Apple Denied Sales Ban on Samsung Devices From Second Patent Trial

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Aug 27, 2014.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Apple has again been denied a permanent injunction on Samsung products that infringe on its smartphone patents, reports Bloomberg. Judge Lucy Koh today rejected Apple's plea for a sales ban on nine different Samsung devices involved in the second Apple vs. Samsung patent infringement trial.

    According to Koh, Apple did not demonstrate irreparable harm in the form of lost sales, despite efforts to target specific infringing features on the Samsung devices.

    [​IMG]
    Earlier this year, a jury ruled that Samsung had willfully infringed on three Apple patents, ordering the company to pay $119.6 million in damages. Devices involved in the lawsuit included the Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note II, and Galaxy Tab 10.1.

    The $119.6 million that Samsung owes from the second trial is in addition to the damages awarded to Apple in the original Apple vs. Samsung trial, which added up to approximately $890 million after a recalculation.

    Apple and Samsung agreed to end their non-U.S. patent disputes in early August, but their battle in the United States is ongoing despite efforts to find "common ground."

    Article Link: Apple Denied Sales Ban on Samsung Devices From Second Patent Trial
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2014
  3. macrumors regular

    DarkCole

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2013
  4. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    #4
    Welp. Let's see when the next patent trial rolls around.
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    #5
    Samsung celebrates by making a galaxy 6s that looks exactly like an iPhone 6.
     
  6. Guest

    ppc_michael

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #6
    Oh no now people will continue to be able to purchase any device that they want.
     
  7. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #7
    All Apple really needs from this kind of patent defense is to make sure their reputation is NOT that copying Apple is easy. That Apple WILL cause you hassle, win or lose, so think carefully before embarking on that strategy. Apple will always be a target of copiers, but they don't want to be a soft target.

    And that's good for all of us: the less Samsung/others copy Apple, the more REAL choice and innovation we would get.

    That would make a welcome update! They've been using the 2008 iPhone 3G styling for far too long!
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    512ke

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    #8
    Meh. Apple is doing plenty to destroy Samsung sales WITHOUT a ban.
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    SCOLANATOR

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    How about they stop trying to sue and counter she each other into oblivion and actually compete? Just imagine if the car or combustion engine or aircraft had been invented today. The patent system is not fit for purpose and stifles innovation and competition.

    Once again reaffirming my belief that reasonable length copyrights, not patents should exist. And of course demonstrating that Americans still haven't learnt to resolve anything outside of a courtroom. Major corporations buying US politicians will bring the US to it's knees.

    Not saying Samsung didn't copy Apple, but so what? Without the Galaxy series of smartphones would Apple have been so aggressive in it's iPhone development?
     
  10. macrumors 601

    goobot

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    long island NY
    #10
    You do know that this sort of practice has caused some company's to shut down because they couldn't reap the benefits of all the time and money they put into a new technology? This practice only hurts development of new tech.
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #11
    And Apple will always copy others as well...
     
  12. PocketSand11, Aug 27, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2014

    macrumors 6502a

    PocketSand11

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Location:
    ~/
    #12
    Source please. At least name one U.S. politician who has been bought out.

    ----------

    No.

    ----------

    Exactly. Short-term, yeah consumers benefit more if a company suddenly gets ripped off and has to compete more. But if they stop trying to make new things because they think that will happen, consumers lose big time, as do the corporations and their employees. Edit: The worst is when someone dismisses these lawsuits as "childish" without giving a darn, and that goes with arguments in Congress and with wars too.
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #13
    Like giving Samsung more business. Guess you're going to swap out those Samsung made chips from your iPhone 6 that you just bought?
    Funny how people can bash Samsung yet you're giving money to the company that's keeping the very same company that you're bashing in business.
     
