Spanish Firm Wins Tablet Case Against Apple 151
pmontra writes "A Spanish company has won a legal case against Apple and will be able to sell an Android tablet that Apple had claimed infringes on the iPad patent. It is now seeking damages from Apple for a temporary seizure of its products by Spanish customs. Furthermore they are pursuing an antitrust complaint against Apple, alleging abusive anticompetitive behavior."
All I can say is (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent!.
Re:All I can say is (Score:5, Insightful)
And all I can add is:
Re:All I can say is (Score:5, Informative)
there should be stiff penalties for frivolous lawsuits and
There are, if you can prove that its frivolous and/or using the court systems as an anti-competitive hammer. If the court really decides that youre a nuisance, they can nail you pretty hard.
Re: (Score:1)
there should be stiff penalties for frivolous lawsuits and
There are, if you can prove that its frivolous and/or using the court systems as an anti-competitive hammer. If the court really decides that youre a nuisance, they can nail you pretty hard.
Well in that case how big has the nail got to be to completely trash apple for good
Re: (Score:2)
Courts once started fining Microsoft $1mil per day for failure to comply with a court order.
I dont care how big you are, that starts to hurt pretty quickly; and if you think that is the upper limit that a court can nail you for if you continue to be belligerent, you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Courts once started fining Microsoft $1mil per day for failure to comply with a court order.
I dont care how big you are, that starts to hurt pretty quickly; and if you think that is the upper limit that a court can nail you for if you continue to be belligerent, you are wrong.
Well, no. $1M/day (call it $365M/yr) is not a large amount of money for a corporation whose annual operating expenses are 75X that paltry sum (MSFT operating expenses in 2010 were $28B.) Why would a company like Microsoft, or Apple, or any other company with a twelve digit market cap worry about a nine digit fine? That is just another (relatively small) operating expense, as far as their bottom line is concerned, and if it allows them to continue to throttle competition, it can be easily justified to the
Re:All I can say is (Score:4, Interesting)
That's why only big companies can use this method against small companies to prevent competition. The other way round is too dangerous for the attacker. However, this shall not be confused with so-called patent trolls, who work on technology patents and not on "design" patents.
Frivolous patents and lawsuits (Score:5, Interesting)
>> "there should be stiff penalties for frivolous lawsuits"
> There are, if you can prove that its frivolous and/or using the court systems as an anti-competitive hammer. If the court really decides that youre a nuisance, they can nail you pretty hard.
But it's so costly and difficult to run that particular legal marathon, hardly anybody has ever completed the course. (Really, has anybody _ever_ actually completed it?)
The problem is more fundamental: "The grant of invalid patents is a serious evil insomuch as it tends to the restraint of trade and to the embarrassment of honest traders and inventors..."
That was the Fry Committee in 1901, recognizing that fundamental truth. The same applies, of course, to other forms of IP as well, not only patents. But which policymakers and legislators in power remember that now?
-wb-
Re:Frivolous patents and lawsuits (Score:4, Interesting)
But it's so costly and difficult to run that particular legal marathon, hardly anybody has ever completed the course. (Really, has anybody _ever_ actually completed it?)
Novell, in SCO v. Novell [groklaw.net]
But that instance is legendary for how the respondent stuck to its defense, and the basic bad faith and scummy practices of the plaintiff.
And it only took 6 1/2 years, from initial complaint to Supreme Court refusing appeal.
So... yeah, at least ONE someone has actually completed the course. It may be the exception, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, Novell put up a stalwart defence and won it, yes, kudos to them. And as you say, it took 6 1/2 years.
But did they get SCO nailed for bringing an action that was frivolous or vexatious in the first place? I don't recall reading that this was part of it? So we might still be looking for any example of that.
-wb-
Re: (Score:2)
But it's so costly and difficult to run that particular legal marathon, hardly anybody has ever completed the course. (Really, has anybody _ever_ actually completed it?)
Righthaven might be a good example of that, for certain definitions of "frivolous".
Re:All I can say is (Score:5, Informative)
There are. If a company is requesting the (temporary) ban on importing or selling a competitor's product, it has to feet the bill if it doesn't prevail in court. Basicly Apple has (from a legal point of view) bought all the potential shipping of the competing product for the time being.
Re: (Score:3)
Basicly Apple has (from a legal point of view) bought all the potential shipping of the competing product for the time being.
But these companies are also competing for market share and getting their foot through the door first. Apple might well buy up all the competitors' products, burn them in a pile and sell their own for several times the price to recover the cost. They're certainly immoral enough to do this and then this arrangement would make it seem like a mistake.
