Apple beats Samsung in Dutch courts, awarded $129,000 per day under certain conditions

November 28, 2012

    We’re back with more news from the Apple vs Samsunt front, with the iPhone maker scoring another win in a court of law against the South Korean company.

    This time around it’s the Netherlands, where a court found several Galaxy-branded devices running Android 2.2.1 or later to be infringing a certain Apple patent, EP 2059868, and it’s apparently upholding the sales ban in the region.

    The patent, also known as the rubber banding patent, describes a way to handle pictures scrolling via a touch interface, giving iOS devices a specific “bounce-back” effect when pulling them around. That kind of effect can be observed when handling documents or websites past the edges of the display on an iOS device as well.

    The same court in Hague ruled against Samusng last year in a preliminary hearing on the same matter when it banned several of its devices in the region, including the Galaxy S, Galaxy S2 and Galaxy Ace. Meanwhile, Samsung came up with a software solution of its own to circumvent the problem, which is used on the devices running Ice Cream Sandwich and Jelly Bean. However, older devices that have not been updated and still use Apple’s bounce-back effect, will continue to be banned in the country until Samsung can prove they aren’t infringing anymore. ComputerWorld writes:

    During the plea hearing in September, Samsung said that, since the last verdict, it uses its own technology in all its products in the Netherlands. Samsung, however failed to provide the court with evidence of the change, annoying the panel of judges.

    “The argument raised by Samsung at the hearing that Samsung Benelux does not sell the infringing products any more, cannot lead to a rejection of the ban,” wrote judge Peter Blok, who presided over the panel of three judges in the verdict. Blok said he would grant the ban because Samsung refused to sign a declaration of abstinence committing to not infringing the patent.

    Now Samsung also has to patch up Gingerbread and Froyo devices in the region, so they use Samsung’s own picture scrolling technology rather than Apple’s solution, which is a “subtle blue glow to indicate the end of the line,” as Engadget puts it. If it all sounds unclear, then the videos below should help you make sense of what’s at stake here.

    Apple’s rubber-banding effect

    Samsung’s blue glow effect

    The Hague gave Samsung eight weeks to comply, or else it will have to pay Apple around $129,000 per day for every day past the deadline.

    Furthermore, Samsung has to provide Apple details about how much profit it made since June 27, 2011 from the Galaxy products found to have been infringing that patent. Once that’s done, a different court would decide on how much damages Samsung has to pay Apple.

    Yes, the fight is not over, and we’ll keep watching from the sidelines.

    Comments

    • Todor Velichkov

      That’s ridiculous. #boycottapple

      • http://www.facebook.com/patrick.cameron.18 Patrick Cameron

        Already did years ago

        • http://www.facebook.com/Trent8381 Trent Richards

          Been boycotting Apple for over a decade.

    • sguyx

      hmm.. didnt some judge already decided that apple cant have the patent for rubberband effect more?

      • LarryVandemeer

        Exactly. The Apple rubber band patent has been found INVALID by the USPTO.

    • RaptorOO7

      IMO Samsung’s solution is more elegant and a better way to notify you that the end is here. I don’t care for the bounce back crap, the blue effect is a better way to visually make you aware.

      • Apple_Nexus

        So why did Samsung choose to copy it in the first place?

        • Michael

          Ok so blue lit lines for borders is better and more eligant why didn’t apple patient that idea.

          remember patients are there to say i have an idea i want to use..now it’s protected so don’t copy it.

          • snerdly

            Ya its the user experience that makes apple style of how the screen bounces when the scrolling ends.

      • RarestName

        Really? Because most of the comments on the video page say that they hate it.

    • IncCo

      F*cking ridiculous, crapple suing just for the sake of suing as usual. That shouldnt even be a patent.

    • mintslice

      Seriously, this is ridiculous. I’ve asked iphone users what rubber banding is and they have no idea. Show them (on their phone) and they aren’t the least bit impressed. Surely Apple needs to demonstrate how this ‘rubber band’ feature is actually selling phones before they can get money out of infringement.

      Patents have become an embarrassment.

    • Sprotty

      Then if their going to sue samsung for that then next will HTC LG Sony xperia and so forth and then Microsoft for windows 8 with the same and similar touch screen functions this is beginning to become a big joke all because some one else has bettered what they had and once profitted from APPLE WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD OF COMPETETION,
      In the end it will be the apple uses that are going to pay for it which will then hurt Apples bottom line for sure.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1185010106 Rien Soewardji

      So Apple promised the judge that much money but force Samsung to pay it? It’s really ridiculous.

    • http://twitter.com/fairbaisa Fairheart

      I hate Apple for being a bully.
      But I hate Samsung more for being a super thief. All companies copy each other and that’s fine IMO, but what Samsung did is just shameless.

      • http://www.facebook.com/Trent8381 Trent Richards

        So it’s ok for other companies to copy something, but if Samsung does it’s “shameless”? Also, that bounce back feature that was copied from Apple is actually an Android feature. Google copied it, not Samsung. Furthermore, that patents was thrown out in the US and shouldn’t even be upheld as a patent in any country. There are many of Apple’s patents that are on their way out. The real issue and question we should be asking is this: How did Apple manage to patent these things in the first place?

    Popular

    Latest