Apple tells retailers to stop selling the Galaxy Nexus and Tab

http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/13/apple-injunction-letters/

by vibrunazo • 14 years ago

108 120 14 years ago

mtgx2• 14 years ago

Wasn't the temporary ban on the Galaxy Nexus lifted? Apple is still sending these takedown notices right now, even though the ban was lifted?

vibrunazo3• 14 years ago

According to the article, Apple was sending the takedowns before the lift.

"Apple began sending those notices associated with the Galaxy Nexus on June 3, the same day U.S. Judge Lucy Koh turned down Samsung’s appeal on the injunction. Three days later, however, Judge Koh suspended the injunction."

The Verge probably makes this part more clear:

"According to Samsung, several sellers received letters ordering them to cease selling the two devices in late June and early July, before the ban on the Galaxy Nexus was stayed."

- http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/13/3157505/apple-retailer-gal...

blinkingled• 14 years ago

Ban on Galaxy Nexus was lifted but not on Galaxy Tab. Nexus is only sold online, tab is the one being sold in retail. Apple's letter only references the tab.

dkhenry• 14 years ago

What did we think they were going to spend millions in court trying to remove competitors then not act on it ?

Bjoern• 14 years ago

Patent Trolling by Apple. This is just silly, do they really believe they can keep their edge this way? Intimidating 3rd party vendors?

TazeTSchnitzel• 14 years ago

If Apple really felt their product was superior, I'm sure they wouldn't need to worry about their competition enough to sue them.

gurkendoktor• 14 years ago

That's reading a bit too much into it.

Apple's lawyers have always been busy. In the "PC era", Apple sued businesses that dared to use an apple as its logo.

brk• 14 years ago

Sorry, but that statement is just silly.

To bring any new product to market inevitably requires a lot of R&D, development expenses, and a certain amount of risk-taking, hoping you really are inventing the next great thing.

Once a product is proven to be successful it is relatively simple for a competitor to attempt to copy or duplicate the most popular facets of that device. Because they did not have to spend resources on the same development and market testing, it stands to reason that the copy product could also be sold much more cheaply than the original, giving the competitive product a significant cost advantage (or giving the company creating the product a higher profit margin, or both).

I'm not saying anything specific about Apple or Samsung in this case, but product superiority alone is rarely the competition killer you appear to make it out to be.

suresk3• 14 years ago

I guess it is just an issue of semantics, but while I disagree with Apple here, I have a hard time calling them a 'patent troll'. To me, that always indicated an NPE who was suing random people over a patent that had never actually been implemented in a product.

I think Apple is wrong (and a little short-sighted) here, but I don't think this puts them on the same level as Lodsys or IV.

damontal• 14 years ago

Apple is definitely a patent troll, even if they're doing it indirectly. Ever hear of the Rockstar Consortium?

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/rockstar/

thechut4• 14 years ago

Apple should focus on competing on the quality of THEIR product. Not rely on lawyers and back room deals to cripple the competitions products.

There doesn't seem to be any information stating whether or not Apple made any attempt to tell retailers they could sell these products again after the injunction was lifted.

This is as anti-competitive behavior at its worse. Before we know it Apple will have formed the OAAA (Only Apple Association of America) and be lobbying congress to force consumers to pay a fee just for owning non-Apple products.

einhverfr7• 14 years ago

Just remember, patents are government-granted monopolies.

thechut4• 14 years ago

Lets not get into a conversation about the state of software patents in this country, or the quality and breadth of Apple's patents.

But I think it seems a bit unreasonable to ban the sale of an entire device which is based on hundreds if not thousands of patents just because it MIGHT (keep in mind this case was not won but Apple, this was a preliminary injunction) infringe on one or two software patents.

guard-of-terra• 14 years ago

So using them shows you have no balls to compete freely.

The best patent is the one never enforced. "Apple should focus on competing on the quality of THEIR product" still stands.

wavephorm• 14 years ago

And the government granted Kevin Rose the monopoly to vote on things.

seiji• 14 years ago

force consumers to pay a fee just for owning non-Apple products.

People already pay a fee for owning non-Apple products. All the crashes, malware, borked phones, wireless never working quite right, external monitors never working quite right, and various circles of driver hell aren't free.

mkr-hn8• 14 years ago

Nope. Everything's working fine on my Windows 7 laptop.

rbanffy2• 14 years ago

I assume Microsoft's patent extortion is included in the price of my Android tablet... sigh...

josteink• 14 years ago

Wow. That's a whole lot of kool-aid.

For the record: all my computers, equipped with 3g modems and touchscreens or not, running a variety of OSes, are running just fine with none of those issues.

einhverfr7• 14 years ago

>People already pay a fee for owning non-Apple products. All the crashes, malware, borked phones, wireless never working quite right, external monitors never working quite right, and various circles of driver hell aren't free.

Really?

I thought that was the fee for not using Linux.

(looks around for cover)

mef• 14 years ago

I agree with you, but don't forget that Steve Jobs vowed to go "thermonuclear war" on Android. It seems the folks at Apple are determined to follow through on that promise and will use any and all (potentially nasty) measures to see Android fail.

