

Apple tells retailers to stop selling the Galaxy Nexus and Tab - vibrunazo
http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/13/apple-injunction-letters/

======
thechut
Apple should focus on competing on the quality of THEIR product. Not rely on
lawyers and back room deals to cripple the competitions products.

There doesn't seem to be any information stating whether or not Apple made any
attempt to tell retailers they could sell these products again after the
injunction was lifted.

This is as anti-competitive behavior at its worse. Before we know it Apple
will have formed the OAAA (Only Apple Association of America) and be lobbying
congress to force consumers to pay a fee just for owning non-Apple products.

~~~
seiji
_force consumers to pay a fee just for owning non-Apple products._

People already pay a fee for owning non-Apple products. All the crashes,
malware, borked phones, wireless never working quite right, external monitors
never working quite right, and various circles of driver hell aren't free.

~~~
rbanffy
I assume Microsoft's patent extortion is included in the price of my Android
tablet... sigh...

~~~
mkr-hn
Licensing is a fair, non-monopolistic way to settle patent infringement. The
fact that Android thrives despite the fee is proof of that. Microsoft is using
the system as intended. The validity of the patent is another matter, but the
companies paying the fee don't seem to be interested in settling it.

~~~
spinchange
>the companies paying the fee don't seem to be interested in settling it.

I think most of the companies are not interested in a protracted legal battle
with _a partner_ many of them still rely on for licensing arrangements in
other businesses. Microsoft is just playing "good cop" to Apple's existential
"bad cop" threat. Doesn't mean they like paying tolls to Redmond.

~~~
mkr-hn
I'll take that over weaponized patents. Microsoft is showing restraint, even
if it's only because of their mutual interest in knocking Apple down a peg.
I'll criticize Microsoft as soon as they use those patents to block
competitors.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Extorting fees for every Android device sold shows _restraint_? Maybe by
comparison to Apple, but I prefer not to grade on a curve.

And as for blocking competitors, how many vendors have looked at Android and
reconsidered due to the current litigation environment and imposed fees? I
don't have an exact number, but I'd bet on "at least one". So, please
criticize away. :)

~~~
mkr-hn
Is it every device? I haven't been able to find a good overview that lists
companies that have signed on and companies that haven't, or details on the
specific patents. I couldn't speculate on what might have been without more
information.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Set your spin filters to maximum and try this Microsoft article from last
year:
[https://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/...](https://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/10/23/microsoft-
s-new-patent-agreement-with-compal-a-new-milestone-for-our-android-licensing-
program.aspx?Redirected=true)

I think they've sued a few more vendors into joining since then.

~~~
mkr-hn
I don't see much in the way of details. It looks like a blanket license, which
isn't a bad thing if Microsoft has something other companies want. By that
understanding, a licensee could use Metro or something derived from it.

My understanding is that patent-related legal services are extremely
expensive. A few dollars per device is easier to deal with than months of
patent research every time a manufacturer wants to change something.
Especially if a company with patents has one the manufacturer wants to use.

~~~
spinchange
If only settling with Microsoft indemnified ODMs from future litigation risk!

This is not about providing a cheap alternative to patent-related legal
services, it's about a dynastic enterprise using the threat of a flawed patent
system against it's partners and former partners to regain lost competitive
advantage in the market place!

The silver lining is still a silver lining just for Microsoft. Sales of
Windows phone 7 speak for themselves (and the ODMs)

------
suresk
Ignoring the obvious patent ridiculousness, I'm a little bit surprised and
dismayed to see Apple going so hard after Android in this way.

1) As a consumer, competition in this space is overwhelmingly positive. You
can already see a number of improvements Apple has made to iOS as a result of
Android, and a strong Android OS will continue to keep them on their toes.

2) You have to wonder if it is even good for Apple to win in the long run.
They have so much control over the iPhone ecosystem, getting too much market
share in the mobile/tablet space would very likely garner unwanted attention
from the DOJ. It is possible Android is a significant buffer against an anti-
trust action similar to what Microsoft saw in the 90's.

~~~
alttab
This just tells me to go out and buy one of these, since Apple sees it as a
threat. Which means its probably a decent device. They haven't pulled a stunt
like this on all the other crappy tablets that have come out.

