Samsung's Appeal of Australian Galaxy Tab Ban Fast-Tracked as Apple Targets Resellers

[something3153]

Yes, which I stated in the part of my quote you omitted: "Until the judge decides otherwise."

If the legal claims were as silly as the Android fans here claim, would a preliminary injunction have been granted at all? Unlikely.

An injunction is not a ruling, any more than an arrest is a conviction.

 

[kdarling]

Yes, which I stated in the part of my quote you omitted: "Until the judge decides otherwise."

There is no "otherwise", because the judge never decided if any IP was infringed in the first place. ("Stolen American IP", was what you said.)

All she decided so far was the obvious truth that if Apple's explanation of their patent claims held up they would probably win. She also said that if Samsung's counter explanation held up, then they would probably win.

If the legal claims were as silly as the Android fans here claim, would a preliminary injunction have been granted at all? Unlikely.

I don't think most people in this thread (including you or you would've brought them up) even know what the legal claims are in this case. So let's review:

There were just two (*) Apple patents at question for the interlocutory injunction.

One was about the construction of a capacitive touchscreen. The patent talks about painting circuits on both sides of a sheet of material. Samsung says they didn't do that. They used two sheets. Apple countered that they didn't necessarily mean both sides of the SAME sheet. The judge didn't think much of this, since the patent claims didn't mention that situation, but was willing to defer for the time being.

The other patent is the infamous one about deciding whether to lock scrolling to only vertical, or to allow 2D movements, depending on the starting flick angle. The judge questioned the same claim writing that I did when it came out, which was how is that angle determined?

So her problem was that no one could agree on what Apple's patent claims meant, because their claim writing was so ambiguous. They even brought in a professor and an engineer to try to help. She wrote that both explanations could make sense and therefore the only choice was to continue to trial as-is.

This was not about some blatant copying of patents or design. It's about vague implementation claims. Neither side here has good footing.

(*) Apple withdrew using their slide-to-unlock patent after the Dutch judge on the opposite side of the world said it would probably get thrown out if challenged.

 

[ReanimationN]

Heh, I didn't even notice you had already posted this tired old chestnut. Big surprise.

Here's the "truth of the day": Steve's neighbor invited him over for dinner, Steve brought a nice bottle of wine, talked with the neighbor about his cool new TV and liked it so much he offered to buy it (and the neighbor accepted).

Bill Gates was ticked that he wasn't invited for dinner and was jealous of Steve's new TV, so he broke into Steve's house, and stole the TV and peed on the rug.

Those are the facts, if you care to look them up.

It's more like Steve went over to his neighbour's house while the parents were out and offered a couple of bucks and a few lollies for their brand new, fresh off the production line latest-and-greatest tv to their 5-year-old son who had no idea what it was worth. Of course the kid jumped at the chance of a little bit of money with a little extra sweetener and Steve made off with the tv for what basically amounted to free.

 

[Oletros]

I don't think most people in this thread (including you or you would've brought them up) even know what the legal claims are in this case. [/SIZE]

Is because of that that people still talks about trade dress claims or that is proven that Samsung is guilty


If anyone is interested, the judge's resolution:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1164.html#_Ref306261607

 

[Sangdushi]

Lol such BS coming in from everyone its not even funny.

 

[zetsurin]

Once again, dont post without research. Google did NOT change the design of Android to look like iOS after it was announced, the stock Android look has been around since at least 2006, when it was pre-release. Go back a page and read up!

Agreed. The following should be mandatory for all revisionist Apple fans:

http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_

Also, please remember Apple didn't invent as many things as you try to make out. Just one of the many things you need to be reminded of is the swipe to unlock which was on a phone PRIOR to the iPhone. I was a heavy PalmOS user and if you cannot see the similarities in some areas you can't see beyond a freaking stylus. Apple refined ideas and in the process were sitting on the shoulders of giants. They did a fantastic job at *refining*, not *inventing*. And a lot of Apple's patents are trivial things that a competent developer could put together in an hour or two. For example the fact that when you pinch zoom smaller than the screen it adds a border. Big bloody deal. That is not an investment of millions of dollars.

And bottom line: This company is the highest valued tech company on the planet with billions in the bank. Let's stop carrying on like they are poor, weak and defenseless and require legal protection.

 

[KnightWRX]

There is no "otherwise", because the judge never decided if any IP was infringed in the first place. ("Stolen American IP", was what you said.)

All she decided so far was the obvious truth that if Apple's explanation of their patent claims held up they would probably win. She also said that if Samsung's counter explanation held up, then they would probably win.



I don't think most people in this thread (including you or you would've brought them up) even know what the legal claims are in this case. So let's review:

There were just two (*) Apple patents at question for the interlocutory injunction.

One was about the construction of a capacitive touchscreen. The patent talks about painting circuits on both sides of a sheet of material. Samsung says they didn't do that. They used two sheets. Apple countered that they didn't necessarily mean both sides of the SAME sheet. The judge didn't think much of this, since the patent claims didn't mention that situation, but was willing to defer for the time being.

The other patent is the infamous one about deciding whether to lock scrolling to only vertical, or to allow 2D movements, depending on the starting flick angle. The judge questioned the same claim writing that I did when it came out, which was how is that angle determined?

So her problem was that no one could agree on what Apple's patent claims meant, because their claim writing was so ambiguous. They even brought in a professor and an engineer to try to help. She wrote that both explanations could make sense and therefore the only choice was to continue to trial as-is.

This was not about some blatant copying of patents or design. It's about vague implementation claims. Neither side here has good footing.

(*) Apple withdrew using their slide-to-unlock patent after the Dutch judge on the opposite side of the world said it would probably get thrown out if challenged.

Finally, we get the meat of the Australian case and lo and behold, it's not about "Copying" or "UIs being similar" or "outward design elements" like the usual crowd has been harping about here, even though they've been shown time and again that Samsung's stuff isn't as "blatant" copying as they think it is.

Like the Dutch initial injunction (after they threw out Apple's claims of copying), it's about some obscure patents that could go either way.

Only the German court has placed an injunction based on the "simplisitic design" (their choice of words) so far, all other courts have been far more hostile to Apple's design claims if they even brought them up.

----------

Agreed. The following should be mandatory for all revisionist Apple fans:

http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_

And people think I'm silly for making that argument. Thanks for the link, that's an awesome piece.