Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Again Seeks Ban On 20+ Samsung Devices In US

Soulskill posted about 9 months ago | from the kicking-'em-when-they're-down dept.

Iphone 235

An anonymous reader notes that Apple has renewed its patent attack against Samsung, asking U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh to prohibit Samsung from selling over 20 different phones and tablets. Apple made a similar request after it won a $1 billion judgment in 2012, but Koh did not allow it. An Appeals court later ruled that Apple could resubmit its request if it focused on the specific features at the center of the 2012 verdict, and that's what we're seeing today. Apple's filing said, "Samsung’s claim that it has discontinued selling the particular models found to infringe or design around Apple's patents in no way diminishes Apple’s need for injunctive relief. ... Because Samsung frequently brings new products to market, an injunction is important to providing Apple the relief it needs to combat any future infringement by Samsung through products not more than colorably different from those already found to infringe."

cancel ×

235 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How about no? (5, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 9 months ago | (#45797347)

Competition is good for the market place. Apple is already doing well enough; no need to do them any favors.

Re:How about no? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797413)

This is a matter of law. Why don't we wait for the judge to determine how the law applies here?

Re:How about no? (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 months ago | (#45797463)

The law is an ass.

Re: How about no? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798767)

"The law is an ass" - Samsung

Re:How about no? (4, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 9 months ago | (#45797533)

This is Slashdot! We don't care what any silly judge says, or what the law says! We'll voice support for what we want the law to be, specially tailored to our limited knowledge of this situation, based on our own prejudices for or against the companies in question.

Re:How about no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797637)

This is Slashdot! We don't care what any silly judge says, or what the law says! We'll voice support for what we want the law to be, specially tailored to our limited knowledge of this situation, based on our own prejudices for or against the companies in question.

Oddly enough, your post is both sarcasm and truth. Go figure.

Re:How about no? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797649)

Except we already know that this was a Kangaroo court.

This patent war is a prime example of what is wrong with patents. The jury in this case decided based on one man's vendetta against Samsung. Go ahead, look it up.

You might learn something.

Re:How about no? (5, Informative)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 9 months ago | (#45798407)

Actually what I find more disturbing than a biased juror is how Obama permitted apple to sell its phones even though samsung won a ban legally, yet didn't grant the same favor to samsung in the exact same circumstances. That's pretty obvious favoritism, and unlike the biased juror, it's perfectly legal and not subject to appeal.

Re:How about no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798497)

Obama blamed Bush. Go figure...

I blame Edison myself.

Re:How about no? (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 9 months ago | (#45798797)

And the past 6 years have led you to believe that Obama is terribly concerned with the fair rule of law?

Re:How about no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798835)

Actually what I find more disturbing than a biased juror is how Obama permitted apple to sell its phones even though samsung won a ban legally, yet didn't grant the same favor to samsung in the exact same circumstances. That's pretty obvious favoritism, and unlike the biased juror, it's perfectly legal and not subject to appeal.

Because favouritism is something Korean politicians have long proven themselves incapable of.

Re:How about no? (3, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | about 9 months ago | (#45798881)

That wasn't favoritism, that was corporatism. Apple was a big donor to Obama's campaign and Samsung wasn't as big a donor.

It's no better in any form, but put the blame where the blame is due.

Re:How about no? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798967)

Nonsense. Obama is a Blackberry man. He has nothing to gain here.

Re: How about no? (-1, Troll)

iamhassi (659463) | about 9 months ago | (#45798803)

No. Patents encourage innovation, otherwise someone would come out with something great and everyone would just make clones of it, there would be nothing new. Yes samsung I'm talking about your clones, please make something new, we had new and exciting phone designs before the iPhone why can't we have that now?

Re:How about no? (2)

Servaas (1050156) | about 9 months ago | (#45797741)

And if all else fails, we have the President of the United States of America to overrule any and all legal binding verdicts!

Re:How about no? (2)

msauve (701917) | about 9 months ago | (#45797801)

"We don't care what any silly judge says, or what the law says! "

It's good that you differentiated between the two, since they're oft times different.

Re:How about no? (4, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | about 9 months ago | (#45798193)

This particular judge disallowed Samsung from showing the jury its prior art [arstechnica.net] (phones that it had in the design pipeline before the iPhone was announced) because the Samsung lawyers missed a filing deadline [arstechnica.com] . She let the letter of the law (a filing deadline) override the intent of the law (to get to the truth of the matter).

