Slashdot Mirror


Apple Again Seeks Ban On 20+ Samsung Devices In US

An anonymous reader notes that Apple has renewed its patent attack against Samsung, asking U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh to prohibit Samsung from selling over 20 different phones and tablets. Apple made a similar request after it won a $1 billion judgment in 2012, but Koh did not allow it. An Appeals court later ruled that Apple could resubmit its request if it focused on the specific features at the center of the 2012 verdict, and that's what we're seeing today. Apple's filing said, "Samsung’s claim that it has discontinued selling the particular models found to infringe or design around Apple's patents in no way diminishes Apple’s need for injunctive relief. ... Because Samsung frequently brings new products to market, an injunction is important to providing Apple the relief it needs to combat any future infringement by Samsung through products not more than colorably different from those already found to infringe."

47 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. How about no? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Competition is good for the market place. Apple is already doing well enough; no need to do them any favors.

    1. Re:How about no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a matter of law. Why don't we wait for the judge to determine how the law applies here?

    2. Re:How about no? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The law is an ass.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:How about no? by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is Slashdot! We don't care what any silly judge says, or what the law says! We'll voice support for what we want the law to be, specially tailored to our limited knowledge of this situation, based on our own prejudices for or against the companies in question.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:How about no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Except we already know that this was a Kangaroo court.

      This patent war is a prime example of what is wrong with patents. The jury in this case decided based on one man's vendetta against Samsung. Go ahead, look it up.

      You might learn something.

    5. Re:How about no? by Servaas · · Score: 2

      And if all else fails, we have the President of the United States of America to overrule any and all legal binding verdicts!

    6. Re:How about no? by msauve · · Score: 2

      "We don't care what any silly judge says, or what the law says! "

      It's good that you differentiated between the two, since they're oft times different.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:How about no? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This particular judge disallowed Samsung from showing the jury its prior art (phones that it had in the design pipeline before the iPhone was announced) because the Samsung lawyers missed a filing deadline. She let the letter of the law (a filing deadline) override the intent of the law (to get to the truth of the matter).

      Apple's tablet infringement claims were thrown out because of the copious amounts of prior art which the jury saw. The $1 billion judgement likely would've been thrown out too if they'd seen Samsung was working on iPhone-like designs before anyone outside Apple even knew what an iPhone was. In this particular case, the prejudice is in the jury, not the general public which got to see the documents the judge disallowed because of a technicality.

    8. Re:How about no? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually what I find more disturbing than a biased juror is how Obama permitted apple to sell its phones even though samsung won a ban legally, yet didn't grant the same favor to samsung in the exact same circumstances. That's pretty obvious favoritism, and unlike the biased juror, it's perfectly legal and not subject to appeal.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    9. Re:How about no? by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Informative

      That wasn't favoritism, that was corporatism. Apple was a big donor to Obama's campaign and Samsung wasn't as big a donor.

      It's no better in any form, but put the blame where the blame is due.

    10. Re:How about no? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2

      Nobody stole anything, that's just Apple FUD. It's amusing you think developing those phones took "an hour" for Samsung and Google.

    11. Re:How about no? by recoiledsnake · · Score: 2

      The reason was that Samsung's patents were standards essential FRAND, which means they agreed to allow them to be part of a standard in exchange for lesser royalties and harder to seek injunctions. Apple's patents were not FRAND.

      --
      This space for rent.
    12. Re:How about no? by rmstar · · Score: 2

      Otherwise if you spend $10 million developing something, and anyone can steal it in an hour - no-one is going to spend $10 million to develop something again.

      If you spent $10 million to develop something that can be stolen within an hour by anyone - would that not mean that you are breathtakingly inept and incompetent?

      For example, suppose someone (let's call it duncecorp) invested $10 million in developing the progress bar. Why should that idea be protected? To encourage stupidity and ineptitude?

    13. Re:How about no? by Cederic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bollocks.

      Apple's patents were bullshit to start with, and are continually being overturned at the patent office. Samsung shouldn't _have_ to work around them, and it's far from clear that Samsung even infringed in the first place - that trial was a fucking farce.

      Samsung's patents may be FRAND but that doesn't mean that people should be able to use them without paying a fair or reasonable amount. Apple used them and refused to negotiate. Just what the fuck are Samsung meant to do in that circumstance? Ignore the patent?

      Obama was playing petty protectionism and nothing else. Sure, Samsung may own half of Korean politics but that doesn't make Obama's corruption any less.

    14. Re:How about no? by hermitdev · · Score: 2

      Right, and Apple is infringing and not paying the licensing fees. So, why do they get a free pass? Their products should be banned just the same.

