Samsung to File Injunction Against Apple for iPhone 4S

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I'll tell you what, as a spectator, this back and forth lawsuit B.S. between Apple and Samsung is pretty damn entertaining. In this week's episode, Samsung is seeking an injunction against Apple's new iPhone 4S.

Samsung Electronics announced plans Wednesday to file preliminary injunction motions in Paris and Milan, Italy, to block the sale of Apple's iPhone 4S there. Samsung is accusing Apple of two patent infringement, both dealing with wireless telecommunications technology. It did not rule out filing preliminary injunctions in other countries as well. Apple could not immediately be reached for comment.
Click to expand...
 
It's the same claim they've been making against Apple--using proprietary code in 3g. And Apple's response is that Samsung slipped it in without consent violating the disclosure requirements. This doesn't only affect Apple, it'll affect every handset using 3g. Samsung are the patent trolls here I'm not sure why anyone would cheer this kind of behavior.
 
mope54 said:
It's the same claim they've been making against Apple--using proprietary code in 3g. And Apple's response is that Samsung slipped it in without consent violating the disclosure requirements. This doesn't only affect Apple, it'll affect every handset using 3g. Samsung are the patent trolls here I'm not sure why anyone would cheer this kind of behavior.
Click to expand...

But Apple eliminating the sales of all Samsung tablets in Europe because it's a rectangle (and using doctored information in court) is acceptable? Apple deserves a harsh penalty for all the douchebaggery they've committed. I'm not saying Samsung is right for doing this, but I sure hope they win just to get the point across.
 
^I have to agee. I don't condone patent trolling but patent trolling a patent troll is fine by me. I also thought this was the point most of the time, when companies buy patent. They create an equilibrium where the companies are technically using each other's "innovation" and so they stop at that and just glare at each other or work peacefully. But this recent burst of patent lawsuits is pretty much the pot cover exploding and these are the burns we're all feeling.
 
Serpent said:
^I have to agee. I don't condone patent trolling but patent trolling a patent troll is fine by me. I also thought this was the point most of the time, when companies buy patent. They create an equilibrium where the companies are technically using each other's "innovation" and so they stop at that and just glare at each other or work peacefully. But this recent burst of patent lawsuits is pretty much the pot cover exploding and these are the burns we're all feeling.
Click to expand...

It's Apple and Samsung breaking up, lol.
 
you guys need to look up what a patent troll is because is misused against apple on these forums.

and in case you didn't know, these patents are part of 3g and umts which fall under international standards and subject to FRAND. Samsung *must* offer third parties the ability to license the technology. They can't just go suing for an injunction without offering Apple a price tag.

If you guys want to blindly support bullshit like this because you don't like Apple that's beyond silly and dangerous for the rest of us. It doesn't just affect Apple. Samsung can withhold licensing terms from Microsoft and HTC and file injunctions against them too. It's abuse pure and simple.
 
mope54 said:
It's the same claim they've been making against Apple--using proprietary code in 3g. And Apple's response is that Samsung slipped it in without consent violating the disclosure requirements. This doesn't only affect Apple, it'll affect every handset using 3g. Samsung are the patent trolls here I'm not sure why anyone would cheer this kind of behavior.
Click to expand...

Except every other handset isn't the target, since samsung is in bed with google, and has cross licensing with microsoft.... so no one else has anything to worry about.

Apple were a bunch of douchebags over the tablet, and now it's payback time.
 
mope54 said:
and in case you didn't know, these patents are part of 3g and umts which fall under international standards and subject to FRAND. Samsung *must* offer third parties the ability to license the technology. They can't just go suing for an injunction without offering Apple a price tag.
Click to expand...

For all we know, since we don't know anything at all reguarding the case except the filings .. Samsung might of done the first part, and offered it to them at a price tag, but one that was ridiculously high after feeling butt hurt over the injunctions against them. Apple said no, and here we are. It'll all come out in the end how this came to pass.
 
payback? lmao, samsung is going to get their ass handed to them in court as soon as apple demonstrates they never had the ability to pay a licensing fee. then the courts are going to keep wiping the floor with samsung because judges don't like litigants who waste their courtroom's time.
 
mope54 said:
payback? lmao, samsung is going to get their ass handed to them in court as soon as apple demonstrates they never had the ability to pay a licensing fee. then the courts are going to keep wiping the floor with samsung because judges don't like litigants who waste their courtroom's time.
Click to expand...

