back to article Samsung SMACKDOWN: US appeals court keeps ban on Galaxy Tab

A US appeals court has denied Samsung's second try at holding up a ban on its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the country. District Judge Lucy Koh already said that the preliminary injunction she ordered wouldn't wait until Samsung had completed its appeal against it and the Court of Appeals has backed her up. The Korean chaebol has no …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Big_Ted

    Its just stupid.

    When will the US patent office wake up and realise you shouldn't be able to patent the look of an object.

    You should only be able to copyright it and then only if its not an obvious look, come on, its the screen from a laptop with one button, how can anyone think that is patentable ? ? ?

    The US patent office must be filled with people who are so stupid or underpaid they just reach for the stamp without thinking.....

    1. John A Blackley

      Re: Its just stupid.

      Ah, the "I don't agree with them so they all must be stupid" argument.

      Always a winner.

      1. Big_Ted
        IT Angle

        Re: Its just stupid.

        So you think that a rectangle with a button deserves a patent ?

        Where is it unique, new, non obvious etc.

        And its not I don't agree with "them" its that the whole system is a major cluster fuck and the US is top of the pile.

    2. vagabondo

      Re: Its just stupid.

      But my understanding (from reading El Reg) is that the USA calls "registered designs" "patents"; you know, like they call "trousers" "pants".

      1. PDC


        It's not only in the US that they call trousers pants. They do that everywhere north of Stoke too. Quite confusing when you first move to Manchester.

    3. Tom 13

      Don't BE stupid when accusing someone else of being stupid.

      The US Patent Office only enforces the rules as handed down by the US Congress. It's the Congress critters that is stupid, not the USPTO. Until blame is firmly placed on the correct perpetrators, the issue will not be fixed.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Its just stupid.

      i don't think they receive money for patents they refuse to file. they grant the patents and let the courts sourt it out. then all the court related scum get their cut when they argue the finer points of electronic device ornamentation! on a completely related note, i don't know what could be wrong with the U.S. economy. probably need to form a government task force to investigate...

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Let me get this straight...

    So over here in England, this case is laughed out of court, and Apple are basically told to say sorry for the whole thing.

    Go across the pond and it's more or less the opposite, with Samsung having their product banned?

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Re: Let me get this straight...

      Well done!

    2. vagabondo

      Re: Let me get this straight...

      > Go across the pond and it's more or less the opposite

      Not exactly. The English case has been heard, and a verdict given. In California the case has not been heard yet, and Apple has lodged a large (forfeitable) bond with the court , and been given an injunction preventing Samsung importing the contested devices until a verdict is reached.

      1. Tom 13

        Re: Let me get this straight...

        Whatever the merits of the case, the US Courts have imposed a retail death sentence on Samsung BEFORE the case is heard. This is MOST objectionable in a system that is SUPPOSED to assume innocence.

        If the concern is that allowing Samsung to continue to do something which is later found to be illegal and they therefore improperly profit from same, a less intrusive remedy would be to impound Samsung's profits from the sale of the Galaxy until such time as the case is decided. If the case goes to Apple, the impounded profits go with it in addition to any other penalties, if it goes to Samsung, they get their profits back.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Let me get this straight...

          The presumption of innocence is a tenant of criminal law. This is not a criminal case, it is civil litigation.

    3. Craigness

      Re: Let me get this straight...

      This tablet is old anyway. They should ship them to Blighty and flog them off for £100 each, then move on. I'll take 2.

  3. genghis_uk

    Another one sided US patent story

    So the US upholds a complaint against a non-US company...

    Nothing to see here, move along.

    Just another legal way to create a trade barrier.

  4. squilookle
    Black Helicopters

    I know it's going to read as arrogant - as if I'm saying the UK court must be right and the American one is not - but between the completely opposite decision made in the UK, the fact a ban has been granted by the American court in the first place, the refusal to stay the ban and the refusal to speed up the proceedings, I can't help but wonder if this is a simple case of an American court taking the side of the American company because they are American

    It may not be the case, but that's the feeling I get from all this.

    1. Anonymous Coward

      and again.

    2. Tom 13

      You are. This isn't a case of American courts prefering American companies.

      You'll need to note the case is originating in California, or as we here in the States call it, the land of fruits and nuts. It was upheld by a Circuit Court that only hears cases in the land of fruits and nuts as well. If Samsung appeals it, it will be to the 9th Circuit which is the most overturned court below SCOTUS of all the #th Circuit Courts in the US.

      Also, note my post above about how improper the decision is. Both Koh and the judges on the circuit court to which it was appealed should be impeached and disbarred.

      1. Tom Maddox Silver badge

        Re: You are. This isn't a case of American courts prefering American companies.

