So people read over a stupid Gizmodo article that has barely 3 sentences and start to jump to conclusions about what's going on?

This ruling was first made last year. This recent hearing is a permanent injunction where the other one was a preliminary injunction. All they did was uphold the previous decision and make it permanent. There's nothing new here. Since Samsung has already modified their devices after the previous preliminary ruling they will still be allowed to sell them.

People need to learn the difference between an injunction and a ban. An injunction is a ruling that prevents a company from doing something specific (like selling a product). A product ban would be the enforcement of an injunction. An injunction can't be enforced unless the company is performing an action the injunction states they aren't allowed to do.

Since Samsung isn't doing anything wrong, there will be no enforcement and no ban of any of their products. And since they aren't doing anything wrong they won't be paying any fines either. These are just conditions of the ruling that states what could happen if Samsung doesn't comply with the injunction.

^why do you fight so hard? :fullofwin::nyan:

when is he gonna start making android apps

did i hear correctly that in the UK? the courts demanded that apple post in the newspaper the words that "samsung did not copy" ?

I, for one, am glad he does...........

The words, no. The message, yes. And they were also ordered to put the same on their website.

There was a bit of a kerfuffle when apple first did it too, because they didn't just say "Samsung didn't copy", they did this whole "The judge has found samsung didn't copy, but he did say that Apple was cooler than Samsung. Oh, and we just won a legal case where Samsung had to pay us a lot of money. So even though Samsung didn't copy, don't forget about the other stuff" (I paraphrase and am being a bit of an ass about it)


The judges were not amused, and as a result, they had to change the website message (though I'm not sure if the timer was "reset" or not).

My post count defending Apple is lower than the people bashing Apple. This very thread wasn't even started by me. Likewise, the numerous posts about Apple court cases/news in this thread have all been made by someone other than myself. Seems others are fighting harder than I am.

I worked extensively with the Android SDK alongside the iOS SDK. Only have time to develop for one and picked the obvious choice. Android is too much of a mess. I know there are several iOS developers on RS, but haven't seen anyone say they develop for Android yet.

Really? This is very old news. Apple initially posted a notice, but pissed off the court by making fun of the ruling. They modified it but still not enough to satisfy the courts. Then modified it again, but the judge got pissed and Apple now has to pay Samsung's court fees as punishment. It appears Apple is the first company ever in the UK to have to resort to publishing a notice (outside of slander by tabloids). It's a brand new law in the UK that hasn't been "tested" yet, so of course Apple is going to fight it.

Now the EU has a problem. A ruling in an EU court in Germany (for example) is supposed to be binding in all EU member countries. What do you do when an EU court in one country decides in Samsung's favor while another EU court in a different country decides in Apple's favor? How can a ruling be binding in all EU countries when two countries made different decisions? This case has much broader implications than the spat between Apple and Samsung.

There are three stances (official positions) the major companies involved in mobile have regarding FRAND patents:

1. That FRAND patents should never be used to seek a sales ban (injunction). In the case of a license dispute (or failure to negotiate a license), the companies should go to court to seek a settlement and the court can decide the FRAND royalty rate. This is the position held by Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, HP and Cisco.

2. That FRAND patents should be used to seek a sales ban after all attempts of negotiations have failed. This is the position held by Nokia and Ericsson.

3. That FRAND patents can be used to seek sales bans under any circumstances. This is the position held by Samsung and Motorola.



Now this is where things are getting really interesting.

Ericsson has just filed to have pretty much all of Samsung's mobile devices barred from sale in the US. This is because Ericsson claims Samsung has refused to license their patents (apparently Samsung had a license that has expired and have not renewed). Ericsson took Samsung to court the last time and Samsung only licensed after Ericsson filed (see a pattern here?).

Of interest is that the patents Ericsson is suing Samsung over are the same patents Apple has also licensed. Since we know there was no court battle between Ericsson and Apple it's safe to assume that Ericsson wasn't asking a high rate (like Samsung and Motorola are) and that Ericsson and Apple came to an agreement "the normal way" (meaning they negotiated without going to court).

The timing couldn't be worse for Samsung.

Samsung claims Ericsson's demands are too high. Apple has a license from Ericsson for the same patents. So Apple can now take the rates they pay Ericsson (which Samsung thinks are too high) and show them to the court to compare to what Samsung is demanding from Apple.

Samsung is caught in the middle. They have to justify to one court why Apple should be paying much higher than normal FRAND rates and at the same time tell the other court why Ericsson's FRAND rates are too high and they should pay less. It's a catch-22 for Samsung.

grabs popcorn