Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Galaxy Nexus Ban Overturned

Posted by Soulskill on from the another-day,-another-apple/samsung-ruling dept.

Maow writes with word that the U.S. Federal Appeals Court has reversed a sales ban on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus phone. According to the decision (PDF), "Regardless of the extent to which Apple may be injured by the sales of the Galaxy Nexus, there is not a sufficient showing that the harm flows from Samsung’s alleged infringement. ...the district court abused its discretion in enjoining the sales of the Galaxy Nexus." The ruling also said Apple didn't do a good enough job showing that the allegedly infringing features were "core" to the Nexus's operation. The case centered on what is called "unified search," a method for bringing together search results from multiple places, such as a device's internal memory and the internet at large (U.S. Patent #8,086,604). "Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the ’604 patent—not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search."

14 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Laugh... by koan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I saw it as Apples attempt to keep the larger screen Samsung phone from hitting the market before the iPhone5.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Laugh... by Laxori666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's certainly possible. This is what happens when you don't have free markets. It becomes profitable to divert some effort into abusing the regulatory systems instead of spending all your time and energy actually producing things.

    2. Re:Laugh... by Synerg1y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not the market that's broken, but the patent system... it clearly wasn't designed for computers & technology.

    3. Re:Laugh... by d3ac0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think Laxori666 was intimating that "The Market" was broken, but rather that our regulatory systems (that would include the Patent system) have shackled it to the extent that it can be more profitable to engage in legal assaults against your competitors than to actually PRODUCE something new for sale.

      Now, Apple is clearly doing both, but the fact that the legal avenue is even viable for them to bother pursuing should be of great concern to anyone wishing to see greater vibrancy and energy from the marketplace.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    4. Re:Laugh... by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Free markets cannot exist while the government distorts them. This isnt about regulation, because regulation does not need to distort the markets.

      Market distortions perpetrated by government are often characterized by government money, but that isnt the whole story. The patent system is most certainly a market distortion, which seemed like a beneficial trade-off when it was only manufacturing techniques that were being patented. Clearly its not a free market if you arent free to also do what someone else is succeeding when doing. You shouldn't be guaranteed to succeed, but you should be free to try.

      The patent system, as it stands, is a gross violation of liberty. The society does not benefit when information that was naturally (going to be) public information is given exclusive use. Society only benefits in the case where what would have been trade secrets is made public through these government enforced incentives of limited exclusiveness. This kind of would-have-been-a-trade-secret patent is rare these days. Companies like Intel and Global Foundries certainly are involved in that kind of 'good' patent (not exclusively, see instruction set patents), but companies like Apple patent information that would by definition become public through the sale of millions of devices which demonstrate it.

      Its about time people stood up for technological liberty. End the 'design' side of the patent system, and reform the 'utility' side of the patent system.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    5. Re:Laugh... by Laxori666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is spending billions of dollars buying patents not "legal fees"? It's certainly not R&D. For example, Google could have spent money and come up with a phone on their own (R&D), but they had to buy Motorola in order to not be sued into oblivion by the other phone makers (legal fees).

    6. Re:Laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People are counting them as legal fees because their only purpose is to avoid costly lawsuits.

  2. Thank you.. by Moheeheeko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...sweet merciful logic!

  3. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Sound like Apple owes Samsung some money for lost sales.

  4. Up Next.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Court overturns 1 billion judgement against Samsung.

  5. Lucy Koh, look around... by jkrise · · Score: 3, Insightful

    unless you overturn the idiotic jury verdict, the entire World is going to laugh at you.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  6. Re:logical ruling on a patent case by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not just any old logical ruling, but I speculate it holds the seeds for slowing down patent madness. Borrowing from another of my posts elsewhere:

    "It said the district court in California, which had issued the ban in June, had "abused its discretion in entering an injunction"."

    Which, in Court Speak, is pretty bad. "Abused Discretion" is basically what we were all saying in Less-Safe-For-Work terms.

    There's also an awesome phrase to keep an eye on. "Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the â(TM)604 patentâ"not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search."

    So we have the BAREST beginnings of how to slow down patent abuse:
    1. SomePhone has "patented technology to play Angry Birds with live birds using geo-sensors and accelerometer tech in hunting season" or something. Let's even say something like that is innovating, and not obvious - shake your phone at a bird and it falls out of the sky!?

    OtherCorp says that the tech infringes on their other patent which got there first, *and then tries to ban sales of the whole phone.*I think this court case is saying that the grumpy corp has to prove that consumers basically stood in the mall and picked which phone to buy based on exactly that tech and no more. "Hmm, this one has a better screen, better sound, better camera, better maps, better music interface, Android store." "Yeah, but mine kills pigeons in the park." "Ooh, I'm sold, I'll do that!"

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  7. Re:what about the lost sales? by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well better not tell the iFans, about half that thing comes from Samsung.

  8. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And the court's default position is 'if the patent office passed it it's probably valid'.

    --
    'Sensible' is a curse word.