Apple loses again

[s44]

This time where it counts, in the USA.

Given that the only claim that's gotten real traction is the one based on the EU's crazy "community design" scam (not, as far as I know, actual patents), it looks like this particular branch of the Jobs mandate to sue Android out of existence isn't going anywhere.


I locked yesterday's Apple/Android lawsuit thread and I was tempted to lock this thread as a duplicate of the other community design thread, but community design is in the EU, and this is the US so I guess I'll leave it alone. I would request that the discussion remain civil and respectful.

Moderator PM

 

[gevorg]

LOL, those 2D semi-static screens with app icons is so 2007. Time to innovate Apple.

 

[Zaap]

It is funny how the comparison pictures always show the app drawer of the Samsung phone as if that was the main UI.

The actual interface makes much better use of screen real estate than just a boring grid of icons:

Oh but wait, the icons along the bottom are square! Apple must own square icons.

 

[makken]

looks like its just the injunction that was denied. The actual trial hasn't been decided yet.

 

[WelshBloke]

It is funny how the comparison pictures always show the app drawer of the Samsung phone as if that was the main UI.

The actual interface makes much better use of screen real estate than just a boring grid of icons:

Oh but wait, the icons along the bottom are square! Apple must own square icons.

Does anyone keep that homescreen for more than 5mins?

It gives me a headache just looking at a picture of it.

 

[boomhower]

I'm an Apple fan and own both an iPhone and an iPad but this crap needs to stop, it's ridiculous. All it's doing is wasting a bunch of money paying lawyers with no real gain to anyone. Samsung is biggest loser hear with Apple taking their component business elsewhere.

 

[postmortemIA]

Does anyone keep that homescreen for more than 5mins?

It gives me a headache just looking at a picture of it.

not everybody knows how to change it.

 

[smartpatrol]

it looks like this particular branch of the Jobs mandate to sue Android out of existence isn't going anywhere.

No, it actually is going somewhere. The judge said that Samsung's products likely DO infringe on one of Apple's software patents and one of its hardware patents. Apple was denied a preliminary injunction because the judge decided there was no irreparable harm done by leaving Samsung's products on the market.

http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/3/2...-apple-preliminary-request-ban-samsung-galaxy

 

[s44]

I'm not sure you get how lawsuits work. Losing the injunction IS losing the case: by the time the merits of it get decided one way or the other (not to mention the appeals process), the product market will have long moved on.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I'm not sure you get how lawsuits work. Losing the injunction IS losing the case: by the time the merits of it get decided one way or the other (not to mention the appeals process), the product market will have long moved on.

I'm not sure you get how lawsuits work.

It's a preliminary injunction. Not a final injunction. The difference being that the preliminary injunction may be granted if the court believes that the data presented may be noticeably different by the time the actual trial occurs due to the absence of such an injunction.

Basically, by not granting Apple this ban, the court is saying that it doesn't think Apple's dominance of the market would change just by having Samsung continuing to sell their devices.

On the other hand, if the actual trial occurs and Samsung is found to infringe Apple's patents, then Apple can seek remedy from Samsung in some other way than a ban.

A ban would just ensure that the iPad 2 has less competition during the Holiday season. It doesn't change the fact that if Samsung loses the case, they'll have to pay Apple.

So it's a win-win situation for Apple unless it's found that Samsung somehow didn't violate the patents, which is kind of hard because Apple's suit against Samsung is quite strong, despite the dubious or ridiculous nature of the patents.

From a strictly by-the-book complete mechanical view, Apple is at an advantage in the court.

 

[HeXen]

LOL, those 2D semi-static screens with app icons is so 2007. Time to innovate Apple.

things like that causes complaints and FUD...just look up Metro for Windows 8, despite its efficiency and ease of use, few seem to like it and prefer W7.
Legacy is like smoking cigs, most find it hard to give it up.

 

[MotionMan]

I'm not sure you get how lawsuits work.

It's a preliminary injunction. Not a final injunction. The difference being that the preliminary injunction may be granted if the court believes that the data presented may be noticeably different by the time the actual trial occurs due to the absence of such an injunction.

Basically, by not granting Apple this ban, the court is saying that it doesn't think Apple's dominance of the market would change just by having Samsung continuing to sell their devices.

On the other hand, if the actual trial occurs and Samsung is found to infringe Apple's patents, then Apple can seek remedy from Samsung in some other way than a ban.

A ban would just ensure that the iPad 2 has less competition during the Holiday season. It doesn't change the fact that if Samsung loses the case, they'll have to pay Apple.

