U.S. judge says Samsung tablets infringe Apple patents
reuters.com
reuters.com
"In a tweet from the proceedings, Reuters’ Dan Levine said that Koh “held both tablets above her head, one in each hand,” and “asked Samsung lawyers to identify which was which.” Levine said it took Samsung’s legal team “a while to do so.” This, and repeated references made by Koh about how “similar” the Apple and Samsung tablets appear could indicate that she feels Apple’s “design” patents have more validity than those related to “utility”."
Samsung just needs to fire all it's lawyers and legal department. They should have differentiated their products more and stand to lose billions if this injunction is issued. Gross incompetence. Ironically it's HTC not Apple that stands to benefit the most.
Ex:
http://www.photokina-show.com/news_images/00812_samsung-gala...
That's the older 7-inch Galaxy Tab. Which looks even less like the iPad; more like the Kindle Fire than anything else.
This is the packaging for the Galaxy Tab 10.1: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51huPpEUIHL.jpg
I too have noticed that most all the images of the Galaxy Tab we've seen associated with these legal cases have the app drawer pulled up.
And the picture in the Reuters article is how Korea Tel is marketing the device? By opening the app drawer and showing how it's just like an ipad?
edit: April 2011, not 2010, correct, my apologies
We're innovation hostile. Even our "best" companies like Apple are trying desperately to build themselves a parasitic position on the industry instead of trying to build new, better, technology. It's no wonder all the money has flowed overseas, so has the prosperous mindset that made it.
Apple isn't "jostling" with anyone in the "tablet market"; they outsell the rest if the industry combined by, what, 20-to-1? 30-to-1?
Android outsells iPhone in the smartphone market, apple outsells android in the tablet market. Jostling is a perfectly adequate descriptor for that situation.
P.S. It's probably no longer sufficiently accurate to describe the iPad as outselling the rest of the industry combined by 20:1 given what we know about Kindle Fire pre-order figures.
You can't just chain together as many markets as you wish with the word "and" to the smartphone market.
Why not say they are also "jostling" in the online services, advertising, flat screen, and whatever else market while you're at it?
It's a completely disingenuous statement.
P.S. A recent story put iPad at about 97% of tablet browsing share. I can't get to it right now on my iPhone. Preorders are nice but just about any objective measure (including those that include channel stuffing on behalf of the rest of the industry) we've seen so far has shown total iPad dominance of the tablet space.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/04/apples-lets-talk-iphone-k... 1:21PM iPad is the "undisputed" #1 tablet in the world. Tim says "everybody and their brother" is trying to compete, but three quarters of all tablets sold are iPads.
edit 15 minutes after posting: slow clap to the downvoter
"but also that Apple might have a problem establishing the validity of its patents."
So which is it? If they don't think the patents are valid, why they saying Samsung is infringing on them? Are they saying Samsung is infringing on "possibly non-valid patents" ? Because that's how it sounds like to me.
Keep in mind she's just ruling on the injunction so it's not the final determination of infringement/invalidity. The injunction requires her to make some preliminary indication of how strong Apple's case is.
* Also it's not clear if any of that applies to the design patents.
"At the hearing on Thursday in a San Jose, California federal court, Koh also said she would deny Apple's request for an injunction based on one of Apple's so-called "utility" patents.
She did not say whether she would grant the injunction based on three other Apple "design" patents.
Koh characterized her thoughts on the utility patent as "tentative" but said she would issue a formal order "fairly promptly."
Both A and B must be true for Apple to win the case, and the court can rule on those two issues separately. For instance, the court could rule in favor of Samsung because they found Samsung was not infringing on Apple's patents, but leave the patents intact if B is satisfied. They could also rule in Samsung's favor because Apple's patents were invalid.