7 ms·
Apple tells retailers to stop selling the Galaxy Nexus and Tab
- mtgx 14y agoWasn't the temporary ban on the Galaxy Nexus lifted? Apple is still sending these takedown notices right now, even though the ban was lifted?
- vibrunazo 14y agoAccording to the article, Apple was sending the takedowns before the lift. "Apple began sending those notices associated with the Galaxy Nexus on June 3, the same day U.S. Judge Lucy Koh turned down Samsung’s appeal on the injunction. Three days later, however, Judge Koh suspended the injunction." The Verge probably makes this part more clear: "According to Samsung, several sellers received letters ordering them to cease selling the two devices in late June and early July, before the ban on the Galaxy Nexus was stayed." - http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/13/3157505/apple-retailer-galaxy-nexus-tab-10-1-takedown-order http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/13/3157505/apple-retailer-gal...
- blinkingled 14y agoBan on Galaxy Nexus was lifted but not on Galaxy Tab. Nexus is only sold online, tab is the one being sold in retail. Apple's letter only references the tab.
- dkhenry 14y agoWhat did we think they were going to spend millions in court trying to remove competitors then not act on it ?
- Bjoern 14y agoPatent Trolling by Apple. This is just silly, do they really believe they can keep their edge this way? Intimidating 3rd party vendors?
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y agoIf Apple really felt their product was superior, I'm sure they wouldn't need to worry about their competition enough to sue them.
- gurkendoktor 14y agoThat's reading a bit too much into it. Apple's lawyers have always been busy. In the "PC era", Apple sued businesses that dared to use an apple as its logo.
- tommi 14y agoWhat I have gathered from US law is that they have to do it in order to protect their trademark. If they don't sue, it's same as giving up the trademark. Please correct if I'm wrong.
- true_religion 14y agoYou get a trademark for a specific context. If Apple's trademark was restricted to the context of computing (likely), then suing anyone who dared using an Appple in their logo was beyond the score of necessary protection.
- Someone 14y agoOne problem Apple computer had is that it's trademark was limited to computing. That caused problems when they branched out to other markets such as 'computers that can do MIDI' In particular, they had quite a few disagreements with Apple Records about doing audio. Even though more or less the only people who know Apple Corps/Records think "of the Beatles' records", they took action against Apple even as early as 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer) I think those lawsuits may have affected company culture at Apple Computer, now Apple Inc.
- bane 14y ago
- thechut 14y agoApple should focus on competing on the quality of THEIR product. Not rely on lawyers and back room deals to cripple the competitions products. There doesn't seem to be any information stating whether or not Apple made any attempt to tell retailers they could sell these products again after the injunction was lifted. This is as anti-competitive behavior at its worse. Before we know it Apple will have formed the OAAA (Only Apple Association of America) and be lobbying congress to force consumers to pay a fee just for owning non-Apple products.
- einhverfr 14y agoJust remember, patents are government-granted monopolies.
- thechut 14y agoLets not get into a conversation about the state of software patents in this country, or the quality and breadth of Apple's patents. But I think it seems a bit unreasonable to ban the sale of an entire device which is based on hundreds if not thousands of patents just because it MIGHT (keep in mind this case was not won but Apple, this was a preliminary injunction) infringe on one or two software patents.
- zoop 14y agoIf you think you have a chance at winning a case about patents then not acting would be foolish. edit: My point is that this IS a conversation about software patents and competition and not whether or not you are I think this is reasonable. If the system is broken and you, as a multi-billion company, don't take that competitive advantage someone else will.
- mkr-hn 14y agoCan we have a little break where people can make good products and compete fairly? Let's not be so eager to jump into the pit with another brutal monopoly. edit: "If I don't take advantage, someone else will" is also known as mutually assured destruction. I liked the patent cold war better than what we're seeing now. Companies should shelve the nukes and go back to vying for customers with merits, not missiles.
- fr4nko 14y agoBeing Sicilian I'm well placed to know how to name this kind of acts: mafia. The only difference with traditional mafia is that in this case the act is dressed with the clothes of a big corporation but the underlying meaning of this kind of acts is just the same.
