Apple vs Samsung, court orders Samsung to show Apple 5 new phones

Samsung (I think) managed to get the push email function on Apple devics banned in Germany so they are having SOME success.

I am curious to know why Google have not taken on Apple with the blatant rip-off that Apple have done on the Android notifications system :confused:

Google's notification patent was filed in 2009 but not been granted yet. Once it's been granted then it's possible they'll use it.
 
Not Samsung, but:

Apple pays $60 million in iPad trademark dispute, makes peace with Proview

Earlier this year, iPads were flying off the shelves in China -- but not for the expected reasons. The slates were being removed from stores following an injunction granted to Shenzhen Proview Technology, a local firm that had laid claim to the iPad trademark. The injunction would later be rebuffed by a Shanghai court, resuming tablet sales while the dispute raged on. Today, Apple and Proview have come to a resolution, putting $60 million in Proview's coffers and the matter to rest.

Feeling lost? Let us catch you up. Way back at the turn of the century, Proview's Taiwan branch registered the "iPad" trademark for its Internet Personal Access Device -- an all-in-one PC that wasn't unlike Apple's own iMac. Later on, Apple would purchase the worldwide rights to the name from the Taiwan branch, which presumably included Shenzhen Proview Technology's claim -- though the Chinese vice minister for the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) would later declare Proview the trademark's rightful owner. Fast forward to today, and the two firms are finally settling.

According to The New York Times, Proview had originally sought as much as $400 million, but has agreed to settle for a lesser amount to help it pay its debts. Either way, Apple seems to have already transferred the sum, according to the Guangdong High People's Court, apparently eager to put the dispute behind them.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/02/apple-pays-60-million-in-ipad-trademark-settlement/

Steep!
 
Dear God we really need an overhaul of the patent system. It should be there to protect inventors of genuinely new and innovative things, not to stifle the progression of things that already exist! I understand sometimes there's a grey area, but that's why it takes time to review and grant individual patents and you get patent disputes. Patent disputes shouldn't be there just to catch out your competitors when they implement a blatantly obvious feature, to get a quick handout or slow them down.

Ugh, imagine what kind of phones we could have now if it wasn't for all this rubbish? This is why I personally don't buy Apple. Sure, they're great products but I refuse to support the company.
 
The 10.1 is dead anyway.

It's no different to Samsung getting a ban on the iphone 3GS. No ones buying that old tech any more.

It's not going affect Samsungs sales by any great margin, hence the bond that Apple had to put up, is so small.
 
US judge denies Samsung's request to stay US ban on Galaxy Nexus

Samsung's request for a stay was a long shot, especially given Judge Koh's unwillingness to grant a similar request by Samsung relating to the injunction on the Galaxy Tab 10.1. After all, such a stay would require the judge to disagree with her own decision from just a few days ago. That's simply not going to happen very often.

"There's a lot to consider for the appeal"

The court's injunction order found that Android's "Quick Search Box" feature infringed Apple's US patent number 8,086,604, which covers feeding predetermined heuristic algorithms to different searchable areas via a single unified search interface. It looks like one of Samsung's main arguments for overturning the injunction on appeal is that the '604 is invalid in view of a patent that predates it — US 6,324,534. However, it seems Samsung failed to argue that the '534 patent invalidated Apple's patent in its opposition to the injunction request. As such, Judge Koh minimized the value of the '534 patent, stating that the court "does not look favorably upon Samsung's endeavor now to re-litigate the merits of the '604 patent's validity based on what is effectively new prior art." Koh goes on to reason that "because the Federal Circuit is unlikely to consider a prior art reference for the first time on appeal, the court is doubtful that Samsung can show a likelihood of success on appeal based on the ['534 patent] reference."

That's all presumably bad news for Samsung, but we'll have to wait and see if the appellate court agrees that Samsung has squandered an opportunity to challenge the validity of Apple's patent. Of course, Samsung will also appeal Judge Koh's finding that the Galaxy Nexus' unified search capabilities infringe Apple's patent in the first place. If it can convince the appellate court that it doesn't infringe, the timing and merits of invalidity arguments would become unimportant.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/3/3136023/samsung-request-stay-galaxy-nexus-injunction-denied-Apple

We've now obtained confirmation from the court's online docketing system that Apple has posted the nearly $96 million bond. Basically, the injunction is now in full effect. Although, we assume the court will still need to go back and examine Google's assertions that the upcoming OTA update of the Galaxy Nexus will be a legitimate workaround to the '604 patent. We're keeping a close eye on things and will provide further updates as we learn more.

:eek:

Google are looking at a possible patch to escape the problem: http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/3/3136102/google-samsung-software-update-galaxy-nexus-infringement

Google have also removed it from sale: http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/3/31...vailable-to-purchase-from-google-play-website

Is this the most substantial win for Apple so far?
 
It's a set amount, so anytime a ban is introduced its always that amount.
There's been a few injunctions, so I don't think it's there biggest win.

Ugh, imagine what kind of phones we could have now if it wasn't for all this rubbish? This is why I personally don't buy Apple. Sure, they're great products but I refuse to support the company.
Lol, you need to wake up, this is standard procedure. All companies do it. Apple isn't some evil company, they're doing what all companies do. So I hope you don't buy any big brands at all.
 
Last edited:
As i said in the the other thread, Apple are the worlds biggest company, mentioning them (especially in matters that are likely to infuriate the green brigade) will generate website hits.
There's similar disputes going on daily between Google/Nokia/MS/Kodak, why do you think these cases never get mentioned?

Regarding specific cases - S Voice - iirc Apple purchased the company who invented Siri, and with it their (pending) patent which was the first filed for such a system.

Regarding the contacts thing - depends, Nokia might have used it first but for all we know they might have been licensing it from a company - a company Apple might have picked up. Or maybe Nokia forgot to patent it? or equally maybe Apple did get the patent in first, they do have some call/phone related patents dating back to the 90's after all.


Don't know where I stand on that, on the one hand it was a bit sneaky of Apple to obtain the name in the way they did, but equally why would the other company abuse the complicated legal nature of China / HK setup if not to try and force additional $$ at a later date.
Still, $60m is a drop in the ocean and far away from the billions the company were after initially.
 
Last edited:
As i said in the the other thread, Apple are the worlds biggest company...

No they are not.

What you mean is that their publicly available shares when added up cost more that any other company. That doesn't actually mean anything.

Just look at Facebook.

Samsung is a larger company than Apple. It has greater assets, greater revenue, grater range, etc..
 
Last edited:
You cant search your own phone, they've patented that? How does that make any sense. What kind of idiots are responsible for this stuff.
 
You cant search your own phone, they've patented that? How does that make any sense. What kind of idiots are responsible for this stuff.

Most of these patents are a certain way, so they should still be able to do stuff, they just have to go through a different process tree to get there. Vital patents for functionality that can't be worked around should be covered by FRAND.
Problem is the patent system, which apple and others have said needs changing. But until then it's business as usuall.
 
Back
Top Bottom