
U.S. judge says Samsung tablets infringe Apple patents - ssclafani
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/13/us-apple-samsung-lawsuit-idUSTRE79C79C20111013
======
Steko
[http://gigaom.com/apple/judge-samsung-does-infringe-
apples-u...](http://gigaom.com/apple/judge-samsung-does-infringe-apples-u-s-
patents/):

"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.

~~~
nextparadigms
I like how in the picture they open the app drawer for Galaxy Tab to make it
look more like iPad. The app drawer is not the default view on Galaxy Tab.

~~~
Steko
Is that the same ui view that Samsung put on the Galaxy Tab packaging?

Ex:

[http://www.photokina-show.com/news_images/00812_samsung-
gala...](http://www.photokina-show.com/news_images/00812_samsung-galaxy-tab-
review.jpg)

~~~
yohui
> Is that the same ui view that Samsung put on the Galaxy Tab packaging? Ex:
> [http://www.photokina-show.com/news_images/00812_samsung-
> gala...](http://www.photokina-show.com/news_images/00812_samsung-galaxy-tab-
> review.jpg)

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.

~~~
Steko
This is still how Samsung themselves chose to represent the family of devices
before they got sued though right?

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?

~~~
jarek
For what it's worth, my Canadian/Bell 7" Tab packaging (bought April 2011, no
idea when the packaging first came out) has the tablet face-on with a
photograph fullscreened. None of Android UI is visible except for the four
capacitive buttons.

edit: April 2011, not 2010, correct, my apologies

~~~
Steko
Assume you mean 2011, wasn't out til Nov 2010.

------
zacharycohn
If Samsung is infringing on the iPad design, pretty much every Flatscreen
TV/monitor manufacturer ever should probably start hiring lawyers, because I
can't tell the difference between a Sony or a Panasonic monitor at a glance
either.

~~~
wnight
What a waste. We've got multiple unjust wars, we're bailing out wall-street
yet again, and this is what our courts find time to do - waste the time and
effort of a productive company like Samsung over "design patents".

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.

------
shaggyfrog
"Apple and Samsung are engaged in a bruising legal battle that includes more
than 20 cases in 10 countries as the two jostle for the top spot in the
smartphone and tablet markets."

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?

~~~
InclinedPlane
"Smartphone and tablet markets"

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.

~~~
shaggyfrog
There is no tablet market, only an iPad market.

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.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Amazon is selling about 50k android tablets a day. That sounds like a market
to me.

~~~
shaggyfrog
It's a start, sure, but it's a looooong way to how many iPads Apple has sold
already, which amounted to 9 million last quarter alone.

~~~
cellis
...Extrapolating the 50k if true...1.5million/mo * 3 = 4.5million
fires/quarter. That's halfway to what Apple is selling and they've just gotten
started.

------
nextparadigms
"A U.S. judge said Samsung's Galaxy tablets infringe Apple's iPad patents,"

"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.

~~~
Steko
That seems to be exactly what she's saying: Samsung appears to infringe on the
patent(s)* but the patent(s)* may appear obvious to her and unlikely to stand
up to reexamination which would make the injunction less likely.

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."

~~~
cheald
Can a judge invalidate patents as being obvious? Or can only the USPTO do
that?

~~~
ahlatimer
Yes, the courts can invalidate a patent for failing to meet the burden of non-
obviousness.

------
jaypreneur
I don't see how Apple could win. A "utility" patent? On the design.
Seriously... am I the only one who thinks those are ridiculous patents? It
looks like I suppose Samsung is infringing on the patent, but I really hope
the patents don't stand up.

~~~
Steko
The utility and design patents are not the same.

