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."

16 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 sir-gold · · 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

    4. 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
    5. 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."
    6. Re:Laugh... by sribe · · 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.

    7. Re:Laugh... by makomk · · 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...

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

    ...sweet merciful logic!

  3. Seams Apple now owes Samsung A chunck of cash.. by FirstOne · · 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),

  4. Hooray, someone gets it by sandytaru · · 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.
  5. True, but by OrangeTide · · 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
  6. Google desktop did it in 2004 by sir-gold · · 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 sir-gold · · 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.

  7. 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
  8. Re:logical ruling on a patent case by CowTipperGore · · 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.