Samsung Loses Motion for Preliminary Injunction Banning iPhone 4S in France

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Dec 8, 2011.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001


    The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris has denied a request by Samsung for a preliminary injunction banning the iPhone 4S in France. The court said the main reason for the rejection was the disproportionate effect that banning sales of the iPhone in the country would have on Apple.

    The court also awarded Apple 100,000 euros for legal costs which is far less than what Apple spent on its defense, but still indicates what the French court thought of Samsung's motion.

    Florian Mueller, writing about the case:
    Next week, a court in Milan, Italy will decide a similar request from Samsung to ban the iPhone 4S in that country.

    Article Link: Samsung Loses Motion for Preliminary Injunction Banning iPhone 4S in France
  2. Amazing Iceman macrumors 68040

    Amazing Iceman

    Nov 8, 2008
    Florida, U.S.A.
    All these suings are getting boring, regardless of who is right or wrong.
  3. mattwolfmatt macrumors 65816


    Jun 7, 2008
    Thank you, MR, for putting this under "More" instead of "Front Page".

  4. ChazUK macrumors 603


    Feb 3, 2008
    Essex (UK)
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.0.1; en-gb; Galaxy Nexus Build/ITL41F) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)


    That's all I have to say on that one.
  5. charlituna macrumors G3


    Jun 11, 2008
    Los Angeles, CA
    Given that Samsung is suing over necessary patents that should be licensed under FRAND and hasn't proven that they sought to get proper and fair license fees only to have Steve and company tell them to go fork themselves, I'm glad that these bans aren't being approved.
  6. flottenheimer macrumors 65816


    Jan 8, 2008
    Up north
    Is the current patent-system/law working at all?

    For one thing it seems like companies are more busy filing and buying patents to protect themselves against being sued, rather than filing patents in order to protect actual intelectual property.

    Has anyone ever gotten an idea for a better, more in-tune-with-time patent-system/law? What did it suggest?
  7. SockRolid macrumors 68000


    Jan 5, 2010
    Almost Rock Solid
    December 14th: the HTC appeal ruling

    I think we all knew that Samsung's request would be denied. Right?

    The bigger story is next week's ITC ruling. In July, the International Trade Commission found that HTC had infringed two Apple patents. HTC appealed, and the ITC will announce their ruling on the appeal on the 14th.

    Go ahead an yawn. Just remember that the two patents that HTC has been found guilty of infringing are not specific to HTC hardware or any HTC modification of Android. The infringements result from Android's core software architecture. If HTC loses the appeal (and Florian Mueller says that he is almost certain that they will in his FOSS Patents blog), Apple will most likely take the fight to all Android handset and tablet manufacturers. And they could use the HTC ruling as legal precedent to great effect.

    The big problem for all the Android handset and tablet manufacturers is that Apple doesn't want to simply collect licensing fees from them. They won't sue just for the revenue stream the way Microsoft did and continues to do. (Microsoft makes more money from Android than Google makes from ads because of Android's violation of Microsoft patents.) No, Apple wants injunctions. And they could very likely get them.

    Bad news for HTC. Their share price dropped sharply after the July ITC ruling. Their November revenue was down 30 percent month-to-month and 20 percent year-over-year. And they're the #1 Android handset maker (or at least they were.) Losing the appeal can and will hurt them badly.
  8. AdeFowler macrumors 68020


    Aug 27, 2004
    Amen to that. Yawn indeed. Can't wait for this all to be settled one way or the other.
  9. paul4339 macrumors 65816

    Sep 14, 2009
    100,000 euros?

    I guess it covers a few hours of expenses for Apple's legal team...
  10. goosnarrggh macrumors 68000

    May 16, 2006
    Minor clarification: After a licensing deal has been worked out, they are no longer patent violations. Violations only occur during the period of time where the patented tech is being used despite the absence of a license agreement.


    From what I've read, one of those patents in particular (6,343,263) could conceivably be applicable to the Linux kernel itself - and in that case, it is conceivable that every Linux-based desktop computer; every Linux-based web server; every Linux-based University scientific university workstation; could all be in violation, depending upon which of patent's basic claims may eventually be held to be invalid due to prior art.

Share This Page