- mtgx 14y agoI would attribute the mafia-style handling even more to Microsoft who basically formed a protection racket demanding fees from all Android manufacturers who want to build devices using a free and open source OS.
- joelhooks 14y agoYou mean outside of the physical coercion, eh? That seems like a big difference in my head. If I petition the city to have my neighbor trim back his tree, it is one thing. If I beat him and threaten his family as an encouragement to trim the tree and give me $20, it is another thing altogether.
- fr4nko 14y agoActions can be mafia even without physical violence. As everyone can see the notice was sent by Apple itself not by an US institution like a tribunal or a governmental agency. Even juridical acts can be a form of violence expecially if they came from a big organization against a small retailer. The fact that there is no physical violence put them in another plan but violence and intimidations are always of the same nature and qualifies this act as mafia (in my point of view).
- einhverfr 14y agoI remember reading in a 1st Circuit (I think) opinion that something like 60% of challenged patents are invalidated. This strategy strikes me as quite dangerous for Apple. They risk losing on average a bit over half of the patents at issue, and they could lose everything. Worse, even if they win, the patents at issue will be worked around and it will be a temporary setback. Apple really gets very little out of this fight. So yeah, given that reality it would probably be smarter to try to focus on, well, actually trying to dominate in the marketplace rather than in the courtroom.
- chucknelson 14y ago"... actually trying to dominate in the marketplace rather than in the courtroom." They're doing both, and it's a very slippery slope if they send the message that they are not willing to protect their patents. I do agree, though, that it is a shame all of this effort is put into legal battles for what is usually minimal benefit. And that goes for the legal system in general.
- sjwright 14y ago> They risk losing on average a bit over half of the patents at issue And the other half get significantly strengthened.
- einhverfr 14y agodefine "strengthened." I don't know what percentage of patents survive by being read narrowly by a court. The thing is that three things can happen to a patent when it is challenged: 1) The court can say "that's not a valid patent" kind of like the Supreme Court recently did in Mayo v. Prometheus (Prometheus patented how to interpret test results. The Supreme Court said you couldn't patent the results of the test, just the method of testing.) 2) The court can say "Ok, so the following is legitimate prior art, and additionally if we read this broadly, it can't be patentable, and so what's left when we read it narrowly and leave out the areas covered by the prior art is yours." In this case the patent is "strengthened" in the sense that everyone has a better idea of what will happen next time in court but it is also narrowed. 3) The court can let the patent stand as-is. The problem is that while the latter two seem like they strengthen the legal position the next time around, where a patent was previously unknown or disputed, they also weaken the market impact because they provide larger reasons to work around the patent. So I don't know. I don't see an upside for Apple here other than a very, very temporary edge in the marketplace.
- Sukotto 14y agoIt may just be my perverse nature, or some variant of Streisand Effect... but this just makes me want to buy one. [disclosure: I'm long AAPL]
- neovive 14y agoIt's quite sad to see this. How many people here are using the Galaxy Nexus? Google just pushed the 4.1 update and it is simply an awesome device and os. It definitely serves a more technical audience than the iPhone, but the power and customizability is amazing. I like the iPhone, but I just prefer the flexibility of the Nexus and the fact that no contract is required. The direct from Google model and Android's open philosophy simply works better for me. Choice is a good thing, the last time I checked.
- RegEx 14y agoThanks for the recommendation. AT&T contract just expired, and I'm looking into getting an Android.
- neovive 14y agoBesides the nice hardware on the Nexus (although not quite as powerful as the Galaxy S III), you get almost instant OS updates. Other devices have to wait a few months (if they ever get the updates) since the carriers control the updates and have custom themes on top of Android.
- pkulak 14y agoI don't really care about "powerful" hardware, but I have heard bad things about the GPS and camera in the Nexus, which, combined, are about 80% of the reason I use a smart phone. I'm going to give the GS3 a shot and just hope that the wonderful folks at Cyanogen will work their magic.
