• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Wonder if this will affect sales to Boost Samsung Galaxy S II? Apple lawsuit

M

mikecintel

Member
Hi Everyone,

Hmmm today I just went to Macrumors and I wonder if it will affect Boost Sales when Samsung Galaxy SII launches for Boost Mobile on September 6 because Apple tells Samsung to STOP selling older devices and that includes the Samsung Galaxy S II. Here is the link:

South Korean Court Declares Samsung and Apple Violated Each Other's Patents, Halts Product Sales of Older Devices - Mac Rumors

The Wall Street Journal reports that a panel of three judges in a South Korean court rendered a split decision against Apple and Samsung, stating that the companies violated each other's patents. The court assessed fines and damages against both technology manufacturers, requiring Apple to pay approximately $17,650 to Samsung for each of two violated patents and cease sales of the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 in South Korea, while Samsung must pay approximately $22,000 to Apple and stop selling its older Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy SII, and Galaxy Nexus smartphones as well as the 7-inch and 10.1-inch Galaxy Tab tablet devices.

The lawsuit filed by Samsung and the countersuit filed by Apple in South Korea focus on the same patents at issue in the high-profile case currently in process in a U.S. District Court in which Apple claims that Samsung infringed upon Apple's patents and trade dress while Samsung claims that Apple owes licensing fees for using 3G technology covered by its patents.

Interestingly, the South Korean court stated that Apple and Samsung smartphones were dissimilar enough that there would be "no possibility" for consumers to confuse the products of the two companies.

In the U.S., both Apple and Samsung have completed their presentations to the jury and the most recent update on the case earlier this week indicated that Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, and Samsung's CEO, Kwon Oh Hyun, would meet and discuss the issues in a last-ditch effort for resolution for the jury began its deliberations.
 
Samsung just got screwed and court ruled Samsung violates apple's patents. Apple however doesn't violate Samsung's. Hmmmm.....I wonder
 
UPDATE APPLES WINS Samsung guilty of patent infringement, Apple awarded $1.05B

Samsung guilty of patent infringement, Apple awarded $1.05B

fter only two and a half days of deliberations, the Apple v. Samsung jury handed down a sweeping victory for Apple, finding Samsung infringed on all but one of Apple's asserted patents while the iPhone maker didn't violate any of the Korean company's properties.

Jurors deciding the patent suit have reached a verdict just three days after hearing closing arguments from the parties' counsel, finding Samsung to have infringed on certain Apple patents, according to in-court reports from The Verge. The damages owed total over $1.05 billion for Samsung and zero for Apple.

Tally of Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA) and Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) infringement on Apple patent claims:


  • '381 "rubber-banding" patent: Yes for all devices.
  • '915 "pinch-to-zoom" patent: Yes for all devices except for Intercept and Replenish smartphones.
  • '163 "tap-to-zoom" patent: Yes for Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Fascinate, Ace, Prevail, Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G, S II AT&T, i9100, S II T-Mobile, Galaxy Tab, Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Replenish.
    No for Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G, Transform, and Vibrant.
  • D'667 iPhone design patent: Yes for SEC's Fascinate, Galaxy S, S 4G, S 2 ATT, S2 i9100, S2 Tmobile, S 2 Epic 4G touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.
    No for Ace.
    Yes for STA's Galaxy S 4G, S2 Tmobile, S2 Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.
  • D'087 iPhone design patent: Yes for SEC's S i9000, S 4G, and Vibrant.
    No for Galaxy S II ATT, S II i9100, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, and Infuse 4G.
    Yes for STA's S 4G and Vibrant only.
  • D'305 iPhone home screen design patent: Yes for SEC's Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, S 4G, Showcase, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.
    Yes for STA's Captivate, Continuum, Chrarge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, S 4G, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
  • D'889 iPad design patent: No for all devices


Prior Knowledge findings:

Apple proved through evidence that Samsung "took action that it knew or should have known would induce SEA or STA to infringe the D’677, D’087, D’305, and/or D’889 Patents."

D'677 patent: Yes for Fascinate, S 4G, S2 ATT, S2 Tmobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.
D'087 patent: Yes for S 4G, Vibrant. No for S2 ATT, S2 Epic 4G Touch, S2 Skyrocket, Infuse 4G.
D'305: Yes for Captivate, Continuum, Showcase, Gem, Indugle, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, Vibrant.
'889 patent: No for both Galaxy Tab models.


