Apple has again been denied a permanent injunction on Samsung products that infringe on its smartphone patents, reports Bloomberg. Judge Lucy Koh today rejected Apple's plea for a sales ban on nine different Samsung devices involved in the second Apple vs. Samsung patent infringement trial.
According to Koh, Apple did not demonstrate irreparable harm in the form of lost sales, despite efforts to target specific infringing features on the Samsung devices.
/article-new/2013/10/apple_samsung_logos.jpg?lossy)
"Apple has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating irreparable harm and linking that harm to Samsung's exploitation of any of Apple's three infringed patents," the judge wrote. "Apple has not established that it suffered significant harm in the form of either lost sales or reputational injury."
Earlier this year, a jury ruled that Samsung had willfully infringed on three Apple patents, ordering the company to pay $119.6 million in damages. Devices involved in the lawsuit included the Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note II, and Galaxy Tab 10.1.
The $119.6 million that Samsung owes from the second trial is in addition to the damages awarded to Apple in the original Apple vs. Samsung trial, which added up to approximately $890 million after a recalculation.
Apple and Samsung agreed to end their non-U.S. patent disputes in early August, but their battle in the United States is ongoing despite efforts to find "common ground."
Top Rated Comments
(View all)Lucy Koh is of Korean descent, and Scamsung is Korean, doesn't that create potential conflict of interest? I ask because it seems many of Koh's judgements and rulings in Apple & Scamsung trials, that are pro-Scamsung, are very questionable.
I'm cranky today, so watch out :)1. People who use silly nicknames don't come off as very mature. Especially when it's not even anything original.
2. Koh was born in Washington DC and raised in Oklahoma. Where were you born, and what's your ancestry?
3. Koh's court is in California. So is Apple HQ. If anything, that's been seen as a much bigger conflict of interest.
Koh has had little choice in these injunction rulings. Higher courts than hers have both given strict precedents to follow, and have knocked down her previous rulings for not obeying those precedents. She had to what she did.
If you're looking for less defendable rulings, look at her Samsung decisions. From blocking prior art evidence, to issuing a preliminary injunction on their tablets that later turned out to be incorrect according to the jury, to not throwing out the first jury verdict after it became clear the jury didn't even bother to read her instructions, she has often sided with Apple, and against Samsung, where it really hurt the most.
All Apple really needs from this kind of patent defense is to make sure their reputation is NOT that copying Apple is easy. That Apple WILL cause you hassle, win or lose, so think carefully before embarking on that strategy. Apple will always be a target of copiers, but they don't want to be a soft target.
And that's good for all of us: the less Samsung/others copy Apple, the more REAL choice and innovation we would get.
That would make a welcome update! They've been using the 2008 iPhone 3G styling (http://electronicsintocash.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/All-white-3G-3GS--1024x768.jpg) for far too long!
And Apple will always copy others as well...
----------
Find a better link. Every item in that particular list has been debunked.
I love your posts, every time someone attempts to re-write history on how Apple behaved and what it does/ did, you come and slam dunk them back into reality! Love it :D
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/09/28/no-comment-proof-that-samsung-shamelessly-copies-apple/
Find a better link. Every item in that particular list has been debunked.(P.S. Anyone who wants to parrot the old Xerox story should look up what Apple actually added--all the things you THINK those old Xerox screenshots could do, but they could not. Then look up that Apple paid Xerox. I know there are trolls itching to parrot what was fun to bring up in the 90s :) )
Pretty sleazy to pre-paint anyone who corrects you as a troll.Apple didn't pay Xerox anything. Xerox invested in Apple.
Apple never got permission to copy what Xerox had done. Not even in the later trial could they produce such a license.
Apple's Lisa UI, before going to Xerox, was keyboard driven. That they added more UI features later on, does not change the fact that their switch to a GUI was hugely driven by what they saw at Xerox in late 1979:
Source please. At least name one U.S. politician who has been bought out.
Oh, you think Apple will stop copying at some point? Interesting. I hope so too.----------
No.
----------
Exactly. Short-term, yeah consumers benefit more if a company suddenly gets ripped off and has to compete more. But if they stop trying to make new things because they think that will happen, consumers lose big time, as do the corporations and their employees.