Seeking Alpha

A California judge issued a preliminary injunction yesterday banning Samsung (SSNLF.PK) from...

A California judge issued a preliminary injunction yesterday banning Samsung (SSNLF.PK) from making or selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1. The judge said Apple (AAPL) had made a strong case that the Tab's design violates its patents. A trial is set for July 30. In the meantime, analysts are playing it cool and say the injunction is unlikely to have a significant impact on Samsung.
Comments (25)
  • Sammy "knock offs" getting their comeuppins legally good for (AAPL)
    27 Jun 2012, 06:39 AM Reply Like
  • Or is it that Samsung is offering a better product at a lower cost and Apple will do everything to protect their margins including patent trolling?

     

    Sent from my iPad - cant wait to get the galaxy 3 though.
    27 Jun 2012, 08:04 AM Reply Like
  • Oh, Jesus. I can't believe their argument in the WSJ. It literally is that it looks similar to an iPad - so does every other tablet. I hate this company - I can't believe I got suckered into their products.
    27 Jun 2012, 08:10 AM Reply Like
  • Why would you hate the company for asserting what it believes to be its legal right? If you got beef, take it up with the patent/legal authorities for allowing these legal actions.
    27 Jun 2012, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • Samsung is a total pain in the a$$: manufactures everything, but invented nothing. Let the other guys do the expensive development
    and then piggyback it for a free ride. Samsung is a parasite, the only thing they do is to slash prices, when you buy a Samsung product you are at the same level as someone buying a knock off Rolex or a pirated DVD

     

    I rest my case
    27 Jun 2012, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • Ford did the heavy lifting in inventing the automobile - down to factory production, design, etc. Should Ford be suing Rolls Royce for infringing on something that is essentially a box and comes with four wheels?
    27 Jun 2012, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • Using Rolls Royce in this argument is a company that made an improvement on Ford and marketed to the affluent. AAPL has no comparable comparison because they did the heavy lifting and sell a better product. They invented the Ford (iPhone) and sell the Rolls Royce (iPad). I don't know what your issue is with AAPL or any company for that matter but your aggressive manner does not add to the discussion.

     

    Every tech company at this moment is in the courts arguing over patents, as well as other issues. The problem is with the whole industry and the tool of using the courts.
    27 Jun 2012, 09:18 AM Reply Like
  • Apple has few if any standards essential patents.

     

    i.e. it did not invent the mobile phone.

     

    Apple's key innovation was... the App store and the integrated ecosystem.

     

    Everything else were incremental improvements on products already in the market.
    27 Jun 2012, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • "Ford did the heavy lifting in inventing the automobile - down to factory production, design, etc"

     

    Not the case at all.

     

    What Ford invented was the efficiency of the modern production line - not the automobile itself
    27 Jun 2012, 09:14 AM Reply Like
  • This is a clear indication that patent trolling is now harming CONSUMERS.

     

    I share recent sentiments b y Judges that the patent trolling wars initiated by Apple are getting tedious and harming the market. If your product is superior it should stand the test if imitation.
    27 Jun 2012, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • My point exactly.
    27 Jun 2012, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • Patents are not designed for consumer protection. They are designed for inventor protection. Here's the text from the US Constitution:

     

    "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
    27 Jun 2012, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • Before Apple's newly discovered strength, cross-licensing in the computer and smartphone space was common and expected. In fact, open-sourcing was becoming normative. The difference is Apple is using patents to stifle competition and innovation, and this is why the consumer gets harmed.

     

    The issue is not the narrow definition directly stated in the law, but the broad impact of the actions of a single entity altering the landscape in a negative way.
    27 Jun 2012, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • Apple is within their legal rights. You need to accept that IP theft is wrong. Consumers are not a factor.
    27 Jun 2012, 11:16 AM Reply Like
  • Where did I state they were not?

     

    You need to accept that the IP laws that allow patent trolls like Apple have evolved into entities that stifle competition rather than encourage it.

     

    The first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging it.
    27 Jun 2012, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • You didn't understand either of my previous comments. The purpose of patents is not to "encourage competition." As the Constitution says, the purpose of patents is "to promote the progress of science and useful art." To use your (poorly chosen) words, the patent system stifles competition *by design.* Encouraging competition is not its objective.
    28 Jun 2012, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • And you didn't understand mine.

