“Apple Inc. lost its bid in a lawsuit to add Samsung Electronics Co.’s Galaxy S4 smartphone to a list of products it alleges to infringe its patents,” Joel Rosenblatt reports for Reuters.
“The decision yesterday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal is part of a second patent case in San Jose, California, between the companies covering technology in newer smartphones, including Apple’s iPhone 5 and Samsung’s Galaxy S III,” Rosenblatt reports. “Adding another product to the case is a ‘tax on the court’s resources,’ Grewal said in the ruling.”
Rosenblatt reports, “Josh Krevitt, a lawyer for Apple, told Grewal that excluding the Galaxy S4 ‘would require Apple to file a new lawsuit’ because the Samsung products covered by the case will be out of date by trial next year.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: The hits just keep on coming.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]
“A tax on the court’s resources.”
It is so fitting that Apple, so in love with California and the rampant liberalism that has delivered such a dysfunctional state, is to the point of being denied justice in a California court because the court is either too lazy, too busy, or too underfunded to provide proper services.
Yea, liberalism is sooo evil! It leads to thinking and common sense! Must stop that at all costs!
One man’s “common sense” is another’s rationalized insanity.
And there you have it. Another shining example of the exquisitely motivated American patent courts leaping to the opportunity to protect American Companies from unreasonable foreign competition.
By doing what this Judge is doing, Samsung is allowed to use blatant copies of the iPhone to finance their journey into more runaway patent violations. Billions of dollars that belong in the Sales columns at Apple are in fact, going into South Korea. Thanks, judge. With your wisdom and willingness to avoid work, who needs enemies? There is absolutely no evidence that the Patent courts of this country and requisite judges are earning their paychecks.
Samsung’s using the media to attack Apple:.
I think Bloomberg has connection with Samsung or being bought by Samsung which called American investors to invest in Korea. Read on for yourselves guys.
S.Korean shares extend gains on Samsung Elec, foreign buying.
* Foreign investors buy following 14 straight sessions of selling
* Samsung Elec shares jump after hitting a 9-1/2-mth low
* Woori Finance units rally on privatisation expectations
SEOUL, June 27 (Reuters) – Seoul shares extended gains and rose 2.6 percent on Thursday as foreign investors turned net buyers and as Samsung Electronics shares, the largest component on the main KOSPI, rallied after a prolonged correction..
“The market is seeing a technical rebound on bargain hunting, but (upward moves) probably are not being established as a trend … the stance on emerging markets is still cautious,” said Lim Soo-gyoun, a market analyst at Samsung Securities.
Foreign buying was modest at a net 12.8 billion Korean won ($11.09 million), but still poised to snap 14 straight sessions of selling.
The Korea Composite Stock Price Index was up at 1,830.21 points as of 0142 GMT.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/27/markets-korea-stocks-idUSL3N0F30FZ20130627?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews&rpc=43
Read more at http://macdailynews.com/2013/06/26/why-apple-shares-are-undervalued-by-as-much-as-50/#q8pYtCwgBdaawz5I.99
For all its talk on caring about international competitiveness of US companies, the government must recognize its own critical role in supporting businesses through timely and efficient implementation of “the rule of law”. The legal system limps along like a third-world country. The country deserves better.
“Justice delayed is justice denied” — From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_denied
“Justice delayed is justice denied” is a legal maxim meaning that if legal redress is available for a party that has suffered some injury, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no redress at all. This principle is the basis for the right to a speedy trial and similar rights which are meant to expedite the legal system, because it is unfair for the injured party to have to sustain the injury with little hope for resolution. The phrase has become a rallying cry for legal reformers who view courts or governments as acting too slowly in resolving legal issues either because the existing system is too complex or overburdened, or because the issue or party in question lacks political favour.
Yea that was what thought.
Then they would need to file a new lawsuit and that would be even more work.