    15. Re: How about no? by SirChive · · Score: 2

      That's a nice theory. The reality is that the ten million or so vaguely worded and broad patents rubber-stamped by the patent office in return for fees serve to lock down almost all paths to innovative products.

    16. Re:How about no? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let's leave race out of this shall we?

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  2. Apple is a terrorist. by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple is a terrorist asking for the suspension of basic civil liberties just to suit their own bottom line. If there are other devices that "infringe on their rights", they need to go through the complete process to ban those. They should not get a free pass on due process. If they want to be anti-competitive jackasses, they need to follow the rule of law while doing it.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    1. Re:Apple is a terrorist. by mark-t · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apple did not invent what we now call the smartphone. The iPhone merely has the distinction of being the first really popular such device.

      IBM came out with their touch-based "Simon" phone in 1993, which although it had a black-and-white screen and lacked multitouch capabilities, still had many of the features we associate with smartphones today. Users dialed with a onscreen keypad, and Simon included a calendar, address book, can be understood alarm clock, and e-mail functionality.

      A Swedish company, Neonode, came out with a touch screen phone in 2003 (arguably unimaginatively named the N1m) that even utilized gestures, including the now very familiar "slide to unlock" functionality... which so many people associate with the iPhone these days (although in actuality, the intuitiveness of slide-to-unlock gesture is really quite obvious when you compare such an operation to that of sliding a deadbolt open).

      But arguably neither of these phones looked a lot like the iPhone... But this in no small part because technology really needed to catch up to the concept. Nonetheless, if you look at pictures of either of those devices, especially in operation, you will probably recognize many familiar concepts which we now come to expect in a smartphone today.

      Enter the LG Prada, in 2006, a fully multitouch smartphone unveiled not that long before Apple publicly unveiled the iPhone, and which looks so similar to the iPhone that LG actually accused Apple of copying *THEM* (although in actuality, their release dates were near enough to each other that it is unlikely that either had had any significant influence on the other).

      So perhaps, instead of anyone copying anybody else, smartphones look and operate the way they do because it is a design that comes spontaneously from a combination of the evolution of technology, intuitive operation, and overall practicality... not, as you put it, imitation that is both "transparent and egregious"

  3. eh ? by Pop69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple want an injunction to ban the import of future devices that the court hasn't found to be infringing?

    How does that work ?

    1. Re:eh ? by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since they seem to be able to have the President waive their own bans, I can't see why they wouldn't ask for pretty much anything that would make them happy. There's quite obviously some biased process in place.

    2. Re:eh ? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How does that work ?

      Corporatism/fascism. Oh, wait, you mean that rhetorically, didn't you?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  4. Just stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just stop selling electronics to the US. Prohibit all export from Asia. The dollar won't be worth anything soon anyway and the US will never pay back is debts. Don't do business with dishonest people.

    1. Re:Just stop by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, whilst Asia is the biggest manufacturer, the USA is the world's biggest consumer. They need each other.

  5. Re:20+ devices by Tr3vin · · Score: 3, Informative

    They aren't all "current-gen" devices. In fact, a number of the devices that are to be banned are not even sold anymore.

  6. Re:20+ devices by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    How about we let the market decide instead of lawyers?

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  7. ...not more than colorably different... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    LOL. This from a company that uses rounded corners as a patentable way to differentiate themselves from the rest of the market. By that light, being a different color sounds like "innovation" to me ;)

    1. Re:...not more than colorably different... by MrCoke · · Score: 2

      Design patents are real, we have to deal with them. I'm surprised of the constant bickering about this on ./ . Classic industry is using them for decades (easiest example: cars). IT is catching up.

      Doesn't mean I like or endorse the concept of design patents though.

    2. Re:...not more than colorably different... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the current patent mess had been in place when cars were first industrialized, one automaker would have had the patent on the gas pedal, another on brake lights, another on the turn signal lever, and still another on windshield wipers. They could all either cross-license each other's "IP", or invent a totally different way to do trivially simple operations. The Apple (or Amazon) of the day would have been claiming rights to the concept of "internal combustion". Of course, cell-phones have to interoperate with towers and other infrastructure, so there's really only ONE way to do certain things...

    3. Re:...not more than colorably different... by S.O.B. · · Score: 2

      Was that sarcasm? It didn't sound like it. So, learn to use a dictionary, start with the word "colorable"...

      I believe it's "colourable".

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    4. Re:...not more than colorably different... by FlatEric521 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the current patent mess had been in place when cars were first industrialized

      It was. George B. Selden is credited as being an early patent troll. He patented a version of the internal combustion engine, then went around demanding licensing fees from automobile manufacturers. It was eventually overturned, but was a early indicator of the problems in the patent system. Read more here: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/11/05/the-original-patent-troll.aspx

  8. Stop shotgun approach: Uh, why? by Chas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you're misunderstanding why this is done this way.
    You have multiple devices partly due to having multiple, mutually exclusive carriers.

