Posts Tagged ‘ipad’

Samsung Wins Patent Rematch Against Apple, Galaxy Tabs Back On Australian Shelves

Thursday, 01 December, 2011 16:33 Written by Scott Nyman 0 Comments

Scott Nyman

 

As many of our readers may be aware, Apple won a significant victory over competitor Samsung with the order of a preliminary injunction against the sale of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia. As a refresher, Apple sued Samsung in the Federal Court of Australia – New South Wales District Registry (analogous to the U.S. District Courts) seeking to block the sales of the competing Galaxy tablet back in July due to alleged patent infringement. After hearings on the matter, the primary judge of the FCA-NSWDR issued an order granting the interlocutory relief, enjoining Samsung from selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the land down under.

In a somewhat humorous manner, the Australian Court explains the background of the matter to the technologically lay person. Maybe I’m just nerdy, but I imagined this being spoken in a tone I would use to explain to my dog why she needs to “sit” before she can have a “treat.” Enjoy:

Apple markets in Australia a tablet computer known as the “iPad”. The iPad uses an operating system known as “iOS”. Apple alleges that Samsung proposes to market in Australia a tablet computer known as the “Galaxy Tab 10.1” (the Galaxy Tab 10.1) which uses an operating system known as “Android”. The Android operating system is available for use by many other manufacturers of computing and similar equipment. The iOS is available for use only with Apple products. Apple alleges that the importation, sale and promotion of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 will infringe claims in 13 of its patents. It also alleges breach or anticipated breach of the Australian Consumer Law and passing off. Samsung denies these allegations and has cross-claimed, seeking revocation of certain patents held by Apple and alleging infringement by Apple of certain patents held by Samsung.

Yesterday, the Federal Court of Australia – Full Court (analogous to U.S. Circuit Courts) reversed the injunction, politely slamming the District Judge by stating, in part:

Her Honour was obliged to make … an assessment for the purpose of deciding whether Apple had made out a prima facie case of sufficient strength to justify the grant of an interlocutory injunction to restrain infringement of its patents. In this case, given that the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctive relief was going to have the practical consequence of deciding Apple’s claims for final injunctions and thus deciding the commercial fate of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Apple was required to demonstrate a relatively strong case.

In addition to deciding whether Apple had made out such a prima facie case, her Honour was also required to assess the strength of that case so that she could take into account her views on that matter in her assessment of the balance of convenience and justice.

The primary judge did not undertake either of these evaluative tasks. Her Honour’s failure to do so constituted important errors which led her to grant interlocutory injunctive relief in circumstances where, for reasons which we will explain, she should not have done so. In our view, her decision was clearly wrong and should be set aside. The discretion falls to be re-exercised by this Court.

Zing!

The repeal of the injunction is effective immediately. Bottles of champagne have been popping in Samsung’s legal department since last night.

Read More:

AustLII

Ars Technica

Amazon Wants In: Talks With HP to Buy Palm’s Patents

Monday, 03 October, 2011 06:20 Written by Aaron Thalwitzer 2 Comments

Big tech companies see mobile devices as their future.  I can reach no other conclusion, given the recent patent buying-sprees. Every big tech company has gotten into it: Google, Apple, and Microsoft (among many others) have spend tens of billions buying tens of thousands of patents, most of which are related to mobile devices. The sellers are mainly has-beens, including Verizon, Nortel, Motorola, Rim, and Novell. IBM also sold a trove of patents to Google, but they’re no has been.

Another big tech company has recently broadened its business model — Amazon. With the Kindle (whose success perplexes me), Amazon dipped its rather large pinkie toe into the mobile device waters. Now, Amazon has released the Fire, a tablet device with which Amazon is has inched closer to competing with the vaunted iPad.

Now, make no mistake, the Fire is no iPad, but I don’t think Amazon wants it to be. These days, once you compete with Apple, you lose. There’s no such thing as an Apple, except an Apple. But if you’re on the periphery, or somehow create a new niche, you have a chance. Enter, the Fire. But mobile devices need intellectual property protection to stand a chance when billion dollar IP lawsuits are being tossed around.

Amazon has been beefing up its patent portfolio, including singing a huge and vital licensing agreement with Microsoft in 2010. Now, Amazon may be looking to expand further by buying another tech has been, Palm.

Last year, HP bought Palm for $1.2 billion, but HP has been losing money on mobile device unit for the last year and is looking to unload. Hilariously, an executive VP at HP said at the time that Palm would “create a unique H.P. experience spanning multiple mobile connected devices.” I am now sitting at my laptop, thinking, “I am having one hell of a unique Toshiba experience.” But I digress.

Might Palm be bought at a bargain rate? Venturebeat.com has reported that Amazon and HP are in “serious negotiations”, that there are other potential buyers as well. Palm is said to have a nice patent portfolio, which Amazon will need to defend against the lawsuits which are all but pending (because when aren’t they?).

Someone named Jordan Rohan (“ . . . a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!”) from some company called Stifel Nicolaus even said:

I don’t think anyone believes that Apple and Amazon will not have significant competitive skirmishes in the future . . .  The value of I.P. related to mobile has gone up—even if there was no palm devices in the future, it would still be valuable.

Yep, he thinks Apple and Amazon will sue each other and that the already high value of mobile IP will continue to rise. Pray that Mr. Rohan didn’t get paid for his prophesy.

It’s all funny money for big tech firms, but Amazon is right to be in the game. If you ain’t got patents, you ain’t got nuthin in the mobile device wars.

