Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Mar 2013 10:35 UTC
Legal "Apple vs. Samsung initially ended with a billion-dollar verdict in favor of Apple, but there have been plenty of wrinkles since. This week brought about another, as Nokia filed an amicus brief on behalf of Apple, Inc. in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the brief filed Monday, Nokia asked the court to permit permanent injunctions on the sale of Samsung phones that were found to infringe Apple's patents." In the meantime, the latest comScore figures for the US show that Windows Phone's market share actually declined during the launch of Windows Phone 8. It's pretty clear that, combined with the disappointing quarterly results for Nokia, the company is setting itself up for the future. In this future, Nokia's patent portfolio is worth more than their actual phone business, and as such, Nokia can't do anything but support Apple in this case, else the value of their portfolio goes down.
Thread beginning with comment 554454
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: It isn't about Samsung
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 7th Mar 2013 11:23 UTC in reply to "It isn't about Samsung"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

If Apple can't get an injunction after a Jury has found Samsung to be infringing to the tune of a billion dollars, then who the hell can get an injunction?


600 million.

Its too draconian a restriction. Apple clearly deserves the injunctive relief.


It really isn't. None of the so-called infringements were core aspects of a phone, and none were dealbreakers or makers. I.e., you don't ban an entire car from the market just because the shape of the steering wheel bears a passing resemblance to that of another car.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 11:35 in reply to "RE: It isn't about Samsung"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


600 million.


Quite clearly, the Jury awarded Apple around a billion dollars. The Judge disagreed, but that will be handled in a separate case.

At the time when the Judge made her ruling, the billion dollar figure still stood. Its important to point out, that even in light of this, apparently there was not enough to find for an exclusion order, which is worrying.


It really isn't. None of the so-called infringements were core aspects of a phone, and none were dealbreakers or makers. I.e., you don't ban an entire car from the market just because the shape of the steering wheel bears a passing resemblance to that of another car.


I don't really think anything you said above has any legal bearing on why Apple should get an infringement, and in fact, isn't even the argument that the Judge used.

A disagreement with the Judge's core reasoning is why Nokia filed its amicus brief.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: It isn't about Samsung
by kwan_e on Thu 7th Mar 2013 11:54 in reply to "RE[2]: It isn't about Samsung"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

apparently there was not enough to find for an exclusion order, which is worrying.


Only if you think the current patent system is worth protecting.

Reply Parent Score: 9