Samsung Galaxy Nexus Ban Overturned

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Galaxy Nexus Ban Overturned

Posted by Soulskill on Friday October 12, 2012 @04:15AM 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."

43 of 140 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Laugh... by koan · 2012-10-12 04:18 · 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 · 2012-10-12 04:30 · 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 crachel · 2012-10-12 04:30 · Score: 2
  
  The Galaxy Nexus came out in November 2011. This ban that is being overturned occurred in June 2012.
3. Re:Laugh... by Synerg1y · 2012-10-12 04:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's not the market that's broken, but the patent system... it clearly wasn't designed for computers & technology.
4. Re:Laugh... by sir-gold · 2012-10-12 04:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Last year, both Apple and Samsung (and Google) spent more on legal fees than R&D.
  http://gizmodo.com/5949909/apple-and-google-spent-more-money-on-legal-fees-than-rd-last-year-and-google-apparently-thinks-apple-wants-it-that-way
5. Re:Laugh... by d3ac0n · 2012-10-12 05:09 · 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
6. Re:Laugh... by Rockoon · 2012-10-12 06:06 · 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."
7. Re:Laugh... by sribe · 2012-10-12 06:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Last year, both Apple and Samsung (and Google) spent more on legal fees than R&D.
  No, they did not. The "spending on patents" which exceeded their R&D included huge (multibillion $) one-time purchases of assets, including patent portfolios, from failing companies.
8. Re:Laugh... by Laxori666 · 2012-10-12 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  My point is that the patent system itself is what makes the market not free. A freer market would be one without the patent system.
  How would that market operate? It means companies would no longer be able to make money by coming up with something and preventing other people from doing it (thus enjoying the benefits of a monopoly), but rather, to come up with something which they can make money from even if they have competition. Whenever there is competition in a free market, prices go down while quality goes up, thus consumers would benefit.
  As for the argument that nobody would invent anything without patents, I find it specious. People are always willing to make money, and they will find ways to do so if you let them. All patents do in this regard is prevent people from making money because somebody else patented something. Ironically, the patent system, which is purported to promote innovation, ends up doing the exact opposite.
9. Re:Laugh... by Laxori666 · 2012-10-12 06:40 · 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).
10. Re:Laugh... by sribe · 2012-10-12 07:19 · Score: 2
  
  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).
  "Legal fees" is commonly understood to mean "fees paid for legal services". NOT money paid for licenses, copyrights, patents, leases, tangible property, real property, non-legal services or anything else except, you know, actual legal services.
  And no, of course it's not R&D. Neither are a whole host of other things these companies spend money on, none of which magically become legal fees by virtue of not being R&D.
11. Re:Laugh... by mk1004 · 2012-10-12 07:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Patents may be monopolies, but how about the alternative? Companies may spend months or years and tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to come up with some new way of doing something. Without patent protection, other companies could then quickly copy the invention, spending a fraction of the time and money, with just a small lag in time to market. What incentive would companies have to innovate? Patents, done right, should protect the inventors at least long enough for them to make back their investment in time and money, giving them the incentive to keep innovating.
  
  --
  I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
12. Re:Laugh... by makomk · 2012-10-12 07:45 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Free markets cannot exist, full stop. For instance, every time a companies actions have negative externalities - costs that affect others who aren't doing business with them - that distorts the market even if there's no government, because it means the free market price of their product doesn't reflect the actual cost. We see this with global warming; in fact that's one reason why libertarians are so keen on insisting that it doesn't exist despite the actual evidence. There's a related problem with (for instance) deep sea fishing called the tragedy of the commons - without government intervention the free market would wipe out fish stocks and drive fishermen into bankrupcy, despite the fact that this makes everyone else worse off.
  That's before we even get into the problems with false advertising and food and drug mislabelling, and the consistent inability of the free market to deal with it, or natural monopolies and rent-seeking behaviour, or...
13. Re:Laugh... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  People are counting them as legal fees because their only purpose is to avoid costly lawsuits.
14. Re:Laugh... by englishknnigits · 2012-10-12 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  In theory, I actually agree with you. In practice, I completely disagree. If patents were used appropriately for truly innovated things and for a short duration (6 months to a few years at most) then it would provide a good incentive to innovate due to the large potential benefits of a short lived monopoly. The detriment of that monopoly could be offset by the societal benefits brought on by increased innovation.
  
  The problem is that none of those things are true. Patents are granted for completely trivial things that have usually already been done before but with some irrelevant twist such as "on a mobile device." Patents last way too long and give excessive monopoly power. The theory is sound but the implementation is a catastrophe. I would rather have no patent system than have a horribly broken patent system. I have absolutely no faith, and have seen no evidence, that we will ever get it "right" so we should get rid of the whole mess.
15. Re:Laugh... by ScienceofSpock · 2012-10-12 10:47 · Score: 2
  
  I saw it as Apples attempt to keep the larger screen Samsung phone from hitting the market before the iPhone5.
  Considering the Galaxy Nexus was released almost a year BEFORE the iPhone 5, that's unlikely.
Thank you.. by Moheeheeko · 2012-10-12 04:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