If that were true, Apple wouldn't be able to sue Samsung over a fucking photoshopped rectangle ;)
 
perhaps you should read further into the cases. clearly it's got more merit than what you guys keep quoting. as for this case samsung is bringing, it's clear-cut. I know LordCalin feels there's no other information out there, but some of us can read beyond the front page of [H] and know more of the details. this case is going to bring more problems for samsung and cost more in legal fees than the FRAND deal they obtain.

I'm at a loss as to what their legal team is doing. They are either amateurs from a cereal box top or their board is just ignoring the legal team's advice and trying to appear like they're doing *something* for the shareholders.
 
I really hate reading about anything to do with "Patent Wars" because it makes my head feel like this..

migraine.jpg
 
mope54 said:
perhaps you should read further into the cases. clearly it's got more merit than what you guys keep quoting. as for this case samsung is bringing, it's clear-cut. I know LordCalin feels there's no other information out there, but some of us can read beyond the front page of [H] and know more of the details. this case is going to bring more problems for samsung and cost more in legal fees than the FRAND deal they obtain.

I'm at a loss as to what their legal team is doing. They are either amateurs from a cereal box top or their board is just ignoring the legal team's advice and trying to appear like they're doing *something* for the shareholders.
Click to expand...

Actually, their legal team sometimes works for Apple, sometimes works for samsung.
And yes, that was part of another case Samsung had against Apple.
So...? I did say this was a breakup for several reasons, lol. Not to mention all of Apple's SoCs in the old iPods to the newest iPhone were designed outright by Samsung, or by Samsung licensing Intrinsity (Apple) IP... (those ONLY resulted in the A4 and A5, apparently none of the Samsung Hummingbird/Exyos chips utilized any IP from that).
 
Now that Jobs just passed away, they probably think they might have a chance.
 
mope54 said:
perhaps you should read further into the cases. clearly it's got more merit than what you guys keep quoting. as for this case samsung is bringing, it's clear-cut. I know LordCalin feels there's no other information out there, but some of us can read beyond the front page of [H] and know more of the details. this case is going to bring more problems for samsung and cost more in legal fees than the FRAND deal they obtain.

I'm at a loss as to what their legal team is doing. They are either amateurs from a cereal box top or their board is just ignoring the legal team's advice and trying to appear like they're doing *something* for the shareholders.
Click to expand...

Who's the amature? Corporate lawyers or you, the internet legal eagle. Face it. Apple and after Samsung with a vengeance and falsified evidence. Samsung actually has merit in their case but you cant see past your Apple bias.
 
Lebowski said:
Who's the amature? Corporate lawyers or you, the internet legal eagle. Face it. Apple and after Samsung with a vengeance and falsified evidence. Samsung actually has merit in their case but you cant see past your Apple bias.
Click to expand...
Please explain to me how me pointing out that samsung is violating RAND obligations is due to an apple bias? I know you won't, but it's worth calling you out on this nonsense for the benefit of the few forum members who bother reading posts in their entirety and like to learn new information.
 
mope54 said:
you guys need to look up what a patent troll is because is misused against apple on these forums.

and in case you didn't know, these patents are part of 3g and umts which fall under international standards and subject to FRAND. Samsung *must* offer third parties the ability to license the technology. They can't just go suing for an injunction without offering Apple a price tag.

If you guys want to blindly support bullshit like this because you don't like Apple that's beyond silly and dangerous for the rest of us. It doesn't just affect Apple. Samsung can withhold licensing terms from Microsoft and HTC and file injunctions against them too. It's abuse pure and simple.
Click to expand...

they already offered them a pricetag, that was for Apple to stop the litigious bullshit patent trolling they have been engaging in because they have failed to innovate and cant sit back and watch Samsung/Google steal all the market share
 
nobody_here said:
they already offered them a pricetag, that was for Apple to stop the litigious bullshit patent trolling they have been engaging in because they have failed to innovate and cant sit back and watch Samsung/Google steal all the market share
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't need to innovate. All they need to do is copy other companies ideas and claim it as their own during a press conference that includes the word magical a few times. After, they file a patent for their idea and when other companies try to sue for balant rip-off, claim its public-sector now and use Steve Job's personal Reality Distortion Field and...ohh wait....

It'll be interesting to see what happens this time :)
 
Lebowski said:
Who's the amature? Corporate lawyers or you, the internet legal eagle. Face it. Apple and after Samsung with a vengeance and falsified evidence. Samsung actually has merit in their case but you cant see past your Apple bias.
Click to expand...

This
 
Boomstick said:
This
Click to expand...
Interesting, you quoted Lebowski but were also unable to answer the question I asked him in the next post:
mope54 said:
Please explain to me how me pointing out that samsung is violating RAND obligations is due to an apple bias? I know you won't, but it's worth calling you out on this nonsense for the benefit of the few forum members who bother reading posts in their entirety and like to learn new information.
Click to expand...

