Developments continue in the wide-ranging patent dispute between Apple and Samsung, with judges in both the United States and the Netherlands making statements in favor of Apple although questions still remain.
/article-new/2011/06/samsung_logo.jpg?lossy){kind=logo}
Reuters reports that U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh yesterday ruled that Samsung's Galaxy Tab devices do infringe upon Apple's iPad patents, but noted that Apple must still show that its patents are valid in order for any action to be taken against Samsung. Koh repeatedly cited the distinct similarities between the iPad and the Galaxy Tab, even challenging Samsung's lawyers to differentiate between the two products.
Koh frequently remarked on the similarity between each company's tablets. At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.
"Not at this distance your honor," said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away.
"Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?" Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.
Meanwhile, Reuters also reports that a Dutch judge has denied Samsung's request for an injunction barring sales of Apple's iOS devices utilizing 3G technology. Counterclaims by Apple were also denied, with each party ordered to pay the other's court costs.
According to NU.nl, the judge indicated that the 3G patents cited by Samsung cover essential technologies that must be licensed under FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms, but the terms Samsung had reportedly proposed to Apple were seen as high enough that they were not compliant with FRAND requirements.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)To be fair I doubt Samsungs lawyers give a toss about the tablets. They are just there to win and paid.
The point here is that the average user cannot tell the difference, therefor copying is clearly evident - which is the point of the lawsuit to begin with....1. samsung is ripping off apple
2. samsung is trying to bully apple with their 3G patents
and yet its the apple that gets the most flak :confused:
Correction as per the response to my post:
It all starts with management. The lawyers simply do their bidding, which is in general true of retained lawyers.
To be fair I doubt Samsungs lawyers give a toss about the tablets. They are just there to win and get paid.
This case is about whether an ordinary consumer could be confused by similarities between an iPad and a Samsung tablet. A well-prepared Samsung lawyer should be able to keep them apart from two hundred yards away, blindfolded, or he isn't doing his job and should be fired on the spot.I'm not agreeing with either side (as I haven't read enough about the patents in question), but if someone was to pick up two similarly sized black HP/Compaq/Dell laptops or black Sony/Samsung/Toshiba TVs, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart from 10 feet.
Owning a Samsung TV, I can say that it looks definitely different from a Sony TV (haven't ever looked at Toshiba closely). Different enough that a Samsung lawyer should recognise it from quite a distance.And held above head height, I doubt most people would be able to distinguish between the two devices.
Exactly Apple's point.Hardly a scientific or legally valid test.
It's not whether you can distinguish between them. If a friend visits you with an iPad shortly before your birthday, and you tell your mother that you would like an iPad just like that for your birthday, what are the chances that she would buy the wrong one for you? Or if your mother watched you using your iPad and tried it, and she goes to a store to buy one for herself? If she goes to a Sony store, and the Sony salespeople convince her that the Sony tablet, which looks very much different to her, will serve her just as well or better than an iPad, and she buys it, that's proper competition. But if she buys a Samsung tablet _thinking_ that she is getting an iPad, that is a rip-off.The point here is that the average user cannot tell the difference, therefor copying is clearly evident - which is the point of the lawsuit to begin with....
I'm not agreeing with either side (as I haven't read enough about the patents in question), but if someone was to pick up two similarly sized black HP/Compaq/Dell laptops or black Sony/Samsung/Toshiba TVs, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart from 10 feet.Not sure why tablets should be the unique flower here, but I'd be happy to be corrected by someone with more knowledge of the lawsuit(s).
Not only is Samsung starting to lose (or at best "tie") these battles in courts all over the globe - but they have pissed off Apple.
Samsung makes memory and processing chips. Apple was Samsung's largest customer. Apple has already started shifting to other vendors, and ultimately Samsung is going to lose significantly more than they stood to gain by suing Apple.
Samsung cut off their nose with no consideration for their face...
----------
To be fair an average person compares TV's in stores as well with the TV's being labeled.
The Lawyer was not in a situation that an average person would be in. He was 10 feet away from both devices. OF COURSE you wouldn't be able to see the difference.
My brand new LG TV and my year old LG TV both have nicely visible "LG" logos on the front. Even though there are only so many ways you can style a TV and they all kind of look alike, LG made a bezel that was styled in a particular way to call out the TV as an LG.
Samsung could have done so with their bezel. They could slap a nice prominent Samsung logo and maybe change the color fade or style just enough. But they didn't. They released the tablet looking *exactly* like an iPad.
Sony, Microsoft, Motorola, Amazon - they would all sue anyone who did the same to them. In fact, if you made a tablet and a company made one that looked exactly like yours - you would sue them too.
Apple is not the bad guy here, no kool-aid needed.
Samsung could have altered one of a hundred design considerations and prevented this whole mess. They didn't.