  14. blahblah100, Aug 27, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2014

    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #14
    Oh, you think Apple will stop copying at some point? Interesting. I hope so too.
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
  16. macrumors 6502a

    CrazyForApple

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
  17. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #17
    Are you referring to someone being bought relating to Samsung vs apple? Yeah that likely hasn't happened but its pretty much a fact that our elected representatives are all whores to whatever corporation will pay for their next election. Many have shown they would just about throw a crippled kid under a bus to get a couple hundred thousand from someone like oh say.... Comcast..
     
  18. nagromme, Aug 27, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2014

    macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #18
    A common catch phrase. But do you honestly believe that the way Samsung and Xiaomi copy Apple over and over is the same in a) frequency, b) type and c) severity as the way Apple (and any company, you'd agree) sometimes copies others?

    http://www.tuaw.com/2011/09/28/no-comment-proof-that-samsung-shamelessly-copies-apple/

    Someone that slows but doesn't quite stop at a sign is "driving illegally." So is someone who drank a quart of whisky and has a tube of airplane glue up each nostril and then drives into a school. But are they really the same, just because you can make the same words work for both?

    Answer: they ARE the same, in some misleading sense. AND they are different, in ways that matter.

    You can't deny that the difference in Apple's behavior is real--and matters--and is blatantly clear.

    (P.S. Anyone who wants to parrot the old Xerox story should look up what Apple actually added--all the things you THINK those old Xerox screenshots could do, but they could not. Then look up that Apple paid Xerox. I know there are trolls itching to parrot what was fun to bring up in the 90s :) )

    O/T and should be in another forum, but here's a good start down that rabbit hole. Facts and data:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html

    https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php
     
  19. PocketSand11, Aug 27, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2014

    macrumors 6502a

    PocketSand11

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Location:
    ~/
    #19
    I was hoping for something more solid than a conspiracy theory. I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of them were, but you can't just say they all are (or even one of them) and assume you're right.

    ----------

    What does Apple copy, having 2GB of RAM in a phone and a bigger screen?
     
  20. macrumors 68020

    Aluminum213

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    #20
    Apples patent lawyers kept on retainer must be making unbelievable amounts of money
     
  21. brendu, Aug 28, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2014

    macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #21
    What do you think corporate lobbying exists for?

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/comcast-pac-gave-money-to-every-senator-examining-time-warner-cable-merger/
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    SCOLANATOR

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    Because patents lasting 50 years or more are fair? The system is a complete mess and locks out small business who can't afford the patent costs.
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    SCOLANATOR

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    I don't have proof. But you'd have to be utterly stupid to think it wasn't happening on a vast scale - ISP's buying out politicians to secure massive monopolies (US broadband is slow and hugely overpriced) - Koch brothers bribing politicians so as to not challenge them regarding climate change - massive defence contracts that should long ago have been cancelled for being s*** and overpriced like Lockhead Martin and the F-35, I'm certain the latter two I've seen evidence on Ars Technica talking explicitly about politicians who've received money for this. Big banks bribing politicians to twist the system to suit their wishes (rent seeking) and we all know how well that worked. You like to call it lobbying, I call it bare faced bribery and it would be illegal in much of Europe.

    I would say the US is the most corrupt country in the wealthy western world.
     
  24. macrumors 603

    Oletros

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Location:
    Premià de Mar
    #24
    Expected taking into account the eBay v. MercExchange factors for injunctive relief over patents
     
  25. Iconoclysm, Aug 28, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2014

    macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    #25
    First off, they're different divisions of a VERY large company - buying chips from Samsung's foundry business is not funding Samsung Electronics. Second, less than 10% of an iPhone is made up of Samsung "parts". Finally, Apple is addressing the issue by moving away from Samsung as much as possible. Not much can be helped that Samsung has that kind of tight hold on this business, but it's an extremely low margin business anyway, we're talking completely commoditized products.

    ----------

    Very well said.

    I do want to point out that your second link includes contributions made by employees of those corporations, which hides what the corporation itself is donating.
     

Share This Page