The reality is that both of you have an anti-apple bias and can't construct a reasonable argument in defense of Samsung.
 
mope54 said:
Please explain to me how me pointing out that samsung is violating RAND obligations is due to an apple bias? I know you won't, but it's worth calling you out on this nonsense for the benefit of the few forum members who bother reading posts in their entirety and like to learn new information.
Click to expand...


This is a curiousity question. How do you know this violates RAND or FRAND? The article wasn't super specific as to what was being argued beyond WCDMA. If it's a standardization issue, yea.. that seems a little dumb. But if it's more that Apple is using Samsung's designs for the actual hardware/software to get access to WCDMA, wouldn't that be grounds to sue? Either way, Apple is ridiculous for suing because of rectangles. If anything, Apple should be sued by Kellog's for stealing the shape and design of Pop Tarts for their phones.
 
satsunada said:
This is a curiousity question. How do you know this violates RAND or FRAND? The article wasn't super specific as to what was being argued beyond WCDMA. If it's a standardization issue, yea.. that seems a little dumb. But if it's more that Apple is using Samsung's designs for the actual hardware/software to get access to WCDMA, wouldn't that be grounds to sue? Either way, Apple is ridiculous for suing because of rectangles. If anything, Apple should be sued by Kellog's for stealing the shape and design of Pop Tarts for their phones.
Click to expand...
Samsung is suing Apple for violating their radio technology patents. There's no way for Apple to produce a device and have it operate on 3g without using the technology. It's not grounds to sue because when a company holds a patent to a technology like this they have to offer the competition fair access to it--otherwise the patent process would just be awarding monopolies and/or there would be no reason to develop a standard because no one would be able to use it except the patent holder.

Since you guys keep bringing up Apple's suit (about rectangles and etc.) it's clear you don't understand the difference between trademarking and patenting. Patent law, which the radio technology falls under, is a necessary technology for the phone to operate with the standards put in place. That's why patent holders of such technology are required to offer licensing terms to competitors--otherwise patent holders would automatically hold a monopoly and no other devices could use the standardized technology. That'd be a stupid way to run patents don't you agree? No one would bother investing money into developing new technology and no one would abide by the patents.

Trademark infringement, which the "rectangles" are the basis, are a completely different matter. For one thing, the shape of the device isn't a necessary component of the device and more importantly the design of an object is the only thing that *can* be trademarked. What you guys keep complaining about, this notion that Apple is somehow a bully for protecting their trademark on the basis of something as silly as rectangles (shape) and color, is the definition of a trademark!

To put in your terms, the reason we don't see non-Kellog's Pop Tarts (tm) [<-- see that] in every store is because they've trademarked the design and claim their red K with it's squiggly legs along with the name of Pop-Tart and etc. are integral to their product's success. It's called branding in modern capitalism and Kellog's, Nike, Chevy, Microsoft, IBM, and any other corporation that invests billions of dollars to build their brand across products vigorously protects their trademarks. But it takes a bit more than just "rectangles" just as it takes more than a pen dash mark to violate Nike's swoosh TM. That's what judges do--decide whether a product violates the patent and in the case of Apple v. Samsung that decision was on Apple's side. It took a lot more than just a rectangle shape to convince a judge that was true, so I encourage you to read the case if you're interested in the details.

So you really need to understand that the suit from Apple to Samsung is a trademark issue (and if you don't like that, then we'd live in a very strange world where every successful product would just get cloned over night and sold alongside the original for a fraction of the price a la china) whereas Samsung to Apple is about violating patents that no one can avoid using.
 
To put it in simpler terms:
Apple (or Kellog's/Microsoft/Nike) can *choose* to allow someone to copy their trademarks. They can *choose* to allow someone to license their patented designs (Corning's Gorilla Glass, for example, lots of gorilla-ish glass out there but only one "Gorilla" glass).

But Samsung can *not* choose to refuse the radio technology they patented. The only thing they can contest is whether Apple is paying them enough. Worst case scenario is that Apple has to pay them more than Apple wants to. Samsung can *not* injunct a product from coming to market for violating a RAND patent because no matter what the product has a right to be on the market...unless say a judgement is awarded to Samsung for how much Apple should pay them and they just flatly refused to pay then the court would step in and injunct the device from being sold until the violator was in compliance with the court order.

That's why this is a misuse of patent law and a huge waste of time and money. Samsung has the most to lose because this isn't going to accomplish anything in their favor, which is why I wondered aloud why the company is not listening to legal counsel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top