 

Samsung v. Apple: Patent Litigation Meets Sci-Fi Mainstay

Monday, 29 August, 2011 08:39 Written by Aaron Thalwitzer 2 Comments

Aaron Thalwitzer

We all know Apple moved to enjoin Samsung in its US patent suit over the iPad (among other many things). Samsung filed its opposition brief, in which it makes a claim that makes a great forest for the trees argument. In its brief Samsung cites classic but still mostly boring movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, in support of its argument that the design of the iPad is prior art. The more I think about it, the more of a point I think they’ve got. The tablet-style computer is so ubiquitous to sci-fi that it goes unnoticed – except that the iPad and its kin have mostly exceeded the fictional capabilities of these formerly futuristic devices. The following image shows the content of page 2 of an exhibit filed by Samsung with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (click to enlarge): Samsung argues that the pic from 2001 is valid prior art for an iPad-related design patent:

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a still image taken from Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 film “2001: A Space Odyssey.” In a clip from that film lasting about one minute, two astronauts are eating and at the same time using personal tablet computers. The clip can be downloaded online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ8pQVDyaLo. As with the design claimed by the D’889 Patent, the tablet disclosed in the clip has an overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface, a flat back surface (which is evident because the tablets are lying flat on the table’s surface), and a thin form factor.

According to ABC News, science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke called the device in 2001 a “Newspad,” and in the book version of 2001 described how a user “would conjure up the world’s major electronic papers; he knew the codes of the more important ones by heart, and had no need to consult the list on the back of his pad.” He went on: punch in the code for a story and “the postage-stamp-size rectangle would expand until it neatly filled the screen and he could read it in comfort.” While Samsung’s argument is quite ingenious, let us not forget the true innovator here – and it’s not Kubrick, Clarke, Samsung, or Apple. As usual, Star Trek beat everyone to the punch. Star Fleet has been using these devices (known as a Personal Access Display Devices, i.e. PADDs) since the 1960s. According toMemory Alpha:

PADDs were used by such space-faring organizations as Starfleet, the Andorian Imperial Guard, Bajoran Militia, Cardassian Union, Klingon Empire, Romulan Star Empire, and Vulcan High Command.

For reasons wholly personal, I would enjoy seeing Samsung hook the court on this argument. First, it feels right, and it’s a creative argument. Second, it’s fun and, better yet, sci-fi fun. I like Apple products, but right now, I prefer Samsung’s lawyers (especially in light of Apple’s lawyers recent ethically questionable practices).

 

Apple puts the “i” in infringement

Sunday, 19 June, 2011 19:01 Written by Scott Nyman 0 Comments

Scott Nyman

 

Apple has become well known for its line of “i” products. You may be familiar with the iPod, iPhone, iTunes, iMac, iBooks, and now the iCloud. It turns out that some of these iMonikers are not so original, stirring up the ire of the original owners of the associated marks.

First up, publisher John T. Colby has filed a lawsuit against Apple for infringing on its “iBooks” trademark. Apple does own trademarks for “iBook” and “iBooks,” both either registered or assigned in 2001. However, Colby is alleging using the iBooks mark in 1999, which predates Apple’s first use in 2000.

If this case actually makes it to trial, large amounts of money will likely have to be spent on proving the geographical reach of the Colby mark. However, since Apple owns federal registrations for the iBook related marks, any victory by Colby would likely be limited to that specific geographic region. I’m calling it now, this one will settle.

Next, iCloud Communications has initiated litigation against Apple for infringing on its “iCloud” trademark. iCloud Communications has apparently been using the mark since 2005. Additionally, iCloud Communications alleges that Apple has willfully engaged in its infringing activity, upping the stakes of litigation. Statutory damages for willful infringement of a trademark may be as high as $150,000. However, against a company such as Apple, statutory damages would likely pale in comparison to the actual damages lost by Apple’s use of the mark. Still, proving willful infringement to the Court may provide the legs needed to enjoin Apple from using the iCloud name.

This “iCloud” situation is a little trickier to predict an outcome. On one side, Apple has enough money to settle almost anything. However, this situation reminds me the AppleTV.

You can bet AppleTV is not the result of strategic marketing research. The AppleTV is called the AppleTV because Apple could not call it the iTV without a substantial, and potentially losing, legal battle. Just ask ITV Global and Elgato, maker of the EyeTV television tuner, what they think about Apple selling an iTV.

In fact, about a year ago, rumors started surfacing that Apple was going to rename the AppleTV to be called the iTV and match the rest of the iProduct line. These rumors alone were enough to spark the fire of ITV Global, owners of the ITV television network. I’ll guess that we’ll see the name changed to AppleCloud, meCloud or something else Apple-ish.

Additional reading:

CrunchGear

Ars Technica

 

APPLE AND SAMSUNG STILL NOT GETTING ALONG

Saturday, 18 June, 2011 20:48 Written by Rene Dial 1 Comment

By: Rene Dial

In a court room show down of I showed you mine now show me yours Samsung is requesting that Apple reveal their latest Iphone and Ipad projects.

Apple and Samsung have been going at it for months now.  Apple is claiming patent and copyright infringement then Samsung countersued.  According to LosAngelesIBTimes.com Apple is Samsung’s second biggest customer accounting for about $5.7 billion in sales.

Why would Samsung fight with their second biggest customer and Apple with one of its main if not its main supplier?  Samsung produces the Galaxy Tablet that uses the Android software and is taking more of a bite out of Apple’s Ipad sales.  Apple of course needs the chips that Samsung produces.  The patents that Apple is claiming that Samsung is infringing is the pinching and zooming technology and the likeness of the Ipad’s black background.  We will keep an eye on this one to see who blinks first.

Both of these companies need each other and are supposed to be in talks outside of the courtroom.

 

« Older Entries

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 05, 2012

Bad Behavior has blocked 1586 access attempts in the last 7 days.