Apple Wins EU Ban of Smaller Samsung Tablet, Demands $2.5 Billion In Damages

walterbyrd writes with news that Apple has won a preliminary injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 across the European Union, thanks to a decision in a German regional court today. At the same time, the court re-affirmed the denial of an injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1N, a version of Samsung's 10.1" tablet that was modified to avoid infringing upon the same patents Apple had asserted earlier. The two companies are still fighting on the other side of the Atlantic as well. In a filing today in a San Diego, California court, Apple is claiming $2.5 billion in damages. "Samsung's infringing sales have enabled Samsung to overtake Apple as the largest manufacturer of smartphones in the world. Samsung has reaped billions of dollars in profits and caused Apple to lose hundreds of millions of dollars through its violation of Apple's intellectual property." Samsung, of course, thinks it should owe much less — $0.0049 per unit per patent — if anything.

Comments

Why foss patents?

[Anonymous Coward]

The story links almost entirely to FOSS Patents, which is the Microsoft-paid Florian Schillers website. Did no one else report this story ?

Re:Why foss patents?

[kervin]

Because Florian is one of the best and most prolific law bloggers on the web today. I read his site just about every day and I haven't seen a pro Microsoft slant as yet.

Re:Why foss patents?

[CowTipperGore]

Because Florian is one of the best and most prolific law bloggers on the web today.

Florian is not a lawyer, not a patent expert, and not a good law blogger. He is a paid shill and prolific blogger. I avoid his site these days but I've read a lot of his stuff over the past few years and it is generally trash. During the Google v. Oracle case, he routinely misrepresented what was said by the judge, the attorneys, and the witnesses. His analysis was obviously shoddy to anyone not relying on FOSSpatents for 100% of their reporting. His predictions did not pan out. He is a shill paid by Microsoft and Oracle. He is an enemy of FOSS and a proponent of software patent abuse, exactly counter to what he claims. His background is in software marketing, not legal, and it shows.

Anyone quoting him or linking to his blog is demonstrating their ignorance of who he is and what he represents.

Apple is the new Microsoft

[cyberspittle]

When Microsoft had a majority in the PC market they behaved just as badly. With Apple have their lead in tablets, looks like they are now the new Microsoft.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[0123456]

I don't remember Microsoft ever being quite as evil as Apple now are.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[jedidiah]

What property?

These are a bunch of bogus patents that amount to going down to city hall and declaring it your personal mansion. At least with copyright, I can write my own kernel or my own web browser.

A patent is not "Apple's property". It's their license to steal mine. I can't write a kernel or a web browser any more because they "own" that.

> Is it evil to defend your intellectual property?

If you're the British East India Company? Probably so.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[cyberspittle]

I think that you are mistaken, or perhaps young. Microsoft had restrictive licensing agreements that stated you could not install other operating systems if you used MS-DOS / Windows preinstalled. This essentially killed IBMs OS/2. At the same time, other DOS vendors were pushed out. Some were even a multi-tasking version of DOS. I guess that is all history now. The main reason to the rise of Linux is that it was free. How can you compete with free? No one would want to pay extra for an operating system, such as IBM OS/2, when the computer was already installed with Microsoft MS-DOS/Windows or latter Windows 95. Consider yourself schooled.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't remember Microsoft ever being quite as evil as Apple now are.

Loathe as I am to admit to a greater evil than Microsoft in the computing world, I must agree. Microsoft's major thing was making proprietary solutions we already had other solutions for and strong-arming everyone else out of a market via manipulation of their OS monopoly. In hindsight and in the light of Apple, there was a subtlety to Microsoft's tactics, still allowing even the illusion of competition (and some cases where they failed in their tactics and were forced to compete). You could almost be convinced that Microsoft wasn't just bludgeoning everyone else into submission by coasting in on a substandard, nonstandard OS that everyone used at the time. Almost.