     

    My point was precisely that Apple's tactics in its use of its patents as a weapon is antithetical to said 'promotion and progress of science and useful art.'

     

    For a very long time cross-licensing was very common in the tech world in order to build upon prior work. Apple has decided that this should no longer be so, and the end result is that innovation and progress are stifled anywhere Apple IP is concerned.

     

    The end result is a limiting of the marketplace, a weaker innovation environment, and a hurt consumer.

     

    If you cannot understand that, I suggest further reading on the various reputable sites on the internet, such as the economist, which have delved into the issue at length.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • I'm not gonna repeat myself a fourth time. Game over.
    29 Jun 2012, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • I'll take a stab at this kmi comment.
    1: For a very long time cross-licensing was very common in the tech world in order to build upon prior work. Apple has decided that this should no longer be so, and the end result is that innovation and progress are stifled anywhere Apple IP is concerned.
    Answer - Cross licensing still is. But, the Samsung, Google stuff gets tons of press. false. Apple does a tremendous amount of patent cross-licensing. If apple felt Samsung had enough patents they needed, I'm sure there would be cross licensing. However, most likely Apple owns far more, and Samsung, never really seems to care, when "designing products". Maybe they are Jesse James.

     

    2: The end result is a limiting of the marketplace, a weaker innovation environment, and a hurt consumer.
    Absolutely false. On the contrary it makes for a stronger innovation environment, and one less tolerating of cheap copies - that is shutting down the folks who prefer to steal, than invent.

     

    I'm sure if patents went away tomorrow, every big pharma company would lay off every person in R&D. You spend a Billion to invent a drug to cure a type of cancer, and some small company decides to copy your cure and sell it for 1cent on a dollar because they spent $100 dollars on R&D...
    Patents make possible the profits that make innovation possible. It's really that simple. R&D costs too much in this day and age. BTW did you know that in California, the universities by state law do not have to pay most royalties? (Grand theft!). They will sue companies for the patents the UC system owns while at the same time freely helping them selves to other patents that they need to do their work. (Sort of like music pirating in China, but far more devious.)
    30 Jun 2012, 12:28 AM Reply Like
  • None of you are getting this, it's called ,"Patent." All companies can have their product ID patented IFF it serves in the aesthetics and is not for functionality (other patents cover that). This is subjective in the sense the Patent office did not think Apple's design was an extension of the Kindle.

     

    Anybody on this discussion with this in mind, look at Kindle, look at Samsung, look at Apple. Who copied. Under the law, Patent Law, Samsung is in violation like it or not. Why wouldn't Samsung copy Kindle instead of Apple? Why wouldn't they just do their own?

     

    I study hard for a test, you didn't, you ain't cheating off of me. Don't care if you're a Rolls.
    27 Jun 2012, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • Rolls-Royce went bankrupt in 1971, and then emerged as a nationalized company. Is that Samsung's destiny?
    27 Jun 2012, 01:41 PM Reply Like
  • The lack of respect for intellectual property in this day and age is palpable, as illustrated by many of the comments in this thread. Since it's arguably what made this country great, it's a sad testimony to how far we've sunk, and how much farther we're likely to sink.

     

    GO APPLE!
    27 Jun 2012, 02:20 PM Reply Like
  • APPL can thank God for the statute of limitations and the development of trade law since they started. Any wonder why they called Jobs & Gates "Jesse James without a gun" ?
    28 Jun 2012, 01:40 AM Reply Like
  • To Bill D. Nobody does: "Jesse James without a gun" Try a search. Besides, it would be Gates alone, if someone did...
    29 Jun 2012, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • Before I start my ramble - background I'm a long time techie sales and marketing person. I managed the first computer store in PA (not when it first opened, but took over in '78). I've worked for Epson, and I run a site that is a top review site for home theater projectors and business projectors http://bit.ly/L9FCZp. I also launched the first website in early 1995 to sell projectors online. Been around a while. I own apple products, but haven't always. We also have one PC here. So, with all that in mind, here goes:
    First re some nonsense: Apple is near the bottom of the list of patent trolls. Apple buys tons of patent rights (as do they all), but has developed far more tons internally. Unlike Google (i.e. buying Motorola strictly for patents), Apple does very little of that. They did go in with 4 or 5 other companies for one large batch of Nortel patents, same bid for the batch that Google passed on joining, then complained when they lost with their own bid. Google wanted all those patents for the bucks, not the tech. All the winners of that batch of patents share those, no fees. Samsung, on the other hand, if not a bigger patent troll than Google (that would be hard) is probably 2nd. They buy them hoping they can use them to work deals on other patents that they obviously "stole". ie. copying the iPhone... Look, if you don't believe in intellectual property, probably this isn't the right forum. If you don't believe in IP, you should be spending this time downloading all the free music you can find on the internet, from any "illegal" sites that don't pay royalties to musicians. You should be sneaking your camcorder into the movie theater, taping movies and making copies for all your friends. And books, might as well just shoplift those...

