Share this Story

Samsung Wins Temporary Stay of Ban for Galaxy Nexus, Google to Resume Selling


The Galaxy Nexus saga continues. Today, a judge gave Samsung a temporary stay ban on the device, allowing it to be sold again in the U.S., well, until next week. Apple gets to respond on July 12. This is far from over, so go purchase your new G-Nex while you still can.

Via:  Bloomberg

Cheers Rick!

  • jnt

    still not available for sale…

    • jnt

      via Google that is

  • yellowcanary73

    The phones still junk.

    • NeedName

      clearly you haven’t used it!

      It’s a very good device. The only knock I can give it is, the power & volume buttons are a little too easy to touch, but once you get used to holding the device so you don’t press them it’s OK. Otherwise, great device in every way and will be even better with the Jelly Bean update.

  • counsel dew

    Okay… I just got my Galaxy Nexus back from Samsung’s repair facility in Plano, Texas… My Nexus was one of those with
    http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=24019, and I am hoping the device works as a phone now… Time will tell…

    However, I notice I have what appears to be an un-locked lock icon on the bottom of my screen when I power on the device. Anyone know what, exactly, this means?

    • counsel dew

      Never mind… 😛

    • InyRules

      I only had this happen once to me. Mostly I was having issues with the speaker sound liking it was cutting in and out during a call on my end. It seems to have gone away…

  • bear0013

    i want to know about the next nexus phone ..its almost the middle of july

    • michael arazan

      Probably won’t hear about the next nexus line till October at the earliest.

  • I don’t know much about the patent law system here in the US, but didn’t Google already “violate” the patent in question with Google Desktop? If so, wouldn’t this be considered an anti-competition move on Apples part, thus making them liable for anti-trust lawsuits?

    • Cowboydroid

      Everything Apple has done so far against Android can be considered anti-competition. They are definitely liable for anti-trust lawsuits. As is Microsoft. Would the suits get very far? Probably not, since patent law is so screwed up in this country.

  • Jroc869, Cool story bro

    Damn you Kelllen and your sweet ass white Gnex!

  • Mack

    This news is a good way to start the weekend. 🙂

  • New_Guy


  • GOD

    Your Welcome.

    • MrStylz

      Wow, even God doesn’t know correct grammar…you’re, as in you are

      • Timothy McGovern

        You’re, as in you are. *
        You forgot to capitalize and put a period at the end.

        • BulletTooth_Tony

          No capitalization needed after an ellipsis.;-p

  • nightscout13

    NICE…. maybe Koh read all the negative feedback from customers….

    • Floski

      That is not how the judicial system works…

      • nightscout13

        regardless, Koh was wrong.

        • I’d say a judge with experience in patent law at least has a respectable opinion. It’s not a popularity contest.

          • Droidzilla

            There are wildly disparate opinions even among professionals, which points to the fact that the patent system for software is broken.

          • I’ll definitely agree the patent system is broken. The key is that Koh isn’t necessarily wrong, just working with what she has.

          • nightscout13

            She has no respect as a human.

          • Really? Because she ruled in a way that doesn’t support your platform of choice? You need a little more evidence to back up your claim than a gut reaction, here.

          • nightscout13

            The evidence presented in the suit is a disgrace. She is not very intelligent to say that “the iPad and Galaxy Tab 10.1 are virtually indistinguishable.” THAT comment by her proves she is a retard.

          • If you can’t act like an adult, you’ve lost the argument completely. Treat her with some basic human courtesy… and remember that Samsung’s own attorney had trouble telling the two apart from a distance.

          • nightscout13

            You hand any normal person a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and an iPad, they will tell you the 2 devices are different. Shape being the most obvious. We don’t know the specific’s of this test they did to Samsung’s lawyers, were the tablets laying flat? at what distance? at what angle? were just the front’s shown? or both front and rear? were they turned on? Either way, to me, Koh is worthless as a Judge, and I don’t need your approval to feel this way.

