Apple Granted Injunction to pull Samsung 10.1 Tablets from EU Shelves

[fredr123]

With the way IP law is presently set up, patent/trademark/copyright holders need to be vigilant in the defence of their IP. If they don't, they might find that their products and services are no longer sufficiently unique and the courts will refuse to enforce their rights.

Love it or hate it, much of the panache of the Apple brand is built around the style of its products. Their products are rarely technologically superior than many of its competitors but Apple continues to maintain a loyal following. It's all about the look and feel of an Apple product. If that is what's of value to your company and that's what gives you the edge over your competition, then your responsibility to your shareholders dictates that you must be vigilant in protecting that advantage. Patent everything you can and take everyone to court that dares bump up against your designs.

I agree with Rathji and others. Hate the player, not the game. The patent system is broken. This isn't Apple's fault and I can't really blame them for the actions they've taken so far.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I don't think Apple is to blame, I think the patent system is.

Apple is greedy and centuries old patent law facilities greed. When you see opportunities to block potential competitors by filing for injunctions to block their products from reaching the market, of course you are going to do it.

Apple has already gone after Google and Android in this area quite a lot as well. You know why Android doesn't have an animation for when the screen rotates? It's because Apple won't allow it. Every Android product you buy already includes a large chunk of payments in royalties to Apple because otherwise, Apple would be filing in court to block them completely.

Apple has also gone after tons of small mom & pop websites and small software companies for even naming their online store an "Application Store" because Apple claims they have a total trademark over the name "App Store" and any derivatives and you will get a cease and desist from their lawyers if they come across you in any way.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

Where did I say they were? I'm just saying that innovation should be higher on their list of ways to compete in the market than litigation. Jaguar doesn't sue Hyundai for some of the Jaguar-esque design choices they've made, they just keep making better cars. Nobody thought a 2005 Sonata is a Jaguar, and nobody is going to think a Samsung Galaxy 10.1 is an iPad.

Quite the simplified, and flawed, way of looking at patent litigation.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by simmer2

To me this seems like the equivalent of Ford suing Toyota for having too similar a steering wheel, glove box, door handle, and using the same colour. It's absolutely ridiculous that those features are the ones that pulled Samsung off the shelf.

And to comment on the iPhone rip-off, what's considered being ripped off? Having a touch screen phone? I think it's fantastic that the iPhone was created. It's a great product and changed the market. But to think that no other phone can be created now like the iPhone is absolutely ridiculous. To compare to vehicles again, that's like saying no other company should have been allowed to build another vehicle other than Ford.

And to address the fact that Apple is only suing Samsung, think again:

Apple Suing Motorola:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20...n-report-says/

Apple Suing HTC:

http://news.cens.com/cens/html/en/ne...ner_36956.html

Apparently nobody else is allowed to come out with a tablet or a phone with touch features.

Except that's not at all what's happening. Not even remotely in the same ballpark.

[Hack&Lube]

^ please elaborate on both your two previous posts because you've just said: "NO!" rather than explaining anything. What is really happening? Why is his analogy flawed?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rathji

For the record, I do think that the Samsung device physically looks too similar to an iPad.

My problem is that you shouldn't be granting patents that are that general that really have no influence on the device itself. I think the root of the problem is the patents are either too broad based or there are too many loopholes in the patent game that these companies need to play.

I don't think Apple is to blame, I think the patent system is.

Exactly, Apple is doing what they should be doing, operating in the best interests of their bottom line and by extension the best interests of their shareholders. Neglecting to do so would find them on the recieving end of litigation. I'm not going to pretend that the IP system isn't without flaws, but some of the responses and comparisons in this thread are absolutely ridiculous.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by valo403

Exactly, Apple is doing what they should be doing, operating in the best interests of their bottom line and by extension the best interests of their shareholders. Neglecting to do so would find them on the recieving end of litigation. I'm not going to pretend that the IP system isn't without flaws, but some of the responses and comparisons in this thread are absolutely ridiculous.

Of course Apple is doing what is in their and their shareholders best interests. I would do the same if I were in charge of any company. It would be my responsibility.

What people are trying to do discuss is how the current system is flawed and facilitates such things that hamper consumer choice in the market and gives companies virtual monopolies over very broad IP concepts by patenting broad concepts.

