Samsung Names iPhone 5 in Latest Anti-Apple Lawsuit
Samsung today filed a new lawsuit against Apple, claiming that the iPhone 5 violates eight of its patents. "We have little choice but to take the steps necessary to protect our innovations and intellectual property rights," said the company in a statement. Apple and Samsung have numerous lawsuits in progress and pending around the world over mobile technology patents. Separately, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh has vacated the ban placed on Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet. The ban was enacted in June ahead of the Apple v. Samsung patent trial that took place over the summer. The jury in that case determined that the Galaxy Tab did not violate Apple's patents.
Comcast Details Mobile Phone Service as Xfinity Mobile
Comcast today revealed details of its forthcoming Xfinity Mobile phone service. The company will use Verizon's 4G LTE network for the service, using an existing MVNO agreement.
Jury Says Samsung Violated 2 Apple Patents, Awards $119M
A federal jury in California today found Samsung guilty of violating technology patents held by Apple. Specifically, Samsung infringed on two patents that cover data tapping (making calls from within an email) and autocomplete.
Jury Adjusts What Samsung Owes Apple
A jury in San Jose today adjusted the damages owed to Apple by Samsung for violating its smartphone patents. Last Friday, a jury found Samsung guilty of infringing on two Apple patents.
Apple Denied Injunction Bid Against Samsung
Apple lost in its attempt to ban the sale of select Samsung devices today, as U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's request.
UI and Trade Dress Patents Samsung is including in the lawsuit
-Making a 'bloop' sound every time the screen is tapped
-"Nature Inspired" widgets that are able to show an actual fake landscape over part of your screen
-Dynamic user interface able to display blue gradients, purple gradients, magenta gradients, *and* fake leather simultaneously.
This is abuse of the legal system
Then of course, they're banned from frivolous legal actions.
Make It Stop!!!
Why can't this be settled reasonably? Please tell me that whoever the loser is has to pay ALL court cost INSTEAD of the taxpayer footing the bill.
I understand that there needs to be a certain level of protection for trade and proprietary design but why cant this be settled diplomatically and expeditiously?