Displaying items by tag: Galaxy S

Many of us are eagerly await the launch of Samsung's next top model from the Galaxy S line, called as expected the Galaxy S IV. Although it is evident that the launch of this device will come soon; the site SamMobile claim to know the exact date; from unofficial sources, of course, familiar with the plans of the company. [The launch of the S IV was talked about last year and many thought that Samsung would shot it off at CES 2013 and not wait until after the Mobile World Congress – Ed]

There is a lot going on with the Samsung V Apple trial today as we head toward the final summations and then a jury decision. As we told you yesterday Judge Koh would like to see both sides compromise or to make peace entirely. She claims that there is danger to both sides if the trial goes to a jury. Although they jury cannot truly decide the validity of any patents in question they can still determine if one or the other has infringed. It is a situation that could see both sides impacted.

From the beginning of the Samsung V Apple case we have likened the situation to a battle field.  We have seen ambushes, feints, counters and now landmines. Landmines are one of the worst things that you can find in a battle field. It seems that Samsung laid one down for Apple to step on and the Apple team obligingly did just that. This was in the form of their expert financial testimony about the damages that were due to Apple. Simply put the claims that Apple made were flawed in their core premise that if someone had not opted to by a Samsung phone they would automatically have bought one from Apple.

Apple rested their case today in the Samsung V Apple trial currently underway. Apple’s last big hurrah was parade their licensing chief in front of the jury. From looking at the testimony it was an attempt to show how much Apple tries to cooperate with the competitors. We are not sure that their effort was successful though. The primary focus was to put in a value on the “infringement” that Apple claims Samsung is guilty of.

As part of their War on Apple, Samsung is pulling off some very neat tricks without having to spend a penny. Some of these are basic PR tricks like showing the phone off in the right ways with the right ads, giving extra color choices and also telling people how many other people want it. Of course we would never say that Samsung has not put in its fair share of money to get the Galaxy S III and other products off the ground (not including all of the law suits going on), but that sometimes the best tricks are the ones that do not cost you anything.

Now one thing I do love is irony. Call it a little dark pleasure of mine. I do enjoy it when a larger company (one that might be a tab abusive) finds themselves following when they claim to be leading. I also enjoy it when these same companies (no matter who they are) find themselves caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Unfortunately I am talking about Apple again. This time from a purely speculative point though.

Apple’s legacy of patent lawsuits might be coming unraveled in the EU. Although the California based company did get an injunction on Samsung selling the Galaxy S, Galaxy S II and Ace it only barely managed that one. The issue that got Samsung caught was the “way” you scroll through the Photo Application on the listed phones. Oddly enough the application in question is not a Samsung app but the default photo app that is released with Android 2.3 (which is the default OS on the phones in question).

Not affected by the ruling were the Galaxy Tab and Tab 10.1 which come with a different flavor of Android. The Judge also appear to have rejected the claim that Samsung copied Apple in the design of the Galaxy Tab and the Galaxy S. More than likely this decision was influenced by the fact that the evidence used to support this fantasy of Apple’s was falsified intentionally or not.

Apple also took a blow in that the Judge ruled that Patent No. 1,964,022 is now null and void in the EU. This means that Apple can no longer use it in any legal actions. Patent 1,964,022 cover the “slide to unlock” feature that Apple uses on the iPhone.  Samsung has said that they will replace the software that is in violation of Apple’s patent and then begin selling the phones in the EU again. Apparently investors feel that Samsung will do just fine as Samsung’s stock went up after the verdict while Apple’s fell on the announcement of Steve Jobs’ resignation.

The fact that Samsung is conceding and changing the one application (that is not even theirs) could be an indication that they may have some counter suits of their own planned for Apple and want to remove any bargaining chips from the table before they fire back. Things could get messy for Apple in the next few months especially if the courts in the EU decide to do anything about all that falsified evidence, maybe at Samsung’s request…

Discuss in our Forum

Ok, I could not let this one pass. After hearing about the first instance of inaccurate evidence presented by Apple in court. I honestly thought that occurrence might have been nothing more that old images or an accident involving someone trying to fit both pictures in the same space. However, now we hear about another case where Apple has done exactly the same thing. This time the case in question is in the Netherlands where Apple is trying to get a permanent ban AND a recall of all Galaxy Smart Phones and tablets.

At this point it seems that Apple is willing to lie, cheat and maybe even steal to get what they want (market dominance). I certainly hope that the courts hold Apple responsible on both counts. It is very clear that Apple feels it is above the law in the US where they have led a charmed life with the Patent office and the US International Trade Commission. Now they are taking this to the EU where they managed to get an ex-parte, non-hearing preliminary ban on the Tab 10.1 with inaccurate images as evidence. Thankfully, as of this writing the ban has been lifted (citing jurisdiction issues) in all countries in the EU except Germany. With mounting proof of falsified (or at least wildly inaccurate) visual evidence being used by Apple we would certainly hope these injunction requests are dropped for good and Apple required to face the consequences of their actions.

Source ITWorld.
Picture credit WebWereld.