    In addition, you may have a couple tiers of products, as not everyone is going to go for the Uber-'spensive top end device.

    Their approach allows them to hit multiple carriers at multiple price points.

    On top of that, having multiple offerings means they have a better chance of finding the devices people want and then slimming down their offering portfolio later, as they refine the devices that people are buying and abandon the ones that don't sell and finding a way to roll any possible unique/desirable features down into other devices.

    Apple gets away with "You will fit your lifestyle to what we offer you. And LIKE IT!". They get away with it because they're Apple and people know that they're expected to put up with Apple's crazy bullshit for "teh schmexy".

    For people who refuse to be cookie cutter'ed (see "sane people"), there's a plethora of choices and you can pick the one that intersects someplace acceptable along your "needs" and "budget limits" lines.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Stop shotgun approach: Uh, why? by Raistlin77 · · Score: 2

      I think you're misunderstanding why this is done this way.
      You have multiple devices partly due to having multiple, mutually exclusive carriers.

      Apple does the same. Apple makes different versions of the iPhone and iPad to work with all carriers that currently offer and/or support those devices.

      In addition, you may have a couple tiers of products, as not everyone is going to go for the Uber-'spensive top end device.

      Their approach allows them to hit multiple carriers at multiple price points.

      Currently available iPhone models:
      iPhone 4s (8GB) (black, white)
      iPhone 5c (16GB, 32GB) (white, pink, yellow, blue, green)
      iPhone 5s (16GB, 32GB, 64GB) (silver, space gray, gold)

      Currently available iPad models:
      iPad Mini (16GB) (WiFi, WiFi + Cellular)
      iPad Mini w/ Retina (16GB, 32GB, 64GB, 128GB) (WiFi, WiFi + Cellular)
      iPad 2 (16GB) (WiFi, WiFi + Cellular)
      iPad Air (16GB, 32GB, 64GB, 128GB) (WiFi, WiFi + Cellular)

      Total product variations listed above: 41

      i-device price ranges:
      iPhone: Free-$849 (includes carrier subsidized and unlocked options)
      iPad: $299-$929

      On top of that, having multiple offerings means they have a better chance of finding the devices people want and then slimming down their offering portfolio later, as they refine the devices that people are buying and abandon the ones that don't sell and finding a way to roll any possible unique/desirable features down into other devices.

      Apple has already done this - everything they make sells, and sells good. You mean to bash Apple, but really you're just praising them.

      Apple gets away with "You will fit your lifestyle to what we offer you. And LIKE IT!". They get away with it because they're Apple and people know that they're expected to put up with Apple's crazy bullshit for "teh schmexy".

      One word: TouchWiz

      For people who refuse to be cookie cutter'ed (see "sane people"), there's a plethora of choices and you can pick the one that intersects someplace acceptable along your "needs" and "budget limits" lines.

      By your logic, the only "sane people" then are those that create their own phones. You're an idiot if you think Samsung's, or any other electronics maker's products, are any less cookie-cutter influenced than Apple's products.

  9. Poor Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Poor Apple. They just can't compete in a market that doesn't care about status symbols as much as basic functionality. Their only recourse, rather than making better products, is to keep others from making them, thus forcing users to pay more for less. So much for that little company seeing themselves as heros fighting against Big Brother in television ads, you're just another bully fighting over the mass market carcass now. You've fallen so far you're making Samsung look like David.

    1. Re:Poor Apple. by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The top end Samsung devices are status symbols as well.

      iPhones are ubiquitous. At a glance, people can't tell one from another, especially once they're in their protective case.

      Phones are like watches. Gotta have a big one.

    2. Re:Poor Apple. by Osgeld · · Score: 2

      I can tell the difference, even in their cases, the iphones are absolutely tiny

  10. Current patent system is crazy by spike6479 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we had the same crazy patent environment when cars were being developed, every car would have a different way to control it. Patents should protect true invention for a relatively short period of time to allow the inventor to capitalize on his work. Now they are just barriers to keep the markets closed. Big companies cross license patents to keep their monopolies.

  11. Um, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This "is a matter of law" only when law is on Apple's side. When Samsung got some of their devices blocked at ITC, they just came to Obama crying and Obama administration overturned ruling by decree. For me it's plain corruption, not a matter of law. Apple is a parasite who abuses laws when it suits them and using political connections to ignore laws when it works against them.

    1. Re:Um, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, no different than any other mega-corporation, then.

    2. Re:Um, no. by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps not. But who gives a fuck if Samsung hides from taxes in Korea. The US is not in Korea last time I looked.
      But, your buddies at Apple hide out in Ireland and pay only a tiny percentage of taxes they otherwise would. Meanwhile, we are firing teachers left and right. We cannot afford to fix our roads and bridges. But no, lets help companies like Apple and GE make insane profits operating in our society, while they contribute almost nothing back to it.

