decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
What happens to existing stock? | 151 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Seoul court rules Samsung didn't violate Apple design
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 01:56 AM EDT
Cupertino, California-based Apple must stop selling the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 1 and iPad 2, while Samsung must stop selling 12 products including the Galaxy S, Galaxy S II and Galaxy Tab, the court said in a statement. Apple must pay Samsung 40 million won ($35,000), and the Korean company must pay its U.S. rival 25 million won, the court said.
businessweek

The three-judge panel in the Seoul Central District Court also ruled that there was "no possibility" that smartphone buyers could confuse devices from the companies, the Journal reported -- an interesting fact given the headline- grabbing trial currently before a jury in Silicon Valley.
cnet.com

Sales of devices recently released by Samsung and Apple — including the iPhone 4S and the Galaxy S3 smartphones — were not affected.
seattle-pi

Similar but different
The court ruled Samsung's flagship Galaxy smartphone looks similar to Apple's iPhone, but concluded it had not violated the iPhone design.

"There are lots of external design similarities between the iPhone and Galaxy S, such as rounded corners and large screens . . . but these similarities had been documented in previous products," a judge in the case said.
abc-online

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What happens to existing stock?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:28 AM EDT
Does it get pulled from shelves?
Since it's all old stuff there probably won't be much to pull and it could be
shipped to other market areas.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )