Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Wins Injunction Blocking Sale of Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Silliness? I'm not tryiung to argue anything, in Spanish law it means this.
Perhaps you're also an "armchair lawyer".
I'm not a legal expert, but I was under the impression that prima facie means that enough evidence has been produced that the case can go to full trial. If a party can't do that then the case can be thrown out immediately. It doesn't necessarily mean its a strong case, but that there is enough face value evidence that the case can go ahead and the other party must therefore produce evidence to counter the claim.
LOL...k. Perhaps your in denial. Prima facie means one thing and one thing only. Its not some term that each country decides how to interpret. Its a legal term.
Would you like to show me the spanish definition of prima facie? Surely, it must be written somewhere on the internet right?
Apple's real concern is protecting iTunes, access to content is the key. How apple competes in the future with the likes of Amazon, Sony and even Samsung (Hub).
a snip from http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...duce-customers-court-told-20110929-1kyl5.html
-
Apple also raised concerns that every Galaxy Tab sold would cost it future app sales as the users would become Android people. Apples iTunes App Store dominance would be challenged if customers were seduced or sapped away by the Galaxy Tab and its infringements.
Theyll then be Android people and the investment in the apps that they make to purchase on their Galaxy Tab will be something they cant use on an Apple product, Apples lawyer said.
-
It is worth noting that apple as the defendant has not resolved a patent hearing related to Multi Touch filed in California in April 2009. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2009cv01531/213535/1/
perhaps why currently in California U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said "that Samsung Electronic's Galaxy tablets infringe Apple Inc's iPad patents, but added that Apple has a problem establishing the validity of its patents"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/14/us-apple-samsung-lawsuit-idUSTRE79C79C20111014
For those interested in the Oz case
In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in some cases of public interest, importance or complexity, the following summary has been prepared to accompany the publication of the Courts reasons for judgment.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1164.html
It means that based on the evidence offered the person bringing the case will likely succeed at trial, unless the defendant provides some contradictory evidence. In the case of a patent infringement, Samsung will somehow have to prove that they are not infringing Apple's patent, which prima facie appears to be the case. Simple as that. It's not open up for interpretation on a per country basis.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...docId=CNG.12d132d09318e8d6258a40e322937ad4.d1
And from the Justice's mouth:
"Despite the force of Samsung's submissions I have found that Apple has established a prima facie case of infringement of claims of both (its) patent(s)," Justice Annabelle Bennett told the court.
"That is, it has established a probability, not necessarily in a mathematical sense, that it will, on the present evidence, succeed at trial."
Now we can sit here and argue that prima facie in Afghanistan doesn't mean the same thing as prima facie in Madagascar or we can stop being in denial about what it actually means.
LOL...k. Perhaps your in denial. Prima facie means one thing and one thing only. Its not some term that each country decides how to interpret. Its a legal term.
Would you like to show me the spanish definition of prima facie? Surely, it must be written somewhere on the internet right?
Ah, so your saying that in every legal system every thing means the same. Really?
http://www.significadolegal.com/2008/10/qu-significa-prima-facie.html
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
Neither link proves your point. The first link simply literally defines "prima facie". The wikipedia link says nothing about "spanish" interpretations.
Oh and no not everything means the same in every legal system. Prima facie does though.
And from the Justice's Mouth:
Now we can sit and call everyone that is a "armchair lawyer"
Maybe you have a hard time understanding what you're reading? "Apple needs to show that it has sufficient likelihood at success"...what part of that confuses you?
Prima facie means that at first sight, the evidence shows you will succeed at trial, unless the defendant provides contradictory evidence. That's what's been said from the beginning and that's what's been said here.
It doesn't mean that Apple has to prove they will win the case...they simply have to prove that their evidence makes it likely they will win the case. What part of this do you not understand?
The part that some op say that it's almost imposiblle to win a case when someone has presented prima facie proofs like vrdrew implied
He said it's going to be difficult for them to overcome, not impossible, but honestly its going to be VERY difficult for them. Why? Because its a patent case. You either violate or you don't. If the judge believes prima facie that you have violated, they're going to have to pull off something spectacular to prove that they didn't. It's not impossible in a legal sense, but in this case it might as well be.
Love it when people post complete nonsense.
Let's see Apple's patents against Samsung - three court rulings in their favor.
Samsung patents against Apple - zero. And Samsung was just turned down by the Dutch court in their patent infringement case today.
I think I'll take the opinion of actual experts thank you.
Actually, thats not really true.
Samsung DOES hold quite a few patents that are, presently, being infringed by Apple's iPhone.
The thing that seems difficult for a lot of people to understand is the fact that not all patents are the same, or can be treated the same way in cases like this. And, its also worth noting that (generally speaking) Samsung's patents come in different areas of technology than do Apple's.
Most of the Patents held by Samsung (in the cases we're talking about here) are what are known as Standards-Essential or "FRAND" patents related to mobile telephone systems. What is this?
Basically, when a new industry - such as the mobile phone business - gets started, it is very important that all the participants (handset manufacturers, carriers, backhaul providers, antenna mast installers, etc.) work on the same standards. If they DIDN'T, then a handset made by company A, would work with infrastructure installed by company B. It would be very inefficient, you'd end up with dozens of redundant networks, etc.