Apple, on the other hand, straight-up refuses to compete. At all. A threat in one of their markets? Sue them out of existence. A better product shows up outside of their precious pre-ordained release/marketing schedule and threatens their bottom lines? Sue them out of existence. Someone else beats them to the punch on a technology? Get really, really bitter and sue them out of existence with obscure, obvious patents. Microsoft didn't go straight to the courts when they were threatened. Sure, they came back with either substandard or trivially improved products inextricably linked to their OS, or they bought the company out and absorbed the products, but they only went to the courts when there was actually a case to be made. Apple's very clearly on a slash-and-burn strategy, hell-bent on destroying the entire industry if they have to just to avoid any competition.

I tried a MacBook once a few years back (before Apple went apeshit). I thought it was cute, but didn't see the whole obsession angle, and my next laptop was a ThinkPad. Now I'm glad I made that choice. Shame I'll never be able to sell the MacBook, owing to Apple's not only planned, but FORCED obsolescence...

I read once before that there was a time when IBM was the Evil Empire(tm). It was then mentioned, by someone who was there for both, that in light of Microsoft, the old-timers never knew how good they had it with IBM in charge. I guess history's repeated itself once again.

Question to Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all those people that bought the Galaxy Tab would had bought the iPad if the Galaxy Tab didn't have round corners? Hmm.. All of them? Your damage claim is bull shit. Stop looking at the Movie and Music industry for business tactics. You are being insane!

Its getting stupid now.

[spikestabber]

Samsung just needs to stop making A5 cpu's in Texas and cut a ton of American jobs, see how quick will get the government's attention on this whole patent mess.

Re:Hey Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, "make it not rectangular, or not flat, or not have rounded corners" as Apple's consultant said about possible ways to not infringe on Apple's design.

Re:Seems fair....

[jaymz666]

And 7 inch tablets at that! Because it's so similar to the 7" iPad

Oh Apple, Apple, Apple

[sandytaru]

I don't use Samsung products because they borrowed Apple's intellectual property without permission. I use Samsung products because they are not Apple iOS products. If it wasn't Apple, it'd be HTC, LG, or any other provider of Android based hardware. Your suing Samsung into oblivion and killing market choice is not going to endear me to your products in the future. Frankly, I'd rather just do without. No one needs a tablet.

Re:Hey Apple

[0123456]

So you're saying the iPad was not innovative?

Yes. At least in the patent sense. Certainly in the design sense. If there was any innovation it was in removing the desktop user interface in favor of something that worked better on a tablet.

Or would you seriously argue that someone skilled in the arts of electronics design wouldn't obviously have thought of something rectangular with rounded corners and a glass screen when designing a tablet?

Re:Hey Apple

[amRadioHed]

The system is *a* problem, but it's not the only one. Not every company abuses the system the way Apple does. Google has never initiated a patent lawsuit against anyone, they have only used their patents defensively. While the patent system is plenty deserving of any criticism it gets, the companies taking advantage of it are equally to blame.

Re:Everywhere in the UE ?

[Grumbleduke]

I was talking to a (UK-based) trade mark attorney about this sort of thing last week; basically German courts are designed to give quick, cheap decisions, which is why they tend to be the first to issue judgments and injunctions in these sorts of cases. However, what they make up in speed and expense they lose in accuracy.

Contrast that with the English cases (such as the Apple v Samsung and Apple v HTC ones over the last two weeks) which can take a lot longer to reach a final decision, and cost a lot more (€100,000+), but tend to be very thorough. Sadly law tends to be that way; either fast and cheap, or thorough.

The EU-wide injunction was granted (probably) because this case involved an EU right (such as a Community Design Right), rather than a national one. Certain national courts across the EU are given special powers to rule on these issues (to save the CJEU having to get involved all the time), so their rulings are binding across the EU. However, that also means that if another court somewhere else issues a final ruling (rather than just an interim injunction) that goes the other way, the German court's decision will be set aside.

Re:Hey Apple

[Lendrick]

Seriously. Who would have ever thought to make a rectangualr tablet with rounded corners? It's not at all obvious, and there's certainly no prior art.