~~~
suresk
Like briandear mentioned, this is more directed towards Samsung in particular
(although Android itself is a big part of it, and this is part of a broader
war on Android), but at least part of the reason I think Apple is going after
the Galaxy Tab so strongly is that is that, from a physical perspective, it
looks quite a bit like the iPad. When a few of my co-workers got them and had
them sitting on their desks, I sort of assumed that they were iPads - they
very closely resemble them.

While I think Apple would still be pursuing them without the physical
resemblance, at least some of the strong reaction you're seeing is due to it,
so I wouldn't necessarily take their reaction as an endorsement of the Tab
(although I have heard it is quite good).

~~~
alttab
My guess if it looked like the iPad but provided a sub-par experience, Apple
would be laughing in their Ivory Tower about how cute it is they think rounded
tablet edges make all the difference.

------
neya
Everyone talks about how innovative Apple is and how innovative Steve Jobs was
and how he changed 'the world'. But no one talks about how much innovation
Apple has crippled more than they had contributed.

For example, a recent broad patent called Universal Search was used by Apple
to sue Android OEM's and the end result? The feature was removed from certain
Android phones to avoid litigation. And mind you, Universal search had long
existed before Apple had patented it. This is just one example, but there are
many many broad patents that Apple uses to cripple innovation. The end result
is that the users lose more than these companies because they are missing out
a lot of features that their devices are capable of implementing. Funny how
this is something that is not written much about by these tech Journalists.
You never see someone writing how Apple crippled innovation, but only how
'cool' Apple is or how 'innovative' they are. Pathetic.

We need a better, unbiased source for technology news. The current set of tech
journalists sound more like Apple sales men. We live in a world where we are
forced to read what the journalists think of the news rather than just the
news itself. Hope someone from HN builds such a platform.

~~~
taligent
I love the fact that the huge legal teams from Samsung, HTC, Google etc can't
find prior art for Apple's "universal search" patent but you can.

Or maybe if you actually read the patent you would realise it is for a
specific client side, plug-in based implementation which at its time
definitely didn't exist on any OS.

~~~
creamyhorror
Wait, no prior art was found? Did I miss an announcement, a failed patent
suit, or some other piece of news, or are you just assuming things there?

If the original patent is specific enough to cover only Apple's particular
method of searching a phone, then how could Android's unified search be found
to be infringing without some sort of reverse engineering or source code
examination? If this examination had been done, surely we'd have the results
published somewhere.

On the other hand, if the patent was general enough to cover _any_ search
across multiple components on a device, then surely it should not have been
granted and we should not be cheering for a company that exercises such a
monopoly?

If this unified search patent can be used to stop a phone from searching
through multiple data types and components, do you actually think that's
something that should stand up in court in the first place? Or are you just
going to argue that Apple is just making use of the monopolies granted by the
system, the rules of the game, and should be excused anyhow?

------
neovive
It's quite sad to see this. How many people here are using the Galaxy Nexus?
Google just pushed the 4.1 update and it is simply an awesome device and os.
It definitely serves a more technical audience than the iPhone, but the power
and customizability is amazing. I like the iPhone, but I just prefer the
flexibility of the Nexus and the fact that no contract is required. The direct
from Google model and Android's open philosophy simply works better for me.
Choice is a good thing, the last time I checked.

~~~
RegEx
Thanks for the recommendation. AT&T contract just expired, and I'm looking
into getting an Android.

~~~
neovive
Besides the nice hardware on the Nexus (although not quite as powerful as the
Galaxy S III), you get almost instant OS updates. Other devices have to wait a
few months (if they ever get the updates) since the carriers control the
updates and have custom themes on top of Android.

~~~
pkulak
I don't really care about "powerful" hardware, but I have heard bad things
about the GPS and camera in the Nexus, which, combined, are about 80% of the
reason I use a smart phone. I'm going to give the GS3 a shot and just hope
that the wonderful folks at Cyanogen will work their magic.

------
fr4nko
Being Sicilian I'm well placed to know how to name this kind of acts: mafia.

The only difference with traditional mafia is that in this case the act is
dressed with the clothes of a big corporation but the underlying meaning of
this kind of acts is just the same.

~~~
joelhooks
You mean outside of the physical coercion, eh? That seems like a big
difference in my head.

If I petition the city to have my neighbor trim back his tree, it is one
thing. If I beat him and threaten his family as an encouragement to trim the
tree and give me $20, it is another thing altogether.

~~~
fr4nko
Actions can be mafia even without physical violence.

