• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • Apple's Takedown Notice to Galaxy Nexus Retailers Surfaces



    Earlier this week reports surfaced claiming Apple has been actively sending takedown notices to Galaxy Nexus third-party retailers.

    Well, here is a copy of the letter and what it says.

    Originally Posted by :
    Re: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C-11-01846 (LHK)

    [Name redacted]

    We represent Apple Inc. in the above-referenced action.

    We enclose a copy of the June 26 preliminary injunction ordered entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in this case together with a copy of Apple's U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 (the '604 patent'). With the posting of the requisite bond, the order is now in effect.

    The order provides as follows:

    For the foregoing reasons, Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. Accordingly, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC; its officers, partners, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them, are enjoined for making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States, Samsung's Galaxy Nexus and any product that is no more than colorably different from the specified product that infringes on U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604.

    (emphasis added).

    As the italicized language provides, the order applies not only to the named Samsung entities, but also to anyone "acting in concert" with them. Apple thus believes that the order extends to you because you may be selling, offering to sell, or importing Samsung's Galaxy Nexus.

    Please comply with the order by ceasing immediately to engage in any of the specified acts (e.g., importing, offering to sell, or selling within the United States) in connection with the Samsung Galaxy Nexus and any product that is no more than colorably different from it and embodies the '604 patent's design. At a minimum, Apple believes compliance with the Court's order requires immediately removing for sale the Galaxy Nexus from all physical and online venues under your direction or control.

    Please contact the undersigned if you have questions.
    While it isnít known how many retailers received letters from Apple, and the legitimacy of Appleís right to mail such letters is definitely not black and white, itís obvious the company is serious about eliminating competition through the courts. Samsung has successfully won stay preventing the ban from being enacted immediately, but Apple has filed a motion to have the stay reevaluated. Sprint has already filed documents in support of Samsung claiming the ban unnecessarily harms carriers.

    Despite the bad press, and utter ridiculousness at times, it appears the patent war is still going strong.






    Source: iMore [via iClarified]
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Apple's Takedown Notice to Galaxy Nexus Retailers Surfaces started by Phillip Swanson View original post
    Comments 15 Comments
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      Tl;dr

      Just saw the picture.
    1. Striknine's Avatar
      Striknine -
      I don't get it. The iphone and the nexus don't look alike. Different operating systems. So why not go after all cell phones? Ridiculous
    1. feidhlim1986's Avatar
      feidhlim1986 -
      It's only a matter of time before Apple gets smacked with a massive anti-trust suit, in Europe anywho.
    1. soidroidios's Avatar
      soidroidios -
      Not only are they suing the pants out of every known competitor, they are even going as far as being the executioner of the ruling. They really want those sales stopped!
    1. Shepherd1196's Avatar
      Shepherd1196 -
      Quote Originally Posted by soidroidios View Post
      Not only are they suing the pants out of every known competitor, they are even going as far as being the executioner of the ruling. They really want those sales stopped!
      It was Steve Jobs dieing wish...
    1. Agent929's Avatar
      Agent929 -
      I have a small electronics store and I stock that stuff. There's no way in hell I'm gonna stop selling till I'm out of stock. I have to pay for these products up front and my distributor does not accept returns along with most distributors. Unless Apple wants to buy them from me then they better come with guns to my store to stop me.
    1. inappropriate response's Avatar
      inappropriate response -
      "it’s obvious the company is serious about eliminating competition through the courts"

      what a load of BS. If any company has IP and they want it for their own devices rather than to licence, it's a legitimate right of theirs.
      I suppose Nokia, oracle, microsoft gemalto BT and fujifilm are also "eliminating competition through the courts" as well ?
      if they innovated something else not in Apples IP they wouldn't have any problem would they. It's not like they are banning products with essential patents, that would mean it would be impossible to put the phone on the market.
    1. unison999's Avatar
      unison999 -
      ^^This is a temporary injunction, Apple did not win its case! Courts stop sales because there might possibly be a violation, but this is not final judgement. Apple is suppose to put up $95 million bond to give to Samsung if it lose the case for Samsung's losses of sale because of this injunction. If Apple put up this money, then the injunction gets enforced by the government NOT APPLE.
      Nokia's case against Apple have cause, and judge side with Nokia now they get damages and royalties from their innovation. Guess what there is no injunction, they ask for damages plus every sales during the lawsuit means more money into their pocket. Apple's black square shape filing? Are you kidding me?

