Appeals Court Overturns Sales Ban on Samsung Galaxy Nexus

[charlituna]

its agianst the law but its ok cause no one will buy them so does that mean it they sell a lot of them they can revisit?

This isn't uncommon. The article is mixing up some details as I recall including that this is from a different court case and might even just be a prelim banning.

But regardless, it's not uncommon for bans to be lifted if an appeal is filed because the decision could be reversed. So let Samsung sell what they can and if they lose in the final appeal, the units sold just get added to the number for 'per device' damage payments.

 

[lunaoso]

And I own the Brooklyn Bridge...

Will you sell it to me?

Anyway this doesn't really matter considering Samsung already has the S3 and a 4" S3 coming soon.

 

[aerok]

I don't think that's what we claimed. We quoted a bit from The Next Web saying that the court agreed that the feature wasn't essential to the success of the Galaxy Nexus...hence the decision to overturn Koh's original ruling as overstepping.

But I'll try to make that a little more clear.

Samsung argued, somewhat humiliatingly, that the sales of the Galaxy Nexus were so poor that they didn't pose a threat to Apple's iPhone and that the unified search feature was not essential to the success of its device. The appeals court apparently agrees

So where does this come from?

You posted this like it was a fact when this is not true at all.

 

[you people smh]

Alanis would be proud

This phone barely scratched the surface, it only counts for less than 0.5% of the smart phone market, to be honest I am surprised.

LOL!

Exactly, if you want a phone that REALLY scratches the surface, go for the iPhone 5!

 

[WildCowboy]

So where does this come from?

You posted this like it was a fact when this is not true at all.

Which part is not true?

Samsung did argue those things, and the appeals court agreed that the feature wasn't integral to the success (or lack thereof) of the Nexus.

 

[cyberddot]

I didn't ignore or miss anything. The injunction story itself is a big deal. The fact that one was overturned is a big deal. No matter what the bond size or financial outcome. It's not all about money. It's also about precedent. It's also about how this case seems to be like an iceberg in that there's a lot under the surface which could change the outcome to Samsung's (or no one's favor) and/or possibly - award Apple even more than the amount they've requested. My point was - and still is - the future hasn't been written yet.

Ahhh..and here I was commenting on your original point. My apologies.

 

[charlituna]

Most other sites are reporting that it was in fact due to a United States Appeal court that Overruled the injunction on the claim that Judge Lucy Koh "abused its discretion" in it's granting.

Many of the articles are wording it such that it appears not to be a quote from the court but the writer's opinion shoved in there.

That said, injunctions are generally put in place only if the 'offending/potentially offending' item being on sale would hurt the other side. So if the Nexus isn't selling hand over fist at this time then there's no reason for the ban. Perhaps that wasn't the case when it was first granted, perhaps it was.

Judges having a decision overturned doesn't mean they 'abused' anything, merely that a higher authority disagreed. In this case it was, at this point in time, a worthy disagreement. Rate of sales isn't showing major damage so lift the ban and end Samsung's whining.

 

[aerok]

Which part is not true?

Samsung did argue those things, and the appeals court agreed that the feature wasn't integral to the success (or lack thereof) of the Nexus.

They argued that in August and yet the ban was still in place.

Here is the reason why it was overturned, not close to what you ''claim''

In one example, Apple claimed that the Quick Search Box used on the Nexus infringes one of its patents. But this search box is a feature of Android, not something specific to the Nexus.

"The release of the allegedly infringing version of the Android platform predates the release of the Galaxy Nexus, but Google is not a defendant in this suit," the appeals court said.

In another example, Apple tried to establish a "causal nexus," or a link between a cause and its effect, asserting that it would suffer harm without a ban on the Galaxy Nexus. But the appeals court determined that the district court "abused its discretion" in finding that Apple established such a causal nexus.

In one more example, Apple asserted that the Nexus uses the "unified search feature" in Siri, which was patented by Apple even though Samsung's phone offers no equivalent to Siri. But again the appeals court disagreed with the lower court's findings.

"To establish a sufficiently strong causal nexus, Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the '604 patent -- not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search," the appeals court said. "The district court made no such determination."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...-nixes-a-galaxy-nexus-ban-requested-by-apple/

It was NOT because of low sales! News should not be based on what you assume from what was said in the past.