...sweet merciful logic!
Seams Apple now owes Samsung A chunck of cash.. by FirstOne · 2012-10-12 04:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

I.E.. Apple forfeits some of the bond they posted for PI, up to 96.5 million dollars, maybe more.
This ruling can also put a serious dent in the Apple's victory over Samsung SJ court. The same reasoning will overturn that verdict as well. (Apple didn't show they were damaged by Customers seeking out those specific patented features.)
Additionally those features represent a tiny fraction of the overall value of the phones.. (big hit to damages award),
1. Re:Seams Apple now owes Samsung A chunck of cash.. by Savage-Rabbit · 2012-10-12 09:21 · Score: 2
  
  I do not like Apple. Some people do though, so I would like them to survive.
  Competition is good.
  Apple just needs to fucking build shit for their fanboys and leave the rest of the world alone.
  I have worked in the Telco industry for 10 years now and you can trust me when I say that Apple's move into mobile devices has been like an earthquake in a petrified landscape and it has had an effect way outside the Apple 'fanboy' community. Like Apple or hate them, the iPod, iPad and iPhone have all transformed their respective market segments (and heavily influenced Android). Nobody took tablets terribly seriously until the iPad, the iPod has revolutionised music players (I know that because I was in the market for an MP3 player way back when the iPod came out in 2001... they all sucked) and the iPhone has collapsed the market share of RIM and Nokia drastically. Both of those companies were major players 6-7 year ago, now they are swimming for their lives. Until the iPhone came along Telcos were also struggling to get users to buy smartphones and use mobile Internet... that is no longer a problem. So damn, right... innovation and competition is good. While I generally accept Apple's claim that Samsung imitated them, giving a fuck is counterproductive. Apple should not spend their energy on lawsuits, they should be doing what they were doing up until recently which is innovate, set new standards and make Samsung look dated just like they did with Nokia, RIM and whole cohort of music player and tablet manufacturers. Samsung, HTC, Nokia and the rest should also try to do a bit more of their own thing and try to upstage Apple. Microsoft gave it a good try with Windows 8 and two thumbs up to them for trying. More competition please!!! I like the results so far...
  P.S. It's funny how it used to be 'Microsoft Certified Minesweepers Experts' vs. 'Apple fanboys' but now it's 'Apple fanboys' vs. 'Google drones'. The Microsofties must be having right old laugh watching this shit-storm unfold from the sidelines. It's getting so bad that I'm inclined to join them for a beer and a hot-dog and then laugh at the spectacle.
  
  --
  Only to idiots, are orders laws.
  -- Henning von Tresckow
Lucy Koh, look around... by jkrise · 2012-10-12 04:40 · 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....
1. Re:Lucy Koh, look around... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-10-12 04:55 · Score: 2
  
  Lucy Koh got bitch-slapped on this one. Let us hope that it is the start of a trend.
  "Before PROST, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. "
  Thank you and those who had the wisdom to select you to the court.
Hooray, someone gets it by sandytaru · 2012-10-12 04:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

People don't always buy phones because of specific features any more - they buy it because of the brand and because it is the latest model from that brand. People will buy the Nexus instead of the Apple regardless of the specifics of its search functions.

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
1. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by Todd+Knarr · 2012-10-12 05:05 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, but if this particular feature were left out, people would still buy it. The Appeals Court noted this clearly in their order:
  
  The causal nexus requirement is not satisfied simply because removing an allegedly infringing component would leave a particular feature, application, or device less valued or inoperable. A laptop computer, for example, will not work (or work long enough) without a battery, cooling fan, or even the screws that may hold its frame together, and its value would be accordingly depreciated should those components be removed. That does not mean, however, that every such component is "core" to the operation of the machine, let alone that each component is the driver of consumer demand.
  Apple's patented feature certainly adds value, but it's lack isn't a deal-breaker for most consumers.
2. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by DickBreath · 2012-10-12 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  > People don't always buy phones because of specific features any more
  
  Actually, in some sense that is not true. When buying phones, it must be Android. That's what I'm looking for. I'll compare amongst Android phones for everything else, as you suggest. Brand. Features. Price. Size. Color. Style. Keyboard. Cameras.
  
  But not running Android is a deal killer. I buy the phone because it runs Android. Because it syncs with Google services, runs Google maps, etc. I buy it because I can get source code. Because I don't have to pay money, sign a draconian NDA and use a specific platform in order to develop. Eclipse and other tools run on Linux and Windows (maybe even Mac).
  
