Court Bans Samsung Smartphones That Infringe On Apple Patents

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A federal court in California has banned the sale of Samsung smartphones in the U.S. that have features that infringe on a trio of patents owned by Apple.

Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that the permanent injunction would come into effect 30 days after the entry of the order, reports ComputerWorld. The ban covers features like “slide-to-unlock” and autocorrection capabilities.
 
After the ruling Judge Lucy Koh sent several texts with her iPhone, and retired to her chamber to use her iPad.
 
I know I probably come across as the Knight In Shining Armor for Apple around here, but I will take the side that they should not be able to patent "Slide To Unlock". And this is most damning evidence there is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tj-KS2kfIr0#t=227

But that was in Europe and I don't how international Patents work.

Now that being said, you need understand that there is some very bad blood between Apple and Google (Android). If you look at the timeline of things, Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google at the time) was ALSO on the Apple board of directors during the very critical time period that iPhone and Android came into existence. Jobs was adamant that Schmidt used the ideas he was privy to at Apple to create a *new* product for Google.

Apple couldn't really go after Android (Google) directly, so the tactic has been to go after the customers of Android, with Samsung being the biggest customer by far.

Heres an article about the timeline....though it does have a bias to it, but the facts are also there.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robende...stealing-from-apple/#3c474ff474f275ac71d674f2
 
Who grants these BS patents? Auto correct evolved from spell check which has been in text based word processors for decades. The best thing that can happen for mankind is the sickos in Cupertino get STD and join Jobs. Until then the fail safe mechanism kicks in which is my wallet.
 
I know I probably come across as the Knight In Shining Armor for Apple around here, but I will take the side that they should not be able to patent "Slide To Unlock". And this is most damning evidence there is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tj-KS2kfIr0#t=227

But that was in Europe and I don't how international Patents work.

Now that being said, you need understand that there is some very bad blood between Apple and Google (Android). If you look at the timeline of things, Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google at the time) was ALSO on the Apple board of directors during the very critical time period that iPhone and Android came into existence. Jobs was adamant that Schmidt used the ideas he was privy to at Apple to create a *new* product for Google.

Apple couldn't really go after Android (Google) directly, so the tactic has been to go after the customers of Android, with Samsung being the biggest customer by far.

Heres an article about the timeline....though it does have a bias to it, but the facts are also there.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robende...stealing-from-apple/#3c474ff474f275ac71d674f2


Although I could understand such frustration. Google did take a different path. Their first Android device was worlds different than the iPhone hardware and software wise. It had a sliding keyboard for one. It avoided all iPhone patents (no-matter how absurd they were). It would have happened whether Schmidt was privy to the information or not.

The fact remains that Jobs/Apple did not invent the Smartphone. Microsoft was making them for years. All they did was improve the UI as Microsoft was terrible at UI design at the time as well as packing it with consumer-friendly applications versus Microsoft's more business orientated approach.
 
Don't blame judges on this, blame the whole USPTO that allows such vague software patents such as "swiping to unlock"...

Hell, IMO the whole software patent should be abandoned completely, or at the very worst, given a 2 year window to make money on it.
 
The fact remains that Jobs/Apple did not invent the Smartphone. Microsoft was making them for years.

Correct. iPhone released in 2007 evolved from Windows Mobile devices. I had a Dell Axim X5 around 2002 with Sprint compact flash CDMA card that I used as a phablet for calls, browsing, streaming video, VPN, remote telnet, etc. It pretty did what today's devices do.
 
Will Obama veto this ruling?

Somehow, I doubt it.
 
I thought the American executive branch cannot veto judicial decisions. Someone correct me if I am mistaken.
 
I thought the American executive branch cannot veto judicial decisions. Someone correct me if I am mistaken.

He is referring to back in 2013 when Samsung did the same thing to Apple and president Obama overruled the ban, thus allowing iPhone 4's to be sold in America.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/3/45...msung-patent-ban-on-iphone-4-and-select-ipads

I suppose one could argue that the President of the United States has an obligation to protect the interests of companies based in America doing business with Americans.

It wouldn't be too out of line for Obama, as he seems to do everything except the one obligation he has.
 
He is referring to back in 2013 when Samsung did the same thing to Apple and president Obama overruled the ban, thus allowing iPhone 4's to be sold in America.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/3/45...msung-patent-ban-on-iphone-4-and-select-ipads

I suppose one could argue that the President of the United States has an obligation to protect the interests of companies based in America doing business with Americans.

If Obama is really serving America's true interest he would be supporting Made in South Korea since they're pro-America vs Made in China that's hostile.
 
Made in China isn't what it used to be when Obama took office due to skyrocketing wages along the coastal provinces, but I digress.

Yeah. Totally don't remember the ipad episode.
 
He is referring to back in 2013 when Samsung did the same thing to Apple and president Obama overruled the ban, thus allowing iPhone 4's to be sold in America.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/3/45...msung-patent-ban-on-iphone-4-and-select-ipads

I suppose one could argue that the President of the United States has an obligation to protect the interests of companies based in America doing business with Americans.

It wouldn't be too out of line for Obama, as he seems to do everything except the one obligation he has.


Apparently you don't realize that one decision was a judicial one, and the other one was a decision made by a court and the other was a decision made by a federal agency.

But I guess the real reason for the post really was the oft stated and never elaborated upon or proven epithet directed at a sitting President of the United States.
 
You'd think Samsung would stop trying to make their stuff look like apple software.
 
Apparently you don't realize that one decision was a judicial one, and the other one was a decision made by a court and the other was a decision made by a federal agency.

But I guess the real reason for the post really was the oft stated and never elaborated upon or proven epithet directed at a sitting President of the United States.

I was only providing a reference to what someone previously made a passing gesture to. Do you think I was referencing the wrong event? If I was, I'm sorry. But yes I understand the ITC has different legal standing in a country.

Regarding the second accusation. What's there to prove? I provided a link to what the Presudents number one job is. Do you need me to provide mountains of evidence in which the/any president has started a sentence with "As President, my number one priority is" and not finish it with something related to what that link points to?

I'm really not even sure how your accusation applies to what said.
 
Speaking of vague patents, didn't Apple receive a patent or file for a patent on a "rectangular device with rounded corners" a year or two ago?
I just don't see how patents could be awarded for such a vague description. I mean beside greasing someone's palm, kickbacks, under the table deals, and what not.
 
What kills me about all this legal bullshit is that Samsung and Apple just signed a huge contract for Samsung to supply the OLED panels for Apple devices for a few years. One would think you wouldn't do business with a company that's suing you, go figure, but the almighty damned dollar apparently is more important than principles.
 
What kills me about all this legal bullshit is that Samsung and Apple just signed a huge contract for Samsung to supply the OLED panels for Apple devices for a few years. One would think you wouldn't do business with a company that's suing you, go figure, but the almighty damned dollar apparently is more important than principles.

You're generally right, but Apple is the one doing th suing.
 
What kills me about all this legal bullshit is that Samsung and Apple just signed a huge contract for Samsung to supply the OLED panels for Apple devices for a few years. One would think you wouldn't do business with a company that's suing you, go figure, but the almighty damned dollar apparently is more important than principles.

You have to realize Samsung is not a smartphone manufacturer like Apple, Samsung is like GE in that they have their finger in just about everything.
 
I'm pretty sure Apple has the patent on successfully stealing others tech and recycling over and over to Apple fanboy zombies. It's never a good sign when a company hasn't had a new product in 10 years and uses it's super lawyer powers to keep other companies down.
 
Back
Top