Judge rejects Samsung bid to lift ban on U.S. tablet sales

“A U.S. judge on Monday rejected a request by Samsung Electronics Co. to lift a ban on U.S. sales of its Galaxy Tab 10.1, dealing a third legal setback to the South Korean firm in just a week, as it braces for a make-or-break patent trial later this month with Apple Inc.,” Erin Geiger Smith reports for Reuters.

“U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, rejected Samsung’s request to lift her June 26 order to halt sales of the tablet, which runs on Google Inc’s Android,” Smith reports. “Koh also slapped a pre-trial ban on sales of Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus phone on Friday.”

Smith reports, “Apple sued Samsung last year, accusing the South Korean electronics maker of ‘slavishly’ copying the iPhone and iPad. The case is due to come to court this month and could have implications in other jurisdictions. The affected tablets and smartphones are unlikely to have major impact on Samsung’s earnings, as the firm has since introduced upgraded models. But the back-to-back loss is significant because pre-trial injunctions are rarely granted. The two firms’ U.S. trial is set on July 30. ‘Samsung is disappointed with the court’s decision that denied our motion to stay. We believe today’s ruling will ultimately reduce the availability of superior technological features to consumers in the United States,’ Samsung said in a statement.”

MacDailyNews Take: Oh, gee, then they’ll have to buy real iPads from the company that invented them instead of a knockoff with no apps. There is nothing superior to a real iPad.

“In smartphones, the banned Galaxy Nexus was introduced late last year, and Apple is also seeking a preliminary injunction of the Galaxy S III, the third generation of Samsung’s flagship smartphone, which went on sale late last month in the U.S. market,” Smith reports. “‘The impact on Samsung is limited as shipment volume of Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Nexus are quite small,’ said Lee Sun-tae, an analyst at NH Investment & Securities. ‘Even if Apple wins an injunction request on Galaxy S III, Samsung will have plenty of time to get around it, as it normally takes quite a long time for a court to process such requests.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: In order for Samsung to legally sell their wares, they have to “get around” pesky issues like their slavish theft of another company’s patented IP.

Apple’s out there inventing things, entirely new markets, and Samsung has dedicated themselves to “getting around” the legalities involved in knocking off Apple’s patented innovations.

Samsung employees should be so proud.

We’d tag Samsung “Microsoft II,” but Google beat them to it.


    1. Hello Mike. Still selling time for Anti-Apple folks? Maybe by stealing you mean the mouse and GUI from PARC? You know Apple paid for that stuff. As far as using things like wheels are round, gravity pulls things down, fingers move in specific ways, etc…. well that is kind of how physics and biology works.

      But if you mean how the iPhone works, take a short look at what was being sold before Apple introduced the iPhone and what came after. Then we can talk about copying.

    2. Come on Mike. Really? Samsung is engaging in a simply embarrassingly blatant copying scenario.

      If you have not seen the Samsung S video please watch this:


      Then come back here and talk to us about all the flagrant stuff that Apple has done ok?

    3. @Mike – thanks for playing “Repeat the mistaken and completely erroneous Apple lore for the billionth time” game. A-holes like you hope if they repeat it often enough it somehow will turn wishful thinking into facts. Shaddup and learn Apples true history before opening your big fat stupid mouth. This site’s inhabits will eviscerate you every time with the truth. Maybe other nerdly troll sites who love hearing the falsehoods are more your cup of tea. Have fun living a lie!

    4. Glad you made that comment Mike. What exactly did Apple steal BTW?

      Steve Jobs did make the comment, “Good artists copy great artists steal.” Apple didn’t exactly invent the mouse nor did Apple exactly invent the smartphone. They reinvented both.

  1. What will be the ultimate resolution for this? Complete ban on infriging devices or multi-billion dollar fines or both? What I want to say is the damage is already done. How can Apple protect itself in the future?

      1. It will be easier to get the proper bans done. This is why apple is now seeking a preliminary ban on the Galaxy SIII. It’s because Samsung is now Known by the courts to slavishly copy, so future products may have preliminary bans set against them until they are reviewed and found to either infringe or not infringe. (I think this is how it will work).

