completed and any business has been tidied up. Once I have the product, I am free to sell it independently unless I have an injunction placed against me directly.

  18. Re:Pretty Soon... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Except there is no injunction against the Nexus, just the Tab 10.1

    Except there was http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/06/30/028234/sale-of-galaxy-nexus-banned-in-the-us.

    Keyword: was. Your slashdot article is dated June 30. This engadget article is dated July 6. So, as GP said, there is no ban on the Nexus.

    http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/06/samsung-gets-temporary-stay-on-galaxy-nexus-ban/

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  19. Anti-competition patent scams affect us all by walterbyrd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't kid yourself. These actions by Apple drive up prices, kill innovation, and limit choice.

  20. Re:annoying? by rhook · · Score: 3, Informative
  21. Re:Apple Sends Cops To Seize Galaxy Nexus by Starfleet+Command · · Score: 3, Informative

    You realize this link is a satire/joke site right????

  22. Three words: by Issarlk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fuck you Apple!

  23. Most, actually by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple's rise to prominence is because they managed to become a fashion company. Normally consumer electronics is quite price sensitive. You don't become the biggest charging premium pricing, consumers just won't have it, even if you are offering something that justifies the cost. However fashion doesn't work like that, expensive is ok, even good. People will pay more to be fashionable.

    Well that's what Apple did starting with the iPod. They didn't invent MP3 players, you could get them long before the iPod, however few people did. Like walkmen and so on only some people were interested. However Apple made them not a tech device, but a fashion accessory. You were cool if you owned one, complete with the white earbuds, cord hanging out in front to show you had one. Suddenly Shure and Etymotic had demand for white earbuds, something nobody had ever wanted before (because people wanted better sound but still the status symbol). People didn't buy MP3 players, they bought iPods because it was the fashionable thing.

    This continues. People buy Apple because they think it is cool to do. Some people buy it for other reasons, as some people have bought Apple in the past, but the majority buy it to be one of the "in crowd". We just saw this at work, one of the secretaries just had to have an iMac for her new computer. She could not give a coherent reason, particularly since all the software she needs is for Windows (sometimes Windows exclusively). Indeed it has Fusion on it and she basically uses Windows exclusively with it. But she had to have a Mac. The real reason was, of course, because the Mac is "cool" and a PC is not. There was no technical reason or business case for it (and indeed reasons not to do it) it was all about fashion.

    Apple is in a world of hurt the day that ends. When that day will be, who knows? It could be tomorrow, it could be in 500 years. However when it happens their profitability will take a massive hit. People will stop buying their devices not for any good reason, but just because they are no longer the cool thing to own.

  24. Remember when... by lilfields · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hey guys, remember when some of you thought Apple was the good guys? That was real cute, you guys. When do we get an Apple borg icon?