Apple adds Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note to amended complaint

Written by

Apple on Friday filed an amended complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, adding two versions each of the Galaxy S III and Galaxy Note to its original claims of patent infringement against a number of Samsung smartphones and tablets.

This is a different complaint than the lawsuit Apple just won.



  • mr_lizard13

    I don’t buy this one. The big thing about the previous lawsuit was that the implicated products stole the look & feel of the iPhone. They were made to look, work, and be marketed like an iPhone to make people think that they were ‘just like’ an iPhone.

    This lawsuit is squarely about patents, which I couldn’t give a crap about. There’s no way the Galaxy S III looks and feels like an iPhone. In fact, when it was launched many tech blogs commented that it looked as though it has been designed by lawyers, given it was the first Samsung handset of recent times that didn’t bear a resemblance to the iPhone.

    I supported the previous lawsuits because it was mainly about trade dress, and targeted devices that looked just like Apple’s products. This is just a frivolous patent argument that will make lawyers rich. No-one buys a Galaxy S III thinking its an iPhone, and Apple isn’t suffering “irreprable harm” because people buy the S III.

    • Buckeyestar

      This is about utility patents. Nobody ever claimed the S3 looks like an iPhone, you’re adding your own spin on that.

      • mr_lizard13

        I’m not saying anyone claimed that this was about the S III looking like the iPhone. In fact I’m stating the opposite.

        I don’t support lawsuits that are about frivolous patent arguments. As I said in my above comment, this is just going to make lawyers rich.

        I support lawsuits that are about ripping off trade dress.

        Apple is the one stating they they are suffering “irreparable harm” because the S III is infringing on these utility patents. I don’t buy it.

        • MacsenMcBain

          So let me try to understand your definitions: lawsuits for infringement of “utility” patents which cover the way a device actually functions are “frivolous,” but those covering “trade dress” are OK?

          I’m just hazarding a guess here: you didn’t go to law school, did you?

          • mr_lizard13

            Oooooh, get you, you sarcastic little cutie.

            It’s my opinion. I’m entitled to it.