        Also, sorry about double posting, but I accidentally clicked post 😛

    1. Preliminary preemptive bans are the answer. Courts have to learn to be more generous with these when it’s especially painfully obvious. Manufacturers have to learn they will have ZERO grace ripoff periods in order to discourage this practice. Law needs to adapt to swiftly moving tech events, not the other way around.

  2. I can be OK with the legal system being slow, as long as Samsung is forced to pay Apple several billion in lost sales and is forced to negotiate a license fee for future phones.

    1. “… as long as Samsung is forced to pay Apple several billion in lost sales and is forced to negotiate a license fee for future phones.”

      If someone were to abduct and rape your spouse, or kidnap one of your children and sell them into slave labor in some Eastern bloc, Asian, or middle Eastern country, would you be willing to accept payment for them??

      That is what Samsung has done: stolen and abused something that is NOT THEIRS.

      Apple doesn’t want a friggin’ ‘licensing fee’. That’s like Samsung saying, “Yeah, we stole your daughter, but since we got caught, we’re willing to pay a generous licensing fee for her.”

      Really?? That’s how you feel?

      Stolen IP is stolen IP. Apple wants what is theirs to be returned. No negotiations.

      1. Nice overblown and ridiculous analogy.

        When Apple discontinues a product I look forward to your posts proclaiming them to be child murders for killing their own babies!

        WTF lol.

        1. If you don’t understand that a person’s body is their own personal property, and that kidnapping and/or rape is a violation of that, then I’m not the one with the problem.

          Furthermore, I said nothing of Apple being ‘child murders’ [sic]. Thank you for over-reaching.

          Besides, as far as Apple’s IP goes, Apple is free to do with their products what they will. There have been many instances of Apple discontinuing the use of tech that they deemed no longer relevant.

          I was referring to personal property (in this case, one’s body, or that of a loved one), and the emotional attachment that a creative individual (or group) may feel towards something that belongs to themselves, and the violation experienced when that personal property is stolen (or violated) against their will; in this case, the analogy was referring to Samsung/Google copying and stealing Apple’s IP, and how they might feel ‘personally violated’ by that.

          Rather than resorting to superfluous mischaracterization or ridicule, try submitting a cogent thought next time.

          1. I can respect the feeling of being ripped off. Yes the art of creating is a personal experience and one does feel attatched to the things they create.

            I just think its over the top to equate it to the kidnapping and rape of a human being.

            1. – Really “over the top”, I can understand if your not seeing the analogy for what it is, your free to dislike anything you wish, that’s fine, but the point was well made by chinstrap, if you don’t pull the meaning apart and add more to the post then what was written.

              – Chinstrap, your correct, some just see the literal parts and not the meaning being conveyed, in any case analytical thinkers can understand your meaning, and it is a very good representation of what is and what has happened.

  3. Does this mean that the Samsung faithful will have to, God forbid, wait in line for Samsung’s next latest and greatest that hopefully will be a Samsung original?…

  4. For any doubters, have a look at the keynote in which SJ introduced the iPhone in early 2007. My 12 y.o. son was watching it last night and ranting against Samdung.

  5. Stealing property, intellectual or personal is wrong. It is that simple. Samsung and Google are starting to finally realize the consequences of this. People who are loyal to these creeps seem to be sympathizing because Apple is the juggernaut. However, those people ought to realize that those companies you are trying to defend are worthless when it comes to innovating and resort to stealing for their profit.

    Strongly reminds me of the Ferengi from Start Trek DS9.

    1. Except Dell never provided hardware to Apple. Dell had to reverse engineer Apple hardware, whereas Samsung has the source engineering data right in their hands. Samsung has ABUSED a highly privileged position with Apple. This is along the lines of Samsung being a traitor against Apple, not just a rival and plagiarist.

      1. Unfortunately Apple has had to deal with more than one traitor in their midst who’ve yet to pay for their crimes. I still can’t believe Eric Schmidt can’t be personally sued for everything he’s got for using his privileged position on Apple’s board to commit espionage for Android. It should be an obvious prosecutable crime! Too bad SJ didn’t see this betrayal coming which looks all too clear now.

  6. I am so glad that the legal courts are dissapointing Samsung, they have no shame in blatantly copying apple. There used to be a big poster of a samsung phone in my tube station and it was such a blatent copy of my then iphone 3g

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.