Apple v. Samsung!
Don't attack people!
Don't respond to the Anti-Apple Thread Trolls!
PLEASE IGNORE THEM!!!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 08/09/2011 5:46:18 PM PDT by Swordmaker
The leading German news agency, dpa, just reported that Apple has been granted a preliminary injunction against Samsung's Android-based Galaxy Tab 10.1, barring with immediate effect all distribution of the product in the entire European Union except for the Netherlands on the grounds of an alleged infringement of Apple's iPad-related [European] Community design no. 000181607-0001. I can confirm that Apple has a separate lawsuit underway in the Netherlands as well, asserting the same Community design. This was also confirmed by a court in The Hague to Dutch website Webwereld. There are differences in competition law between Germany and the Netherlands, which is why Apple filed separate lawsuits. In Germany, Apple asserts not only an infringement of the said Community design but also cites unfair competition grounds, denouncing the Galaxy Tab as an iPad imitation.
A few hours after the dpa report, an Apple spokeswoman confirmed the injunction to Bloomberg.
Note that this preliminary injunction is all about a design-related intellectual property right, not about hardware or software patents. This is the certificate of registration of the enforced intellectual property right:
(Excerpt) Read more at fosspatents.blogspot.com ...
Sad, instead of a fun, innovative company, Apple is becoming everything they complained about in Microsoft.
... and when you become the Big Dog, you act like the Big Dog.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Just one more reason why I’ll never own an Apple product.
Yep, Apple has become everything they’ve said they’re not. That Tab is incredible, BTW.
I agree, I love the Droid OS. Wife has an iPad and it is fine for her as a teacher but I love to really tinker and Droids are best for that.
They are required by law to defend their TradeMarks, TradeDress, and patents or lose them. This is a consequence of Samsung's VP recalling their original 10" Galaxy Tab when the iPad 2 was released and saying publicly "we have to do a quick redesign to make ours thinner, lighter, and look more like the new iPad!" and releasing the newer Galaxy Tab 10.1 a month and a half later that did exactly that! It's a deliberate look and feel copy from his own statement. courts in numerous countries are recognizing that and are going to prevent the IP theft. Samsung has done it before and gotten away with it in the phone field because phone model longevity is about that of mayflies. Apple just won't play that game!
You want Apple to bend over and say "Thank you, may I have another?" as they are swatted on the behind by IP thieves who merely copy what Apple has spent Billions developing and promoting???
Other companies are ticked off at Google ripping off their IP research without compensation, filing off the serial numbers, and calling it Android, and giving their work away for free, without compensation, and invading THEIR markets with a product THEY have to sell to recoup their investment. They have to sue those using the free product GOOGLE gave away, that is using their IP, while GOOGLE sits on the sidelines and continues its nefarious practices, amassing money, using other people's property!
Like you need a reason {:-)
Apple has figured out that there a lot more consumers than there are producers. Geeks need to figure out they are not the market force they once were.
Riiight... we’ll beat the competition by litigating them out of the marketplace.
No less than Samsung themselves! The F700 was announced and pictures released at CeBIT 2006, in March 2006 - 10 months before Apple even admitted to working on an iPhone. And the F700 was on the market for sale 5 months before the iPhone.
Apple - steal other people's designs and ideas, put a half-eaten fruit symbol on it, and then sue the people you ripped off for already having the same idea.
Want to know what Apple will do next with industrial design? Look no further than 1960s Braun gear...
The money is in the patents.
Trademarks, yes. Trade dress, not always. Patents, no. Failure to enforce a patent does not cause loss of the patent; and there is no legal requirement to even equitably license or allow use of a patent as well.
This is also the case in the EU and all other signatories to the PCT agreement.
TradeMarks and TradeDress YES... if you allow one competitor to use your registered TradeMark or TradeDress, you can and most likely will lose them... you have to be aggressive. It's for this reason that Disney and other kids' cartoon company image holders aggressively go after Mom and Pop nursery schools that paint poor representations of the cartoon characters on the walls with cease and desist orders. On the other hand, patents get weakened by not going after infringers aggressively. The more they get used by others the less you can enforce them. Patents have been "invalidated" by allowing them to become industry standards... and thereby un-licensable. The duty is to the company stockholders to enforce the property rights to their value. If the management allows the patents to be devalued they can be sued in a stockholders suit.
Sorry, there is simply too much prior art out there for Apple to really claim that a flat rectangle with rounded corners is "novel".
Additionally, trade dress CANNOT be functional. Is the rectangular shape of the iPad "functional", part of its function? The grid of icons is functional, or purely cosmetic? If the shape or grid is functional in any way, then it cannot be covered by trade dress. Trade dress relates to purely ornamental/cosmetic appearance only - it cannot related to function of the product.