Re:All I can say is (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
well as they where classed as a 'pirate' company couldnt they claim each unit was a lost sale and claim $250,000 per unit using the 'music' industry product forumale!
Triple dameage? (Score:2)
I think that awarding triple damages in this case would be more appropriate than just paying for lost sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did not mean to imply that this can be done! All that I meant was that triple damages might be appropriate. The laws of a country might not allow such penalties but maybe they should be changed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Steve's dead, we're fucked. Better double the staff in the legal department to protect our position while we figure out what the hell we're gunna do."
Yeah, Apple certainly never brought frivolous patent infringement lawsuits while Steve was in charge. This is really just business as usual.
Re:All I can say is (Score:4, Informative)
No, not really. Bill Gates has been a bit of a douche bag going all the way back to when he was complaining about people copying his implementation of basic while he was still in college. Microsoft has always been a company aimed at market domination and rolling in the fat monopoly rents that domination would create. When they first started out they used to publicly say they wanted to the be the only company in the computer business, which if you think about it, is a completely obnoxious goal to have. Microsoft has always been fundamentally dedicated to being evil*.
* Though Microsoft and it's peons are rarely able to recognize the inherent evil in deliberately trying to limit other people's choices and take money that they don't truly deserve (by using monopoly power to increases prices above what a fair market would settle on).
Re:All I can say is (Score:5, Informative)
Based on what the document says, I think the implications of this case for Apple's enforcement of its design-related rights are probably much less wide-ranging than it initially appeared. It seems that even in Spain Apple could still assert its iPad design-related rights under civil law. Also, the nature of Apple's involvement may have been limited to that of an initial complainant (who according to nt-k also filed an indictment) as opposed to that of a party litigating a case all the way through. That's what my sources say, and it's possible.
IOW Apple didn't lose the case because they weren't really involved.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Florian Mueller's not a lawyer, and I'm not, and I'm pretty sure you're not... but that phrase "initial complainant as opposed to that of a party litigating a case" makes no sense. Does Spanish court procedure allow a party to launch a lawsuit against another and then disengage and let it fly unattended? I'm skeptical. If there's a distinction, it's an irrelevant technical one, and doesn't change anything.
Sorry. Regardless of the legal trickeration, if Apple initiates the lawsuit, and doesn't petition
Re: (Score:2)
Apple filed a complaint that lead to criminal charges. Criminal prosecution is always handled by the state.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a criminal case, which is usually handled by the government. If it was in England, Apple would complain to Trading Standards in the appropriate council area. Trading Standards officers would investigate, and if they think there is a case to answer, send a report to the Director of Public Prosecution. The DPP would then decide whether or not to initiate a prosecution against the company. Private prosecutions are possible, but very rare.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Florian Mueller's not a lawyer, and I'm not, and I'm pretty sure you're not... but that phrase "initial complainant as opposed to that of a party litigating a case" makes no sense.
So you gladly take his word for gospel when hee says Apple is doomed, and call him a fool when he says he was wrong. Hateboy if I ever saw one.
About time ... (Score:1)
... that at least 1 judge pulled his/her head out of their ass long enough to see what Apple is doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, EU is not the place where Nokia is most popular these days - iPhone and Android have taken their places there as well. But if you look at Russia, India and China, Nokia has 50+% of the market in all of them.
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably trolling to see if anyone would feed you if you take several sane and right positions and say the exact opposite, but still...
Also think 1 second (if you can) what the mobile phone / smartphone sector looked like BEFORE the iPhone and AFTER the iPhone.
The iPhone was slick in a few ways, but that doesn't mean smartphones wouldn't have gotten slicker without it. Maybe we'd all be running maemo debian gnu/linux on our phones today if it weren't for the iPhone. Instead of a forced walled garden
Re: (Score:2)
Dang... Where did I put my quote tags? What I meant was for there to be a quoted part, like so:
Also think 1 second (if you can) what the mobile phone / smartphone sector looked like BEFORE the iPhone and AFTER the iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, blackberry clones or something like openmoko?
Fact is, everybody copied apple for a reason. It was - and still seems to be - what people wanted. Some history lessons wouldn't hurt, as this is seems to be the pattern for a bit more than 30 years already.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, blackberry clones or something like openmoko?
Fact is, everybody copied apple for a reason. It was - and still seems to be - what people wanted. Some history lessons wouldn't hurt, as this is seems to be the pattern for a bit more than 30 years already.
