The hearing regarding the preliminary injunction in the German Apple v. Samsung case is currently under way. Biggest revelation so far? Samsung is accusing Apple of 27 (!) cases of altering pictures, all done to make Samsung's products appear more similar to Apple's than they really are. Like last time, Andreas Udo de Haes, editor at WebWereld.nl, present in the court room, is covering this. Update: It's on. Update II: Apple claims official picture of Galaxy Tab is rigged. Update III: Lolwut Apple? Update IV: Neelie Kroes is on the edge of her seat. Update V: The judge has upheld the German preliminary injunction. Final ruling on September 9.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2007-03-26
I really hope Apple is held accountable for this and not just given a slap on the wrist.
Regardless of what you think of their products or the whole innovation/evolution debate, tampering with evidence is a serious offense. Furthermore, using such false documents to force a ban on competitors is so far outside of what I'd personally class as fair competition that a monetary penalty doesn't even begin to equate to the audacity demonstrated.
Edited 2011-08-25 12:21 UTC
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2007-03-26
Member since:
2008-04-18
Member since:2007-03-26
It would never happen, however something like that would send a clear message that this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable.
Member since:2005-11-14
Member since:2008-04-18
Member since:2005-11-14
Member since:2008-04-18
If the ban on Samsung is silly but is implemented already, then silly is possible in Europe. I only want that the same thing is applied to Apple. Or are you saying that there should be double standards?
A hefty fine will not hurt Apple in any way. IIRC they have 75 billion in cash. The court needs to punish Apple in a way that will make Apple think twice before pulling frivolous lawsuits on competitors.
Member since:2009-05-19
Member since:2006-01-01
Member since:2007-03-26
I predict that the judge will totally ignore Samsung's somewhat desperate maneuver.
Samsung have good reason to be "desperate", Apple are twisting the law to prevent natural competition.
Your tone there almost sounds sympathetic for Apple but I really do think Samsung are the victims here.
Member since:2006-01-01
How is anyone twisting the law?
Apple brought their iThing to the judge, Samsung brought their sThing to the judge, Apple said 'their sThing looks like our iThing and we there is this here law that says their not allowed to do that', judge said 'I agree.'
No one is twisting any laws here.
]{
PS. I love it how you say that a massive APAC company that generates huge profits by paying substandard wages (by western standards) is 'the victim'.
Member since:2005-07-06
Samsung does not want damages for lost sales, they want to sell their phones. There’s much more from a phone sale than just money ‐ it’s all about the ecosystem nowadays.
Being limited (by having a product banned) by the court for a frivolous lawsuit will cost them customers.
It’s only right that Apple incurs the same cost if found to be abusing the courts.
Member since:2009-05-19
Member since:2006-01-26
I know right?!
Same problem with tires - every time i see those round black things on a wheel, I immediately assume they're Firestone tires, and then I get up close and they're Michelin! DAMNIT! They should outlaw anyone else from making black circular rubber tires... even though they have the name brand printed right on them, it's sooo confusing!
Member since:2006-01-01
Actually, funny you should say that, because tires were patented, tubeless tires were patented, tires with added stuff to make them stronger were patented and so on.
The only reason why those round black things are used by everyone these days is that the patents have long expired. If you made one just like it (even if it was made of different stuff) while the patent was still in force you would face litigations.
That's sort of the way patents and copyrights work (not saying it's right but if you have an issue it's the laws you should be looking to change).
]{
Member since:2006-01-26
Funny you should say that, because patents aren't the reason for this injunction. It's a "community design" case where Apple claims that Samsung's devices *look* too much like their generic drawings and utterly simplistic design.
Troll harder.
Member since:2006-01-01
Actually, a 'community design' is essentially the equivalent of a 'design patent'.
(You know it's really lame to call someone a troll because they challenge your factual interpretation of an event. If you have facts to back up your position why not simply state that, why start crying 'troll'.)
Member since:2006-01-26
Heh, I've been called troll for far less - somehow it didn't bother me enough to make a point of whining about it.
Edit: Oh, and I came with my facts - Community Designs are not patents or copyright.
Edited 2011-08-25 17:54 UTC
Member since:2006-01-01
Ok, well, let's call a truce on the trolling and let me beat you up on your interpretation of the facts ....
from Wikipedia:
... and ...
Convinced?
Member since:2011-01-14
I just wish I'd registered a community design on a PC tower case. A large cuboid with a power button on the front and slots for a couple of optical drives. Surely nobody could've come up with that idea independently?
Yes, the S2 looks like the iPhone, but even when the iPhone originally came out there had been PDAs and other devices which were mostly screen and a button or two on one end. There are only so many combinations to that form that can be made before they all start looking like each other. Not from copying another design, but because they're all so bloody close.
Member since:2006-12-05
If You carried on with this investigation, You would find out, that the word "patent" in "disgn patent" is derived from the latin word "patens" (certificate), while the term patent (without "design") is derived from the word "patere" (to lay open). This happened because "patent" and "design patent" denote *unrelated* exclusive rights.
Member since:2006-02-20
Member since:
2008-04-18
That judge is obviously a moron. WTF?
I look at my computer screen and it is a rectangle with rounded corners and the screen is on the front side. I look at other brands of computer screens and they are the almost the same. You can only tell the brand by checking the logo. What is Samsung supposed to do to make their tablets different? Make oval tablets? Put the screen on the edge of the tablet?
Member since:2009-05-19
Member since:2007-03-26
Member since:2008-04-18
The landmark decision has already been made in Netherlands. All she had to do was acknowledge the fact that she was stupid when she decided to ban Samsung, apologize for her utter stupidity and lift the ban.
Member since:2006-06-22
Member since:2005-06-29
It would be an admittance of failure regarding the first injunction if she backed off now. In the final ruling she can dismiss the injunction more easily, by claiming she has now studied all the evidence.
Simple, really. People are very easy to understand. I can guarantee you she'll lift the injunction come September 9. 100%.
Edited 2011-08-25 15:59 UTC
Member since:2006-01-01
Member since:2010-03-08
Member since:2009-05-19
Member since:
2007-01-13
In Australia an individual or corporation can be declared a vexatious litigant for repeatedly using the legal system solely to harrass or subdue an adversary. They are then (permanently) banned from pursuing any further civil court actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation
Member since:2007-07-19
Member since:
2009-09-03
Member since:
2010-08-06