Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,283
30,344



A Dutch appeals court on Tuesday night upheld a lower court's sales ban of some older Samsung Galaxy phones, reports Re/code. It's yet another chapter of Apple and Samsung's worldwide patent battle.

apple_samsung_logos.jpg
The order applies specifically to the Galaxy SII and Galaxy Ace, but could possibly be extended to other Samsung devices found to similarly infringe on a European Apple patent.
Initially, when Apple filed an infringement claim against Samsung and requested the ban in 2011, the company had requested a ban on all Samsung devices. Apple did not see its request fulfilled, however, and only saw the Galaxy S, Galaxy SII and Galaxy Ace banned.

Last week Apple and Google/Motorola Mobility agreed to a settlement and will dismiss patent litigations between the two companies. As part of the agreement they will also work together "in some areas of patent reform". Following that news, it was reported that Samsung and Apple were in early negotiations to settle their patent disputes out of court as well, although some key royalty payment terms are under negotiation.

Article Link: Sales Ban of Older Samsung Galaxy Phones Upheld by Dutch Court
 

redscull

macrumors 6502a
Jul 1, 2010
849
832
Texas
Samsung is beating the system. Courts are so slow to ban Samsung's deliberately copied products that it's never relevant. They can repeat this pattern forever. Inventions go from brand new to outdated in 1-2 years now.
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
Samsung is beating the system. Courts are so slow to ban Samsung's deliberately copied products that it's never relevant. They can repeat this pattern forever. Inventions go from brand new to outdated in 1-2 years now.

Not that kind of time situation here.

What the ban was about, was a certain way of flipping between images in a gallery. Samsung simply programmed it a different way and updated their devices, which negated the ban. So it was already meaningless when it was first imposed.

This was the same trial where the judge famously dismissed Apple's slide-to-unlock patent as obvious in light of both the Neonode phone, and of industrial touch GUIs with virtual slide on/off switches.
 

captain cadet

macrumors 6502
Sep 2, 2012
417
648
Is there any point of banning these - i bet you Samsung makes nothing or very little out of these phones as they are over 3 years old. - These legal cases just go on for too long in the tecnology industry
 

roadbloc

macrumors G3
Aug 24, 2009
8,784
215
UK
Too late. Well played Samsung. Their trick may be dirty but it's sure as hell working.
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
Too late. Well played Samsung. Their trick may be dirty but it's sure as hell working.

A lot of websites (and readers) are really confused about this case. They write like it's about delaying through long trials. It's not.

In 2011, a Dutch judge found that Samsung had infringed a minor Apple visual effects patent, so Samsung changed their method right away to stop infringement.

Normally, that should be the end of things.

However, even though Apple had won, and there were no longer any products being sold that infringed, Apple pressed for a sales ban on the original versions, anyway. This ban had no other purpose except to set a precedent.

(Apple tried multiple times to set a similar precedent in the California trial, but was unable to get such a ban.)
 

roadbloc

macrumors G3
Aug 24, 2009
8,784
215
UK
A lot of websites (and readers) are really confused about this case. They write like it's about delaying through long trials. It's not.

In 2011, a Dutch judge found that Samsung had infringed a minor Apple visual effects patent, so Samsung changed their method right away to stop infringement.

Normally, that should be the end of things.

However, even though Apple had won, and there were no longer any products being sold that infringed, Apple pressed for a sales ban on the original versions, anyway. This ban had no other purpose except to set a precedent.

(Apple tried multiple times to set a similar precedent in the California trial, but was unable to get such a ban.)

That's a very informative post. Thanks!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.