        You may also be aware, since you know so much, that the 9th Circuit is also the *largest* of the circuit courts, having the most judges and hearing cases from almost 20% of the US population (source:

        Of course, yes, the composition of the court probably is from a more enlightened populace than you'll find in flyover land, the Rust Belt, or the boondocks, whichever of those you happen to hail from, you provincial bumpkin.

      2. kain preacher

        Re: You are. This isn't a case of American courts prefering American companies.

        You now I wish people would stop saying this bull shit out of context. Did you know that the 9th circuit hears more cases then any other district? So of course they are going to be over turned more . Percentage wise they have the same rate as any other district court.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Focus on the UK for once

    Maybe companies like Samsung will no longer continue in their habit of forgetting the UK/Europe exists and providing cut down inferior products which lag behind in terms of updates etc.

    1. Daf L

      Re: Focus on the UK for once

      Hmm, not sure that is the case in this arena. Due to the need to negotiate deals with carriers in the US smartphones and similar often appear in the UK & Europe quite a bit before the U.S. Look at the Galaxy S3.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "The Korean chaebol has no doubt been popping the champagne corks as a UK court decided that Tabs weren't as cool as iPads so they couldn't be copies and, oh yeah, Apple should have to take out ads and paper its website with notices saying so. But on the other side of the Atlantic, the firm is not doing so well in court."

    UK = 1, USA = 0.

    What a surprise, the yanks are backing a yank company. No bias there then, eh?

  7. ItsNotMe

    Koh is an idiot.

    She has also decided that LinkedIn is not " electronic communication service (ECS)."

    "In a 27-page decision, District Judge Lucy Koh, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, ruled that LinkedIn cannot be sued under the SCA because the company is neither a remote computing service (RCS) nor an electronic communication service (ECS). [...]"

    Really? I suppose no one communicates via LinkedIn? News to me.

    And not a "remote computing service" either? How is that?

    1. Invidious Aardvark

      Re: Koh is an idiot.

      The SCA is designed to limit what may be lawfully disclosed about wire or electronic communications held by third parties. The data LinkedIn was disclosing was not data the user had lodged with LinkedIn, it was data that LinkedIn generates (user id) or tracks (urls visited) based on their users' interaction with LinkedIn.

      Koh found that the data LinkedIn supplied did not fall under the terms of the SCA and thus LinkedIn could not be considered either an SCA or an RCS. The case was therefore dismissed with prejudice, since no amount of refiling would make it workable.

      If you're going to call the judge an idiot, it would be more helpful to your cause to choose a case where she was obviously wrong in her judgement. Using selective quotes, failing to check the contents of the linked page (which itself contains other links to the detailed judgement where her opinions are stated quite clearly, citing precedent, etc.), and ranting about how LinkedIn must be an ECS and/or RCS because you say so make you look like the idiot.

      tl;dr; Arguing someone is stupid by citing an example where they have acted correctly makes you look stupid.

  8. toadwarrior

    Who says the uk court is right or is it that everyone you agree with must be right? The suggestion of copyrighting a design rather than a patent? Wtf then it's just copyright infringement so they can still take them to court and copyrights have a longer life.

    That's a stupid design.

    The samsung does blatantly copy apple and it's not just about their tablet being a rectangle. Hell people have posted pictures of them using ipad icons in their displays. If their product is so awesome thenthey don't need to do that.

    1. g e


      that anyone who disagrees with Fapple must be wrong...

      1. toadwarrior

        Re: Or

        Yeah the British just must be smarter that's why they'd never let a mentally challenged president talk them into helping an illegal war or let someone worse than hitler run a new media empire in their country.

        Sorry but the british judge is no more right than the US judge. You can't complain about the US forcing its rules on people and then expect your rules (or judgements) to apply in the US.

        1. Captain Save-a-ho

          Or, Re: Or

          Or...the very applications which are in common to iOS and Android appear on Apple and Samsung tablets, respectively. Who would have guessed?

          P.S. When you're finally sick of such a terrible place to live, with its mentally challenged president and hitler-topping media moguls, I suggest you find the nearest exit so you can abandon ship with all the other rats.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The Galaxy Tab 10.1 Doesn't Have A Button on the Facia

      So how's it a copy?

  9. Jediben

    Obvious troll

    Is obvious.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Obvious troll

      clearly, you marked your post quite well

    2. Toothpick

      Re: Obvious troll

      Spell his name right. It's Obvious!

  10. Shagbag

    Does this stop Americans buying them off eBay internationally?

    I like the fact that I, being in the UK, have the choice to buy either product and the courts aren't taking that away from me.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Land of the FrreeeeeEEEeeeEEeeeeeeeee


  12. Schultz

    The patent

    Just for reference, we talk about this patent! It contains a bunch of drawings of a rectangular electronic device with slightly rounded corners. It's 'tablet'-shaped in the classic sense. Nothing ornamental about it, really.