      My guess is Apple tries to privately enforce this injunction because they know they are going to lose in the end, which means that $95 million bond would go straight to Samsung's pocket if they paid first. If they privately enforce this ban right now instead waiting for government to act, they can slow down sales of Samsung products just enough to make this lawsuit worth doing.

      To all retailers that receive this letter.
      File a civil lawsuit against Apple for loss of profit gained due to this letter + cost of storage + cost of goods + depreciation of goods + stress caused by this letter. Apple will not be able to send representative to represent itself for all this lawsuits so automatic win for you, it will also teach Apple a lesson for trying to be enforce a temporary injunction it have absolutely no right to do.
    1. pitamandan's Avatar
      pitamandan -
      Quote Originally Posted by inappropriate response View Post
      "it’s obvious the company is serious about eliminating competition through the courts"

      what a load of BS. If any company has IP and they want it for their own devices rather than to licence, it's a legitimate right of theirs.
      I suppose Nokia, oracle, microsoft gemalto BT and fujifilm are also "eliminating competition through the courts" as well ?
      if they innovated something else not in Apples IP they wouldn't have any problem would they. It's not like they are banning products with essential patents, that would mean it would be impossible to put the phone on the market.
      It seems that everyone has forgotten that APPLE SUCCESSFULLY FILED FOR, AND CAME OUT WITH THE IDEA of a fully touchscreen phone anything like the iphone. (And queue the idiots posting below of who was actually first), No phone had every. single. button. touchscreen like apple did, and then a home or unlock button. That was Apples idea.

      As for the people caught in the middle, sell em like they're hot.. bcuz they is!
    1. rlirph's Avatar
      rlirph -
      The Court had ruled on the case. Why is it so difficult for you as an American to support a US company? Do you prefer your designs to be counterfeited by companies in China?
    1. inappropriate response's Avatar
      inappropriate response -
      Quote Originally Posted by unison999 View Post
      ^^This is a temporary injunction, Apple did not win its case! Courts stop sales because there might possibly be a violation, but this is not final judgement. Apple is suppose to put up $95 million bond to give to Samsung if it lose for Samsung's losses of sale because of this injunction. If Apple put up this money, then the injunction gets enforced by the government NOT APPLE.
      Nokia's case against Apple have cause, and judge side with Nokia now they get damages and royalties from their innovation. Apple's black square shape filing? Are you kidding me?

      My guess is Apple tries to privately enforce this injunction because they know they are going to lose in the end, which means that $95 million bond would go straight to Samsung's pocket if they paid first. If they privately enforce this ban right now instead waiting for government to act, they can slow down sales of Samsung products just enough to make this lawsuit worth doing.

      To all retailers that receive this letter.
      File a civil lawsuit against Apple for loss of profit gained due to this letter + cost of storage + stress caused by this letter. Apple will not be able to send representative to represent itself for all this lawsuits so automatic win for you, it will also teach Apple a lesson for trying to be enforce a temporary injunction it have absolutely no right to do.
      • I was talking about Nokia, oracle, microsoft gemalto BT and fujifilm suing google IP
      • I know it's temporary, where in my text did I imply otherwise ?
      • if it's been banned, where are the government stopping sales ? it's pointless putting up bond if sales are still continuing.
      • this is for the 604 patent infringement, about siri - nothing to do with "Apple's black square shape filing"
      • tell me how this is any different from if apple refused to stop push notifications in germany and then getting banned?
      the law is the law, you infringe , you remove the IP or products get banned.


      Here's what Judge Koh's orders say:

      "Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc., its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them, are enjoined from making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States, [the relevant product], and any product that is no more than colorably different from this specified product and [infringe the relevant intellectual property right]."