Apple's tablet infringement claims were thrown out because of the copious amounts of prior art which the jury saw. The $1 billion judgement likely would've been thrown out too if they'd seen Samsung was working on iPhone-like designs before anyone outside Apple even knew what an iPhone was. In this particular case, the prejudice is in the jury, not the general public which got to see the documents the judge disallowed because of a technicality.

Re: How about no? (0)

iamhassi (659463) | about 9 months ago | (#45798903)

Nice "prior art" you have there, of course you're comparing a list of samsung design concepts from 2006 to the actual iPhone released 2007. Journalist had predicted Apple was releasing a phone for years and released artist concept photos, it would take nothing for Samsung to claim those were their design. This is what Samsung smartphones looked like in 2006. [slashgear.com]

Um, no. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797651)

This "is a matter of law" only when law is on Apple's side. When Samsung got some of their devices blocked at ITC, they just came to Obama crying and Obama administration overturned ruling by decree. For me it's plain corruption, not a matter of law. Apple is a parasite who abuses laws when it suits them and using political connections to ignore laws when it works against them.

Re:Um, no. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797985)

So, no different than any other mega-corporation, then.

Re:Um, no. (5, Insightful)

pablo_max (626328) | about 9 months ago | (#45798677)

Perhaps not. But who gives a fuck if Samsung hides from taxes in Korea. The US is not in Korea last time I looked.
But, your buddies at Apple hide out in Ireland and pay only a tiny percentage of taxes they otherwise would. Meanwhile, we are firing teachers left and right. We cannot afford to fix our roads and bridges. But no, lets help companies like Apple and GE make insane profits operating in our society, while they contribute almost nothing back to it.

Re:Um, no. (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 9 months ago | (#45798897)

You think Samsung doesn't owe taxes in the US as well? How do you imagine they manage to do profitable business in the US without owing taxes?

Don't you understand that just as Apple owe taxes in the EU, Samsung owe taxes in the US?

Or you think Samsung pays all that they should in the US, and doesn't do everything that they can to avoid paying, the same as every other multinational corporation?

Re:Um, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798013)

Even assuming that's an accurate assessment, which is debatable at best, you say that like Samsung is entitled to benefit from that because Samsung isn't a parasite who abuses laws when it suits them and using political connections to ignore laws when it works against them. Regardless of your personal device preferences, that is something you cannot even pretend to be true, given Samsung's history and conduct.

Re:How about no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797709)

The judge *always* sides with Apple on US soil, and allows them to block evidence of Apple's claims being invalid because they were not presented at the right time, let alone the massive issue of Apple obtaining Sony's blueprints for a touch screen smartphone long before Apple had even considered that formfactor.

You can be sure the current gay CEO and medical queue jumping doctor bribing deceased CEO has done enough lobbying to protect their interests and stifle competition.

Re:How about no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797971)

"The" law? You mean the stuff written by the powerful and bought by the rich?

Re:How about no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798091)

This is a dispute between two rich, powerful corporations. I don't see how your snark applies.

Re:How about no? (1)

pablo_max (626328) | about 9 months ago | (#45798627)

Oh you mean like the ITC banned Apple products the president overturned it, stating that such bans should not happen, but then a similar Samsung ban happened and the president said nothing?
Yeah, the legal system works a treat in the US. No protectionism there at all.
1 billion for look and feel pattens. Things where were NEVER intended to be patented. Only in the USA.

Re:How about no? (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 9 months ago | (#45798873)

You know who appeals to "the law"? Assholes, that's who.

Right and wrong are different from "the law". Usually they line up pretty well, but in this case the law is wrong (none of Apple's patents are novel) so to appeal to it as the ultimate authority is ridiculous.

<Godwin>Asshole in 1940's Germany: Well, I hate killing people as much as the next guy but why don't we go ahead and follow the law here and throw these human beings in these overns.</Godwin>

Re:How about no? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 9 months ago | (#45798933)

You know who appeals to "the law"? Assholes, that's who.

You have some insightful and sophisticated ideas. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:How about no? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797621)

Competition is even better when it's real competition, and one company doesn't spend billions on development and design, and another just makes a knockoff and sells it.

