Sales Ban of Older Samsung Galaxy Phones Upheld by Dutch Court

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, May 20, 2014.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

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


    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.

    [​IMG]
    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
     
  2. macrumors 68030

    macs4nw

    #2
    A hollow victory perhaps?
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    redscull

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #3
    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 Inventions go from brand new to outdated in 1-2 years now.
     
  4. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    #4
    Does anyone care? Besides apple...
     
  5. mbh
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #5
  6. macrumors demi-god

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 24+.
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors G3

    SchneiderMan

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Location:
    Apple state
    #7
    Oops, too late.
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    #8
    "Why innovate when you can litigate?"
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    #9
    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
     
  10. macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    Too late. Well played Samsung. Their trick may be dirty but it's sure as hell working.
     
  11. macrumors demi-god

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 24+.
    #11
    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.)
     
  12. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    #12
    Why innovate when you can copy ?
     
  13. macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    That's a very informative post. Thanks!
     

Share This Page