So what generally happens is that Industry Groups, referred to as Standards Setting Organizations (SSOs) agree on a single standard for things like the encryption and communication protocols. These are typically the product of a single company - and are patented by that company.
Now, in exchange for giving that company a pure monopoly, the SSO expects that those patents be considered FRAND-encumbered. FRAND is an acronym for "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" - and it really means that a) the patent holder MUST license it to all qualified buyers. It cannot refuse to license it to a competitor. And it has to license it under "reasonable" terms.
Now, that doesn't mean it has to license its technology to everyone at exactly the same price. A buyer who wants a lciense for two million handsets, for instance, would pay a much lower unit royalty, than someone who only wanted fifty thousand.
Obviously, there aren't hard rules under this standard. And often license terms are the result of intense negotiation, and sometimes result in litigation.
Again: Virtually ALL of the patents Samsung is alleging Apple infringes are FRAND-encumbered. That's because Samsung happened to be a big chip maker at the time when cellphone standards worldwide came into being. But again, remember that Samsung is OBLIGED to license that technology to Apple - and they can't demand unreasonable payment for it.
By way of contrast, the Patents that Apple holds are most definitely NOT FRAND-encumbered. They relate to things like the way the user interacts with the phone, and are not "Standards Essential."
What actually happened was that the judge asked the female Samsung lawyer if she could tell which one was Samsung's from her position about 12 feet away. She replied that she could not do so right away.
The judge then turned to the other Samsung lawyers and repeated the question, and they instantly id'd the right tablet.
Noting that all the female judges around the world (Germany, Australia, California) have concentrated on the shape alone, whereas males and male judges seem to instantly see the difference, my wife has wryly suggested that it must be another male 'R-chromosone' thing. (You know, the 'Remote control' one.)
Prima facie simply means that it's possible for Apple to succeed, thus the case should be tried. The opposite would've been to say that there clearly wasn't enough evidence to even attempt it.
The whole point is that they're not officially covered under FRAND. I've explained this before:
The problem is that some of Samsung's patents are NOT part of ETSI's FRAND patent pool, thus Samsung is free to threaten injunctions of non-payers.
Apple is counterclaiming that those patents should be covered by FRAND, and is threatening antitrust actions.
Apple says Samsung rigged the 3G standards
Apple reinforces its FRAND counterclaims
Yes that's what was said from the beginning. Olestros misconstrued vrdrews post to mean that it is impossible for samsung to win. However, in the cases of patents, which is what this is about, a prima facie injunction will be extremely difficult to overcome. The evidence presented either violates or doesn't. There's no gray area. The judge is not gonna rule "maybe they violated the patent a little"
As I read it, the situation is a bit opposite from that.
Courts look favorably on patent injunctions if the defendant knew about the patents and didn't do anything to fight them.
The Australian judge said it was it was prima facie because Samsung knew that Apple had already sued them over the same patents in California months before, but had made no attempt to get the patents declared invalid in Oz.
Attention Moderators!
Quantum mechanics have failed and comments are leaking in from alternate realities.
Please fix...
~Management
Quantum mechanics have failed and comments are leaking in from alternate realities.
Please fix...
~Management
Ok I didn't know about that. I was going under the assumption that the injunction was based on examination of the patents and the products. Regardless, your scenario doesn't bode well for samsung either. Samsung will need to come up with something better then what they have already to get the injunction overturned. At trial, the patents themselves will come into play so we'll see what happens
Definitely Samsung needs to get on the ball and start invalidation attempt proceedings against some of the Apple patents. More and more courts keep bringing up their lack of effort.
On the flip side of the coin, Apple has to start bringing better evidence for the long run, as judges have also commented on how weak their cases are as far as trade dress goes. Apple seems to think it's enough to just say "Hey we're Apple, everyone copies us and it confuses customers", but without proof of confusion or secondary meaning.
Neither side seems to have the manpower to do everything that the judges seem to want! The reason, I think, is because the judges are tending to strictly follow previous case law for such difficult situations, and it's easier if everything is laid out for them... which is a lot of work for the plaintiff and defendant.
On the flip side of the coin, Apple has to start bringing better evidence for the long run, as judges have also commented on how weak their cases are as far as trade dress goes. Apple seems to think it's enough to just say "Hey we're Apple, everyone copies us and it confuses customers", but without proof of confusion or secondary meaning.
Neither side seems to have the manpower to do everything that the judges seem to want! The reason, I think, is because the judges are tending to strictly follow previous case law for such difficult situations, and it's easier if everything is laid out for them... which is a lot of work for the plaintiff and defendant.
I say invalidate all iPhone, iPad patents NOW. Apple has gone too far. They are trying to extinguish competition through the courts.
Yes, I know that Samsung is suing Apple for patent infringement, but Samsung has yet to win any ruling. And what I was pointing out in my post is that Holland just ruled against Samsung. That same court, by the way, also ruled against Apple as well.
Ultimately my point was that the courts are currently showing that Apple is leading and Samsung is behind.
So, while everyone in here is throwing around their opinions, the ones that really matter...The courts, are the ones I was pointing out. Not my opinion.
And on the opinion front..A number of Wall Street analysts are saying that Samsung will likely find a way to come to terms with Apple now by changing their products. Which is what Apple wanted to begin with.