Willful infringement findings:

'381 patent: Yes for SEC, SEA and STA
'915 patent: Yes for SEC, SEA and STA
'163 patent: Yes for SEC, SEA and STA
D'087 patent: No for SEC, SEA and STA
D'889 patent: No for SEC, SEA and STA


Patent Invalidation

Samsung was unable to prove any of Apple's patents were invalid, including the '893 trade dress, while Apple was able to prove only the iPhone 3G trade dress protectable.

Dilution of trademark:

Regarding registered iPhone trade dress:


  • SEC: Yes to Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize, Vibrant.
    No for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Prevail, S2 ATT, S2 i9100, S2 T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, and Infuse 4G.
  • STA: Yes for Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.
    No for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Prevail, S2 ATT, S2 T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, and Infuse 4G.


Regarding unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress.


  • SEC: Yes to Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize, Vibrant.
    No for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Prevail, S2 ATT, S2 i9100, S2 T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, and Infuse 4G.
  • STA: Yes for Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.
    No for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Prevail, S2 ATT, S2 T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, and Infuse 4G.


Damages

The jury found Samsung responsible for $1,051,855,000. Split per phone:


  • Prevail: Over $57 million.
  • Infuse 4G: $44,792,974
  • Mesmerize: $53,123,612
  • Replenish: $3,350,256
  • Transform: $954,060


Tally of Apple infringement of Samsung patents:


  • '516 UMTS patent: No
  • '460 patent: No
  • '893 patent: No
  • '711 patent: No
  • '460 patent: No


Antitrust

Apple did not prove that Samsung breached obligations with UMTS wireless communications standard nor could the company offer sufficient evidence that the Galaxy maker violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing the industry with its technology.

Patent exhaustion

Apple was able to prove Samsung is barred from asserting the '516 and '941 patents, those relating to technology used by certain Intel chips in iDevices, as they were exhausted.

In order to come to a decision, the jury needed to fill out a complex 20-page verdict form comprised of over 30 multi-part questions, including damages calculations. The quick turnaround, which amounted to a little under 22 hours of deliberations, came without any questions to the court, hinting that the case was a one-sided win.

Prior to hearing the verdict, Samsung counsel filed a notice requesting the court hold the jury for 30 minutes in case of inconsistencies relating to damages awarded. Upon review of the verdict form, two inconsistencies were found where the jury awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE and Intercept smartphone without citing any infringement.

pple v. Samsung proceedings began on July 31 after a jury was selected a day earlier, with the Cupertino company seeking up to $2.5 billion in damages on allegations of trade dress infringement. Samsung countered with its own infringement claims, seeking nearly $422 million in royalties.

The proceedings were fraught with drama, from Samsung "leaking" excluded demonstrative exhibits to the media to presiding Judge Lucy Koh losing her temper over the reams of documents submitted by both parties.

Apple lodged its first complaint against Samsung in April 2011, saying the South Korean electronics giant copied the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad.

It was previously reported that the nine-member jury requested to extend their usual workday by one hour, which at the time was thought to be a sign of intense debates.

According to TGDaily, after the jurors' normal 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. PDT shift was complete, they asked the court to stay an extra hour to finish whatever discussions were taking place behind the jury room's closed doors.

The jury sought to find consensus on a combined 40 hours of testimony and a mountain of evidence counsel presented during the court proceedings. Presiding Judge Lucy Koh, on numerous occasions, asked attorneys representing both companies to winnow their claims in hopes of presenting a digestible case to the jury, though counsel still managed to raise a litany of arguments backed by piles of demonstrative exhibits.

​
 
We'll have little time to hurry and get this phone prior to the last ruling.

I'd say we'll probably have about a week, perhaps two, then they may start to pull the phones.

I'm already ready to buy it the day It's available.
 
Do we know if it will be available at the Boost retail locations (like walmart or Radio Shack) on the 6th or only online?

Thanks.
 
rockdoctor1 said:
Do we know if it will be available at the Boost retail locations (like walmart or Radio Shack) on the 6th or only online?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

It'll likely be first to online, Then perhaps in Best Buy or Radio Shack.

I am not sure how long it would take to get to a store like mine. (SR)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top