As everyone can see the notice was sent by Apple itself not by an US
institution like a tribunal or a governmental agency.

Even juridical acts can be a form of violence expecially if they came from a
big organization against a small retailer. The fact that there is no physical
violence put them in another plan but violence and intimidations are always of
the same nature and qualifies this act as mafia (in my point of view).

~~~
taligent
Seriously. What ARE you talking about ?

Governments don't send notices like this. Lawyers do. Which is exactly what
happened in this situation.

~~~
ams6110
I've gotten letters like this from the IRS...

------
moe
It's sad to see what Apple is becoming.

They can not win this war, probably not even delay the outcome by a measurable
margin.

Meanwhile Android begins to leapfrog them not only on hardware (which has been
the case for a while, short of tablets) but also on software and the holy
grail of user-experience.

They still have quite an edge on the UX-front but that is destined to fade if
they don't come to their senses really soon now.

~~~
pooriaazimi
The way I understand it, they're not doing it for profit. They're doing it to
scare the hell out of Google, Samsung and HTC not to copy the design of
Apple's products. They're just making an example of Samsung to show that
they're ready to whatever necessary to protect their IP, even at the cost of
tarnishing their own brand.

------
Bjoern
Patent Trolling by Apple. This is just silly, do they really believe they can
keep their edge this way? Intimidating 3rd party vendors?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
If Apple really felt their product was superior, I'm sure they wouldn't need
to worry about their competition enough to sue them.

~~~
gurkendoktor
That's reading a bit too much into it.

Apple's lawyers have always been busy. In the "PC era", Apple sued businesses
that dared to use an apple as its logo.

~~~
tommi
What I have gathered from US law is that they have to do it in order to
protect their trademark. If they don't sue, it's same as giving up the
trademark. Please correct if I'm wrong.

~~~
true_religion
You get a trademark for a specific context.

If Apple's trademark was restricted to the context of computing (likely), then
suing anyone who dared using an Appple in their logo was beyond the score of
necessary protection.

~~~
Someone
One problem Apple computer had is that it's trademark was limited to
computing. That caused problems when they branched out to other markets such
as 'computers that can do MIDI'

In particular, they had quite a few disagreements with Apple Records about
doing audio. Even though more or less the only people who know Apple
Corps/Records think "of the Beatles' records", they took action against Apple
even as early as 1978
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer>)

I think those lawsuits may have affected company culture at Apple Computer,
now Apple Inc.

------
Sukotto
It may just be my perverse nature, or some variant of Streisand Effect... but
this just makes me want to buy one.

[disclosure: I'm long AAPL]

------
einhverfr
I remember reading in a 1st Circuit (I think) opinion that something like 60%
of challenged patents are invalidated. This strategy strikes me as quite
dangerous for Apple. They risk losing on average a bit over half of the
patents at issue, and they could lose everything. Worse, even if they win, the
patents at issue will be worked around and it will be a temporary setback.
Apple really gets very little out of this fight.

So yeah, given that reality it would probably be smarter to try to focus on,
well, actually trying to dominate in the marketplace rather than in the
courtroom.

~~~
sjwright
> They risk losing on average a bit over half of the patents at issue

And the other half get significantly strengthened.

~~~
einhverfr
define "strengthened."

I don't know what percentage of patents survive by being read narrowly by a
court.

The thing is that three things can happen to a patent when it is challenged:

1) The court can say "that's not a valid patent" kind of like the Supreme
Court recently did in Mayo v. Prometheus (Prometheus patented how to interpret
test results. The Supreme Court said you couldn't patent the results of the
test, just the method of testing.)

2) The court can say "Ok, so the following is legitimate prior art, and
additionally if we read this broadly, it can't be patentable, and so what's
left when we read it narrowly and leave out the areas covered by the prior art
is yours." In this case the patent is "strengthened" in the sense that
everyone has a better idea of what will happen next time in court but it is
also narrowed.

3) The court can let the patent stand as-is.

The problem is that while the latter two seem like they strengthen the legal
position the next time around, where a patent was previously unknown or
disputed, they also weaken the market impact because they provide larger
reasons to work around the patent.

So I don't know. I don't see an upside for Apple here other than a very, very
temporary edge in the marketplace.

------
dkhenry
What did we think they were going to spend millions in court trying to remove
competitors then not act on it ?

------
rcavezza
I love the British legal system... _a U.K. judge said the tablet is “not as
cool,” and thereby doesn’t infringe on the iPad._

~~~
fidotron
Potentially a smart judgment, because if Apple were to try and overturn it
they'd have to argue that their competitors are as cool as they are.