     

    Now to the good stuff. True: Apple did not invent the cell phone. Let's see what they mostly invented (every piece of electronics uses patents from all over, especially on basic stuff like power supplies.
    But apple did "invent":
    1. The first practical personal computer 1977-79 - the apple II and II+. That changed the world, it caused Gates to buy Seattle computing to develop MS-DOS as a result of IBM following the Apple II+ to create the IBM-PC.
    2. The modern user friendly computer. Basically we all (over 30 years of age) people know that Windows was a tremendous rip-off of the apple mac, but despite all the patents, Microsoft only had to change the trash can to a different icon. You wonder why they are aggressive today?
    3. Apple "invented" the modern smart phone. Sure Blackburry had email networking nailed, but what apple created changed everything, and we should see blackberry's bankruptcy soon, if someone doesn't buy them just for the patent library they have
    4. Apple not only invented the modern tablet, but they pretty much invented what would be called the modern PDA if not that it's called a t tablet, or a smart phone without the phone. Unlike everyone else, apple has a tendency to actually kill a product that doesn't meet their standards. Consider the Newton. It was nice enough for the day, but it didn't do what it needed to, well enough. Apple pulled it, and then, less than a decade later, changed the world with the iPad. In a sense a direct descendant, though it moved from handwriting to touch as it's main uniqueness.
    5. Voice recognition - apple has done more in the industry than anyone else (except maybe Dragon and IBM), You can go back more than a decade and buy Apple Centris computers geared for voice recognition (and easy to use video production).
    6. Did I fail to mention the mouse? They didn't' invent it (Xerox - Park, most likely, as they built the first mini-computer workstation to use one), but like most Xerox park inventions, it went nowhere. Then Apple introduced the Lisa computer - with the mouse - the forerunner to the first Mac, and thanks to them, there may actually be more computer mice in the world than live ones.
    7. iTunes: changed the world - especially for us listeners - and also for 10's of thousands of musicians that aren't signed to labels, they may not be getting rich from the iTunes store, but they often make far more than they do "gigging". Not the first download site (those were all "illegal", nor the first legal one. No, Apple simply figured out how to create one that's not only legal, but indispensable by music lovers. (unless you own a galaxy and download from somewhere else).
    8. Desktop Publishing
    Enough, a complete and more detailed list will show that apple has changed more industries than any modern company in the world:
    Music
    Publishing
    Graphics
    Marketing (including iTunes store)
    Computing (on so many levels - some mentioned above)
    Phoning
    Learning (Apple way back, dominated our schools, before there was the Apple II and II+ there was no such thing as a computer in a classroom, and while apple computers became too powerful but also too expensive to dominate in K-12, Apple is once again becoming dominant on college campuses - both Mac and iPad
    More learning (iPad)
    Protecting their customers - while not bulletproof apples tight environments, including iTunes store, are across their platforms have always been less likely to get infected.
    Dependable - and support - Good products, great support. Check out a Microsoft store some time. The good thing is there are always employees standing around waiting for someone to enter the store, but beyond that... Genius bar, replacements, etc. OK, I don't like that you can't replace an old battery yourself, but that's one of my biggest bitches.
    OK, anyone want to do a list for Samsung, Google, Microsoft, of all the things they pioneered? -art
    PS. Hey they still don't make perfect products. I still bitch that I can't buy a MacBook with enough internal disk space for my purposes, and some things are too expensive, but, I've probably owned 10 apple computers (vs 4 or 5 PCs), I've owned all 3 of the 4 iPhone versions, and have owned all three iPads (btw only once did I buy any of the above, in the first month they were on the market. I wait to decide if I really "need" them. And finally, Siri - isn't perfect - it sucks in loud places - but between Siri, and Dictation on my iPad, those two save me at least 5 hours of time every single week.
    30 Jun 2012, 12:28 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)