It's up to the reader to decide which is Samsung and which is Apple, but the court already decided.

Re:How about no? (1)

mikael (484) | about 9 months ago | (#45798117)

Sometimes it's just a random evolutionary combination of features. Some mobile phones have a high performance GPU,others just offer basic graphics. Other have a stereoscopic cameras that can make 3D movies, others don't. Some have a super-large screen that just does basic 2D, others have the parallax view 3D screen. Others have a secondary camera. Then there's battery life, memory size, the shape and color of the case. Some colors go with certain applications and markets. Customers will view certain combinations as "too girly". As all the different components have different prices, the price/performance ratio can vary.

Re:How about no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797931)

If this was a ban on Apple, Slashdot would be giddy with "couldn't have happened to a better company, they deserve it" drivel.

Re:How about no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798021)

If it was Apple, we would just think "Karma, bitches."

I already have an import ban on all things Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797941)

I am not going to buy another piece of Apple equipment and last year I declared my very
own personal import ban on these products. The reasons for the ban is poor over-all
durability of anything Apple merchandise, the inability of Apple to patch their broken graphics
driver on my previous then still under-warranty(!) Macbook Pro. the fact that they are moving
OSX towards a mandatory App store and their totally over the top pricing. I'm typing on my
last macbook air here ever... and it's a $1200 value that sold for $2200 .. I guess I was that
stupid once, but not anymore.

Big pile 'o Nope (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 9 months ago | (#45798383)

the fact that they are moving
OSX towards a mandatory App store

All they did, a few versions ago, is allow developers to sign apps, and distribute through the app store - they have made ZERO moves since then towards a "mandatory" app store.

If you think allowing developers to sign applications and having the OS ask before running anything unsigned (note that does NOT mean from the app store) is bad then you have not seen the average person's computer.

and their totally over the top pricing.

You mean like pricing a Mac Pro $2k less than you can buy the individual parts for it?

I'm typing on my
last macbook air here ever... and it's a $1200 value that sold for $2200

And how much do you think a PC is worth after a year?

Good luck with the switch but the grass is pretty much DEAD on the other side of the lawn.

Re:Big pile 'o Nope (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 9 months ago | (#45798863)

You mean like pricing a Mac Pro $2k less than you can buy the individual parts for it?

In the last 10 years that is the one example of decent pricing you can give for Apple. In just about every other case Apple's markup over the industry baseline has been about 100%. Asus has a $1000 premium laptop? Apple sells the exact same specs for $2000.

And how much do you think a PC is worth after a year?

"Brand appeal" may explain insane resell value, but it doesnt justify it.

Good luck with the switch but the grass is pretty much DEAD on the other side of the lawn.

Ah, right, because all I have to do is plunk down several thousand dollars and Ill be in Apple nirvana, until the next time I need to upgrade. No thanks, Ill stick with my 8-core / 32GB desktop / lab which I built for $550. Windows 8 is annoying, but its not "thousands of dollars" annoying. Must be nice to have that kind of disposable income though.

Re:Big pile 'o Nope (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 9 months ago | (#45798955)

You mean like pricing a Mac Pro $2k less than you can buy the individual parts for it?

Lol, you're Captain Current Events. I saw those articles too, but I realized instantly they were asinine. This is like saying the Chevy Volt was a steal at $50k because it would cost you at least $10M to build your own from scratch.

Good luck with the switch but the grass is pretty much DEAD on the other side of the lawn.

Better to frolic in (lol) DEAD grass than drink rotten kool-aid.

Re:How about no? (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 9 months ago | (#45798333)

Competition is good. Copying is not. That's why copyright (and to a certain extent patents) exist.

Otherwise if you spend $10 million developing something, and anyone can steal it in an hour - no-one is going to spend $10 million to develop something again.

Also, selling something that looks almost exactly someone else's product hurts everyone, because it confuses consumers.

Re:How about no? (2)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 9 months ago | (#45798975)

Nobody stole anything, that's just Apple FUD. It's amusing you think developing those phones took "an hour" for Samsung and Google.

20+ devices (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797349)

I'd also seek a ban on that. Seriously. Start simplifying your fucking product portfolio instead of having this dumb-ass shotgun approach to the market.