------
rbanffy
Someone should introduce Tim Cook and judges Posner and Alsup. I'd love to
watch the ensuing conversation.

~~~
dsirijus
Throw in Jesus and Zappa. As likely to happen.

------
tosseraccount
Apple's suing on "form factor" ???? We need to curtail the Patent Industry,
not Samsung.

~~~
einhverfr
Evidently Apple has patented the rectangle and working their way up to the
wheel....

~~~
ams6110
To be fair, no. They argument is not that the device is rectangular. Their
argument is that very specific elements of the device and its packaging are
virtually identical to Apple's designs.

------
briandear
Samsung DID straight up copy Apple. Apple isn't going after other
manufacturers, just this specific one for these specific devices. Here's a
little side-by-side comparison of what Samsung did:
[http://atomicsupersky.com/post/26275796849/on-the-samsung-
ga...](http://atomicsupersky.com/post/26275796849/on-the-samsung-galaxy-
injunction)

This all could have been avoided if Samsung didn't blatantly copy Apple. I
mean, they even copied the same color for the phone icon. If you go into
Photoshop and compare the two greens, they are identical. You don't
accidentally do that. Samsung had the intent to copy. It isn't even about the
under-the-hood aspects (which can be another discussion,) this is about the
clear and obvious ripoff of Apple design.

Samsung did this to themselves. The point of this injunction is that consumers
could be confused. After all, even Samsung's own lawyers couldn't distinguish
the Galaxy from the iPad at a distance of 10 feet.

~~~
vibrunazo
You're confusing trademarks with patents. Trademarks are supposed to avoid
consumer confusion. In fact, in trademark lawsuits it's required that you
establish that there's consumer confusion, or else you have no case. It's
common on these lawsuits that consumers are interviewed and asked if they're
confused by the products. Apple would've done this if they had a trademark
case against Samsung. In any other IP case which isn't trademark, pointing
confusion, as in the Samsung lawyer example, is just a meaningless gimmick
that serves no real purpose. [1] But Apple isn't suing Samsung for trademark
infringement, they're suing for patents. Which means to stop Samsung for using
Apple's technological "inventions". So your argument is invalid, Apple is not
trying to establish confusion. They're going specifically after Samsung simply
because they're by far the biggest target. And the examples in your blog are
blatant cherry-picking. [2]

[1] <http://www.bonkersworld.net/obvious-similarities/>

[2] <http://www.bonkersworld.net/great-artists-steal/>

~~~
taligent
You might want to do a bit of research on something called a "design patent".

~~~
vibrunazo
You might want to read before posting. There are no design patents being used
in the Galaxy Nexus ban. Their argument is Samsung copied "unified search".

~~~
taligent
The person you were replying to was talking about the Galaxy tab which did
infringe on Apple's design patent.

------
rrggrr
Ordered one a minute ago in protest.

------
dhughes
If you're in the US and near the Canadian border both are available here in
Canada, I think.

<http://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Products/Galaxy_Nexus>

I don't know if is the new one or not: [http://www.futureshop.ca/en-
CA/product/samsung-samsung-10-1-...](http://www.futureshop.ca/en-
CA/product/samsung-samsung-10-1-16gb-galaxy-tab-2-tablet-with-wi-fi-silver-
gt-p5113/10206558.aspx?path=7aa588628d2a99afb02dedcf012646b2en02)

------
mtgx
Wasn't the temporary ban on the Galaxy Nexus lifted? Apple is still sending
these takedown notices right now, even though the ban was lifted?

~~~
vibrunazo
According to the article, Apple was sending the takedowns before the lift.

"Apple began sending those notices associated with the Galaxy Nexus on June 3,
the same day U.S. Judge Lucy Koh turned down Samsung’s appeal on the
injunction. Three days later, however, Judge Koh suspended the injunction."

The Verge probably makes this part more clear:

"According to Samsung, several sellers received letters ordering them to cease
selling the two devices in late June and early July, before the ban on the
Galaxy Nexus was stayed."

\- [http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/13/3157505/apple-retailer-
gal...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/13/3157505/apple-retailer-galaxy-nexus-
tab-10-1-takedown-order)

