Remember when a UK court ordered Apple to post a notice on their UK website saying Samsung did not copy Apple’s designs? I’m sure it must have extremely tough for Apple to do that, but at least they complied, right? Well, maybe not. A UK court of appeals has criticized Apple for its choice of words, and the fact that the statement is hidden in a footer link on the website. That same court of appeals found that Apple is non-compliant with the court order.
If you recall: the UK courts recently found that Samsung actually didn’t infringe on various Apple iPad patents and subsequently ruled Apple had to give Samsung some satisfaction. Well Apple didn’t take too kindly of that and demonstrated its defiance to the courts’ decision and issued an arrogant apology. Apple’s legal team took some time to highlight the uniqueness of Apple products, while highlighting that Samsung’s products are “simply not as cool” as Apple products. In addition, Apple is quick to point out that all other major courts in the world recognized Samsung’s infringement of iPad, while the UK thought otherwise. As a result, Apple had this to say about the manner:
“So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple’s far more popular iPad.”
Talk about being completely defiant to UK law. So while Apple technically admits that Samsung didn’t infringe on its product, Apple also is quick to point out that well— Samsung did infringe per other courts. We’re not sure of how Samsung and/or the UK courts will react to Apple’s statement, but you really have to hand it to Apple— it won’t back down even if it’s wrong.
You can find the full statement from apple.com/uk when you hit the break.
In a legal document filed earlier in the week, Apple says that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Samsung on whether they misused some of its mobile-device patents that violate antitrust law. This stems from Apple accusing Samsung of using some of their patents improperly to block the sale of competitor’s products. I don’t claim to be a big patent expert, but I think this probably deals with FRAND, which means ”Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory”. Certain patents fall into this category and it means that owners of these patents must give a reasonable licencing deal. They usually deal with patents that are standard.
It looks like the investigation has been going on for several months and the European Commission announced they were doing a similar investigation in January. I also suspect that Samsung’s LTE patents will fall into this category.
In a stunning turn of events, the US Patent and Trademark Office has filed an initial ruling declaring Apple’s rubber-banding patent invalid. If you recall, the patent focuses on an effect that can cause a page on a device to bounce back up after a user has swiped to the bottom of the screen on a mobile device. While this ruling isn’t final, this means that all 20 claims of Apple’s patent (No. 7,469,381) are now invalid— which includes an important one used against Samsung during their epic battle in the U.S. courts. The effect of this is major too: while we have a long way to go during the appeals process, this is perhaps the first step needed for Samsung to have the courts potentially overrule at least some of the major rulings.
source: The Next Web
An appeals court in the U.K. has issued a ruling in one of the many Apple v. Samsung cases from around the world. This particular appeal involved a case where Apple had alleged Samsung copied the design of the iPad with their Samsung Galaxy Tab device. Apple had originally lost the lawsuit after a U.K. judge found the Samsung designs were not as simplistic as Apple’s. In a stinging turn of events for Apple, the London court had ordered Apple to post information on their web site and take out several advertisements in a variety of publications to admit that Samsung had not copied their products. Apple appealed the ruling and obtained a stay to prevent having to comply with the disclosure. The appellate court has upheld the lower court’s ruling that Samsung did not copy the iPad and they have affirmed the need for a very public statement from Apple regarding the matter. » Read the rest
Microsoft’s current dispute against Motorola Mobility in Germany has taken a turn as they have now dragged Google into the mix. In the past, companies have always taken Google’s Android vendors to court, but never Google themselves. Microsoft has taken that step as the patent in question defines a method for a mobile device to obtain a map from one database, call up resource information such as the location of a hotel from a second database, and overlay the two sets of data.
According to a Microsoft spokesperson, they decided to bring Google into the mix because ”It became necessary to add Google to this particular case because Motorola maintains that it lacks sufficient information about actions occurring on Google’s servers.”
In response, Google’s Deputy General Counsel Allen Lo said in an emailed statement: ”We want to focus on innovation, not litigation, but we’ll vigorously defend against any amended complaint Microsoft files.”
What do you guys think of Microsoft not just taking Motorola to court, but Google themselves as well?
Do you remember all the patches and workarounds that Samsung and Google had to push out to consumers last summer to remove unified search from Android devices, specifically the Samsung Galaxy Nexus? That work was due to an injunction awarded by Judge Lucy Koh to halt sales of the Galaxy Nexus which was the subject of a patent lawsuit Apple filed against Samsung. In granting the injunction halting sales, Koh determined Apple could suffer irreparable damage and loss of market share unless sales of the Galaxy Nexus were halted as long as they included a universal search function. » Read the rest
And just like that, Motorola devices are no longer listed for sale in Germany. Despite Motorola not being found to infringe on some Microsoft patents, Motorola has all but begun its exodus out of the German markets. As of this time, no Android smartphones or tablets are listed on Motorola’s website. There is the belief that Motorola may have pulled the devices in order to rework the software in order to avoid infringing on any patents, but then again— Motorola has a clearly stated the following:
“As we have previously stated Motorola Mobility is focusing on fewer mobile devices. As a result we have phased out some of our lower tier devices in Europe/Germany.”
A focus on selling fewer mobile devices huh? Considering the Motorola Android devices are wildly popular in Germany, we can only hope that
source: The Guardian UK
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you have probably been following the ferocious legal battle between Samsung and Apple. Despite a guilty verdict, new documentation has revealed that Samsung may not have told its designers to copy the iPhone.
Documents that were initially redacted during the trial have been released in their full form, and what is contained within them is disheartening. While early reports surfaced claiming that a Samsung executive told the company’s designers to “make something like the iPhone”, the actual document quotes the senior executive as saying, “I hear things like this: Let’s make something like the iPhone.” When everybody (both consumers and the industry) talk about UX, they weigh it against the iPhone. The iPhone has become the standard. That’s how things are already.”
Unlike previous accusations, there is no actual wording to suggest that Samsung intentionally copied the iPhone. Instead, the executive lamented that in order to be successful, “you must think at least six months ahead; be the solution to the problems that related departments come looking for. Be people with creativity. Designers rightly must make their own designs with conviction and confidence; do not strive to do designs to please me (the president); instead make designs with faces that are creative and diverse.”
Samsung clearly defends its “original” industrial design in the statements above, going on to state, “our biggest asset is our screen. It is very important that we make screen size bigger, and in the future mobile phones will absorb even the function of e-books.” However, the company did admit that at one point its team faced a “a crisis of design,” as it told its designers to “do their best not to create a plastic feeling and instead create a metallic feel.”
So, if Samsung clearly touted its much larger display as a differentiator from a branding standpoint, how could the jury accurately conclude that it purposely copied the iPhone? It’s believed to be the way that Apple’s lawyers presented the evidence that swayed the jurors’ opinions, neglecting to bring up important evidence and selecting minuscule pieces of what would obviously favor the Cupertino-based company.
Regardless, there will undoubtedly be more drama in the legal battle, as things aren’t expected to cool off anytime soon.
The Mannheim Regional Court in Germany issued a ruling today in a case between Motorola and Microsoft, finding in favor of Motorola that they did not violate a Microsoft patent. The patent in question related to applications running on different devices without having to write separate code for each product. CNET notes this ruling comes less than a week after Microsoft won a round in which they have at least temporarily retained their ability to continue selling Xbox and Windows software in Germany while a proposed injunction is reviewed by the U.S. The cases demonstrate how momentum continues to shift back and forth in the seemingly endless array of patent disputes around the world.
Neither party has issued a statement concerning this latest ruling.