[guzzy]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Another reason why Apple sucks balls.

haters gonna hate.

you are the first person i have heard say that in years. Most people realize that APple products have always been superior to PC.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

^ please elaborate on both your two previous posts because you've just said: "NO!" and not explained anything.

I'm not really sure how to explain something when the example used was so absurd. It's like saying you can't make cars? Really? Hyperbole at its finest. The base level of understanding is either not there, or the 'I hate Apple' goggles are far too strong for any reasonable attempt to understand the issues.

The patent field is highly complex, each and every little tweak can turn something from a unique and protectable device to a generic device open to the entire world. None of us can say for certain that Apple can reach that standard here, but the mere fact that the case has gotten to this point demonstrates that it is very possible if not likely. You don't get an injunction like this without being able to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not really sure how to explain something when the example used was so absurd. It's like saying you can't make cars? Really? Hyperbole at its finest. The base level of understanding is either not there, or the 'I hate Apple' goggles are far too strong for any reasonable attempt to understand the issues.

The patent field is highly complex, each and every little tweak can turn something from a unique and protectable device to a generic device open to the entire world. None of us can say for certain that Apple can reach that standard here, but the mere fact that the case has gotten to this point demonstrates that it is very possible if not likely. You don't get an injunction like this without being able to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.

Apple has attacked every other touchscreen tablet platform that has similar features like icons, multitouch, gestures, swiping, etc. with litigation. Many other tablets and phones are already subject to a $20-$40 increase in costs in terms of royalties other companies have paid to Apple to avoid situations like what is happening to Samsung right now. That cost is passed onto consumers. I'm not saying that Apple is wrong for doing what is obviously in their own best interests, but I don't like how the system works either.

His analogy was overly simplified but at the core, I don't see why it isn't applicable to compare Apple patenting the core operations that have emerged as the basic general commonalities and methods to use tablets and smartphones (like auto rotate when you rotate the device) with a hypothetical situation where a car company patents the idea of having the steering wheel being round.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Of course Apple is doing what is in their and their shareholders best interests. I would do the same if I were in charge of any company. It would be my responsibility.

What people are trying to do discuss is how the current system is flawed and facilitates such things that hamper consumer choice in the market and gives companies virtual monopolies over very broad IP concepts by patenting broad concepts.

I think that's an argument that rests more in peoples views on what dries the market, and I don't know that there's a right or wrong answer there. Strong protections can push companies to innovate as they know they will be able to reap the rewards of their investment. They can also stifle competition. Both are legitimate arguments.

I only took issue with the ridiculous comparisons and the insinuations that somehow Apple should be taken to task for doing what any competent company would do.

[Hack&Lube]

To me, this boils down to choice. I would rather have choice than no choice, wouldn't you? If Heinz patented ketchup and you had no choice but to eat Heinz ketchup, I don't think you would mind because it's mostly the same.

But if a company patented the hamburger and blocked all competitors with coming out with slightly different hamburgers (but at the core, it's still a burger in a bun) and you only had the choice to eat the same Hamburger with no variations unless you paid an extra $1 or $2 per Burger on terms of royalties (or the burger you were looking forward to was blocked by injunction) just so you could have different toppings, you wouldn't be happy would you?

If Apple had their way, I would only be able to have Apple flavor (industrial design, look, ui, software, etc.) and I don't find their flavor particularly agreeable while I will admit that their concepts and innovations were world changers.

[KTrain]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Of course Apple is doing what is in their and their shareholders best interests. I would do the same if I were in charge of any company. It would be my responsibility.

What people are trying to do discuss is how the current system is flawed and facilitates such things that hamper consumer choice in the market and gives companies virtual monopolies over very broad IP concepts by patenting broad concepts.

But the way you're framing your argument is that Apple is the only big evil electronics company doing this. Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Sony, etc. all have lawsuits against each other for various patent infringements.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by KTrain

But the way you're framing your argument is that Apple is the only big evil electronics company doing this. Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Sony, etc. all have lawsuits against each other for various patent infringements.