Re:20+ devices (3, Informative)

Tr3vin (1220548) | about 9 months ago | (#45797417)

They aren't all "current-gen" devices. In fact, a number of the devices that are to be banned are not even sold anymore.

Re:20+ devices (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 9 months ago | (#45797421)

How about we let the market decide instead of lawyers?

Re:20+ devices (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798061)

Because that would be a free market approach, and my fellow Americans do not like the free market.

Re:20+ devices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798945)

Because under that principle, the company that actually spends on research and development loses. Companies that are the engineering equivalent of a photocopier would have much less expense, and would be able to sell their equal product for cheaper than the ones that actually develop the technology to begin with.

A more nuanced approach is necessary.

Stop shotgun approach: Uh, why? (4, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | about 9 months ago | (#45797513)

I think you're misunderstanding why this is done this way.
You have multiple devices partly due to having multiple, mutually exclusive carriers.

In addition, you may have a couple tiers of products, as not everyone is going to go for the Uber-'spensive top end device.

Their approach allows them to hit multiple carriers at multiple price points.

On top of that, having multiple offerings means they have a better chance of finding the devices people want and then slimming down their offering portfolio later, as they refine the devices that people are buying and abandon the ones that don't sell and finding a way to roll any possible unique/desirable features down into other devices.

Apple gets away with "You will fit your lifestyle to what we offer you. And LIKE IT!". They get away with it because they're Apple and people know that they're expected to put up with Apple's crazy bullshit for "teh schmexy".

For people who refuse to be cookie cutter'ed (see "sane people"), there's a plethora of choices and you can pick the one that intersects someplace acceptable along your "needs" and "budget limits" lines.

Re:Stop shotgun approach: Uh, why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797625)

no sorry, no one buys your bollox. it stinks of GNU/Daddy attitude. apple doesn't force people to buy their products any less than samsung does. go back into your mom's basement now. shoo.

Re:Stop shotgun approach: Uh, why? (2)

Raistlin77 (754120) | about 9 months ago | (#45798035)

I think you're misunderstanding why this is done this way.
You have multiple devices partly due to having multiple, mutually exclusive carriers.

Apple does the same. Apple makes different versions of the iPhone and iPad to work with all carriers that currently offer and/or support those devices.

In addition, you may have a couple tiers of products, as not everyone is going to go for the Uber-'spensive top end device.

Their approach allows them to hit multiple carriers at multiple price points.

Currently available iPhone models:
iPhone 4s (8GB) (black, white)
iPhone 5c (16GB, 32GB) (white, pink, yellow, blue, green)
iPhone 5s (16GB, 32GB, 64GB) (silver, space gray, gold)

Currently available iPad models:
iPad Mini (16GB) (WiFi, WiFi + Cellular)
iPad Mini w/ Retina (16GB, 32GB, 64GB, 128GB) (WiFi, WiFi + Cellular)
iPad 2 (16GB) (WiFi, WiFi + Cellular)
iPad Air (16GB, 32GB, 64GB, 128GB) (WiFi, WiFi + Cellular)

Total product variations listed above: 41

i-device price ranges:
iPhone: Free-$849 (includes carrier subsidized and unlocked options)
iPad: $299-$929

On top of that, having multiple offerings means they have a better chance of finding the devices people want and then slimming down their offering portfolio later, as they refine the devices that people are buying and abandon the ones that don't sell and finding a way to roll any possible unique/desirable features down into other devices.

Apple has already done this - everything they make sells, and sells good. You mean to bash Apple, but really you're just praising them.

Apple gets away with "You will fit your lifestyle to what we offer you. And LIKE IT!". They get away with it because they're Apple and people know that they're expected to put up with Apple's crazy bullshit for "teh schmexy".

One word: TouchWiz

For people who refuse to be cookie cutter'ed (see "sane people"), there's a plethora of choices and you can pick the one that intersects someplace acceptable along your "needs" and "budget limits" lines.

By your logic, the only "sane people" then are those that create their own phones. You're an idiot if you think Samsung's, or any other electronics maker's products, are any less cookie-cutter influenced than Apple's products.

Re:Stop shotgun approach: Uh, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798405)

"Apple gets away with "You will fit your lifestyle to what we offer you. And LIKE IT!". They get away with it because they're Apple and people know that they're expected to put up with Apple's crazy bullshit for "teh schmexy"."

