“A week ago the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in a snowplow patent case, Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Company, and (among other things) instructed the district court to grant a permanent injunction it previously denied,” Florian Müller writes for FOSS Patents.
“The per curiam opinion on the issue of injunctive relief indicates that Apple is reasonably likely to win from this appeals court the permanent injunction Judge Koh denied in December,” Müller writes. “There are amazingly striking parallels between the reasoning of the district court that denied Douglas Dynamics an injunction and various positions taken by Judge Lucy Koh in Apple v. Samsung, and — more importantly — between Apple’s appellate argument and the Federal Circuit’s Douglas Dynamics opinion, except that no one in Douglas Dynamics (not even the dissenting opinion!) makes reference to the controversial ‘causal nexus’ requirement, which also bodes extremely well for Apple.”
Müller writes, “If Judge Koh had to rule on Apple’s post-trial request for an injunction again and had to apply the Douglas Dynamics logic, she would have no other choice but to grant Apple a multi-patent permanent injunction against Samsung.”
Much more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Wake us when the curtain blessedly closes.
It’s amazing and sad when something this blatant takes this long (and counting) to deal with.
Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “Arline M.” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
Over half of Samsung Galaxy S4′s advertised 16GB storage capacity eaten up by Android and Samsung bloatware – May 1, 2013
Samsung’s cheap, plastic Galaxy S4 significantly more breakable Apple’s iPhone 5 – April 29, 2013
Yankee Group: Apple continues to eat Samsung’s lunch; customer loyalty will drive iPhone ownership past Android’s peak – April 26, 2013
Tax evasion, bribery and price-fixing: How Samsung became the giant that ate South Korea – April 22, 2013
Now Samsung copies Apple product rumors, said to be working on wristwatch device – March 19, 2013
Samsung’s new ‘Wallet’ bears striking resemblance to Apple’s Passbook – February 27, 2013
Korea JoongAng Daily: Samsung must stop slavishly copying Apple – September 3, 2012
South Korea reassesses its great imitator, Samsung – September 2, 2012
Convicted patent infringer Samsung acuses Apple of trying to limit consumer choice – September 1, 2012
Is Samsung copying Apple’s patented earphones? It sure looks like it – September 8, 2012
Samsung mimics Apple product videos in Galaxy S III promo (with video) – August 24, 2012
Now slavish copycat Samsung attempts to knockoff Apple’s retail stores (with video) – August 23, 2012
Samsung: Shameless slavish copiers – August 13, 2012
Apple attorney: Instead of innovating, Samsung chose to copy iPhone and iPad – July 31, 2012
Apple: Google warned Samsung against slavishly copying our products – July 25, 2012
Now Samsung slavishly copies Apple’s Mac mini – June 1, 2012
Samsung Mobile chief ‘designer’ denies that Samsung’s instinct is to slavishly copy Apple – March 23, 2012
Slavish copier Samsung shamelessly steals Apple’s iPhone 3G design – again – January 3, 2012
Slavish copier Samsung uses girl actress from iPhone 4S ad for Galaxy Tab 8.9 spot (with video) – January 2, 2012
Now Samsung’s slavishly copying Apple’s iPad television ads (with videos) – December 30, 2011
Judge: Can you tell me which is iPad and which is yours? Samsung lawyer: ‘Not at this distance your honor’ – October 14, 2011
Why are Apple’s icons on the wall of Samsung’s store? – September 24, 2011
Apple to Samsung: ‘Blatant copying is wrong’ – April 18, 2011
Apple sues Samsung for attempting to copy look and feel of iPhone, iPad – April 18, 2011
Samsung’s ‘Instinct’ is obviously to make Apple iPhone knockoffs – April 1, 2008
Just to be fair, Samsung must be fined 50 billions dollars each time they infringe Apple’s products. That is the only method for Samsung to stop infringement.
It is of course hilarious how we have a gang of Corporate Oligarchy puppets perpetrating this ridiculous POS:
US Commission report: implant malware to stop IP theft worldwide
http://www.electronista.com/articles/13/05/27/us.government.sponsored.report.claims.china.biggest.offender/
Meanwhile, Apple blows cash and has to sit around waiting for our speed challenged US court systems to get around to actually placing injunctions on ripoff ScamStung products.
Broken.
No. Apple was not first. Who won the Red Dot Award for best design in 2007? LG Prada. Announces December 2006 and released May 2007. LG was thinking of suing Apple, but for some stupid reason, they didn’t. Oh, and lets not forget the IBM Simon from 1992. Yes, the first true smartphone is 20 years old. I like Apple, but misinformation like this infuriates me.
1. The iPhone was a spawn of the iPad- iPad came first, and conceptually, the iPad was way ahead of the Prada
2. Apple is notoriously secretive about their announcements, and they wait until the last minute to release a product. This is partly a strategic move to keep them ahead of the game vs. their competitors, and partly because of Steve Jobs’ paranoia
3. They were granted over 200 patents for virtually every design feature present in the iPad and iPhone, many of which Steve Jobs held personally. Many of these patents dated back years- long before the Prada was even conceived of.
LG filed a lawsuit, but quickly realized that they were way behind in the ‘innovation’ and patent arena. Essentially, they had no case. If you followed the Apple v. Samsung case, you’d have seen the evidence that LG would have faced.
Samsung basically didn’t care what Apple had (Samsung is notorious for this behavior). They clearly had no case either and were blatantly ripping off Apple’s IP. But considering it takes SO long to try anything in the US court system, they were willing to take that risk and make $Billions in the meantime. The only way justice will be served now is with extraordinarily harsh penalties against Samsung. Otherwise, Samsung wins despite a presumptive injunction against their products. But what’s worse is, a new and dangerous precedent will be established which essentially renders IP useless (except to patent trolls).
The Newton came before the smartphone.
Floyd, look.
Allot of companies had similar ideas. That does not mean they would have succeeded. I know from a friend that worked at Ericsson, when they still made phones, and he said Ericsson had design ideas just like the iPhone long before iPhone. How ever, that does not automatically equal that if they had released such a phone that they would have had any type if success or that they would have been where Apple is today. Each case is unique and it is impossible to guess what “could” have happened. And if the Prada was so good, where is it today? Where is LG today? Where is the technology and innovation from that? Apple has rarely been first into a market as has been explained many times. They wait to the right time and do the right things. If I’m not mistaken Apple and Jobs always wanted to build the iPad, but it was not possible to do that with the technology of the 80’s and 90’s.
As Det. John McClane might say, “Yippie kai yay, mo fo. I still think it’s unlikely an injunction will go through. No one likes the idea of Apple killing off the competition through the court system. Samsung’s products will somehow squeak through as they always do. Apple never wins anything meaningful in lawsuits. So far Apple hasn’t even gotten a penny from that $1.05 billion Samsung was supposed to hand over to them.
I don’t know. I think Apple has a good chance of a fair trial. Apple isn’t “killing off competition”… Apple is suing the shit out of a thief. Competition is not theft; Therefore, Samsung is not Apple’s competition. You should, instead of painting a picture of Samsung as innocent competition, be prepping to roast marshmallows on Samsung’s carcass. They deserve every infliction they get.