When I said "maemo debian gnu/linux" I was referring to the operating system named Maemo, which is built on Debian with GNU and the Linux kernel, running since 2005 on the nokia 770 and later updated versions on the n800, n810 and n900, now morphed into Meego on the N9.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know. And I could not care less if the underlying layer is gnu/linux, mach3/nextstep, netBSD or a 32-bit CP/M. Thing is, Linux as a Kernel is a success on phones with Android (not sure about the GNU part though), and is being, and maemo is not because either it was not good enough or the people managing it made it flop, independently of apple.
What I mean is that those products failed on their own merits.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, not so much GNU in the Android.
Nokia sure did mess up royally with Maemo. What I was answering was the comment to think about the before and after of the iPhone. And what I meant was that maybe Maemo would have been the next great thing albeit a bit later if it wasn't for the iPhone (which it should have been despite the iPhone, but Nokia didn't realize what they potentially had). On the other hand, Nokia might have found exiting new ways of missing the opportunity, so speculating in alternate history
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, not so much GNU in the Android.
Are they using their own compiler to build Android?
I was under the impression that they were using GCC, but I might be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's hope so. It seems the pendulum is going to the other side in pretty much everything, not only software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, I think the N9 had a chance. Nokia just wasn't interested.
Re:About time ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with the fact that Apple defends its IP.
I do have a problem with HOW they defend their IP.
Do misunderstand me here. I am NOT an Apple fan. I have a lot of friends that love their iThings and I am happy for them. That said, I wouldn't let them use my computer either. It's a good thing the iThings are available for those not Technically savvy.
But I do want the option to be able to purchase something that is NOT an iThing and also has the ability to allow me to do what "I" want to do, however I want to do it.
Whether patents are good or not is a non-issue. Of course they are good. As long as they are based on common sense. And as the entire world can see this is NOT the case and thus needs to be addressed.
Also think 1 second (if you can) what the mobile phone / smartphone sector looked like BEFORE the iPhone and AFTER the iPhone.
And when did the E70 come out? hmmm. the E75? don't know about you but the only thing that the iphone brought with it was marketing.
E70? (Score:2)
Oh yeah, an E70 really looks and works like an iPhone. It's more like a Blackberry, although much cooler.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with Apple defending their IP. The problem is that Apple takes other people's IP, claims it as their own, and then starts suing over it. And they have been doing that since the 1980's.
This again? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also think 1 second (if you can) what the mobile phone / smartphone sector looked like BEFORE the iPhone and AFTER the iPhone.
Let's see, before the iPhone it looked like the LG Prada [wikipedia.org] and after the iPhone it looked like the LG Prada, but selling about three times as much and getting a hell of a lot more publicity for it?
I admit that Apple's ability to copy what other companies have done before them, polish it up and market it in a highly successful way is truly amazing. But being the most popular doesn't give you some kind of magical patent rights, despite what a lot of courts seem to think these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine you worked YEARS perfecting something, and someone came along and just copied it in FIVE MINUTES without paying you. I guess you would think differently then.
What's innovative about making your product rectangular with rounded corners, or having a swipe-to-unlock switch implemented in software with a touch screen (copying an identical hardware solution that existed for decades)?
'cause these are the patents that Apple is using in courts to block sales of competing products today.
Live by the sword, die by the sword (Score:5, Insightful)
We can only hope a few more judgements like these get the whole industry to settle down and allow a little more leeway in advancing tablet design.
If lots of smaller companies like this start fighting back now that they see they can win, the cost of legal action all over the globe will hopefully make so little financial sense Apple will stop suing others, and with them desisting the other companies can back away too.
Re: (Score:1)
make so little financial sense Apple will stop suing others
I take it you didn't see the 60 minutes interview with Walter Isaacson. Apple doesn't care about the money. They have $50 billion. In cash. This has absolutely nothing to do with money.
New Age (Score:3)
I take it you didn't see the 60 minutes interview with Walter Isaacson. Apple doesn't care about the money. They have $50 billion. In cash. This has absolutely nothing to do with money.
To some extent, everyone cares about money - but also simply about success. If it stops working, why continue?
There's another reason though why we might see Apple let up to some extent - with Steve gone, Tim Cook seems like a guy who would be less passionate about suing other companies.
Re:New Age (Score:4, Informative)
"There's another reason though why we might see Apple let up to some extent - with Steve gone, Tim Cook seems like a guy who would be less passionate about suing other companies."
You reckon?
Apple only stepped up the litigation game when Jobs stepped down back in January, that's when they really took off with it. I'm actually concerned now Steve has gone despite Steve's anger towards the competition that this is more Cook's strategy, it just seems odd it started to head this way as soon as Cook started running things day to day and has escalated more and more the closer Jobs got to his death bed and hence the less involvement he was able to have with the company.
