Read more.Quote:
Apple wins a preliminary injunction against Samsung in Germany.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Apple wins a preliminary injunction against Samsung in Germany.
This is ridiculous. It's got a screen, it's rectangular, and it's got a black bezel. Deal with it.
In fact, unless someone can point out how it's justifiable, I do not intend to buy any more Apple products out of principle.
I'd say if a judge has ruled in Apple's favour, then it's justifiable. It's Samsung you should be boycotting to let them know it's not cool to copy others ideas/designs/patents. I think your principles are misplaced.Quote:
Originally Posted by miniyazz
+1 on this, although I thought the big deal was the fact that it had a large visible single button too? Funnily enough I was seriously tempted to use the current HMV trade-in deal to upgrade my venerable 5G iPod for a new Classic - now I think I'll not bother and stick with what I've got. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by miniyazz
Which, imho, is why Apple has done this - it's nothing to do with "protecting our intellectual property" and everything to "making sure that we continue to drag in the suckers, sorry 'customers', at the same rate". If it wasn't then why aren't Apple suing Motorola, Asus, Acer, HP all of whom make tablets (although I'd argue that no-one could mistake an Asus Transformer for an iPad - they look nothing alike except at the lowest level - i.e. it's a rectangular device with a screen).Quote:
the Galaxy Tab 10.1 has only recently become available to buy across Europe, and has been reported as being the fastest seller, after the iPad, of all tablets so far. Samsung has been the most conspicuous tablet competitor for Apple to date
By the way, to clarify the first statement I made in that previous paragraph - I've nothing against the iPad1 or iPad2 - from what I've seen they're pretty respectable devices with a pretty good OS and class-leading app support. On the other hand, Apple themselves are a bunch of no-good, whining, shiny-suited [rest of comment removed by swear filter] ... :censored:
argh this angers me....
You can't sue someone, and be awarded a temporary injuction, just because you fancy. It's clear that Samsung have likely infringed upon something that belongs to Apple. If you don't like the idea that Apple are sueing Samsung over this, I suggest you direct your "anger" towards Samsung for copying, not Apple for sueing.Quote:
Which, imho, is why Apple has done this - it's nothing to do with "protecting our intellectual property" and everything to "making sure that we continue to drag in the suckers, sorry 'customers', at the same rate". If it wasn't then why aren't Apple suing Motorola, Asus, Acer, HP all of whom make tablets (although I'd argue that no-one could mistake an Asus Transformer for an iPad - they look nothing alike except at the lowest level - i.e. it's a rectangular device with a screen).
Have you thought about the idea that it might only be Samsung that have infringed upon these patents and that Apple would therefore have no grounds to sue Motorola, Asus, Acer, HP, etc? It might also be the case that Apple and these other companies have licensing arrangements in place.
The legal system has nothing to do with justice. We are witnessing the creation of yet another monopoly. Apple chose not to compete but to eliminate. Microsoft used equally monopolistic tactics decades ago to establish their dominance. MS concentrated more on hostile takeovers while Apple is copying Rambus with their patent trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
You never know, maybe Rambus patented patent trolling and is setting their sights on to Apple.
So if Samsung haven't ripped off something that belongs to Apple, why are they being prevented from selling the GT 10.1 in Europe? I also think you are confused about the definition of a patent troll. A patent troll would be an entity that files patents, but then doesn't develop them into a product and uses them only to sue other companies. Obviously, this definition doesn't apply to Apple since they have very much used their patents to develop a product.Quote:
Originally Posted by semo
Sorry, I'm going to disagree - firstly this is a preliminary decision, not a final one. Secondly, the judge will purely be looking at the submissions made - so at best we can conclude that Samsung's paperwork wasn't good enough to prove prior art etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
(That said, I'm not a lawyer)
An episode of Shark comes to mind where I'm sure James Woods' character claimed that he could get a judgement that the sky was green as long as the argument was good enough.