  12. Big pile 'o Nope by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the fact that they are moving
    OSX towards a mandatory App store

    All they did, a few versions ago, is allow developers to sign apps, and distribute through the app store - they have made ZERO moves since then towards a "mandatory" app store.

    If you think allowing developers to sign applications and having the OS ask before running anything unsigned (note that does NOT mean from the app store) is bad then you have not seen the average person's computer.

    and their totally over the top pricing.

    You mean like pricing a Mac Pro $2k less than you can buy the individual parts for it?

    I'm typing on my
    last macbook air here ever... and it's a $1200 value that sold for $2200

    And how much do you think a PC is worth after a year?

    Good luck with the switch but the grass is pretty much DEAD on the other side of the lawn.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Big pile 'o Nope by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      You mean like pricing a Mac Pro $2k less than you can buy the individual parts for it?

      In the last 10 years that is the one example of decent pricing you can give for Apple. In just about every other case Apple's markup over the industry baseline has been about 100%. Asus has a $1000 premium laptop? Apple sells the exact same specs for $2000.

      And how much do you think a PC is worth after a year?

      "Brand appeal" may explain insane resell value, but it doesnt justify it.

      Good luck with the switch but the grass is pretty much DEAD on the other side of the lawn.

      Ah, right, because all I have to do is plunk down several thousand dollars and Ill be in Apple nirvana, until the next time I need to upgrade. No thanks, Ill stick with my 8-core / 32GB desktop / lab which I built for $550. Windows 8 is annoying, but its not "thousands of dollars" annoying. Must be nice to have that kind of disposable income though.

    2. Re:Big pile 'o Nope by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      I have screenshots of past "Apple Challenges" Ive done, if youre interested. Heres one from 2011:
      http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5064/5568018354_6d0b09d595_o.jpg
      Youll note that the HP has double the RAM, a better processor, and a substantially better video card, and costs $1000 less.

      Its generally been like that for some time; the Apple margin has gotten better in some of the more competitive areas, but generally they have been insanely overpriced compared to what you get. And I really dont buy any nonsense about lasting longer, since all of the parts come from the same manufacturers, the same countries, etc.

      Heck, you can even look at the Mac Pro from this year. Ignore the graphics card, and all of a sudden the Mac is WAY more expensive than anything comparable: they charge $3000 to UPGRADE the processor to a Xeon which only costs $2400 retail; they charge $400 to go from 16GB to 32GB of ECC RAM; buying the whole 32GB on the market (newegg) would only cost $350. At least in the case of the RAM thats more than a 100% markup over retail. Its generally true that its cheaper to buy the Mac with the base specs, then buy the upgrades you want new off of Amazon or Newegg, and youll not only save substantial money, youll have the base-specced parts as freebies to boot.

      To be fair Apple isnt the only one who does this; look at Dell server harddrive or RAM prices, and youll see the same sort of gouging (dell charges ~$400 for $200 WD RE5 drives, etc). Its just that by far Apple has been the worst offender, and theyre the only ones with a contingent of fans who defend their practice.

    3. Re:Big pile 'o Nope by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      *I'm* the one moving the goalposts?!

      You claimed to have won an Apple Challenge and boldly claimed so because of the "better CPU, twice the RAM, better GPU" and very conspicuously left out the much worse screen and the classically poor HP laptop chassis (check around, there are decent PC laptop cases, but HP is very definitely not it).

      Now you're claiming that the $1100 price, which is listed as "price after savings" on your own graphic is the real price of the laptop and that this standard across all laptop retailers (except Apple and JC Penny). So if I go to new egg right now I can expect a $500 discount on any laptop I choose? Sweet.

      You're hilarious.

      But sure. If that's your standard, you "win", kid.

  13. Dear Al Quaeda by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do the world some good, next time, target the U.S. Patent Office, Mosanto, and the Federal Reserve.

    It'll be extremely awkward, we'll find it so hard to hate you. It'll be like the time the KKK counter-protested Westboro Baptists leaving us all going WTF, how did we wind up on the same side of the line as those !@#$s

    1. Re:Dear Al Quaeda by PortHaven · · Score: 2

      Crap, this post is going to cause all my internet connections to slow down (work, home and cell). Hate when the NSA can't take a joke.

  14. Patents encourage innovation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Software patents stifle innovation, because I go to all the trouble to create some new software from scratch, and then some greedy shyster walks up and demands I pay money to him. Even though he never created anything. He just patented a list of buzzwords describing some idea he claims to have had, but never implemented.