          • Actually, we do know the specific conditions, because court witnesses and those involved described them: about 10 feet away, held forward facing. Don’t think they were turned on, but that’s not the point. The crux of it is whether or not there’s a reasonable chance the two could be confused by someone who doesn’t know their tablets inside-out (i.e. not you or I). Besides, if you saw what the Galaxy Tab 10.1 looked like before and after the iPad 2 was unveiled, you’d know it didn’t have to look as similar as it does, even though there is a visible difference to the experienced eye.

          • nightscout13

            Since we the people did not see the video of this “comparison” then I do not believe it was fair. Since the comparison was initiated by Apple staff, i’m sure it had deceit. Do you remember the original suit Apple presented? and in the photo diagrams, Apple tweaked the shape of the G-Tab to match the shape of the iPad! Even though they have different screen ratios!

          • It’s a civil court, not a criminal court. They’re not legally required to show video (and rarely do). And it was the judge holding the tablets, not the Apple attorney — and not at Apple’s request. When it comes to the Galaxy Tab diagrams, yes, a press render was altered… but the live photos also included in the mix were not. What, did you think Apple would include one comparison image and call it a day?

            Look, I know you want to think the only way Apple could win is by tricking people, but you’re both operating on inaccurate information and making a lot of projections. Simply saying “I didn’t see it for myself, therefore it didn’t happen” is a logical fallacy, especially when you use that to assume the worst — the world would cease to function if we couldn’t rely on trustworthy witnesses to events.

          • nightscout13

            The fact that Apple tweaked dimensions in the photo shows that they are inconsistent. And you sir, are blindly following them, because in your eyes Apple can do no wrong. You know, if you take all tablets and hold them up, they all look the “same” They are rectangular screens. It’s the same as FORD suing Toyota for having 4 wheels on their cars. I hope you follow Apple blindly to their demise, because that’s where they are headed. Apple lawyers have no honor, and always try to deceive a Judge. Koh was ignorant enough to give in.

          • Johnson

            Just throwing this out there. I seem to recall a post report of that hearing where the Samsung rep even confused them. Ill see if I can find the post for link.

          • NeedName

            It really doesn’t matter if the devices are confused for one another based on a single perspective or quick glance, nor who confuses them.

            After all, they are all basically an LCD with gorilla glass. Therefore, anyone looking at the front of an “ipad like tablet” quickly could be confused, especially at a distance — this proves nothing. The question is, will a customer walk into a store, handle a table, talk with a rep, and then mistakenly purchase a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 when they think they are purchasing an iPad?

            That’s a very easy thing to test. Round up a couple hundred people that have never purchased a tablet (even better if never handled one) and send them into Best Buy or another tech store and tell them to buy an iPad and see just how many end up with a Samsung Galaxy Tab.

            Apple could easily do the study. . . they haven’t and we both know why! No one will mistakenly buy the Samsung Galaxy Tab in place of an ipad. Instead apple relies on some ridiculous surveys & opinions of “experts” to support their arguments, similar to what they did with Judge Posner (Motorola Vs Apple) and that’s why Posner tossed all their “expert” witnesses because, they didn’t prove a bloody thing. They were just giving opinions.

            So, when you or apple do a real study to see if customers are truly confused and will walk out of a store with a Samsung Galaxy Tab in place of an ipad then you can talk “similarities.” Until then it’s just a bunch of BS to continue anti-competitive behaviors.

          • Putting words into my mouth. You’ve forgotten what I said earlier — if I had my way, these lawsuits wouldn’t have even started.

            And no, it’s not the same as Ford suing for the basic concepts of a car. Have you actually followed the details of the case? At all? There are specific software patents at stake along with design elements that aren’t as basic as you’ve been led to believe. Look at the Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 and 10.1 — they have a different design and aren’t being chased by Apple lawyers. People who argue that the iPad design is “inevitable” have never looked at the variety of tablets on the market.

            As a reference: I own both a Galaxy Nexus and an iPhone. I regularly try other Android devices. The Nexus 7 is a hot tablet, even. But I don’t shelter my mind from things I don’t like to hear. For you, it’s easier to buy into a conspiracy theory than to consider the possibility that Koh was making a fair (not necessarily ideal, but fair) ruling based on the evidence she had — and that she wasn’t hypnotized by Apple.

          • nightscout13

            Typical iFan. I made the move from Apple years ago, and it was a really good choice. Apple will soon die off, because Steve Jobs is not around to carry them on his shoulders anymore.