      • that includes third parties that apple was addressing. they are breaking the law, and so apple is sending them letters. not too difficult to understand no ?
    1. unison999's Avatar
      unison999 -
      Quote Originally Posted by inappropriate response View Post
      • I was talking about Nokia, oracle, microsoft gemalto BT and fujifilm suing google IP
      • I know it's temporary, where in my text did I imply otherwise ?
      • if it's been banned, where are the government stopping sales ? it's pointless putting up bond if sales are still continuing.
      • this is for the 604 patent infringement, about siri - nothing to do with "Apple's black square shape filing"
      • tell me how this is any different from if apple refused to stop push notifications in germany and then getting banned?
      the law is the law, you infringe , you remove the IP or products get banned.
      The injunction is to be executed by the government not Apple. You win a case against someone you do not get to go to their bank show the judgement papers and take the money straight out of their bank, the courts will get the money then relay it over to you. You get a death sentence against someone you do not get to push the button to kill him!
      As I recall the Siri part of the lawsuit is ability to search on the web AND the phone itself, simply ask removal of this ability from the said phone (which Google did) and pay for the damages caused for the phones that already sold and wait for final judgement. They asked for injunction for phone, guess what you then pay for the $95 million bond for loss of sales by Samsung AND you wait until government to enforce it!! Continue the case until final judgement, if it goes your way then it become permanent.

      The ban in Germany could possibly be that it was asked to remove the ability until final judgement, Apple's refusal to do it is contempt of court thus the ban? I am not in Germany so I don't really pay attention to stuff over there. And push notification is Google's not Apple's innovation.
    1. inappropriate response's Avatar
      inappropriate response -
      Quote Originally Posted by unison999 View Post
      The injunction is to be executed by the government not Apple. You win a case against someone you do not get to go to their bank show the judgement papers and take the money straight out of their bank, the courts will get the money then relay it over to you. You get a death sentence against someone you do not get to push the button to kill him!
      As I recall the Siri part of the lawsuit is ability to search on the web AND the phone itself, simply ask removal of this ability from the said phone (which Google did) and pay for the damages caused for the phones that already sold and wait for final judgement. They asked for injunction for phone, guess what you then pay for the $95 million bond for loss of sales by Samsung AND you wait until government to enforce it!! Continue the case until final judgement, if it goes your way then it become permanent.

      The ban in Germany could possibly be that it was asked to remove the ability until final judgement, Apple's refusal to do it is contempt of court thus the ban? I am not in Germany so I don't really pay attention to stuff over there. And push notification is Google's not Apple's innovation.
      • injunction is executed by the government. they make it illegal to sell, and therefore apple can pursue people who are breaking the law which is affecting their sales. ie third parties "and those acting in concert with any of them, are enjoined from making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States"
      • lawsuits take a long time, therefore the preliminary injunction is more beneficial than to apple. Apple may be aggressive, but its understanding of the scope is not baseless.
      • i do not live in germany either, but i'm not closed minded enough to block out everything in the rest of the world.
      • push notifications are from motorola, not google.. so they did not innovate it .. how can you comment when most of your facts are wrong.
    1. Breezer23's Avatar
      Breezer23 -
      Quote Originally Posted by inappropriate response View Post
      • injunction is executed by the government. they make it illegal to sell, and therefore apple can pursue people who are breaking the law which is affecting their sales. ie third parties "and those acting in concert with any of them, are enjoined from making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States"
      • lawsuits take a long time, therefore the preliminary injunction is more beneficial than to apple. Apple may be aggressive, but its understanding of the scope is not baseless.
      • i do not live in germany either, but i'm not closed minded enough to block out everything in the rest of the world.
      • push notifications are from motorola, not google.. so they did not innovate it .. how can you comment when most of your facts are wrong.
      I must point out an issue with your last statement. Using your logic, Apple wasn't innovative with Siri (They bought Siri) just like Google isn't innovative for push notifications because they bought Motorola Mobility. Apple is innovative (bringing multiple, existing ideas, into one product) - not inventive.
    1. inappropriate response's Avatar
      inappropriate response -
      Quote Originally Posted by Breezer23 View Post
      I must point out an issue with your last statement. Using your logic, Apple wasn't innovative with Siri (They bought Siri) just like Google isn't innovative for push notifications because they bought Motorola Mobility. Apple is innovative (bringing multiple, existing ideas, into one product) - not inventive.
      there's no issue, that's exactly what happened. people who say apple innovated siri need to look at facts rather than what they believe, in the same way that people who say google innovated push notifications. in fact it's pretty hard to say apple innovated drag and drop as it was bought from some german guy (i think), although i think they did implement lots of other things along with it so it could be debatable, but the core idea was bought. you could buy a core idea and innovate it into a product and call it innovation, but siri hasn't changed that much imo from when it was bought, and some things are worse. yeah i can't think of a single thing apple has invented.