Samsung to appeals court: Injunction won by Apple would only ‘confuse and intimidate’ customers

“In its response to Apple’s effort to win a permanent injunction in the United States against many Samsung products over multiple intellectual property rights, Samsung argues that the sales ban sought by Apple — and denied by Judge Koh in December despite a multiplicity of infringement findings by a California jury in August 2012 — ‘would not stop any ongoing infringement, for Samsung has either discontinued the accused products or designed around any infringing features in the ones it still sells,'” Florian Müller writes for FOSS Patents.

“Alluding to letters a law firm sent on Apple’s behalf to various U.S. retailers in connection with a preliminary injunction grnated last year, Samsung claims that ‘the only effect of an injunction would be to confuse and intimidate Samsung’s carriers and retailers with respect to non-accused products never adjudicated in this case, harming Samsung’s longstanding market relationships,'” Müller writes. “Samsung seeks affirmance of Judge Koh’s holding that Apple failed to establish a causal nexus between the infringements identified and the harm it alleges to suffer from Samsung’s competing products.”

Tons more in the full article here.

24 Comments

    1. The peal is off Apple already.
      The sliced Apple had no worm.
      The seeds fell out.
      The rebirth of Flat UI will exterminate the competition.

  1. Translation from slimespeak:

    “We’ve already made all the money we can in the USA from everything we stole from Apple, but we’re afraid that letting everyone know that we really DID steal all that stuff would affect the reputation of the products we’re selling with that OTHER stuff we stole from Apple. We got away with it the first time, so consistent treatment DEMANDS that you let us get away with it this time.”

  2. From the article:

    In footnote 1 of its brief, Samsung points to various commentary in the media that doubted the value of Apple’s asserted patents blahblahblah

    An appeal to the court of public opinion. All they care about is PR. I hate Samsung.

  3. “harming Samsung’s longstanding market relationships,”

    You mean like you did to Apple’s core business when you copied the iPhone whole hog?

    Losers.

  4. Confuse like, say, having paid individual’s to send glowing tweets about a phone other than the one that the person(s) is actually using?

    Intimidate as in using the court system to push frand infringement for the end goal of keeping competation at bay while they photocopy the next product?

    Ummmm, sounds vaguely familiar?

  5. In the article it provides a footnote where Samsung listed a number of media reports that questioned the value of Apple’s patents.

    This makes me wonder if about a situation where Samsung continues to put so much emphasis on what the media says. I’m wondering if by doing this, it provides Apple an opportunity at some point to petition the court to compel Samsung to reveal how much money to the media (and in particular to whom) Samsung is paying?

Reader Feedback

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