 

[charlituna]

Why the Nexus was banned in the first place, I'll never know. It doesn't look like the iphone, and the OS is stock Jelly Bean. Can you smell the Apple bias?

Not all the violations are due to design. There are also numerous internal tech patents at play. One or more of which was alleged with the Nexus.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Zero advertisement. They only advertise the nexus through verizon on tv

Plus... Samsung has quite a few other models on sale too.

They can't have a different ad campaign for each one.

 

[aerok]

Not all the violations are due to design. There are also numerous internal tech patents at play. One or more of which was alleged with the Nexus.

The main reason being universal search.

 

[KnightWRX]

Why the Nexus was banned in the first place, I'll never know. It doesn't look like the iphone, and the OS is stock Jelly Bean. Can you smell the Apple bias?

It was banned on a utility patent related to unified search (ie, the Spotlight patent). Not because it "copied" or "was a blatant rip off" of the iPhone. But don't try to explain that to people here. They think all these lawsuits are just about rectangles with rounded corners.

 

[aerok]

Which part is not true?

Samsung did argue those things, and the appeals court agreed that the feature wasn't integral to the success (or lack thereof) of the Nexus.

And you posted the PDF indicating the details of the ruling. Did you even bother reading it?

 

[WildCowboy]

They argued that in August and yet the ban was still in place.

Here is the reason why it was overturned, not close to what you ''claim''

"To establish a sufficiently strong causal nexus, Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the '604 patent -- not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search," the appeals court said. "The district court made no such determination."

Is that not what we said? Apple needed to show that the allegedly infringed invention was a reason consumers bought the Galaxy Nexus, and they didn't do that. As a result, Apple hasn't proven that the specific infringement would cause it harm.

It was NOT because of low sales! News should not be based on what you assume from what was said in the past.

We did not mean to suggest that it was because of low sales, but I can certainly see how the quote from The Next Web can be interpreted that way without other context.

I'll add a bit more to try to make things more clear.

 

[mattopotamus]

Plus... Samsung has quite a few other models on sale too.

They can't have a different ad campaign for each one.

exactly, and they are going to focus on their flagship device (galaxy S series). Also, they don't get to load the nexus with all of their bloatware. I had a nexus for a little bit and it would definitely be my phone of choice if I was using android. For some out dated specs, jellybean made that thing run like a champ.

 

[Ryan John]

Interesting thing for me is that the appeals court suggest Koh had abused her authority in this case.

Might influence her thinking in the December hearing, not wanting to overstep the mark again in terms of banning products.

 

[jrbdmb]

Too bad if your sales are in the dumps. Your product still should be banned if it is not fully legal, patent-wise. Samsung should just get out of the tech business and start building toilets or something.

And when the iPhone 5 get banned for infringing on Samsung's LTE patents by an overreaching judge, I guess you'll want Apple to get out of smartphone business?

 

[LordVic]

"To establish a sufficiently strong causal nexus, Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the '604 patent -- not because it can search in general, and not even because it has unified search," the appeals court said. "The district court made no such determination."

Is that not what we said? Apple needed to show that the allegedly infringed invention was a reason consumers bought the Galaxy Nexus, and they didn't do that. As a result, Apple hasn't proven that the specific infringement would cause it harm.


We did not mean to suggest that it was because of low sales, but I can certainly see how the quote from The Next Web can be interpreted that way without other context.

I'll add a bit more to try to make things more clear.

No, thats not what happened at all.

they're unrelated points at this timing. It could even be said poor sales of the nExus were a direct result of the injunction against it.

The ONLY facts that went into making the decision here are what Aerok said.

I recommend going back and reading his posts a little more clearly. The injunction wasn't lifted due to poor sales of the nexus, but because the patent that Apple claimed was being infringed, was not in fact actually being infringed upon.

Hence the Appeal judge ruling that Koh' overstepped her bounds buy issuing the injunction without properly asserting that the patent in question was violated.

Therefore, The injunction was wrong in the first place and should never have been issued.

The sales of Nexus is a red herring. Nothing to do with the actual decision. In fact, Because the injunction is lifted like this, Samsung could in fact go after Apple for loss of sales of the nexus due to the injunction.