So it's a win-win situation for Apple unless it's found that Samsung somehow didn't violate the patents, which is kind of hard because Apple's suit against Samsung is quite strong, despite the dubious or ridiculous nature of the patents.

From a strictly by-the-book complete mechanical view, Apple is at an advantage in the court.

Agreed.

Though Apple lost its bid for a Preliminary Injunction, probably because the judge felt that Apple would not be irreparably harmed, if they win at trial, Samsung will owe Apple a ton of money.

Trust me, I'm a lawyer 😉

MotionMan

 

[s44]

Trust me, I'm a lawyer 😉

So am I. So what?

Samsung may have a day of reckoning years down the line, after the infringement and validity issues have been decided and appealed and up and down and all that, but the speed of the market means that the injunction threat is now off the table.

Remember, Apple's plan isn't to get money from Android (that's the MS plan), it's to sue it out of business. This is a big loss for them.

 

[MotionMan]

So am I. So what?

Yes, I know.

Samsung may have a day of reckoning years down the line, after the infringement and validity issues have been decided and appealed and up and down and all that, but the speed of the market means that the injunction threat is now off the table.

Remember, Apple's plan isn't to get money from Android (that's the MS plan), it's to sue it out of business. This is a big loss for them.

It may not have been the direct result Apple wanted, but they can easily make lemonade out of it. Samsung now must proceed with the knowledge that they may have to give every penny they make off of their product to Apple, plus some, somewhere down the road.

MotionMan

 

[Mopetar]

things like that causes complaints and FUD...just look up Metro for Windows 8, despite its efficiency and ease of use, few seem to like it and prefer W7.
Legacy is like smoking cigs, most find it hard to give it up.

This is somewhat tangential to the discussion, but if the changes are mostly cosmetic and don't provide a functionally better experience or make the system easier to use, most users will prefer to stick with what the know.

But to get back on topic, Florian Mueller provides some good coverage and analysis of the ruling.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Samsung now must proceed with the knowledge that they may have to give every penny they make off of their product to Apple, plus some, somewhere down the road.

Just that one tablet though, right? Any 2011 Samsung tablet is not long for this world (and already is a terrible value). The market moves too fast for one product to matter.

The bigger problem is if Apple gets a slice of future tablets.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Just that one tablet though, right? Any 2011 Samsung tablet is not long for this world (and already is a terrible value). The market moves too fast for one product to matter.

The bigger problem is if Apple gets a slice of future tablets.

I'm quite certain Apple is not just suing for one tablet. In which case, I think the effect might be that they would try to take a part of that sale profit Samsung may rack in during the upcoming Holiday season.

And 2011 tablets are not long, indeed, but I'm not seeing a Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 on the horizons any time soon, and that means there are still a few months left.

It's either Samsung doesn't sell well during the Holiday season, and Apple's iPad 2 stands out, or Samsung does sell well, and Apple takes a part of that profit after the trials are over.

If the Galaxy S 2 is somehow involved in the lawsuit, that would surely mean quite a healthy amount of cash for Apple to claim in court...

 

[theeedude]

I'm quite certain Apple is not just suing for one tablet. In which case, I think the effect might be that they would try to take a part of that sale profit Samsung may rack in during the upcoming Holiday season.

And 2011 tablets are not long, indeed, but I'm not seeing a Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 on the horizons any time soon, and that means there are still a few months left.

It's either Samsung doesn't sell well during the Holiday season, and Apple's iPad 2 stands out, or Samsung does sell well, and Apple takes a part of that profit after the trials are over.

If the Galaxy S 2 is somehow involved in the lawsuit, that would surely mean quite a healthy amount of cash for Apple to claim in court...

Apple would have to first win, and second prove those damages. And not be ruled to infringe on any Samsung patent that would force it to settle in the meantime. That's a lot of ducks for the patent troll to line up, and time is not in their favor.

 

[Zaap]

Does anyone keep that homescreen for more than 5mins?

The great thing is... one can change it any way they want. If all one wants is a boring grid of icons, they can have that too

 

[HeXen]

This is somewhat tangential to the discussion, but if the changes are mostly cosmetic and don't provide a functionally better experience or make the system easier to use, most users will prefer to stick with what the know.

i was responding to the static 2d icon comment

 

[gevorg]

things like that causes complaints and FUD...just look up Metro for Windows 8, despite its efficiency and ease of use, few seem to like it and prefer W7.
Legacy is like smoking cigs, most find it hard to give it up.

