For a second time, Appeals Court refuses to issue stay on injunction against Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1
Samsung's request to expedite the appeals hearing was also shot down by the appeals court. The court did say that Samsung could move things along faster by filing its opening brief as soon as possible. At the same time, the court said that Apple will not get any extensions for filing its response.
The Samsung GALAXY Nexus can be sold now, thanks to the appeals court's stay of the District Court's injunction
More important is the injunction on the Samsung GALAXY Nexus, which has received a stay of the injunction ordered by the District Court. Considering that Sammy did get the stay on this case, the appeals court thinks that Samsung has a better shot at prevailing in this case. Of course, it doesn't hurt that Samsung has already removed local search from the phone. And as we already pointed out, it has preemptively removed local search from the AT&T and Sprint versions of the Samsung Galaxy S III. The so-called Siri '604 patent relating to universal search is at the heart of the patent issue between the two manufacturers. The unlocked GSM version of the Samsung GALAXY Nexus with Android 4.1.1 Jelly Bean installed, has returned to the Google Play Store where it can be purchased.
1. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5626; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Sammy did shoot themselves in the foot when they stated that an injunction wouldn't hurt them. Loose lips sink ships (or, in this case, sales of the Tab 10.1). Live and learn.
2. Aeires (unregistered)
Sounds like the legal department needs to have a talk with the PR department.
As for the Siri patent, every phone manufacturer should be in an uproar over this, not just Samsung. That patent is far too vague and broad reaching for any company to possess. Dumbing down smartphones isn't good for anyone.
3. marchels14 (unregistered)
apple saw that galaxy tab and galaxy nexus is a serious competition to iPhone and iPad, that's why they sued Samsung because it is the one of the biggest phone and tablet makers out there,they saw that its not worth suing sinking companies or small ones and the patent thing was the excuse because every one copies everyone that how it happens.
4. Gawain (Posts: 351; Member since: 15 Apr 2010)
What's funny is there's an article on Yahoo! stating that a court in Britain is forcing Apple to run ads that Samsung did NOT copy them. ;-P
7. pegasso (Posts: 137; Member since: 27 Nov 2011)
8. darkvadervip (Posts: 300; Member since: 08 Dec 2010)
Wow US must been smart when we became independent from British rule. Just goes to show US courts supports apple and uk courts are bought by google. Or am I just noticing that.
9. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
no, Apple paid to court in US and common sense wins in UK ;)
10. xtian1103 (Posts: 357; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)
no, google paid the uk court and anti-copying wins in us.
13. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
do you mean this blatant copying by Apple:
deal with that Apple has copied EVERYTHING, dear blind guy ;)
15. xtian1103 (Posts: 357; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)
ah yeah you're right. samsung did not copy apple's ipad. coz those 5.000 people who bought the galaxy tab knows it's not the same. ok maybe 7,000 people bought tha galaxy tab. that's it!
14. andro. (Posts: 1936; Member since: 16 Sep 2011)
Apple has a draconian control of the US courts but as recent articles have shown world wide people are more aware to apples wrong doings