          • Wait… so I’m an “iFan” who happens to like his Galaxy Nexus? You deliberately isolate yourself from Apple products so you don’t have to see what they’re actually like. I openly embrace both sides. Who’s the one operating on preconceptions, here?

            Also, anyone who sincerely believes that all of Apple’s success rides solely on Jobs’ back has never actually paid attention to the other executives (there’s that willful isolation coming up to bite you again). Even someone with as much of an ego as Jobs understood that he couldn’t get anywhere without competent executives and a flexible corporate hierarchy. The danger is mainly that Apple won’t be going into new categories or rethinking existing ones as much as it had in the past.

          • nightscout13

            See how quickly you iFan’s forget negative publicity? You must have forgotten that Apple almost tanked, and ONLY because steve jobs stepped in, did Apple survive. None of those “execs” of your’s did anything. Also, i LOVE how you keep jabbing me with “isolation” and “conspiracy theorist”. It’s closed minded iSheep like you that end up barking up the wrong tree…..

          • You have one more chance. Act like an adult and stop using immature terms like “iFan” and “iSheep.” That’s no better than if I referred to “Fandroids” or “M$,” because it shows that you’re simply trying to pigeonhole the other side into a stereotype rather than deal with what’s actually been argued.

            I know damn well that Jobs coming back in 1997 saved Apple. I’m not talking about the company’s entire 35-year history. I’m talking about the executives brought in after Jobs came back. Tim Cook: took the company’s supply chain from the traditional tech world’s “shipping in six months!” to “shipping today” and got exclusive parts like the 2048 x 1536 iPad screen. Jonathan Ive: he doesn’t just make the stuff pretty, he’s credited with bringing in some important functional improvements that made products like the current iMac possible. Scott Forstall: helped drive a lot of what made iOS so much easier to use in 2007 than its peers, even if you think the OS is lagging behind now.

            HTC, Samsung and other companies have plenty of their own talented VPs and engineers as well — the difference is that they’ve all been run very traditionally, with the CEO rarely having direct influence on the product. Apple will miss a little something without Jobs demanding that design element X be tweaked or having a left-field idea for Y. But an iPhone is still largely the result of Ive’s design ideas, Forstall’s software development and Cook’s ability to get the needed technology in place.

            What’s made the competition a lot tougher now is that those other companies are starting to let their own individual designers shine through rather than design primarily by committee: HTC’s unibody One phones are very well-crafted and undoubtedly the result of a singular vision. Samsung’s Smart Stay should have been on phones years ago. Jobs being gone doesn’t mean those sorts of creators have disappeared from Apple.

          • nightscout13

            Listen, there is no argument. I can care less what you think…..All i read is your first paragraph, cause the rest looks like typical iFan rant.

          • nightscout13

            We don’t have to agree. Learn to be able to agree to disagree. Otherwise you’re just like a hippie always wanting to get along.

          • That’s more like it. I suppose the overriding point I have is to keep an open mind, which includes going to sites and reading sites that don’t necessarily jive with your own. Staying only on Android fan sites is like only watching Fox News; you’re not getting the full, balanced picture.

          • nightscout13

            As if understanding Android or iOS is only possible from forum’s or fan sites. Either way, like i said, you need to accept the fact that your views will not always line up with others, and that’s OK. Nothing wrong with disagreement.

          • NeedName

            You do realize that “witnesses” are NOT trustworthy. Psych studies have shown that witnesses to an accident will give very different account, so much so that when reading the accounts by the witnesses one would think that they witnesses completely different accidents.

          • Floski

            That doesn’t matter. The judicial system is heavily dependent on witnesses for now and it is perfectly legitimate and acceptable to use witness testimony.

            The point is, Koh made a ruling that sucks, but it’s not necessarily her fault. The legal system and the patent system make it what it is, it’s not like she was out to get Samsung. And all the people trying to demonize her are missing that point entirely.

          • NeedName

            Actually the judicial system is NOT heavily dependent on witnesses. It’s heavily dependent of cross examination for the very reasons I mention — witnesses simply cannot be trusted to give accurate information.

