Apple and Samsung are tied up in mortal patent combat and Apple has come out ahead in many instances in Europe and other places. Dutch courts ruled that Samsung smartphones did in fact infringe on one of Apple’s patents back in August. The violation was used to issue an injunction that kept Samsung Galaxy smartphones from being sold in the Netherlands after mid-month.

The patent that could keep the Galaxy devices out of Dutch hands had to do with a patented method of scrolling and browsing through photos held by Apple. Samsung has been fighting the injunction and appears at least in the Netherlands to be ready to capitulate to Apple to gets its devices back into the country. Samsung has announced that it will be making “upgrades” to three Galaxy smartphones.

A Samsung spokesman named James Chung has declined to give a specific date that the three upgraded smartphones will hit stores in the Netherlands. He did state, “We’ve fixed the technological problem and upgraded products to address the issue. They will be shortly available for sale.”

[via Reuters]


  1. 1 remark, it states in the article that the patent kept the galaxy out of dutch hands which is not true, they are still for sale, Samsung was given time to create the workaround and was still allowed to sell these..

  2. “Apple victory” is a little bit of an EXAGGERATION. Suing someone and winning  1/12 infringement of your claims (and a relatively minor and easily remedied on to boot), is a waste of time and money. Especially if the one you do win is with regards to a single app on the phone that’s made by Google not Samsung, in an action brought largely based on “look and feel/ trade dress” (i’e more the exterior and a few software elements). Not to mention that it didn’t have a significant affect on Samsung’s intended release in the Netherlands(i.e was not a sales ban, but a time limit to make relevant changes in the form of an update). 

    The judge specifically mentions (with regards to design) that “by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.”

    Not only does it validate 11/12 claims which apple sought, the general precedent (on minimalistic design) can be used elsewhere in other jurisdictions choose to look at it in judicial reasoning.

    Terrible precedent for Apple. So from a legal standpoint, it’s seems more like a MEANINGLESS VICTORY


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.