There may be quotes now saying Jobs wanted to kill Android and such and an angry man he may have been, but he wasn't stupid - I can't say I ever liked Jobs but he didn't do what he did by thinking litigation was the solution to everything, he did it by pursuing strong product design and marketing. Cook? I'm not so sure, I get the feeling the litigation route is his favoured option because under him innovation has plummeted and litigation has rocketed.
Not about money. (Score:2)
Agreed. After reading the biography, I can see that Steve Jobs wasn't worried that these divices would cost him money. He was upset because he felt they were just cheap knock-offs of his own products.
I hate hearing about how Apple doesn't innovate because "there were touch screen phones before the iPhone". Yes, their were, but they all sucked. They were harder to use than keypad phone. Then the iPhone comes out and it's not long before Google releases Android. How could anyone believe that Android is not ju
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They still kind of do... most people don't realize Samsung admitted to copying Windows and OSX icons in 2006. http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-designs-2011-4?op=1 [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I am referring to the nexus [google.com] which was designed to avoid Apple's design patents. After reading your article, I am doubting that we've seen the last of this kind of activity from samsung.
Re: (Score:2)
They were also implicated as the leader of the LCD price fixing scheme in 2007. On the other hand they blew the whistle to gain immunity: http://betanews.com/2010/12/08/eu-fines-lcd-price-fixing-cartel-857m-samsung-given-immunity/ [betanews.com]
Oh and don't forget the DoJ investigated them in 2007 for price-fixing NAND Flash, although they dropped the case eventually.
Samsung seems to derive inspiration from Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
It's understandable, Microsoft has been very successful.
Have you ignored events entirely?? (Score:2)
In business, EVERYTHING has to do with money.
In the realm of REALLY big companies, that is entirely untrue. They make terrible choices all the time that cost them a ton of money.
And that is because at that level, you aren't going to kill the company with a choice or two that costs money. So the leaders of the company act for other reasons, sometimes vision or sometimes personal (though really the two are the same thing).
Look at Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc. They led companies that made TONS
Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately Apple has almost unlimited cash reserves and the stakes are very high, so I doubt they will relent. If they can kill or cripple all competing products it will have huge financial ramifications for years, and not just for tablets by all future devices they can patent. Pumping a few hundred million into open warfare via the courts is easily justifiable.
The best solution would be for the EU to revise patent law to prevent its abuse. For that to happen some big EU companies will have to be attacked with clearly ridiculous patents, e.g. Airbus falling foul of a Boeing patent on "cylindrical flying machine with forward facing observation glass" or being forced to replace "rounded rectangular rubber rolling devices" with sled skis.
Re: (Score:2)
Though ski's or rails could be cool for aircraft
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that their fans throw money at them like toilet paper. $900 for a dual core 16GB 800MHz phone would be laughed at if anyone else tried to sell it. Some would complain about entering a monopoly / being overcharged for anything else, but not them.
There's a lot of money to go through before they stop -- especially considering they've delayed the competition successfully already.
$900? Really? I agree that would be a laughable price point, if it actually existed anywhere but in your mind. I paid $650 for my iPhone 4S from ATT. That is the no-discount, no commitment, I-want-it-right now price. And that is for the 64GB version, not the 16GB. Canadian dollars, maybe? Australian? Seriously, where did you get $900?
Re: (Score:2)
$900 for a dual core 16GB 800MHz phone would be laughed at if anyone else tried to sell it.
I bought a 64GB 4GS for less than that. Where did you get that price from?
Directly out of his ass.
Re: (Score:2)
An unlocked iPhone 4S 16Gb costs £500 [apple.com] at Apple UK store, VAT included. That's $800, so still less than the figure GP gave. Then again, 32Gb version costs £600 ($960), and 64Gb costs £700 ($1120).
Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pro-tip: Read the retraction before posting... (Score:5, Funny)
The third article has an update stating that Apple didn't litigate this case, but MAY have been behind the original complaint. Surely we need something a bit more substantial than this before we break out the standard pro/anti-Apple rhetoric?
Of course, Apple was not behind this. It was my dog.
Because he's known to sue everyone (using retarded design patent claims), and he is gaining a lot from this.
Bad dog.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, Apple was not behind this. It was my dog.
Because he's known to sue everyone (using retarded design patent claims), and he is gaining a lot from this.
Bad dog.
This was a complaint filed under criminal law. The complainant has not been disclosed. Does your dog have a history of filing criminal complaints? Does Apple? Does it matter? Or are you just happy to post the same ill-informed nonsense in any event?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But we already know that Jobs was a major dick and I wouldn't be surprised that the best dicks among the dicks are the lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
Does your dog have a history of filing criminal complaints?
