Judge Koh explains her ruling not to give Apple a preliminary injunction against Samsung

Judge Koh explains her ruling not to give Apple a preliminary injunction against Samsung
Just the other day, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh shot down Apple's request for a preliminary injunction against Samsung to halt sales of the latter's products in the States. Today, her Honor explained how she came to the ruling that she made. The main point that led her to reject Apple's request for a preliminary injunction against Samsung is that she doesn't see sales of Samsung products having a negative impact on Apple's customers. She sees Samsung's products possibly taking sales away from other Android manufacturers. 

Koh's ruling was part of court documents that were not redacted as they should have been. Her 65 page decision included mention of  studies done by Apple that suggest that Apple users were unlikely to switch from the iPhone to a Samsung product. The report said that sales of Samsung phones would come at the expense of smartphones being made by other Android manufacturers, an argument that was the opinion of Judge Koh. The Judge was not persuaded by the Korean based firm's statement that blocking Samsung smartphones in the States would lead to demand for the Apple iPhone that Apple could not meet. Apparently, Apple produced evidence that shows it could meet that demand. 

If Samsung is not a threat to the Apple iPad, why is Apple focusing on their tablet sales? The answer lies in the belief that by concentrating on Samsung, Apple can make an example of them so that other Android tablet makers don't copy the iPad's design. Apple is also upset with the way that Samsung "slavishly" copied Apple's tablet design and might seek some revenge.

Internal studies done by Apple have been on the money in predicting that Samsung's tablet would have minimal impact on the Apple iPad. Apple also feels that way about tablets made by Motorola, HP and RIM. As far as the Amazon Kindle Fire is concerned, some reports predict that the Android tablet will finish the fourth quarter second in marketshare only to the iPad. Apple executives believe that instead of cutting into Apple iPad sales, the Amazon Kindle Fire will simply bring more attention to Apple's tablet.

source: Reuters via AppleInsider



1. protozeloz

Posts: 5396; Member since: Sep 16, 2010

It's kinda weird to see a Androidinsider article. New site? Edit: that's apple insider

2. ore123

Posts: 10; Member since: Nov 14, 2011

3. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

so basically, its just like ive been calling it the whole time. Apple is going after samsung first because they are the biggest. Smack down samsung, and everyone else should "fall in line" with whatever apple demands. Too bad Apple's own evidence works against them... ok well, its good for people that live in the real (aka non apple) world and like choice in our products and features. everything apple has been saying has been a lie. ever line used by a fanboy to justify defending IP has been wrong. if you have been turning a blind eye to the dark side of apple, its time to wise up. you can still like and buy their products of course, but get your head out of the sand while your at it. Between news like this and that apple advice article from the other day (that ore just linked to), I'd say its game-set-match against apple's advances in all but the bounciest kangaroo courts out there.

4. antifanboy

Posts: 67; Member since: Dec 06, 2011

Looks like someone didn't read the article. The judge didn't say they weren't copying. She said Samsung wasn't a threat and Apple agreed they weren't a threat. From reading this website this makes the fanboys eat their words.

5. SlimSoulja86

Posts: 660; Member since: Nov 03, 2011

@antifanboy. Did you hear it from the horses mouth or you're talking about an article someone wrote? Keep it in mind that when a journalist write an article about something they like and they have to report something bad about it, they'll always be subjective not objective [I'm studying Journalism, so I kinda know about these things], and i don't see why she has to explain herself why she ruled against Apple, if this was vice verse no one would have asked her why she ruled against Samsung. #JustMyOpinion. Sometimes when journalists or bloggers write articles, they write what they see fit and want you the reader to believe. Don't just read an article and believe everything in it is true or are fact [qouting from other article shows how uninformed one is, cos that article was written by someone else who's still subjective]. Journalism is about turning your fiction into reality, so your readers will believe it

6. Forsaken77

Posts: 553; Member since: Jun 09, 2011

Sometimes judges in high-profile cases do explain their decision. It's not uncommon. But the basis for her decision to rule in favor of Samsung, coming from Apple's own evidence is the definition of irony. But Samsung did blatantly copy the design, not the software, of Apple products. I think it should be a fine, not royalties, and a "don't do it again" and be on their way.

8. ph00ny

Posts: 2068; Member since: May 26, 2011

indeed it is that apple's own facts supported her decision

12. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

samsung copied/referenced the 3gs design for their european SGS1, for sure.. but the 3gs was the old model, not the current selling iphone model. It was also much bigger, brighter, thinner, ect. Only a complete fool would have ever confused one for the other. Some of the icons do look similar to iOS. But apple doesnt have a copywrite on icons (yet, im sure they are trying), and never once do i remember them calling out samsung for using 3GS design cues in their lawsuits.

16. ZEUS.the.thunder.god unregistered

very true. couldn`t agree more. you make perfect sense. we all know how big corporations use media to make people believe what they want. i am not saying everybody does that but yeah it happens.

11. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

actually, i did read the article. I didnt read the source material, but in the PA blurb it says nothing of the kind. It states that apple thinks that samusng is "copying" but after Apple's own words about what it would take to not be a "copy", its laughable and means nothing. According to apple, they think they own pretty much every traditional design element which is about as far from the truth as you can get.

7. chadrick0814 unregistered

Yes Samsung was blatantly copying. They made a rectangular phone and tablet with rounded corners. They even colored it black. Furthermore, Samsung made the screen flat. How dare they.......

9. ph00ny

Posts: 2068; Member since: May 26, 2011

So if you take apple's advice of not utilizing black, thin bezel rectangular slab shaped design then what is it supposed to look like? Don't forget the fact this is apple's advice to samsung

13. hepresearch unregistered

Why, the ever-so-popular LeapFrog Leap Pad, of course!

15. hepresearch unregistered

... better yet, the Pyramid (by Dwight, from The Office...)!

10. GeekMovement unregistered

Wise judgement, your honor!

14. hepresearch unregistered

What never ceases to amaze me is how adamant the super-iFans are about how awful Samsung is and how great Apple is... they are so very happy with the iPhone in their own hand, and yet apparently would love nothing more than to rip the Samsung Galaxy S II out of the hands of the next guy... so if I do not have an iPhone, you are going to tell me what I can and cannot choose based on whether it is sufficiently unlike the iPhone to be legal?

18. rendHELL

Posts: 304; Member since: Nov 09, 2011

again you get a thumbs up from me... XD

17. Slammer

Posts: 1515; Member since: Jun 03, 2010

I think the term "Blatantly Copying" describes a questionable motive in this suit. It sounds childish and makes one wonder where the parents are. Thankfully, the Judge is acting like the playground monitor. So what if Samsung or any other branded device is a threat to Apple. Isn't that the idea of competition? No company likes when competition moves into their territory. However, that should provoke more incentive in competing on innovation or capitalizing on ideas. Samsung showed Apple how the game should be played. They took an idea and capitalized on it to make it more attractive to consumers.....just like Apple originally did themselves. John B.

19. networkdood

Posts: 6330; Member since: Mar 31, 2010

Thus, the history of APPLE. Re-invent a product and sell it at a higher price, creating the 'snob' factor. Sue anyone who dares to come along in the marketplace. Patent all ideas that were stolen from other companies. Simply. Brilliant.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.