“Samsung has been ordered to stop selling a handful of older smartphones in the US that have already largely vanished from the market,” Steven Musil reports for CNET.
“In the latest round of the Apple v. Samsung patent war, US District Judge Lucy Koh on Monday granted an Apple motion for permanent injunction against devices that use technology covered by patents [upon which] Samsung was found to be infringing,” Musil reports. “Those devices now banned from sale in the US include the Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note 2, Galaxy S2, Galaxy S2 Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S2 Skyrocket, Galaxy S3, and Stratosphere.”
“Most of the devices on the court’s list are no longer offered for sale in the US by Samsung,” Musil reports. “Apple had initially asked the court to ban Samsung’s products that used those patents, but Koh ruled in August 2014 that monetary damages were sufficient in resolving the harm done to Apple. Last September, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that Samsung should have been banned from using certain patented Apple features in its device. ‘The court finds that Apple will suffer irreparable harm if Samsung continues to use its use of the infringing features, that monetary damages cannot adequately compensate Apple for this resulting irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favor entry of a permanent injunction,’ Koh wrote in her filing.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Ah, the expediency of the legal system. Regardless, it’s the precedent that matters here, not the specific model numbers of slavish copier Samsung’s iPhone knockoffs.
Rebukes and losses for Samsung — and, for that matter, Koh — are useful for Apple and welcome for anyone who abhors intellectual property theft.
The main reason why Samsung et al. are able to sell phones and tablets at all is because they peddle fake iPhones and iPads designed to fool the unwitting (who are now finally waking up in droves, by the way) in much the same way as how Microsoft et al. profited wildly from upside-down and backwards fake Macs at the end of the 20th century. Google, Samsung, HTC, Xiaomi, et al. are the Microsofts, HPs, Dells, and eMachines of the new century. At least the Apple IP thieves are seeing some punishment for doing so this time around, however meager it may be.
Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
For good measure, here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
And, here’s what cellphones looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
People who buy Android phones and tablets reward thieves.
SEE ALSO:
Google urges U.S. Supreme court overturn Apple v. Samsung patent infringement ruling – January 18, 2016
Samsung asks U.S. Supreme Court to throw out $399 million award to Apple for infringing patents – December 14, 2015
Samsung finally to pay Apple $548 million in damages for copying iPhone, but then try to wrest it back – December 4, 2015
Judge Lucy Koh orders Samsung to pay Apple $548 million for patent infringement – September 22, 2015
Appellate court rules judge Lucy Koh abused right of discretion by allowing Samsung to sell phones that infringed Apple patents – September 18, 2015
Serial copier Samsung slapped with permanent injunction for infringing Apple patents – September 17, 2015
Samsung to petition Supreme Court to hear appeal in iPhone patent infringement case – August 19, 2015
Samsung denied rehearing in appeal over Apple iPhone patent infringement – August 14, 2015
Google, Facebook, Dell, HP, others take Samsung’s side in Apple patent fight – July 21, 2015
U.S. federal court rules anyone can copy the iPhone’s design – May 18, 2015
Up to 40 percent of Apple’s $930 million verdict against Samsung must be reconsidered – May 18, 2015
US appeals court reverses part of Apple’s $930 million verdict vs. Samsung – May 18, 2015
Before iPhone, Google’s plan was a Java button phone, Android docs reveal – April 14, 2014
How Google reacted when Steve Jobs revealed the revolutionary iPhone – December 19, 2013
What phones looked like before and after Apple’s revolutionary iPhone transformed the industry – February 8, 2012
Apple to ITC: Android started at Apple while Andy Rubin worked for us – September 2, 2011
Thou shalt NOT steal .
I love the sentiment! Do you carry it out in your digital life and pay for all music and video file you downloaded in the past?
Yes asshole I bought and paid for all 8000+ CDs that I own despite being eligebile for industry freebies.
And that’s not counting vinyl righteous one…
Koh did her job well, dragging it out for so long than any product ban is pretty well meaningless.
Yep. Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
Totally agree. The decision is way past due thanks to Judge Lucy Koh getting it wrong in the first place. It took the Court of Appeals to reverse her original decision, as I recall.
Judge Koh’s thinking about property rights seems quite flawed. Basically, caught thieves simply need to compensate property owners for the use of their property — never mind the fact that the property owner may not want others to use their property in the first place. (Someone steals your car? No problem! If caught, the thief just owes you “fair rent” for the use of your car ! ) Crazy legal thinking, Judge Koh.
When Apple first requested the injunction long ago, it could have prevented the sale of goods containing Apple’s stolen Intellectual Property. It may have forced Samsung to use the so-called “easy workarounds” they claimed to have for the “trivial” Apple patents in question (this was part of Samsung’s argument against the injunction). Doing so could have shown increased differentiation between the Apple iPhone and Samsung’s mimics thereof.
On the bright side, Judge Koh is getting a useful, if painful, lesson in law from the Court of Appeals, who have asked her to reconsider several of her past decisions that favored Samsung against Apple. And hopefully these — belated — rulings will help Apple in future arguments, cases, and appeals.
At least the legal record is finally getting sorted out.
“Justice delayed…” 😁
Samsung won.
This just illustrates how hopelessly ineffective the judicial system, and patent inforcement is when applied to rapid product cycles in the digital age. Companies such as Samsung and Google, and countries such as China and Korea, can steal other peoples Intellectual Property, use it to make $BILLIONS, and risk very little in the way of fines or damages years down the road. Companies without the resources of Apple to fight this theft who have their IP stolen are more likely to be forced out of business than to be fairly compensated.
Reminds me of the Micro$oft of old…
Such is the speed of justice:
Samsung has been ordered to stop selling a handful of older smartphones in the US that have already largely vanished from the market
How about ordering ALL PROFITS from those specific phones being handed over to Apple? – – Yeah, that could happen. But at least fork over a percentage of the profits determined to be rightfully Apple’s for Apple’s stolen technology.
It’s a delight to watch you being soooo screwed Samsung. 😆
IOW: Don’t underestimate the effect of BAD PR on nasty old ScamScum.
Don’t over-estimate bad PR on them either. Clearly many people don’t give a damn what that serial stealer did.
Definitely. But it is clear that ShamedSham is now spinning down a vortex of bad publicity and declining sales. There are of course many reasons why.
Not for nothing, but didn’t they get fined? Or do we selectively forget that? That’s if the fine holds up, then you may have a point. Maybe.
Stop calling it the “justice” system. There is no justice in this ruling, or people sitting for 20 years on death row on their 3rd appeal, etc. nor is there justice in anyone sitting around for their trial to start – in a year or two! Lets start calling it what it is, the “legal bureaucracy system.”
TOO LATE Koh! Samsung sleezy Exec Love you long time now. lol
The usual trick is to repeat the same behavior again and again, making a ton of money before being shut down each time, then fighting fines, while simultaneously developing new products using the same shady approach. Huge companies have the wherewithal to duke it out. Smaller companies not so much.
I haven’t always had the best of luck when dealing with vendors from that part of the world. One thing I would often encounter is that they would delay delivery until the last possible moment, knowing that product launches were on a tight deadline. When the shipment arrived we would discover that they had pulled something on us – switching out one material or component for a cheaper one (example printing all the packaging on yellow-tinged stock instead of bright white, which made things look like crap and which hurt sales. It would be too late to replace the order. The vendor would cut some amount of credit that, thanks to delays, would not have the same buying power as it had months before, screwing us again, plus trying to pull the same trick for the next round. We ended up having to play games, ordering a half year early and then refusing to pay for shipments and forcing them to redo everything at their expense. It is amazing the crap you have to go through when dealing with vendors outside the US.