Wow, so full of himself... Doesn't it feel the least stupid and arrogant to, behind the comfort of your keyboard, second-guess the reasons and motivations of MILLIONS of customers' electronics purchases all over the world just with the wave of your hand? You somehow perfectly fit the description of an ignorant "no one fools me" type of person.

COLD_FJORD IS A NAZI BOOTLICKER (-1, Troll)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 9 months ago | (#45797357)

cold_fjord likes to lick nazi assholes

Apple is a terrorist. (4, Funny)

jedidiah (1196) | about 9 months ago | (#45797363)

Apple is a terrorist asking for the suspension of basic civil liberties just to suit their own bottom line. If there are other devices that "infringe on their rights", they need to go through the complete process to ban those. They should not get a free pass on due process. If they want to be anti-competitive jackasses, they need to follow the rule of law while doing it.

Re: Apple is a terrorist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797629)

When was the last time any consumer, anywhere in the world, was severely affected by any of this litigation? A few Germans have slightly wonky email access at the moment. RIM customers had a slightly rocky month or two several years back, after RIM stupidly let a jury dictate things. And, um, that's about it. All these stories amount to nothing more than what number one side has to write on the check it sends to the other side.

Re: Apple is a terrorist. (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 9 months ago | (#45797675)

Who do you think pays off the amount on that cheque? The crap Apple (and others) pull is anti-competitive and anti-consumer.

Re: Apple is a terrorist. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797745)

Seriously. Give me a break. They're all doing it to each other -- it's a downward spiral in which if companies don't sue each other, they're not playing the game by the rules as they are right now. Samsung is every bit as bad or worse than apple in the same arena.

Re: Apple is a terrorist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797773)

Apple is the number one target/victim for this crap, don't just fixate on the stories posted on Slashdot. Patent trolls aim at whoever has a lot of cash on hand, and Apple has a lot of that obviously. Yes, Apple has often been the aggressor as well, but that's par for the course in the Fortune 500.

Re: Apple is a terrorist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798047)

LoL @ Apple being a victim. Their business practices are reason number one why the arena has become so bloody. If they occasionally -- and let's be honest here: that's occasionally -- get bashed in the face, then that's just karma paying them a visit.

Re: Apple is a terrorist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798223)

Reason #1 is USA patent law. Any particular corporation or legal firm is a distant #2 at best.

Re: Apple is a terrorist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798417)

That's the method; not the reason. It's not the pipe's fault that somebody used it to bludgeon another person -- the weapon is not the reason; it's the method. While it certainly doesn't help things to have all these pipes laying around, the blunt instrument that is patent law doesn't go around filing frivolous lawsuits of its own accord.

Re:Apple is a terrorist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797807)

Apple is a terrorist? Puhleeze. Until the iPhone came along, every high-end cell phone had clunky keyboards and crappy displays, and looked like plastic garbage. After the iPhone came along, phones started looking like, well, like iPhones! The copycat actions of Google and Samsung to imitate the iPhone are transparent and egregious.

Let Google and Samsung do something original for once. (This is one time I applaud Microsoft - at least their phone shows some original thought.) In the meantime, Apple is right to be defending its product designs.

And no, I don't own an iPhone - I have no particular need for one. My LG flip phone predates the iPhone by years. Nor do I own Apple stock. I do, however, admire good, original design.

Re:Apple is a terrorist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798131)

Yes, once it was apparent that consumers desired pocket-sized phones with touch-based interfaces, such phones became commonplace. That's just good business sense: give your customers what they want. And that is what Apple wants exclusive rights on: the ability to address consumer demand.

Re:Apple is a terrorist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798229)

And no, I don't own an iPhone - I have no particular need for one. My LG flip phone predates the iPhone by years. Nor do I own Apple stock. I do, however, admire good, original design.

Apple admires good, original design as well. That's why they steal it. And then sue others for "infringing" on it.

Re:Apple is a terrorist. (5, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | about 9 months ago | (#45798595)

Apple did not invent what we now call the smartphone. The iPhone merely has the distinction of being the first really popular such device.

