Sport & Auto
- About Future
- Digital Future
- Cookies Policy
- Terms & Conditions
- Investor Relations
- Contact Future
We've all been told, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again," but repeated attempts at the same result don't guarantee success. Apple, for example, tried to convince Dutch authorities to issue a preliminary injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 device on the alleged basis that it copies the look and feel of it's iPad, a notion that was rejected, appealed, and rejected again.
Foss Patents breaks down the ruling (available online in Dutch), explaining that the rationale in this latest decision is similar to the one that guided Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, who also denied Apple's request for a preliminary injunction (that's three strikes in two territories, if you're keeping count).
"The two companies need the courts in various jurisdictions to clarify where Apple's exclusive scope of protection ends and Samsung's freedom to compete begins," Foss Patents explains. "There's no mathematical formula based on which they could simply agree that Samsung's products are allowed to have a degree of similarity of up to (for example) 70 percent. Instead, they need guidance from judges."
Even though the two courts don't agree on the scope of protection Apple holds, both ultimately came to the same conclusion, which is that Samsung is not infringing on Apple's patents, or at least Apple hasn't provided sufficient evidence to prove that's the case.