Dutch Court Rules Against Samsung; Blocks Galaxy S, S2 & Ace in EU; Samsung Undaunted

Discussion in 'Android Tablet News' started by dgstorm, Aug 24, 2011.

  1. dgstorm

    dgstorm Editor in Chief Staff Member

    Jan 5, 2011
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:

    Samsung was dealt a harsh blow by a Netherlands Judge today in their ongoing legal battle against Apple. However, things may not be too grim for the Korean manufacturer. The court ruled that the Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy S II, and Galaxy Ace infringe upon one of Apple's software patents. This is patent number EP 2059868, which is for a "portable electronic device for photo management." These phones have been subsequently banned from sale throughout the European Union. The ruling is in regards to the following specific patent that was violated:
    Here's a quote from the FossPatents article sharing a few more details on what it means for Samsung,
    The good news about this is that the judge rejected several other patent issues, as well as Apple's claim that Samsung had stolen many of its design ideas. This also means that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 will not be banned from sale. Furthermore, here's where things start to actually look even better. This is a quote directly from a BBC news article, quoting Samsung in regards to this outcome,
    It appears that Samsung has vowed to keep fighting, and will likely just make some adjustments to their software to make sure their phones are still available. We will continue to monitor the case and share any more relevant info.

    Source: GalaxyForums.net via AndroidCentral and FossPatents and BBC News
  2. gurgle

    gurgle Super Moderator Staff Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Near 39.11°N 94.6°W
    Tablet / Device:
    Better question What don't I own, Oh a generic APAD
    I am trying to remember there was a similar type of patent war on cameras and the perspective recognition and facial focus for Cameras back either in late 90s or early 2000s. I have been trying to find the reference. I wanted to see the outcome. I guess the camera companies play nicer than a company with a Fruity name.
    It is good to see this is a valid patent issue and not one based upon distorted shape and perspective.

Share This Page