Notice how I was talking about the entire IP system and why it is flawed? And how "companies" was pluralized? It is flawed for everyone. I also admitted I would do the same when in charge of any company, otherwise I wouldn't be operating in my shareholder's best interests (and my wallet). The talk of Apple is only there because that is the topic of this thread. Back in the day, I was frustrated with the various patent sitters that held decade old patents on broad engineering concepts (without proof of concept or product in the marketplace) who were suing RIM continuously.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Apple has attacked every other touchscreen tablet platform that has similar features like icons, multitouch, gestures, swiping, etc. with litigation. Many other tablets and phones are already subject to a $20-$40 increase in costs in terms of royalties other companies have paid to Apple to avoid situations like what is happening to Samsung right now. That cost is passed onto consumers. I'm not saying that Apple is wrong for doing what is obviously in their own best interests, but I don't like how the system works either.

His analogy was overly simplified but at the core, I don't see why it isn't applicable to compare Apple patenting the core operations that have emerged as the basic general commonalities and methods to use tablets and smartones (like auto rotate when you rotate the device) with a hypothetical situation where a car company patents the idea of having the steering wheel being round.

You make my point right there, it's an issue with the way the patent system operates, not the manner in which Apple is using it. If Google felt they had an ability to win that case they wouldn't be paying that fee, they are not litigation averse, but they obviously feel that their chances are sufficiently low that paying a fee is preferable to a legal battle.

As to your second paragraph, my point is that simplification simply misses the point in this area. The ability to obtain a patent comes from the lack of simplification, from the nuances and small details that exist in a product. You aren't going to get patent protection for something that lacks a sufficient level of unique characteristics. Now whether that threshold level is set properly is a different question.

Btw, I use both apple and samsung/htc products, so this isn't a matter of me defending one particular side.

[Hack&Lube]

For the company suing, it's about money. For the consumer, it's about choice (which leads to competition and having to spend less money). There needs to be a better balance there than to have products just banned completely. That said, I'm sure they'll come to an agreement as is usually the case. Samsung is still one of Apple's biggest suppliers and Apple will just demand a big chunk of royalties or something and they'll settle out of court or in arbitration or if Samsung is lucky, an appeal will just lift the injunction. This has happened time and time and time again before - again, not just with Apple but with Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Sony, LG, etc.

There was a recent spat between LG and Sony that was a big deal. In that situation almost the exact same thing happened. Sony attacked LG with IP infringement claims and LG fought back and got a court injunction in many EU countries to ban and remove the PS3 from store shelves! It's basically exactly the same thing happening here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...lu-ray-dispute

I don't thnk Apple or LG should be brought to task and I'm not saying they are evil but it doesn't mean that I wouldn't be mad if a tablet I wanted was taken off the shelves or I couldn't buy a PS3 if I wanted to because of situations like these.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by guzzy

haters gonna hate.

you are the first person i have heard say that in years. Most people realize that APple products have always been superior to PC.

What??!?!

I am going to assume you either forgot the green text here, or are 16 years old.

[KTrain]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Notice how I was talking about the entire IP system and why it is flawed? And how "companies" was pluralized? It is flawed for everyone. I also admitted I would do the same when in charge of any company, otherwise I wouldn't be operating in my shareholder's best interests (and my wallet). The talk of Apple is only there because that is the topic of this thread. Back in the day, I was frustrated with the various patent sitters that held decade old patents on broad engineering concepts (without proof of concept or product in the marketplace) who were suing RIM continuously.

I was referring to this post: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...0&postcount=22

Apple isn't the only corporation suing mom and pop shops. They also pay royalties to Nokia and others on each device sold because of patents. All I'm saying is that they're not the only company slowing down innovation through patents.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if they had the largest group of staff dedicated to developing ideas for patents and applying for them.

Then again, they have the biggest bankroll to attempt to make those ideas a reality.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Rathji

What??!?!

I am going to assume you either forgot the green text here, or are 16 years old.

And misses the point entirely that this is about IP infringement and doesn't realize that Android isn't even a PC.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by KTrain

However, I wouldn't be surprised if they had the largest group of staff dedicated to developing ideas for patents and applying for them.

Then again, they have the biggest bankroll to attempt to make those ideas a reality.

What??? You mean it's not just Steve in closet sliding out post-its underneath the door?

What I think is remarkable with Steve Jobs is that back in 1998-99, he already had the concept of the iPhone in his head. You could tell (from Macworld, interviews, etc) he hated the Newton (he thought it was completely garbage) and was already brainstorming the proper handheld device...just back then, he had not yet gotten the Apple board of governors on his side to kick out Gil Amelio so he wasn't in charge yet at the time.