Not that I'm saying there's anything in it, but I remember some comments from fellow Hexus denizens when this stupid legal move started that the iPhone looks/looked suspiciously like an earlier Samsung device. If this is true then that'd be a good countersuit for Samsung to fire off - think being banned from selling iPhones would hurt Apple more than Samsung not being able to sell Galaxy Tab's. Although imho this'd be as equally bone-headed as Apple's current move. (see I'm being even-handed)
My understanding is that a temporary injuction is granted if the plaintiff can show/prove that they are likely to win the following trial. So it seems that Apple have been able to provide enough evidence that Samsung have infringed upon their patents and thus the temporary injuction has been granted. It's now up to Samsung to appeal that decision and prove how they haven't infringed on those patents, which will culminate in the actual trial itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
I remember this.... Was it a fake or are we missing something? Surely they would have used this straight away if this was a valid move?Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
Me neither.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
Quite right, on the first, and quite wrong, as I understand it, on the second. Under the procedure in German IP cases, Samsung won't have been notified of the application. Basically, you go before a judge, present the basis for your claim and get a preliminary injunction. The idea is to prevent the harm being done in the first place, rather than to argue about compensation for harm done, after it's done.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
But .... firstly, you've got to satisfy the judge that it's likely you'll win the main case, which will likely take a year or more, and may be appealed. Apple, clearly, managed to do that.
Secondly, if Apple lose, they'll have to compensate Samsung for the harm done to them, that is, indemnify them for the effect of lost sales. In other words, if you take this type of legal action and then proceed to lose the main case, it can get very expensive.
So, Apple have an EU design right, and they've convinced a German judge that there's a good likelihood that a full hearing, when Samsung do get to make their case, that it will succeed. Samsung will then have to convince that court that either their product doesn't infringe Apple's IP, or that the design right is somehow invalid and should never have been issued in the first place.
Oh, and Samsung could have filed a document that is in effect a pre-emptive strike against this, if they anticipated such as move by Apple. In the light of this same argument in other jurisdictions (Australia, Netherlands and even the US, as I understand it), it ought to have been able to predict Apple's claim. If it had filed such a document, it would have ensured it could put it's arguments to the judge before even a temporary injunction was granted. As it didn't, there's no obligation to inform Samsung of the application before the preliminary injunction is granted.
As far as I'm concerned, us having an opinion at this point in whether Apple are right or wrong to seek this injunction is entirely unreasonable, unless we have a thorough understand of :-
- Apple's IP rights, and
- Samsung's products and the alleged infringement, and
- EU IP law.
IP laws for a reason, and ultimately, it's a reason that benefits ALL of us, most of the time. In it's absence, the levels of investment necessary to develop so many products, not least most drugs, wouldn't be possible because as soon as you invented/discovered something worthwhile, it'd get ripped off. So you wouldn't spend the money necessary to invent/discover it.
IP law, therefore, it an absolute necessity for progress at anything like it's current levels, and as soon as you have laws, you have the potential, or even near certainty, or disputes. Which means you need a court, with powers that have real teeth. And this court does. It's going to get very expensive for Samsung if they breach this order, and it's going to get very expensive for Apple if they take this course and lose the main hearing.
In the mean time, which one of us is going to claim we know enough about the issues, and the laws, to form an informed opinion about the legal validity of Apple's claim? And can whoever does, please explain the details so the rest of us can understand?
Because without that informed understanding, anything else on the rights or wrongs of this is just so much hot air.
Yeah I would have expected Samsung to pounce long before now if there had been a valid claim to be made. Either that or they've simply chosen not to persue it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronlite
Did Samsung have a registered design right that Apple infringed? Presumably not, or Samsung would have gone after Apple in exactly the same way Apple are now going after Samsung.Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronlite
I have no preference either way. This is not 'noble' cowboys and 'murderous, savage' indians, or white hats and black hats, or cops and robbers. It's two mega-corporations conducting a public legalistic bare-knuckles fist-fight. I've no idea who's in the right and who's in the wrong, and moreover, personally, don't much care.
I still don't understand what could have been ripped off from Apple. These days you can buy a cell phone with a small rectangular screen and with about a dozen buttons underneath from many different brands. You can buy a car with 4 doors, 4 wheels, etc... from many different brands. Why should Apple be the only brand from which we can buy a rectangular device that has a touch sensitive screen on the front with a diagonal size of 3.5" to 11"?Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
I'm looking at this from a consumer's point of view. I don't want to have only one choice of smartphone in a year's time....
Well it seems likely that something has been ripped off else this judgement wouldn't have been granted. Why don't Samsung just design and make a tablet that doesn't infringe on anyones patents? That would seem like the sensible thing to have done in the first instance!Quote:
Originally Posted by semo