            The system is what it is, true. However, Koh’s initial decision was NOT to ban the Galaxy Tab. That decision was sent back to her from a higher court. She then ruled to ban the Galaxy Tab — what changed? These events, especially taken in light of other rulings, have to raise questions in the public’s mind as to what in the hell is going on in the courts. Is political pressure being put on the court via apple due to their influence in California? We don’t know, we can only go by what actions have taken place.

            No ban
            Now a ban — and on the GNexus for ONE patent that can have a work-around done within one week, that’s absurd.

            As for the attacks on Koh. Well, she did make the statements that the tables are “indistinguishable.” That statement opens herself up to attack. If they are indeed “indistinguishable” then a simple study would suffice — 1,000 individuals exposed to images of the front and back of each tablet and asked if they are “the same” or “different.” Notice apple hasn’t bothered with such a study.

            I guarantee you get 1,000 responses of “different.” Which would conclude Judge Koh made a grievous error in judgement when she concluded that the tables are “indistinguishable” and therefore opens her up to legitimate scrutiny — she interjected a ruling of sorts with no proof whatsoever other than opinion.

            The patent system is fubared however, the court ought to understand the current situation and act accordingly. Judge Posner did just that in Motorola Vs Apple. He acted logically given the current environment, situation, and laws — lawsuits on both sides were tossed because they were both nothing more than anti-competitive maneuvers and neither could prove their claims.

            This case is doing a strange round-about to get to apple’s favor for some strange reason and Koh has opened herself up to attack by making ridiculous statements of judgement — you don’t say they are “indistinguishable” unless you have PROOF that indeed they are indistinguishable especially when you are the presiding judge. She didn’t need to make such statements. One would expect such statements from apple’s attorney but not the judge unless she was presented with *conclusive proof*. She wasn’t presented with any proof whatsoever, just opinion, including her own opinion which should never have entered the situation.

            I get why you might be annoyed with some of the “negative” comments here toward the judge — not the most pleasant. I understand that. However, don’t let those blind you to the actual actions taking place in this case(s). . . it’s rather strange, to say the least, and Koh is at the center of it.

          • These are journalists, not people who happened to be hanging around the courtroom. You’re really, really stretching to shoehorn the facts into a preconceived theory (that Apple can only win by tricking judges) rather than deriving your theory solely from the facts.

          • NeedName

            Sorry, your arguments have holes in them and that’s all there is to it. Journalists are just as susceptible to “their own view of things” just as any “witness” to anything is. The fact that you want them to somehow be “superhuman” shows your error.

            And where did I say “apple is tricking judges”? Nothing like invalidating an argument by inserting your own comments into someone else’s.

          • This is the kind of issue where there is no opportunity for vagueness and indetermination. You literally cannot question what the journalists said without accusing them of lying. Since we can logically assume that multiple journalists wouldn’t misinterpret courtroom events and just happen to reach the exact same conclusion — and there were multiple journalists, and they did come to the same interpretation — the only other position tenable in your point of view is that the journalists conspired together to make Samsung look bad.

            You didn’t explicitly say that you think Apple can’t win fairly in court, but it’s contained within everything you write. To you, there is zero chance that anyone would confuse an iPad with a Galaxy Tab, or that a Best Buy staffer would say “here, have a Galaxy Tab, it’s just like an iPad” to a newcomer. Zero. Therefore, the judge couldn’t possibly have decided on neutral terms that the Galaxy Tab was too similar. By definition from that view, the judge was bribed or forced into making the wrong conclusion, because the only way a fair, competent judge could rule was “these things look and behave differently, case dismissed.” Right?

            For goodness’ sake, I was at both Mobile World Congress 2011, when the original Galaxy Tab 10.1 design came out, and at CTIA spring 2011, when the major redesign appeared. There were just five weeks between those two events (mid-February and late March). The iPad 2 was unveiled between those events, and I saw for myself how dramatically Samsung’s design changed. Samsung even said it “will not be outdone” in tablet design just a day or two after the iPad 2 was unveiled. While I agree that a Galaxy Tab is visibly different to trained observers (certainly from the back), it was entirely possible for the design to have looked more distinctive than it does, and to have had different software behaviour. Just look at a Galaxy Tab 2 — the “lips” have eliminated Apple’s design-related legal arguments in at least Germany.