- rbanffy 14y agoSomeone should introduce Tim Cook and judges Posner and Alsup. I'd love to watch the ensuing conversation.
- dsirijus 14y agoThrow in Jesus and Zappa. As likely to happen.
- suresk 14y agoIgnoring the obvious patent ridiculousness, I'm a little bit surprised and dismayed to see Apple going so hard after Android in this way. 1) As a consumer, competition in this space is overwhelmingly positive. You can already see a number of improvements Apple has made to iOS as a result of Android, and a strong Android OS will continue to keep them on their toes. 2) You have to wonder if it is even good for Apple to win in the long run. They have so much control over the iPhone ecosystem, getting too much market share in the mobile/tablet space would very likely garner unwanted attention from the DOJ. It is possible Android is a significant buffer against an anti-trust action similar to what Microsoft saw in the 90's.
- eli 14y agoAccording to the Isaacson book: “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.” - Steve Jobs in 2010. And to Eric Schmidt regarding patent licensing: ”I don’t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want.”
- jarek 14y ago"... and that notifications UI, I want that too." ;)
- briandear 14y agoThey aren't going after Android (in this case.) This is about Samsung.
- alttab 14y agoThis just tells me to go out and buy one of these, since Apple sees it as a threat. Which means its probably a decent device. They haven't pulled a stunt like this on all the other crappy tablets that have come out.
- suresk 14y agoLike briandear mentioned, this is more directed towards Samsung in particular (although Android itself is a big part of it, and this is part of a broader war on Android), but at least part of the reason I think Apple is going after the Galaxy Tab so strongly is that is that, from a physical perspective, it looks quite a bit like the iPad. When a few of my co-workers got them and had them sitting on their desks, I sort of assumed that they were iPads - they very closely resemble them. While I think Apple would still be pursuing them without the physical resemblance, at least some of the strong reaction you're seeing is due to it, so I wouldn't necessarily take their reaction as an endorsement of the Tab (although I have heard it is quite good).
- briandear 14y agoSamsung DID straight up copy Apple. Apple isn't going after other manufacturers, just this specific one for these specific devices. Here's a little side-by-side comparison of what Samsung did: http://atomicsupersky.com/post/26275796849/on-the-samsung-galaxy-injunction http://atomicsupersky.com/post/26275796849/on-the-samsung-ga... This all could have been avoided if Samsung didn't blatantly copy Apple. I mean, they even copied the same color for the phone icon. If you go into Photoshop and compare the two greens, they are identical. You don't accidentally do that. Samsung had the intent to copy. It isn't even about the under-the-hood aspects (which can be another discussion,) this is about the clear and obvious ripoff of Apple design. Samsung did this to themselves. The point of this injunction is that consumers could be confused. After all, even Samsung's own lawyers couldn't distinguish the Galaxy from the iPad at a distance of 10 feet.
- munchor 14y agoYour comment made me laugh so hard.
- vibrunazo 14y agoYou're confusing trademarks with patents. Trademarks are supposed to avoid consumer confusion. In fact, in trademark lawsuits it's required that you establish that there's consumer confusion, or else you have no case. It's common on these lawsuits that consumers are interviewed and asked if they're confused by the products. Apple would've done this if they had a trademark case against Samsung. In any other IP case which isn't trademark, pointing confusion, as in the Samsung lawyer example, is just a meaningless gimmick that serves no real purpose. [1] But Apple isn't suing Samsung for trademark infringement, they're suing for patents. Which means to stop Samsung for using Apple's technological "inventions". So your argument is invalid, Apple is not trying to establish confusion. They're going specifically after Samsung simply because they're by far the biggest target. And the examples in your blog are blatant cherry-picking. [2] [1] http://www.bonkersworld.net/obvious-similarities/ http://www.bonkersworld.net/obvious-similarities/ [2] http://www.bonkersworld.net/great-artists-steal/ http://www.bonkersworld.net/great-artists-steal/
- taligent 14y ago
- rcavezza 14y agoI love the British legal system... a U.K. judge said the tablet is “not as cool,” and thereby doesn’t infringe on the iPad.
