U.S., Australian and Dutch courts agree again with Apple over Samsung

Ars Technica

Starting with the case in the U.S., Judge Lucy Koh ruled in Thursday’s session that Samsung tablets infringe on Apple’s patents. To illustrate her position, the judge held up the models from both companies, one in each hand, and asked Kathleen Sullivan, Samsung’s lead attorney, if she could tell her which was the iPad and which was the Galaxy Tab. The lawyer, located three meters from the stand, had no choice but to acknowledge “Not at this distance, your honor” . Following this preliminary ruling, Apple will now have to prove that its patents are valid under the law in order to finally block the sale of the Galaxy Tab in the country.

U.S., Australian and Dutch courts agree again with Apple over Samsung
U.S., Australian and Dutch courts agree again with Apple over Samsung

That same day, Judge Annabelle Bennett confirmed the order to temporarily ban the sale of Samsung’s tablet in Australia, in response to Apple’s accusation that its rival “blindly copied” the design and technology of the iPad and iPhone to create the Galaxy Tab tablets and Galaxy S phones . Bennett has considered that Samsung has infringed two of the apple’s patents related to touch screens and gestures, and that if it allowed their commercialization to avoid losses to the Asian manufacturer, it would be causing them to its rival. So the final hearing will take place in early 2012, after the Christmas season.

Finally, in the Netherlands, where it was Samsung that sought to ban the sale of the iPhone and iPad by accusing Apple of illegally using a number of patents for 3G communications technology , justice has slammed the door on them by finding that the company “has not been willing to negotiate” with the apple, has “tolerated the use of its technology for quite some time” and has abused the law by resorting to the judicial process.

Samsung claimed 2.4% of the sale of each Apple device as royalties for the use of its patents, essential in the 3GUMTS standards. But Apple rejected this demand, considering it to be unfair and discriminatory, precisely two of the adjectives that form the name of the licensing model required by the standardization organizations to which these patents belong, the FRAND (Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms).

Although the Korean manufacturer had managed to get away with this, Apple still had another ace up its sleeve: Qualcomm , the company that supplies the iPhone and iPad’s 3G components, allegedly already pays royalties to Samsung, invalidating any potential obligation of Apple in this regard.

Track>
At Apple

Similar Posts