The same thing was said about virtual keyboards when iPhone came, and look where we're at now. IMHO, Metro is a very promising UI change, might take several iterations of Windows to master it, but definitely a step in the right direction. There is always an option to leave classic view static apps, for those who are more stubborn to change.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

This time where it counts, in the USA.

Given that the only claim that's gotten real traction is the one based on the EU's [/B]

<----- Patent Attorney

The article you linked to points to a Court decision that denies Apple a preliminary injunction against the sale of Samsung's product in the U.S. If you scroll through the document, you will notice that there are several sections in which the court focuses on whether Apple established that it would likely suffer irreperable harm if the court did not grant a preliminary injunction against the sale of various Samsung devices. In the past, irreperable harm in a patent suit was considered a "given," and preliminary injunctions were the norm. In the last 10 years or so, however, the courts have started to place increasing emphasis on that particular element.

In any case, it appears that the court's decision(s) was(were) largely based on Apple's failure to establish irreperable harm.

To quote the court with respect to Apple '381 patent (a utility patent, unlike the other design patents at issue in the case):

"Apple must also establish that it is likely to suffer irreperable harm in the absence of the preliminary injunction.... Even though Apple has shown Samsung's products likely infringe Apple's valid '381 patent, and that Apple and Samsung compete in the same market... Apple has offered no evidence that Samsung's infringement of the '381 patent is likely to cause irreperable harm. The only evidence of irreperable harm in the record relates to physical appearance and brand appeal as the driver of consumer demand in the iPhone and iPad markets. Indeed, Apple has failed ot establish a relationship between any alleged loss of market share, customers or goodwill, and the infringement of the '381 patent."

As shown, the court here found that Apple's 381 patent was valid, but that a preliminary injunction was no warranted due to Apple's failure to establish irreperable harm.

Finally, it should be noted that preliminary injuctions are requested early in patent cases. The fact that Apple lost on this particular point is far from an indication that they will lose on the more substantive infringement issues.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I'm not sure you get how lawsuits work. Losing the injunction IS losing the case: by the time the merits of it get decided one way or the other (not to mention the appeals process), the product market will have long moved on.

No. Damages (e.g., lost profits) accrue and may potentially be recovered, even for product shipped after the date of the lawsuit.

Google "Panduit Factors" if you want to learn more about how patent damages are calculated.

 

[mosco]

<----- Patent Attorney

The article you linked to points to a Court decision that denies Applie a preliminary injunction against the sale of Samsung's product in the U.S. If you scroll through the document, you will notice that there are several sections in which the court focuses on whether Apple established that it would likely suffer irreperable harm if the court did not grant a preliminary injunction against the sale of various Samsung devices. In the past, irreperable harm in a patent suit was considered a "given," and preliminary injunctions were the norm. In the last 10 years or so, however, the courts have started to place increasing emphasis on that particular element.

In any case, it appears that the court's decision(s) was(were) largely based on Apple's failure to establish irreperable harm.

To quote the court with respect to Apple '381 patent (a utility patent, unlike the other design patents at issue in the case):

"Apple must also establish that it is likely to suffer irreperable harm in the absence of the preliminary injunction.... Even though Apple has shown Samsung's products likely infringe Apple's valid '381 patent, and that Apple and Samsung compete in the same market... Apple has offered no evidence that Samsung's infringement of the '381 patent is likely to cause irreperable harm. The only evidence of irreperable harm in the record relates to physical appearance and brand appeal as the driver of consumer demand in the iPhone and iPad markets. Indeed, Apple has failed ot establish a relationship between any alleged loss of market share, customers or goodwill, and the infringement of the '381 patent."

As shown, the court here found that Apple's 381 patent was valid, but that a preliminary injunction was no warranted due to Apple's failure to establish irreperable harm.

Finally, it should be noted that preliminary injuctions are requested early in patent cases. The fact that Apple lost on this particular point is far from an indication that they will lose on the more substantive infringement issues.

Thanks for the great comments. I would also like to post a link to http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/3/2...os-scrolling-patent-nokia-ibm-offered-samsung.

Until now, it's been assumed that Apple's playing absolute hardball in its various patent lawsuits around the world — that the company has no interest in licensing its patents, especially patents that cover fundamental parts of iOS. Turns out that that's not entirely true: Apple's licensed at least one iOS software patent related to scrolling functionality to Nokia and IBM, and offered a license to Samsung during failed settlement negotiations in November 2010.

It seems like the fact that this was licensed actually hurt apple.