Samsung: injunction for Apple makes no sense, infringed products are outdated

By , May 3, 2013

Samsung Experience Shops at Best Buy (teaser 002)

Although a jury in August 2012 awarded the California firm $1 billion in damages after finding Samsung guilty of violating utility Apple patents related to the iPhone and iPad, Judge Lucy Koh is still unimpressed. Having determined in January that the Galaxy maker did not “willfully” infringe on Apple’s patents, two months later she announced a decrease of the $1.05 billion verdict by $450 million.

Friday came word that Samsung argued in court documents that any permanent injunction in the United States against the infringing products “would not stop any ongoing infringement.” And why’s that? Because the Galaxy maker has either “discontinued the accused products or designed around any infringing features in the ones it still sells”

Patent blogger Florian Müeller who covers these things extensively over at his FOSS Patents blog established that Samsung appears to be attempting to leverage the slow judicial system to its advantage.

Responding to the letters a law firm sent on Apple’s behalf to a bunch of U.S. retailers, related to a preliminary sales ban, Samsung wrote that “the only effect of an injunction would be to confuse and intimidate Samsung’s carriers and retailers with respect to non-accused products never adjudicated in this case, harming Samsung’s longstanding market relationships.”

Müeller explains:

Samsung seeks affirmance of Judge Koh’s holding that Apple failed to establish a causal nexus between the infringements identified and the harm it alleges to suffer from Samsung’s competing products.

How convenient.

Apple v Samsung trial sign

Samsung floods the market with dozens of products and moves quickly to refresh a few months old gizmos with updated versions. The strategy allows the firm to react to lawsuits swiftly by incorporating workarounds and replacing infringing products with their updated counterparts before any definite ruling is reached in the courtroom.

Coincidentally or not, Samsung in March expressed worries that the second damages trial could see Apple win even more than the August $1.05 billion verdict.

Last week, Koh issued a new case management order binding the two parties to battling it out over damages on the remaining products this Fall.

The next hearing is scheduled for November 12, giving Apple a chance to get back some of the $450 million Koh cut from the damages settlement.

  • Share:
  • Follow:
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alexander-Novarro/1499444086 Alexander Novarro

    This company should have been called XEROX!

    • Gorgonphone

      XEROXSUNG

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alexander-Novarro/1499444086 Alexander Novarro

        no…. just XEROX!

      • felixtaf

        Plz, Dont insult that XEROX company….

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alexander-Novarro/1499444086 Alexander Novarro

        HUAHSUAHSUA TRUE…. wasn’t in my best intentions!

    • http://www.facebook.com/antman217 Anthony Antunez

      How ironic. Apple pretty much “took” the idea of the GUI for Mac OS from Xerox.

      • Guest

        you know that’s not the full story right?! one thing is copying/stealing another is having the right to use the ideia!

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alexander-Novarro/1499444086 Alexander Novarro

        The GUI first existed on paper in the 50s and was demonstrated on a vector graphics screen in the late 50s. It was a common idea for scores of people. No one can say the “invented” it. It was always a matter of who would come up with the best implementation…

      • https://twitter.com/MrElectrifyer MrElectrifyer

        Lol @ the hypocricy, what exactly was invented by Apple in the iPhone? They too just did the exact same thing as you described in the case of Samsung; came up with the best implementation of a smartphone in 2007, they didn’t invent nothing!

        http://bit ly/107UVb4

  • Gorgonphone

    SOOOO THE ONLY FOLKS WHO GOT PAYED IN THIS WHOLE CASE ARE THE DAMN LAWYERS..LOLHAAHHAHAHHAHA

  • JoJo

    Samsung: Yeah guis sorry we copied ur shit but its old now so yeah noone caruzz nmore right?

    REALLY SAMSUNG!!??

    Are you really gonna play that card? It is a pathetic attempt to get away with stealing. Its like saying Yooo Sorry I stole 200 million
    bucks (random number) five years ago but hey since its been five years
    how about you all forget about it kay?

    They seem to forget that ALL of these “outdated” infringements are the foundation of their entire market share.
    If they did not infringe on these “outdated” patents they would have
    nowhere near the success they have right now in the smartphone market.

    Samsung is one of the worst companies to ever hit this planet and nobody seems to do or care anything about it.

    • Jose Gonzalez

      Preach!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alexander-Novarro/1499444086 Alexander Novarro

      totally agree with you!

    • http://twitter.com/TX_girl85 Tech_irl85

      True but samsung is also the one who had been making the parts for the iDevice this whole time. I know they are making a change and dropping samsung. But I like my device how it is now as in I haven’t had any problems. So will another company be able to make the same quality parts? Will they be just as good?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alexander-Novarro/1499444086 Alexander Novarro

        maybe even better…. apple will have more control!

      • chris125

        well if the ipad/macs are any indication, samsung made better parts and could meet demand. You don’t see a lawsuit against apple for the samsung screens in the retina MBP, it was for the other screens they were using(from lg/sharp)

  • girish

    mayB outdated,,bt shamesung build their foundation based on the infringed products itself!!! SO IT DOES MATTER even if its 25yrs old!!!!without it,,u wud stil be making phones that people dont care

  • http://www.facebook.com/robs.account Rob Stevens

    While having a fast release cycle may have helped their legal position, I don’t think it’s fair to position sneaky legal tactics as their primary motive.

    It is surely for competitive and marketing reasons, the same as Apple.