  And before an iFanboy complains, I would point out that they do the same. They buy the iDevice specifically because it is from Apple, runs iOS, is high priced, takes away their freedom, etc etc.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
3. Re:Hooray, someone gets it by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · 2012-10-12 05:54 · Score: 2
  
  The unique "feature" of the Nexus line is that it is comprised of stock Android phones. The line is not unique to Samsung, as the first Nexus was built by HTC, Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus built by Samsung, Nexus 7 tablet built by Asus. It isn't brand specific...the line is developed by Google in conjuntion with the aformentioned manufacturers. BTW, I have a Galaxy Nexus and brand had nothing to do with my purchase. I wanted a pure Android phone. Galaxy Nexus is one of the few phones recommended by the Android Open Source Project for Android software development.
Does this mean unified search is coming back? by h4rr4r · 2012-10-12 04:42 · Score: 2

Will the next software update for the GN and GS3 then reactivate unified search?
True, but by OrangeTide · 2012-10-12 04:45 · Score: 4, Informative

We're more interested in legal precidence than the effects on an individual product line.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Google desktop did it in 2004 by sir-gold · 2012-10-12 04:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Version 1 of google desktop was released a month BEFORE this patent was even filed. I don't remember if version 1 had unified search, but the later versions definitely did.
Is the US patent office pulling a Velvan Hogan and disregarding prior art just because it doesn't run on the same hardware? Or do they just automatically approve EVERY apple patent without research?
1. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by suutar · 2012-10-12 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  more the latter, I think. They're overworked and understaffed and their directive seems to be "pass it unless there's an obvious an egregious problem and let the courts sort out anything else".
2. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by Daniel_Staal · 2012-10-12 04:57 · 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.
3. Re:Google desktop did it in 2004 by sir-gold · 2012-10-12 05:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I just looked into the 604 patent some more, it was filed in 2004, but was rejected that year and another 8 times over the following years. It wasn't approved until 2011, yet it somehow still has an effective date of 2004.
  So it's not that the USPTO grants every apple patent, it's just that if you submit the same patent 10 times over the span of 5 years, they will eventually approve it, even if they shouldn't.
Re:logical ruling on a patent case by TaoPhoenix · 2012-10-12 04:48 · 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
Re:what about the lost sales? by h4rr4r · 2012-10-12 04:49 · Score: 2

This is slashdot not twitter you dolt.
Re:what about the lost sales? by h4rr4r · 2012-10-12 04:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well better not tell the iFans, about half that thing comes from Samsung.
Compensation by ByteSlicer · 2012-10-12 05:26 · Score: 2

So can Samsung now ask for compensation for the lost sales due to the ban? (Honest question to any legal person here that might know. It seems obvious and only fair to me, but justice is seldomly fair lately).
Re:trade with asia? by Mike+Buddha · 2012-10-12 05:48 · Score: 2

I hadn't realized that Korea was in Taiwan. Hmm...

--
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Re:trade with asia? by OrangeTide · 2012-10-12 06:37 · Score: 2

American Geography.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
A good example by argStyopa · 2012-10-12 06:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

A very good example of how our legal system would be improved by a 3-strikes rule.
If a court case is overturned on appeals, clearly, the lower court not only didn't do their job but in fact caused a 3-fold increase in the burden borne by the court system: the original court trial, the appellate hearing, and the subsequent case.
I've always wondered why, when an appellate court overrules a judge, there's no consequence for the judge. Simply put - if a judge is overturned 3 times, he obviously shouldn't be a judge any longer.
(If judges are particularly rare or dear, and we need them, implement some sort of "3rd strike = 25% pay cut for 1 year" rule to significantly punish these individuals that are so critical to our legal system.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:A good example by FirstOne · 2012-10-12 07:12 · Score: 2
  
  Frequently overturned judicial rulings will hurt that judge's chances for advancement.. If a complaint is filed, the chief judge(for the district) will assign it to an appointed judicial committee for review.. That proceeding can result in private or public censure..
  The Chief judge can also place that judge on low profile case list for an indefinite period.
2. Re:A good example by dkf · 2012-10-12 12:03 · Score: 2
  
  I've always wondered why, when an appellate court overrules a judge, there's no consequence for the judge. Simply put - if a judge is overturned 3 times, he obviously shouldn't be a judge any longer.
  Because that's far too rigid. If the original case depended on a tricky point of an obscure law, it's quite possible for the trial judge to get it wrong in a subtle way. Or if there were two cases being brought at about the same time that tested a new law and two trials were decided in different directions based on different readings of the same law, that would require the superior court to describe which is actually correct. These are examples where counting them as "strikes against the judge" would be excessively harsh. OTOH, if a case is overturned because the trial judge took a bribe, giving them another two chances would be astoundingly lenient. Judicial malfeasance should be cracked down on extremely hard as soon as it is detected.
  The case in TFA is between these extremes. The judge didn't commit a crime, but did get a substantive reprimand over misapplication of the rules for injunctive remedies.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:trade with asia? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:14 · Score: 3, Funny

I hadn't realized that Korea was in Taiwan. Hmm...
It certainly is, according to my iPhone 5.
Re:logical ruling on a patent case by CowTipperGore · 2012-10-12 07:58 · Score: 4, Informative

Perhaps more interesting was the court's commentary on Apple's practice of using the courts to completely block competitors from the market, saying that it is necessary to determine if the claims of harm are relevant or "...whether the patentee seeks to leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant." In other words, you may still be entitled to damages but you are not allowed to use one minor feature to completely eliminate your competition.
WAT by warrax_666 · 2012-10-12 09:27 · Score: 2

" a method for bringing together search results from multiple places, such as a device's internal memory and the internet at large

What, you mean fucking combining fucking results from several fucking searches? That's not a fucking invention -- that's fucking obvious. Fuck.

--
HAND.