IBM came out with their touch-based "Simon" phone in 1993, which although it had a black-and-white screen and lacked multitouch capabilities, still had many of the features we associate with smartphones today. Users dialed with a onscreen keypad, and Simon included a calendar, address book, can be understood alarm clock, and e-mail functionality.

A Swedish company, Neonode, came out with a touch screen phone in 2003 (arguably unimaginatively named the N1m) that even utilized gestures, including the now very familiar "slide to unlock" functionality... which so many people associate with the iPhone these days (although in actuality, the intuitiveness of slide-to-unlock gesture is really quite obvious when you compare such an operation to that of sliding a deadbolt open).

But arguably neither of these phones looked a lot like the iPhone... But this in no small part because technology really needed to catch up to the concept. Nonetheless, if you look at pictures of either of those devices, especially in operation, you will probably recognize many familiar concepts which we now come to expect in a smartphone today.

Enter the LG Prada, in 2006, a fully multitouch smartphone unveiled not that long before Apple publicly unveiled the iPhone, and which looks so similar to the iPhone that LG actually accused Apple of copying *THEM* (although in actuality, their release dates were near enough to each other that it is unlikely that either had had any significant influence on the other).

So perhaps, instead of anyone copying anybody else, smartphones look and operate the way they do because it is a design that comes spontaneously from a combination of the evolution of technology, intuitive operation, and overall practicality... not, as you put it, imitation that is both "transparent and egregious"

Re:Apple is a terrorist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798789)

May I tell you about the LG Prada, the iPhone was a rip off of that phone crossbreeded with a Sony prototype

eh ? (4, Insightful)

Pop69 (700500) | about 9 months ago | (#45797373)

Apple want an injunction to ban the import of future devices that the court hasn't found to be infringing?

How does that work ?

Re:eh ? (1)

scuzzlebutt (517123) | about 9 months ago | (#45797599)

Guessing as a punitive measure.

Re:eh ? (1)

TheBlueCrab (801925) | about 9 months ago | (#45797677)

They want an injunction to ban the devices the court found to be infringing. They could then use that to argue in a future case that new devices are essentially the same as the old devices (thus still infringing the same patents) and use that to support a new injunction banning the newer devices.

Re:eh ? (2, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 9 months ago | (#45797699)

Since they seem to be able to have the President waive their own bans, I can't see why they wouldn't ask for pretty much anything that would make them happy. There's quite obviously some biased process in place.

Re:eh ? (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 9 months ago | (#45797895)

How does that work ?

Corporatism/fascism [econlib.org] . Oh, wait, you mean that rhetorically, didn't you?

Re:eh ? (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 9 months ago | (#45798019)

preemptive war, its something we do.

Just stop (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797411)

Just stop selling electronics to the US. Prohibit all export from Asia. The dollar won't be worth anything soon anyway and the US will never pay back is debts. Don't do business with dishonest people.

Re:Just stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797683)

HAMMER TIME!!!

Re:Just stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797737)

Samsung: Can't touch this

captcha: rounded

...not more than colorably different... (4, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 9 months ago | (#45797447)

LOL. This from a company that uses rounded corners as a patentable way to differentiate themselves from the rest of the market. By that light, being a different color sounds like "innovation" to me ;)

Re:...not more than colorably different... (2)

MrCoke (445461) | about 9 months ago | (#45797585)

Design patents are real, we have to deal with them. I'm surprised of the constant bickering about this on ./ . Classic industry is using them for decades (easiest example: cars). IT is catching up.

Doesn't mean I like or endorse the concept of design patents though.

Re:...not more than colorably different... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797763)

I'm surprised of the constant bickering about this on ./
 
Really? You're surprised about this kind of thinking from a crowd that thinks if something costs more than they want to pay for it that it's ok just to take it instead? Wow. You've been asleep.

Re:...not more than colorably different... (3, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 9 months ago | (#45797867)

If the current patent mess had been in place when cars were first industrialized, one automaker would have had the patent on the gas pedal, another on brake lights, another on the turn signal lever, and still another on windshield wipers. They could all either cross-license each other's "IP", or invent a totally different way to do trivially simple operations. The Apple (or Amazon) of the day would have been claiming rights to the concept of "internal combustion". Of course, cell-phones have to interoperate with towers and other infrastructure, so there's really only ONE way to do certain things...

