US judge sides with Apple in patent battle with Samsung

The patent battle between Samsung and Apple has now reached US shores, but so far the first legal confrontation has generated mixed results for both parties. Reuters reports that the judge in the case has ruled that Samsung has indeed violated some of Apple's patents. However, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh also ruled Apple must still prove that it has a valid right to the patents it claims it owns. There's no word yet on when or how Apple will try to prove its case.

Apple had asked the judge in the case to rule on its request for an injunction that would have banned the sales of some of Samsung's smartphones and tablets in the US, including the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet and the recently released Samsung Galaxy S II smartphone. Koh decided not to rule on that request at that time but did say she would make her final decision "fairly promptly". However, she did remark on the similarities between the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Apple's iPad. Apple feels that Samsung copied the design of the Galaxy Tab from the iPad.

At one point during the hearing, Koh reportedly held both the Galaxy Tab and the iPad above her head and asked Samsung's lawyer, Kathleen Sullivan, if she could tell the difference between the two tablets. Sullivan, who was about 10 feet away from Koh, said, "Not at this distance your honor." That was enough for Apple spokeswoman Kristen Huguet to comment, "It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad ... This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas."

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Review: MealTime for iOS

Next Story

TechSpot: Steve Jobs - The Tech Icon, The Visionary

26 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Well I know I will get ragged for this. But I will be blantant and very blunt too. She asked a female if she could tell the difference. From 10 ft away? If she can't tell the difference then she is stupid. Also, she can't tell the difference because a female can't tell the difference between a hole in the ground and the piehole on her face.

I could hold up 2 computers and ask her if she could tell which brand it was and I assure you she would have to say no. She is just trying to get a case won. No more no less. if she can't tell the diffeence from 1oft away looking at the back she is stupid. One says Apple on the back and one says Samsung on the back. Thast all u need. I can show he 2 cars frm the back from 10 feet away and ask her if she coudl tell what brand they are from if I covered the badge and she wouldnt be able too. Does that mean they blantantly copied?

She is stupid and so is the judge. Probably why Apple picked her. Just saying.

TechieXP said,
Well I know I will get ragged for this. But I will be blantant and very blunt too. She asked a female if she could tell the difference. From 10 ft away? If she can't tell the difference then she is stupid. Also, she can't tell the difference because a female can't tell the difference between a hole in the ground and the piehole on her face.

I could hold up 2 computers and ask her if she could tell which brand it was and I assure you she would have to say no. She is just trying to get a case won. No more no less. if she can't tell the diffeence from 1oft away looking at the back she is stupid. One says Apple on the back and one says Samsung on the back. Thast all u need. I can show he 2 cars frm the back from 10 feet away and ask her if she coudl tell what brand they are from if I covered the badge and she wouldnt be able too. Does that mean they blantantly copied?

She is stupid and so is the judge. Probably why Apple picked her. Just saying.

Those are incredibly sexist remarks. *SIGH* Why should I expect anything less from someone in an industry filled with males?

And yes, I am Male. I thought i'd say that before you start insulting me as well.

Seriously with this kind of behavious why do so many people buy Apple products!?! There are so many good alternatives in every space Apple is in.

I can tell the difference between the two by just looking at the box, shape/size and if there's an apple on the back. Not sure why the Judge would side with a company that forges evidence to gain favor.

Are you freaking kidding me? From 10' away, I am sure many tablets all look pretty much the same, within reason at 10'. What kind of truly scientific reasoning is this? Amazing...

ir0nw0lf said,
Are you freaking kidding me? From 10' away, I am sure many tablets all look pretty much the same, within reason at 10'. What kind of truly scientific reasoning is this? Amazing...

ASUS Transformer would look similar at that distance as well. Has the black borders like the iPad.

Is neowin leaving out comments in the source link on purpose or something??


"Not at this distance your honor," said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away.

"Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?" Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.

So Sullivan is an idiot if he cannot tell the difference. Specially since he is heavily involved in this case and should of see/studied both products extensively. Different shapes and the button on the iPad is a dead give away. At least some of Samsungs people know what they are talking about.

Although I agree with securing intellectual property and ensuring technology you own is licensed or solely your own, I feel that the legal profession is the only one winning hereā€¦
Regardless of what the legal profession is doing they are actually making technology manufacturers secure technologies, all companies are now doing it including the freeware/open source crew. And the flow on benefit of this is that they are all out and about thinking of the next big thing. I've read comments from Google's CEO and others saying the patent war, is simply hampering technology. No it's simply hampering profit without effort.
It's sad that the legal profession is now an integral part of IT technologies.

shadodemon said,
This is why we do not have warp drive or cures for really really bad diseases. Has anyone heard of the gene patent?

Is there a patent for a warp drive? If not, then no, it is not the reason why. Also, if we cured all the bad diseases, there wouldn't be a market after a while to sell those cures to. No company is going to develop a cure that will put them out of business.

ILikeTobacco said,

Is there a patent for a warp drive? If not, then no, it is not the reason why. Also, if we cured all the bad diseases, there wouldn't be a market after a while to sell those cures to. No company is going to develop a cure that will put them out of business.

yeah there are. All those "evil" pharma companies. They spend billions in r&d only to have a brief period of profits before the generics are allowed in...

DariusIII said,
Interesting, on Reuters site it goes a bit different:

Apple must show both that Samsung infringed its patents and that its patents are valid under the law.

http://www.reuters.com/article...wsuit-idUSTRE79C79C20111014

I was gonna say... there's a big chunk of this missing. The judge specifically told Apple's team that they had a problem establishing the validity of their patents. (i.e.: They may not even be valid.)

EDIT: Derp... it's in the first paragraph...

TheLegendOfMart said,
Didnt realise you could trademark/copyright shapes and colours.

Apple should just stfu and be greatful of the competition.


Reece's has trademarked the color orange lol...its retarded but nothing you can do about it

/- Razorfold said,

Reece's has trademarked the color orange lol...its retarded but nothing you can do about it

It's not for the colour orange as a whole; it's for that very specific orange for their chocolate brand. It doesn't stop other chocolate makers from using an orange colour in their branding or packaging, but they'd be advised against using the exact orange that's used in the Reese's brand.

Cadbury have a very similar thing with their purple.

Skittlebrau said,

It's not for the colour orange as a whole; it's for that very specific orange for their chocolate brand. It doesn't stop other chocolate makers from using an orange colour in their branding or packaging, but they'd be advised against using the exact orange that's used in the Reese's brand.

Cadbury have a very similar thing with their purple.

Those are tradedress trademarks, not patents or normal trademarks.....

Ok I see what's happening. Now lets see what will happen in the counter suites - Samsung suing Apple for wireless related patents.

rwx said,
Ok I see what's happening. Now lets see what will happen in the counter suites - Samsung suing Apple for wireless related patents.

Samsung lost that one here in the Netherlands.