“Five months and one day after Apple filed its motion for a preliminary injunction in the United States against four Samsung products based on three design patents and one software patent, Judge Lucy Koh finally denied it,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents. “It’s not all bad for Apple with a view to the final decision on those intellectual property rights that will come down at the end of the main proceeding (the process concerning the preliminary injunction request was only a temporary, parallel, fast track for a small subset of Apple’s claims). It’s possible that Apple will get a more favorable outcome on some of the asserted rights in the main proceeding.”
Earlier today, Mueller emailed MacDailyNews with some key points:
• Design patents aren’t the answer to Apple’s issues with Samsung. Their valid scope is usually too narrow to be of much use.
• T-Mobile’s and Verizon’s public interest statements were dismissed. The ITC will have to decide, by Tuesday, on similar public interest claims in the Apple v. HTC case.
• In my opinion, the ruling contains errors with respect to the assessment of market and competitive dynamics, and unfortunately for Apple, those mistakes were outcome-determinative for most of Apple’s claims.
Mueller writes, “It’s unfortunate for Apple that the judge took positions that, in my experience with competition issues, economists would be rather unlikely to take (provided that they understand the relevant market and are impartial). Even without those mistakes, Apple wouldn’t have won a ruling that would have been devastating to Samsung. Samsung could have easily worked around it, I believe. But the outcome would look much better for Apple if some of its claims had succeeded — and a couple of them apparently would have succeeded if the competitive dynamics had been assessed more accurately.”
Much more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: What’s the point of innovating if your inventions can simply be stolen at will and sold for years before the “legal system” catches up, if it ever does?
Regardless of glacial and fallible courts and judges, we consumers can swiftly deliver a measure of justice on our own:
Boycott Samsung. We no longer buy Samsung-branded products and advise our millions of readers worldwide to also avoid purchasing Samsung-branded products until they cease stealing Apple’s patented IP.
Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
Related article:
U.S. judge rejects Apple bid to halt Samsung Galaxy smartphone, tablet sales – December 3, 2011
A fair number of innovations are still generated in this country. In fact, in this era of outsourcing, many would argue that it’s out chief competitive advantage globally.
Congratulations to Lucy Koh for striking a blow against the institution of intellectual property in a country most strongly associated with the term. Apparently, the Singaporean interpretation is as liberal as Google’s.
A fair number of innovations are still generated in this country. In fact, in this era of outsourcing, many would argue that it’s out chief competitive advantage globally.
Congratulations to Lucy Koh for striking a blow against the institution of intellectual property in a country most strongly associated with the term. Apparently, the Singaporean interpretation is as liberal as Google’s.
Hey Chris, thanks for repeating that statement. But, it still doesn’t make any sense the second time around.
Oh, and that stupid bitch Lucy Koh should be hung with her own robes.
What kind of mobile devices judge Koh uses? Maybe these from her mother country, Korea?
I mean, seriously, the judges would be challengeable on the basis of personal bias.
Just remember that A$$hole judge who decided it was ok for Micro$hit to ripp off the Mac OS plunging the world into the tech dark ages.
What a joke of a legal system and what a joke of a judge. He was most likely a Windcrap user himself.
The editorial statement at the end of the lead in to the full article would not be misconstrued as hypocrisy were it not for the fact that just below the banner add is a very prominent add for a Samsung phone. Even though I agree with the thrust of the statement, it is obvious that there is an element of ‘do as I say’ and ‘not as I do’. So, how can you take the editorial seriously.
Lucy Koh is the most prominent Korean American Judge in US. How unbiased she is when it comes to evaluating a case against Samsung? Koreans view Samsung as the pride of Korea. The company represents over 50% of Korea GDP. If you read local Korean press, Apply is been completely vilified there as an American company going after the pride of Korea, Samsung. How really unbiased can she be????
All first degree and racist. Typically American.
Lucy Koh is the most prominent Korean American Judge in US. Is this completely out of the line to question her bias when it comes to evaluating the case against Samsung? Koreans view Samsung as the national pride (for the right reasons!). The company represents over 50% of Korean GDP and is the largest employer in Korea by far. Lucy Koh was educated in America but I am sure her heritage and background impacts her decision one way or another.
Before the Political Correctness Police jump on me here calling me a racist, let me clarify. I am not making here a statement about Korea or Asia in general (I am married to a beautiful Asian American myself). What I am saying is that it is completely natural for our background and cultural heritage to impact our decision making and allegiances. A German American Judge, for example, could be biased when overseeing the case that involves a major German company vs. American company. Same is true for any country – you could replace here Germany with France, Italy, China, Russia, Brazil, etc.
There is logic to this point and even FIFA follows it as well. When referees are chosen for a football match they are not from any of the two countries playing. Lucy Koh could be receiving intense cultural pressure from the Korean community to protect Samsung, and there is a possibility that her or her family will be financially rewarded for doing so. Trust me, Samsung sees here ethnicity (and loyalty) as an advantage.
“All first degree and racist. Typically American.” you do realize that what you just said is in fact the definition of racism? Calling casually every American racist is racist act in itself. Think about it. It is like saying “there’s only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures and the Dutch”.
This is not the question about the race but the background, cultural origin and upbringing are the most important things that shape us as human beings for the rest of our lives. It literally defines us as human beings.
For example, just last week I was reading Lisa Endlich’s book on the history of Goldman Sachs. The firm was founded by Henry Goldman, a German American in the early twentieth century. Henry Goldman, highly conscious and fiercely proud of his Jewish-German heritage, was a staunch and vocal supporter of Germany and its war efforts. Even after the US entered the war in 1914, Goldman continued to speak out publicly in support of Germany. In fact, he ended up moving back to Germany to express his sympathy to the country (although as a Jew, Goldman has returned to the US in 1936, barely escaped the Holocaust and much of his fortune having been seized by the Nazis). The history is full of example of cultural backgrounds and heritage playing an important or even crucial part in the decicion making. To suggest otherwise is just disingenuous.
The question is how proud is Lucy Koh of her Korean heritage? Can she stay unbiased in the case involved the company that Koreans view as the national icon? This is a very valid question as there are clear conflicts of interest here.
Its stupid – like saying blacks cannot serve on juries with black defendants or a gay judge cannot hear away marriage case. Judges use their intellect and rule without fear of favour. So yes, it is wrong to question the judge’s background – as much as to question the intellect or bias of an American working abroad in sensitive industries.
Its stupid – like saying blacks cannot serve on juries with black defendants or a gay judge cannot hear a gay marriage case. Judges use their intellect and rule without fear of favour. So yes, it is wrong to question the judge’s background – as much as to question the intellect or bias of an American working abroad in sensitive industries.
The United States is running massive trade deficits with a number of countries who do not respect our patent and copyright laws. I don’t think the judges respect the hard work that Apple put in to develop the iPhone and iPad products. Samsung liked them enough to copy them. As the trade balance gets worse, I propose that we take the difference out of the salaries of judges who take five months to get the wrong answer.
Go to weeklyapp.woprdpress.com!
What does your idiotic, ill-conceived, off-topic, and self-serving spam have to do with the price of tea in Korea?
Nothing ever imagined even in the wildest dreams of mannequins in Seoul lingerie stores