Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Android Patents Apple

Ban on Certain Samsung Products Appears Likely ITC Ruling 90

Posted by timothy
from the king-solomon-at-work dept.
Ars Technica reports that "On Friday the ITC filed a redacted version of a remedy suggested by ITC Administrative Law Judge Thomas Pender, in which he recommended a ban be enforced against Samsung products that were found to infringe upon four Apple patents. The judge also recommended that Samsung post a bond for 88 percent of the value of its infringing mobile phones, as well as 32.5 percent of the value of infringing media players, and 37.6 percent of the value of infringing tablets." That sounds like a clear loss for Samsung, but the judge "also approved several workarounds suggested by Samsung that might permit the company to continue selling the implicated products (which include the Transform, Acclaim, Indulge and Intercept smartphones, according to Computerworld). These workarounds would sidestep infringing on Apple's four patents—which include one design patent and three technology patents." Ruling and remedy have yet to be approved by the panel whose word would make them final.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ban on Certain Samsung Products Appears Likely ITC Ruling

Comments Filter:
  • Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Sunday December 30, 2012 @06:45AM (#42425345) Homepage Journal
    Now if we can ban all other products that infringe on all other patents, our transformation can be complete and we can finally move back into caves!
  • Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by someone1234 (830754) on Sunday December 30, 2012 @07:06AM (#42425401)

    Either that, or just wipe all the trivial, already expired or otherwise invalid patents from the registry.

  • Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30, 2012 @07:08AM (#42425413)

    Apple will try to patent living in a cave. Failing that they will just add 'while living in a cave' to everyday things that everyone already does:

    Eating - while living in a cave
    Sleeping - while living in a cave
    Painting on the walls - while living in a cave

  • Re:Sweet! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30, 2012 @07:30AM (#42425441)

    The whole point of having patents in the registry is so anyone can look them up and use them once they expire.

  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Sunday December 30, 2012 @07:35AM (#42425453)

    Maybe your R&D department can cook up some great new products. But if there is even the slightest crack anywhere in them, where a patent lawyer can jam a crowbar into . . . you might as well forget it. Your legal costs would be more than the entire R&D cost of the project.

    So I wonder now how companies plan development projects these days?

    Executive: "What will you need to develop this new product?"

    Manager: "80 programmers, 20 management & support, . . . and . . . 1000 lawyers.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30, 2012 @07:53AM (#42425515)

    You mean:
    * Patent office merely registers useless patents
    * Actual patent suit gets competition locked in courts while patent is carefully examined

    (In other words, almost like now)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30, 2012 @07:58AM (#42425525)

    Colour me unsuprised at the ruling.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30, 2012 @08:13AM (#42425557)

    Supreme court ruled that to be non-obvious and invention had to be more than the sum of its parts. So pinch zoom on a handset isn't new just because its on a handset. It existed before on a computer and a handset is just a computer, so what's the invention? Calling it a handset instead of a computer???

    IMHO the Obviousness test used today is also to blame.

    Apple should not have been granted those patents on other people inventions. They did not make the first rounded rectangle touch computer, they did not invent the camera icon to represent a camera. The assembly of those two items does not a new invention make.

    Patent should be declined by default, but also the 'more than the sum of the parts' test was sound thinking too.

  • by DiamondGeezer (872237) on Sunday December 30, 2012 @08:43AM (#42425627) Homepage
    That's perfect. So while the poor inventor gets slowly bankrupted, the pirate with deep pockets takes all of the money for the invention. Since the patent is not valid, it has no value to investors who might pay the inventor a living wage.

    You're a complete fucking genius.
  • This is insane (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HangingChad (677530) on Sunday December 30, 2012 @09:12AM (#42425687) Homepage

    The judge also recommended that Samsung post a bond for 88 percent of the value of its infringing mobile phones, as well as 32.5 percent of the value of infringing media players, and 37.6 percent of the value of infringing tablets.

    Software patents are completely out hand. This is not what the patent system was intended to do, this is madness.

  • by flimflammer (956759) on Sunday December 30, 2012 @09:13AM (#42425689)

    You completely invalidate any point you might have when you use retarded phrases like "samscum."

    Truly, it makes you look like an idiot.

  • Racism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mister Liberty (769145) on Sunday December 30, 2012 @09:15AM (#42425693)

    The US is just terrified by the Far East economic boom.
    It will continue, it is reactionary, and it's also a losing strategy.
    US, cuddle your Apple baby and cry.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Sunday December 30, 2012 @09:17AM (#42425701) Homepage

    But as a conservative this just smacks of central planning and the old adage of picking the winners and losers. I have never seen any explanation of why Samsung should be punished like this instead of everyone because they all infringe on each other. Yet somehow the rules don't seem to be getting applied even remotely fairly...

    Really, we need to jettison the entire punishment and start over if we are going to have patents. Keep the products on the market, but require that the company keep an accurate tally of how much it sells and regulaly cut a check for the fees on a quarterly basis. None of this ban the from the market crap unless it is such a clone of the competing product that it is a hair's distance from a trademark violation.

  • by fredprado (2569351) on Sunday December 30, 2012 @09:34AM (#42425749)
    That would work if justice wasn't so damn ridiculously expensive. As it is nobody who is not a big corporation can afford the legal costs. Being right makes no difference.
  • by boorack (1345877) on Sunday December 30, 2012 @10:22AM (#42425877)
    Look like they have succesfully bribed ITC to block devices competing with them and drop cases against them (eg. Motorola case). And I suspect that whole Wall-Street estabulshitment is backing them - money junkies and banksters are too much invested in Apple to let any competition threaten Apple's obscenic margins. This is scenario I'm worried about for some time: monopolistic cash cow artificially created by Wall Street crooks. Openness coming with Android is what they're fighting against, not Samsung. Add it to long list of Wall Street crimes they've done over all those years: internet bubble, housing bubble, derivatives, bailouts, market rigging (see LIBOR scandal), drug money laundering (see HSBC or Wachovia, now Citi). It's the whole system stacked against 'we, the people'. If you're uncomfortable enough to not feed Apple with your money, you should also consider NOT feeding other Wall Street firms whenever possible. Along with Apple, Microsoft, Coca Cola, Monsanto, Wallmart or Goldman Sachs they're all parts of one big criminal cartel 'we the people' should fight off so that in coming years you can tell your children that at least you've tried...

How many QA engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 3: 1 to screw it in and 2 to say "I told you so" when it doesn't work.

Working...