- fidotron 14y agoPotentially a smart judgment, because if Apple were to try and overturn it they'd have to argue that their competitors are as cool as they are.
- tosseraccount 14y agoApple's suing on "form factor" ???? We need to curtail the Patent Industry, not Samsung.
- einhverfr 14y agoEvidently Apple has patented the rectangle and working their way up to the wheel....
- ams6110 14y agoTo be fair, no. They argument is not that the device is rectangular. Their argument is that very specific elements of the device and its packaging are virtually identical to Apple's designs.
- moe 14y agoIt's sad to see what Apple is becoming. They can not win this war, probably not even delay the outcome by a measurable margin. Meanwhile Android begins to leapfrog them not only on hardware (which has been the case for a while, short of tablets) but also on software and the holy grail of user-experience. They still have quite an edge on the UX-front but that is destined to fade if they don't come to their senses really soon now.
- pooriaazimi 14y agoThe way I understand it, they're not doing it for profit. They're doing it to scare the hell out of Google, Samsung and HTC not to copy the design of Apple's products. They're just making an example of Samsung to show that they're ready to whatever necessary to protect their IP, even at the cost of tarnishing their own brand.
- neya 14y agoEveryone talks about how innovative Apple is and how innovative Steve Jobs was and how he changed 'the world'. But no one talks about how much innovation Apple has crippled more than they had contributed. For example, a recent broad patent called Universal Search was used by Apple to sue Android OEM's and the end result? The feature was removed from certain Android phones to avoid litigation. And mind you, Universal search had long existed before Apple had patented it. This is just one example, but there are many many broad patents that Apple uses to cripple innovation. The end result is that the users lose more than these companies because they are missing out a lot of features that their devices are capable of implementing. Funny how this is something that is not written much about by these tech Journalists. You never see someone writing how Apple crippled innovation, but only how 'cool' Apple is or how 'innovative' they are. Pathetic. We need a better, unbiased source for technology news. The current set of tech journalists sound more like Apple sales men. We live in a world where we are forced to read what the journalists think of the news rather than just the news itself. Hope someone from HN builds such a platform.
- taligent 14y agoI love the fact that the huge legal teams from Samsung, HTC, Google etc can't find prior art for Apple's "universal search" patent but you can. Or maybe if you actually read the patent you would realise it is for a specific client side, plug-in based implementation which at its time definitely didn't exist on any OS.
- neya 14y agoOk, I'll come your way. So be it, let's assume this is a very 'innovative patent' as per your theory. Do you think they should be suing all the OEM's for such a ridiculous patent? As an end user, I lost a very important feature on my phone just because a random company whose products I don't even want to own is trying to prove how innovative it is. If you still support them, then I have nothing else to say. Have a nice day.
- creamyhorror 14y agoWait, no prior art was found? Did I miss an announcement, a failed patent suit, or some other piece of news, or are you just assuming things there? If the original patent is specific enough to cover only Apple's particular method of searching a phone, then how could Android's unified search be found to be infringing without some sort of reverse engineering or source code examination? If this examination had been done, surely we'd have the results published somewhere. On the other hand, if the patent was general enough to cover any search across multiple components on a device, then surely it should not have been granted and we should not be cheering for a company that exercises such a monopoly? If this unified search patent can be used to stop a phone from searching through multiple data types and components, do you actually think that's something that should stand up in court in the first place? Or are you just going to argue that Apple is just making use of the monopolies granted by the system, the rules of the game, and should be excused anyhow?
- rrggrr 14y agoOrdered one a minute ago in protest.
- dhughes 14y agoIf you're in the US and near the Canadian border both are available here in Canada, I think. http://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Products/Galaxy_Nexus http://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Products/Galaxy_Nexus I don't know if is the new one or not: http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/samsung-samsung-10-1-16gb-galaxy-tab-2-tablet-with-wi-fi-silver-gt-p5113/10206558.aspx?path=7aa588628d2a99afb02dedcf012646b2en02 http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/samsung-samsung-10-1-...