Re:...not more than colorably different... (1)

sribe (304414) | about 9 months ago | (#45797681)

LOL. This from a company that uses rounded corners as a patentable way to differentiate themselves from the rest of the market. By that light, being a different color sounds like "innovation" to me ;)

Was that sarcasm? It didn't sound like it. So, learn to use a dictionary, start with the word "colorable"...

Re:...not more than colorably different... (2)

S.O.B. (136083) | about 9 months ago | (#45798169)

Was that sarcasm? It didn't sound like it. So, learn to use a dictionary, start with the word "colorable"...

I believe it's "colourable".

Re:...not more than colorably different... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798673)

What do you expect?

From yet again the same company that made a HUGE deal about releasing colored iPhones.

Third times the charm? (1)

DiEx-15 (959602) | about 9 months ago | (#45797589)

Great. Another attempt by Apple to squash Samsung. What is this? Their third time? I lost count.

You know, you are making it increasingly difficult to like you Apple.

Poor Apple. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797593)

Poor Apple. They just can't compete in a market that doesn't care about status symbols as much as basic functionality. Their only recourse, rather than making better products, is to keep others from making them, thus forcing users to pay more for less. So much for that little company seeing themselves as heros fighting against Big Brother in television ads, you're just another bully fighting over the mass market carcass now. You've fallen so far you're making Samsung look like David.

Re:Poor Apple. (3, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | about 9 months ago | (#45797669)

The top end Samsung devices are status symbols as well.

iPhones are ubiquitous. At a glance, people can't tell one from another, especially once they're in their protective case.

Phones are like watches. Gotta have a big one.

Re:Poor Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797883)

Damn, I only use the clock on my phone and don't have a watch.

Re:Poor Apple. (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 9 months ago | (#45798829)

I can tell the difference, even in their cases, the iphones are absolutely tiny

Re: Poor Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797821)

This isn't about competing, it's simply about finding another revenue stream.

Re:Poor Apple. (1)

mikael (484) | about 9 months ago | (#45798261)

That's what they were used to doing. Waiting for technology to advance in several generations in every aspect of computer technology, so they could combine them together and have a completely new, unique and distinctive product that no-one had seen before. Just about every creative person dreams of doing that. When it was Apple vs. Microsoft/Intel, they only had to worry about the OS and CPU, desktop cases were more or less the same; gray box under the monitor.or mini-tower unit.

The shrinking size of components let them design new and distinctive looking cases. But when you have new Android systems being rolled out every quarter at all market levels from wearable devices to netbooks, that becomes impossible for them. So the only option is to take legal action.

Current patent system is crazy (4, Insightful)

spike6479 (205716) | about 9 months ago | (#45797639)

If we had the same crazy patent environment when cars were being developed, every car would have a different way to control it. Patents should protect true invention for a relatively short period of time to allow the inventor to capitalize on his work. Now they are just barriers to keep the markets closed. Big companies cross license patents to keep their monopolies.

Re:Current patent system is crazy (1)

ISayWeOnlyToBePolite (721679) | about 9 months ago | (#45797983)

Cars actually did have diffrent ways to control them. The steeringwheel and clutch, brake, throttle pedal setup is standard now, but that hasn't always been the case.

Re:Current patent system is crazy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45798315)

If we had the same crazy patent environment when cars were being developed, every car would have a different way to control it.

Well, that's pretty much exactly what DID happen. Early patented automotive technologies required competitors to try different ways of solving the problems, and sometimes that resulted in better solutions, which is partly the point of a patent system.

Control layout is not a good example from a patent perspective, since the patents were on individual elements, but it is a good illustration of your being misguided as to what technology development was like at the time. The first car with recognizably modern controls was the Cadillac Type 53 in 1916, which did not use the same control layout the Model T did when it was introduced almost a decade earlier, let alone designs from overseas. Other car companies copied this layout, but not overnight, and it wasn't until the 1930s that it became the de facto standard (or right around the time the patent would have expired anyway, had the layout itself been patented). At the time, there were plenty of other patents to contend with, and plenty of companies working around patents or seeking ways to improve and differentiate themselves.

Tens of thousands of patents brought early cars to the form we recognize today, and ultimately it was the lack of differentiation that killed the diversity of automakers, while patented technologies in cars are a prime case study in how the patent system can be used effectively to promote innovation.