Same thing happened last month with the galaxy tab 10.1 injunction, it was lifted by Koh, who admitted it shouldn't have happened and told Samsung they were free to persue loss of sales from Apple

 

[aerok]

We did not mean to suggest that it was because of low sales, but I can certainly see how the quote from The Next Web can be interpreted that way without other context.

I'll add a bit more to try to make things more clear.

My grip was on that quote specifically. Quotes can change everything you mean. You can completly change what the person meant by picking and choosing quotes. By using that quote, you end up misinforming people that the reason why it was overturned is due to poor sales. Google that silly quote you posted, people are already using it in their comments around the web saying MR said it because they are convinced that the court sided with Samsung because of pitiful sales.

And let's not forget, nowhere in the post does it say that it is from NextWeb. Any visitors will assume that it was quoted from the court ruling or you guys.

 

[iMikeT]

Samsung argued, somewhat humiliatingly, that the sales of the Galaxy Nexus were so poor that they didn't pose a threat to Apple's iPhone and that the unified search feature was not essential to the success of its device. The appeals court apparently agrees.

Hahahahaha. Best laugh I've this entire ******ty morning.

 

[AustinIllini]

I have a Google Nexus One in the drawer and the hardware is wonderful (too bad Gingerbread is crap ). I'm hoping the next Google Nexus phone will be from HTC.

I can not abide this cheap plastic Samsung crap.

I believe the next Nexus is from LG...?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57530440-94/lg-nexus-4-outed-in-new-photo-dump-report-says/

 

[samcraig]

And you posted the PDF indicating the details of the ruling. Did you even bother reading it?

Ultimately - Apple said the phone's sales would cause irreparable harm to Apple by allowing it to be sold.

Samsung, in turn, argued that sales of the Nexus wouldn't dent Apple sales. Why anyone would think Samsung would try and portray it any other way (truth or not) is funny. It's only logical Samsung would downplay figures (true or not) to avoid an injunction. They'd be fools not to.

And as it turns out - Apple's sales weren't hurt at all by Samsung's Nexus. I'd even go as far as to say Apple's biggest pain point (hurting sales) isn't Samsung but Apple itself with not being able to keep up with demand. Does this mean people might jump ship and buy something else while waiting - sure. But that's irrelevant to patents.

 

[WildCowboy]

My grip was on that quote specifically. Quotes can change everything you mean. You can completly change what the person meant by picking and choosing quotes. By using that quote, you end up misinforming people that the reason why it was overturned is due to poor sales. Google that silly quote you posted, people are already using it in their comments around the web saying MR said it because they are convinced that the court sided with Samsung because of pitiful sales.

And let's not forget, nowhere in the post does it say that it is from NextWeb. Any vistors will assume that it was quoted from the court ruling or you guys.

Completely agree...we were not as clear as we should have been, and that quote takes away from the discussion of the actual reasons behind the decision.

 

[aerok]

Ultimately - Apple said the phone's sales would cause irreparable harm to Apple by allowing it to be sold.

Samsung, in turn, argued that sales of the Nexus wouldn't dent Apple sales. Why anyone would think Samsung would try and portray it any other way (truth or not) is funny. It's only logical Samsung would downplay figures (true or not) to avoid an injunction. They'd be fools not to.

And as it turns out - Apple's sales weren't hurt at all by Samsung's Nexus. I'd even go as far as to say Apple's biggest pain point (hurting sales) isn't Samsung but Apple itself with not being able to keep up with demand. Does this mean people might jump ship and buy something else while waiting - sure. But that's irrelevant to patents.

Well said, and that is how the news should have been reported. Not the way it was posted here, it's just sad that people actually believe this to be true and use the quote like they know something.

 

[Padraig]

My grip was on that quote specifically. Quotes can change everything you mean. You can completly change what the person meant by picking and choosing quotes. By using that quote, you end up misinforming people that the reason why it was overturned is due to poor sales. Google that silly quote you posted, people are already using it in their comments around the web saying MR said it because they are convinced that the court sided with Samsung because of pitiful sales.

And let's not forget, nowhere in the post does it say that it is from NextWeb. Any visitors will assume that it was quoted from the court ruling or you guys.

The fact that you have to spell that out is depressing. It's such basic stuff that you'd be disappointed to see it in a High school news paper. An absolutely dreadful piece of reporting.