    Amazing that those drawings hold the power to make or destroy millions of US$.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The patent

      The question is ... what sort of moron thought this that was a valid patent. Design patents or not it is obvious that this patent is a complete crock of shite.

    2. Shagbag

      Re: The patent

      Thanks for the link. If that's the 'patent' then the US patent system is seriously f**ked up.

      1. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: The patent

        Indeed it is. Respectable academic research suggests that the societal value of patents *at all* is questionable. To claim that matters of design and appearance contribute to "Progress of Science and useful Arts" is absurd; such patents contribute, at most, to the profits of the patent holder, at the expense of the class of all consumers of similar products.

        Court findings aside, there is no reasonable probability that anyone of normal intelligence would mistakenly buy a Samsung Galaxy Tab thinking it an iPad. I conclude that Apple's real concern is that more people than they like would consider the two, decide that the Samsung is a better product, and therefore choose not to buy the iPad.

        Congress, however, makes the basic patent rules for the US and must be the one to make any serious corrections.

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. Big_Ted

      Re: The patent

      Oh dear, that patent shows no button on the front.....

      Even the iPad breaks their own patent if the Samsung does......

    5. mhenriday

      What's got me worried is «sheet 4 of 4» of that patent (US D 504,889 S) ;

      does that mean that if I hold such a device in my left hand and tap on it with the index finger of my right, I have to pay a license fee to Apple ? Good thing I prefer desktops and keyboards - but since Apple and the USPTO seem to have no understanding of the notion «prior art», perhaps I'm not safe even then....


  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    As the Tab2 isn't affected, so the impact of this silly decision by an iPad loving judge that's way out of kilter to public opinion, really don't matter.

  14. Jeebus

    American company supported by courts, whereas in the UK there was a fair trial. Maybe the Us would get more respect if it evaluated the evidence instead of accepting kickbacks so readily.


    american courts

    shows how stupid american courts are if they think Samsung is infringing apples stupid patents then there clearly apple fanboys in the courts to haha. best thing to do Samsung is take the galaxy tab off the shelves change the design a little or maybe even put jelly bean os on it to get round these stupid childish bans honestly apple are pathetic and sad little children.

  16. Andus McCoatover

    Glad I got my Samsung Galaxy fondleslab in Finland...

    No silly rules here!

  17. Malcolm Weir

    Couple of points: while Judge Koh does indeed live in Apple's backyard, she's of Korean ancestry, so whichever way she acts she's vulnerable to accusations of bias based on irrelevant issues.

    Next, the issue is not whether the Galaxy Tab 10.1 looks like an iPad, but whether it looks like whatever is in the design patent; in fact, the iPad itself doesn't look much like the patent.

    What makes the Judge's ruling so preposterous is that the patent covers a rectangular thing with no ornamentation except a slider on one edge. You'd have to be blind not to notice that the Galaxy HAS ornamentation (it says SAMSUNG on the front and back), it has sockets and connectors, and a camera hole. In short, as the UK judge ruled, it doesn't LOOK LIKE THE PICTURES in the patent.

    Beyond that is the obvious point that the patent itself is challenged by prior art. Ironically, the Knight-Ridder tablet clearly violates the patent, so Apple should sue them for having produced a product before Apple decided to invent the design that we certainly saw in the 1968 film "2001 A Space Odyssey"! (And of course Kubrick is in deep doo-doo for that film: clear violation of Apple's patent).

    1. stanimir

      (And of course Kubrick is in deep doo-doo for that film: clear violation of Apple's patent).

      He is sorta not alive any more, so he is safe.

      I wonder if he'd have had anything to say about that tripe if he was still breathing.

      1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

        > I wonder if he'd have had anything to say about that tripe if he was still breathing.

        "I should have changed my name to Cubic and sued them all from DEC on."

  18. Toothpick

    What is the US court looking at?

    It seems that the UK court was comparing tablet against tablet. However, take into account the entire package i.e. charger, cable and especially the packaging, it looks as though Samsung have ripped off Apple wholesale.

    Is the US court looking just at tablet v tablet or entire package v package?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What is the US court looking at?

      The US judge is supposed to be deciding about the patent issue, and apple did not come up with the idea of putting a charger etc. with a mobile device and even they have not yet patented it (maybe next week but not now). The UK judge looked at the drawings and essentially laughed apple out of court with an edict to grow up, get a pair and say sorry for wasting everybodies time

  19. dwieske

    judges seems to be more like consultants in the us as this one has very clearly been bought by apple..... people buying apple products also seem to have a serious lack of morals seeing what business practices they is a cancer to the tech sector that tries to stiffle innovation at every step by abusing the justice system

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like