Glad to see you admit that you do not have to enforce a patent to protect them as well... Failing to enforce a patent in no way weakens the patent at all. There is zero case history for that. It does eliminate your ability to sue for triple damages for willful infringement but in no way does it weaken your ability to still assert your patent rights - it only eliminates the option of punitive damages.
As far as this case goes, I'd be interested in how you see Samsung copying Apple, given the above picture proving that Samsung clearly had not only anticipated the Apple design, but released to market well before Apple as well.
Sorry, your graphic is in ERROR. The Samsung F700 is one of the Samsung phones at issue in the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit... "it was first shown as a MOCKUP in February 2007 at the 3GSM World Congress, held a month after the iPhone's debut. It did not go on sale at that time."— PROOF:
This picture above says the F700 was shown at CeBit 2006, and then released in 2007, making Apple and the iPhone the one that copied them. This is completely false. We here love Android, not Apple, but this is a interesting story and I just felt like sharing either way. Even if Apple is in the right. According to the picture the F700 was introduced in 2006, and Apple stole the design. I’m not going to get to deep on this, but the F700 was never seen until February of 2007 and our very own slashgear had it completely covered. This is AFTER Apple announced and showed the world the iPhone January 9th 2007 at MacWorld. We can go even deeper here also. The photo above mentions that the Samsung F700 was “shown” at CeBit 2006, that is wrong it was 2007. Here is the hard proof. Here is SlashGears Vincent Nguyen live at Cebit 2007 on March 15th getting a look at the phone, at the end of the video he says an exclusive look is coming next...There is a video there of the exclusive look at it... The final version of the Samsung F700 did not reach market until December 2007....We can even go back to February 7th 2007 with iphonebuzz showing the F700, and mentioning it as a copy, and a possible competitor to the iPhone, clearly after the iPhone. When you really get down to this stories deep roots, it looks like in the beginning Apple had the design and Samsung tried to copy it, but failed miserably. —SOURCE: Androidcommunity.com "Who was really first, Apple vs Samsunt story truly debunked!
So a retraction would be in order, Sidelines... for another one of your poorly researched postings.
It's for this reason that Disney and other kids' cartoon company image holders aggressively go after Mom and Pop nursery schools that paint poor representations of the cartoon characters on the walls with cease and desist orders.
This is purely one of registered trademark and copyright. It is NOT trade dress. The generic "mouse ears" are a registered trademark of Disney; the Mickey Mouse, Goofy, and other Disney character images are protected not by trademark but by copyright. The names are protected by trademark, but the images themselves are merely protected by copyright.
Patents have been "invalidated" by allowing them to become industry standards... and thereby un-licensable.
Proof? Any case law you can point to? Because that is not true. What CAN happen is that a company implies they will let their patents be used as an industry standard without asserting their patent rights. The industry goes ahead and uses those patents - and then the company comes back and changes their mind. The judge does not invalidate the patent, but determines the patent holder - via not just willful inaction but encouragement of use without protest - in essence issued a license for use, and will usually set what the Court decides is a fair and equitable license rate.
If I have a patent (and I have several), and choose not to enforce my patent rights now, but choose to do so in the future, the Court can decide to not offer penalties and award damages for any infringing products made before I chose to assert my patent rights - but it will in no way limit my ability to assert those rights in the future.
And if the infringers can be shown to have acted in good faith (such as asking me if I would let them use my patent, and I either answer that they can use it or I don't answer at all), and have significantly invested in my patents such that loss of use would cause significant damage, then the Court can force me to negotiate in good faith for a fair and equitable license fee - but it will not invalidate my patent.
The only things that will invalidate a patent are presence of prior art, or proving to a Court and jury that my invention did not meet the standards of novel and beneficial as determined by a person skilled in the art of the field of the invention. Failing to assert patent rights does NOT invalidate a patent - ever.
As far as not asserting patent rights, and actually leading people on to use my patents and then retroactively come back and start asserting those rights, this is the very action that has much of the W3C up-in-arms with Apple, since Apple is trying this very thing. In this case, however, the W3C is being proactive and seeking to get Apple's patents invalidated for prior-art violations.
At the very minimum Apple will be forced to license those patents at an extremely low cost or possibly free since Apple was a willing participant in the HTML5 standards body and by championing its use of its own patents in what is a free standard.
At the worst, the W3C will win their case and Apple will have its patents invalidated.
Either way, it's very patent-trollish behavior...
Surprising how many non-capitalists we have on this thread ... this site.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.