          • NeedName

            Clearly the Galaxy Tab does NOT need to look more “distinctive” than it does.

            As the UK court has ruled that the Tab DOES NOT look or infringe upon apple’s ipad design patent. . . and most of the ipad’s design patent claims are *obvious*, *previously patented* by others, etc. . .

            You see, Samsung has just as much right to copy other *previous designs* like the ‘Knight Rider’ tablet & their own picture frame as apple does. That’s the point. You sound like an apple fanboy claiming that apple’s design is “truly original” when in fact it isn’t at all and therefore everyone else has the same right to copy the designs apple copied, that doesn’t mean they copied apple, and even if they do it’s is VALID because apple’s designs are copied from previous works, including Samsung’s. And it is clear Samsung has gone out of their way to ensure that their tab doesn’t look like the ipad in many ways — especially the back. And the new designed Tab apple still isn’t happy with and is trying to ban it as well. Clearly apple just want’s to ban their main competitor, Samsung, unless Samsung makes a fugly brick for a tab that won’t sell no matter what.

            enjoy the UK decision 🙂

          • NeedName

            The lawyer was something like ten paces away. . .and we don’t know how the Judge was holding the devices — covering the home button or what — but when the lawyer moved a little closer the devices were correctly identified.

            The “test” was ridiculous. Who purchases a tablet from 10+ feet away? No one does! And for the judge to then conclude that they are “virtually identical” because of such a ridiculous test calls her judgement into question.

            FFS. . . it says “Samsung” in rather large letters on the back of the bloody thing, 16:9 Vs 4:3 and has no home button — indistinguishable?????

            Nonetheless, her first order regarding the tab did NOT order an injunction. It wasn’t till the higher court sent the case back to her after apple appealed her no injunction order. Since then she’s banned everything — seems like someone decided things should go a little differently somewhere along the line. Thus, this whole court case(s) is questionable on ethics.

            First no injunctions and now everything needs to be blocked?

        • Floski

          Got any law to back that up? (No, you don’t.)

          • nightscout13

            I don’t need to prove anything to you. To me, she was wrong. I can give a rat’s a$$ about what you think…..

  • sonicyoof

    If anything, this may have increased sales due to all the news exposure.

    • Brent Stewart

      The only bad press is no press.

    • TheWenger

      Only exposure in the tech news.

      • sonicyoof

        …which is the audience most likely to buy the phone.

        • TheWenger

          Just saying it probably won’t convince many people to not buy am iphone.

          • David

            Show someone a video of jelly bean. That’ll convince them, right after you tell them how a nexus device gets updates first and they’ll be some of the first devices to offically run JB. Yeah… If they have half a brain they’ll go for the gnex.

    • More press than Verizon ever gave the Nexus at its release…..

  • ddevito

    Apple gets a gas face

  • Liderc


    • How does anyone down a Big Bang Theory quote!?

      • Liderc

        All these droid haters.

  • KleenDroid


  • NeedName

    Let us all remember that Judge Koh initial did NOT place a ban against the GNexus & GTab. The case was sent back to her. . . apparently the higher-ups wanted a ban placed. She then placed the ban.

    Now the case is back to a higher court — if it’s the same one that sent the case back to Koh. . . then expect the ban to be re-instated. . . unless they’ve gotten a clue since they sent the case back to Koh telling her, basically, to ban the devices.

    • zulu208


    • Nick

      No? You are thinking of a different case. In this case, Judge Koh placed the ban and then denied Samsung’s appeal. The higher court then stayed the ban.

      • NeedName

        Go back even further. . . this case(s) has been going on for a while. Started back in February I think. However, you are correct, she did place & uphold the ban, but prior to all that there’s been a lot going on that never really hit the news.


        You can find all the info on FOSS patents. Yes, he is an apple/oracle shill, but the info is still there. . . .
        You can also find a lot on appleinsider. Just search for earlier references pre June.
        Sorry, not going to do the leg work for you. I’ve already spent time reading this stuff as it has come along. And the whole thing is a freaking mess at this point.