I'm guessing not.
Does Apple?
Yes. Hmm, do you think maybe it was Apple, and not his dog?!
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't be. Florian Mueller said it wasn't Apple, and legions of fanbois rose up in agreement.
And we know they're both always right.
It had to be Apple's evil twin. I mean, more evil.
(is that possible?)
Re: (Score:2)
Dilbert? Is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
You should be nicer to the man's dog.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'd like that. There is way too many of those damn noisy things out there anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
This started back in November 2010, when customs blocked import due to a request from Apple. An official notice was sent to the spanish company from Apple requesting they destroy the tablets. (Funny how they expected this to be done if they were blocked by customs...).
On the 9th of December Apple officially fully took the case to court as they'd warned they would unless the action (destroying the blocked import) was taken.
The spa
Re: (Score:2)
The third article has an update stating that Apple didn't litigate this case
Not quite. The update states:
the nature of Apple's involvement may have been limited to that of an initial complainant (who according to nt-k also filed an indictment) as opposed to that of a party litigating a case all the way through. That's what my sources say, and it's possible.
"may have been.. it's possible", says Mr Florian Mueller... Anything is possible, I would prefer him to report the facts rather than his speculative opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, if a company making Android-based tablets gets sued because they are too similar to an iPad, who stands to gain from that? Are you seriously assuming that Apple is not involved in this? Who is it, Microsoft? Only Microsoft and Apple are going to sue Android tablet makers over a design patent, and which of those two has a history of actually doing so? Microsoft has filed suits over issues in Android itself over software patents, but I can't find a single record of Microsoft filing
NT-K Pad? (Score:2)
Why not call it the NPK Pad and sell it to farmers?
Also, since most people won't click on the links, you need to see this entry that's now at the top of link #3:
[UPDATE on November 3, 2011] I have meanwhile published a follow-up post that shows and translates the court order dismissing the case and explains that apparently Apple did not actually litigate this case -- its involvement appears to have been limited to an indictment. [/UPDATE]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Of course Apple didn't litigate this case -- it was a criminal case, and was therefore litigated by the public prosecutor *as all criminal cases are*. It would definitely appear, however, that the case was instigated by a *complaint* made by Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike civil cases, criminal cases always proceed regardless of what the actual victim says.
A complaint is only one piece of proof to start an investigation. I mean, otherwise why would a murder case be investigated at all? Since the victim never files a complaint or a lawsuit.
Google and Samsung saw and deemed (Score:2)
Code ownership (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Code ownership (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess "patent on rectangle with rounded corners" is vastly more reasonable than "patent on mathematical algorithm implemented in software".
</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they most definitely filed this complaint, they even demanded the defendant destroy all of the devices in question before the trial began. However, apparently this was a criminal case that was brought against the defendant. So Apple didn't even have to pay for the lawyers because the Spanish government prosecuted the case.
Wait, so either you didn't even look at the articles, or you have failed entirely to understand what you read and you are complaining about other people being uninformed and bi
Here's the link to a non PAYWALLED news source (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=468916
The weird thing is (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
what is really anti-competitive? Apples legal actions, or the fact that many of these patents are based on software patents which are based on total BS.
That's like asking: what kills more people, guns or bullets?
Patents are inherently anti-competitive. That's the POINT. A patent protects you from competition, but to avail yourself of that protection, you have to have the willingness to take legal action. It follows that a bogus patent is necessarily *immorally* anti-competitive because it threatens force against people who want to do something they have every right to do. The bogus patent is the threat, the legal action is the force that fulfills the th
Well... (Score:1)
They weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition!
Actually, the case hasn't been dismissed... (Score:5, Informative)
Sobreseimiento (as in the original report) [scribd.com] != dismissal
Just nitpicking, though. I don't think there is a case.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The iPad Patent (Score:2)
I disagree with those that are criticizing the article. I found it very educational, I had no idea the entire iPad was covered by a single patent.
Re:The iPad Patent (Score:4, Funny)
My precious!
Re: (Score:3)
Wait so is Steve Sauron now? I thought he was playing Saruman to Bill's Sauron!
Why doesn't anyone tell me about these casting changes?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, tacky but couldn't resist it. Apologies to Mr Jobs and family.
Well. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unleash the power of the pyramid!
Winning where? (Score:2)
Apple has been winning in the marketplace with the iPad since its introduction. All of the biggest names have had serious problems competing in the marketplace, including the abortion of HP's effort and Blackberry pulling back for a re-do.
There is no indication that Apple intends to stop working to keep up the wins in the marketplace.