Patents should protect true invention for a relatively short period of time to allow the inventor to capitalize on his work.

They do just that.

You're looking at a mature industry without historical context. Mobile is the wild west right now, but eventually it'll mature just like desktop computers and automobiles.

Big companies cross license patents to keep their monopolies.

If there is an opportunity and a benefit to cross-license, then by definition they don't have monopolies. Cross-licensing is a good thing. It's why we have standards and scales down prices of goods because multiple companies aren't stuck reinventing the wheel. Like anything else, it is subject to abuse, but there is literally nothing ever created by man that cannot be or has not been abused.

Re:Current patent system is crazy (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 9 months ago | (#45798669)

The thing you're missing out on is timeline. Checking wikipedia, modern cars were invented in 1886. Henry Ford started producing model Ts in the 1910s.

Over the course of the last 130 years patents haven't hurt cars in the slightest.

The key is that patents take a very long view of things. In 100 years your tablet will use technology from Apple that is long expired.

Swinging for the fence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45797765)

As you can see, we feel our competition should be banned from competing. Oh no? Well hey we had to try.

So Apple, you want these devices banned... (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 9 months ago | (#45797887)

A lot of these devices are older and not even sold anymore. There are also a lot already on the street. If Apple really wants these evil patent infringing devices off of the street, then they should offer an official free trade in program. Perhaps at least people with the older phones would take advantage, and then only if it doesn't reset their upgrade cycle.

I have a better idea (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 9 months ago | (#45798073)

How about Apple just cut their stock price in half right now and skip the whole legal battle. Then they can focus on shooting themselves in the foot, making their products worse, and pissing off their customers.

Dear Al Quaeda (4, Funny)

PortHaven (242123) | about 9 months ago | (#45798421)

Do the world some good, next time, target the U.S. Patent Office, Mosanto, and the Federal Reserve.

It'll be extremely awkward, we'll find it so hard to hate you. It'll be like the time the KKK counter-protested Westboro Baptists leaving us all going WTF, how did we wind up on the same side of the line as those !@#$s

Re:Dear Al Quaeda (2)

PortHaven (242123) | about 9 months ago | (#45798461)

Crap, this post is going to cause all my internet connections to slow down (work, home and cell). Hate when the NSA can't take a joke.

There is a simple solution (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 9 months ago | (#45798445)

The Judge should rule, not only against Samsung, but every other device manufacturer. The end result, since all fucking phones are squar'ish. All smartphones by all manufacturers will be banned. Apple will be the sole seller of smartphones in the U.S.

Then, we turn around, sued Apple for a monopoly and break it into 20 separate companies that will spend the next 50 years reunifying.

We need Groklaw back... (1)

Jorgensen (313325) | about 9 months ago | (#45798489)

This sort of news *really* makes me miss PJ of Groklaw fame :-( - I have no doubt she could provide good insights and interpretations of what goes on...

Why does it even matter? (1)

cephus440 (828210) | about 9 months ago | (#45798605)

The US (327,577,529) is such a small market compared to China (1,206,553,000) and India (867,800,000). Unless Apple has such a markup to US customers in comparison to the rest of the world (where it sells), it would make little sense to block competition from the US market.

Re:Why does it even matter? (1)

cephus440 (828210) | about 9 months ago | (#45798663)

Samsung could just say, "Fine, have the US market and their patent laws. We'll drop the price, take market share in the rest of the world, and the citizens will cry monopoly to get Apply out or buy unlocked phones from overseas."

Jesus H. Christ... (1)

jddeluxe (965655) | about 9 months ago | (#45798691)

Not this shit again....

The hammer is coming down (1)

Reliable Windmill (2932227) | about 9 months ago | (#45798891)

I suspect most of these bans will be put in place. The hammer has started coming down on foreign tech, because U.S gov wants that flow of money into its own economy. U.S gov will leverage its power for the wider adoption of U.S based products and services both inside and outside of the U.S. The goal is to control and own as much of the global money flow as possible. The trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific "partnerships" only aim to increase the strength and market share of U.S based companies, services and products, and through its companies the U.S gov can leverage its politics. The ultimate is when U.S gov through Monsanto (which through the Monsanto Protection Act has now effectively become an extension of the government) can control the production and supply of food to any country in the world as a means of political control.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?