Posted on 12/02/2011 9:31:28 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
U.S. judge rejects Apple bid to halt Galaxy sales
By Dan Levine
Sat Dec 3, 2011 10:22am IST
(Reuters) - Apple (AAPL.O) failed to convince a U.S. judge to block Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) from selling some Galaxy smartphones and tablets in the U.S. market, depriving the iPhone and iPad maker of crucial leverage in a global patent battle between the two companies.
In a ruling released late on Friday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California denied Apple's request for a preliminary injunction against Samsung.
Representatives for Apple and Samsung did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The two companies are engaged in a bruising legal battle that includes more than 20 cases in 10 countries as they jostle for the top spot in the smartphone and tablet markets.
(Excerpt) Read more at in.reuters.com ...
Good.
iPad design displayed in 1994 by Knight Rider Information Design Lab
Judges, like lawyers are for sale. Ever notice how many lawyers are in congress, not only in office, but like cockroaches in the cabinet, they infest everything in DC?
Interesting, Koh is a Korean-American. Samsung is a Korean company. The other thing is that she was appointed by Arnold (the Awful) Schwartzenusedtobekennedy!
Interesting, Koh is a Korean-American. Samsung is a Korean company. The other thing is that she was appointed by Arnold (the Awful) Schwartzenusedtobekennedy!
Agree... but waiting for the Apple IBots to descents for speaking heresy of thier god
Swordmaker will be in here in 3..2..1
Maybe I aren't (word used on purpose) smart enough to know better, but isn't this like Ford suing GM to stop using their "design" for a car?
More or less a same argument.
So Apple applies for and receives a patent for something that has been done for years by several parties, that art is something fundamental towards graphic interfaces, and then Apple turns around and uses that patent to try and force competitors off the playing field.
Similar problems exist with genetic technology patents. The patent examiners often just don't understand what is novel and what is prior art and grant patents that are just too sweeping - the patent ends up ecompassing what is novel AND the prior art used to create what is novel in the application.
An inventor had a patent for interval wipers and sued and won back royalties for car makers using his technology without licensing.
Now, if it were Apple, they would have gotten the patent for windshield wipers themselves and then said no other car with such could be sold.
Apple claims patent over something even more flimsier.
That was my point - Apple goes past the novelty and claims patent over prior art - they would have claimed a patent for wipers themselves, not just the interval mechanism.
A internal combustion engine from 1950 is after all still an internal combustion engine from 2011 minus all the bells and whistles
I think apple needs to figure out smart phones are as common or even more so than cars and unless they come up with something completely new and radical....these lawsuits seem more like corporate fishing expedition looking for legal precedent to protect their profits
Well, that in a nutshell is what Apple is doing, IMO. They have patents granted in the nineties for stuff that was commonly done in the eighties. I guess Apple hired some smarty-pants patent attorneys who bamboozled the Patent Office into granting patents for what was blatantly prior art, and then I guess Apple sat on those patents until they needed them against competitors. I may have the details not exact, but the big picture is just as you suggest.
One of these days we need to take a hard look at how patent law is in the US, and make some changes. Of course, the big money players want to make it even more restricting.
It is more like GM contracting to build F-150’s then make a few extra and label them GMC Trucks.
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.