Spooky23• 14 years ago

Sounds like free advertising for Samsung. If the products are good enough that Apple is playing dirty tricks to remove them to the market, maybe I need to reconsider buying a new iPhone when my contract runs out this fall.

nessus429• 14 years ago

I don't think that Apple is playing dirty tricks in this regard. I'm not particularly sympathetic to many kinds of patents that are being enforced these days, but Samsung is clearly trying to make slavish copies of Apple products, and Apple certainly is entitled to defend themselves against this.

I might not have been so sympathetic to Apple in this regard if I hadn't been fooled by Samsung products myself. E.g., a few months back I was in a Costco and saw a new iPad on display. I found this surprising, as I wasn't aware that there was a new iPad. I picked up the iPad and fiddled with it for a minute. I found it confusing, because it was so much like the iPad I had at home, except that some things were different in a way that I didn't expect. After a minute, I finally realized that this wasn't an iPad at all, but rather a Samsung tablet that had been designed to mimic the iPad in many important details.

I also recall seeing a TV show in which someone was speaking on an iPhone, only it wasn't any model of iPhone that I had seen before. I figured that it must have been a prop iPhone as perhaps Apple hadn't wanted to pay for the product placement in this episode. I vaguely recalled Apple suing Samsung over design patents and so I Googled for a minute. Sure enough, the "prop iPhone" was a real Samsung phone!

You can't knock-off a Chanel handbag. Why should you be able to knock-off an iPad or an iPhone?

Anyone who claims that Samsung isn't intentionally stealing Apple's design for their own profit is being disingenuous. And anyone who claims that Samsung couldn't easily differentiate their design from Apple's design is also be disingenuous. Other Android phones and tablets are not such slavish copies, and this is why Apple is going after Samsung, rather than other phone and tablet manufacturers.

stcredzero• 14 years ago

Apple should focus on competing on the quality of THEIR product.

The other day, I stuck a spare SIM into a 1st gen iPhone 8GB running iOS 3.1.2. Even on EDGE, the thing smokes my iPhone 3GS on iOS 5.1.1 bringing up the Maps program using 3G at the same location. It's positively slick, responsive, and just beautiful.

Undoubtedly, there is a lot of bloat in both iOS and OS X now. My Macbook Pro running Lion is way slower than when it was running Snow Leopard, and the thing has an SSD! I've even disabled noatime and swap. That makes my machine faster, but it's still slower than it was.

dclowd9901• 14 years ago

It's crazy, isn't it? I don't think I'm ever going to "upgrade" the OS on my new iPhone. My iPhone 4 went from obscenely snappy to slow as my 3G when the 4 came out.

nessus429• 14 years ago

> Apple should focus on competing on the quality of THEIR product.

Isn't the quality of Apple's design part of the quality of their product? If other companies can copy Apple's design, then other companies can just copy a significant part of Apple's quality without putting in any of the effort and cost that Apple put into their design.

Okay, well, let's say for the point of argument is is morally okay for other companies to "borrow" Apple's design, and this is just tough luck for Apple. In that case, why not just let them "borrow" everything about Apple's products? I.e., why not let other companies just make perfect knock-offs down to the circuit board level? And while we're at it, they should just be able to copy Apple's software too?

In that case, companies should compete on nothing other than their ability to manufacture commodities for as cheaply as possible.

Personally, I find the attitude that design should be free, while everything else should be IP, to be highly insulting to design experts and their expertise.

creamyhorror4• 14 years ago

> Okay, well, let's say for the point of argument is is morally okay for other companies to "borrow" Apple's design, and this is just tough luck for Apple. In that case, why not just let them "borrow" everything about Apple's products?

If a competing product has particular features, I do think it should be permissible to re-create those features in your own product. That's the reason why many folks here are against software patents - because the idea behind a feature should not be protected if a competitor can produce the same effect with its own engineering.

> In that case, why not just let them "borrow" everything about Apple's products?

They can't, though, because they wouldn't have access to those aspects. Design and features are two things that are publicly exposed to the world, and personally I think you should be able to implement features your competitors have. Similarly, while I wouldn't copy a design wholesale, I don't think it should be wrong to take elements from others' designs.

fr4nko2• 14 years ago

Being Sicilian I'm well placed to know how to name this kind of acts: mafia.

The only difference with traditional mafia is that in this case the act is dressed with the clothes of a big corporation but the underlying meaning of this kind of acts is just the same.

mtgx2• 14 years ago

I would attribute the mafia-style handling even more to Microsoft who basically formed a protection racket demanding fees from all Android manufacturers who want to build devices using a free and open source OS.

joelhooks• 14 years ago

You mean outside of the physical coercion, eh? That seems like a big difference in my head.

If I petition the city to have my neighbor trim back his tree, it is one thing. If I beat him and threaten his family as an encouragement to trim the tree and give me $20, it is another thing altogether.

fr4nko2• 14 years ago

Actions can be mafia even without physical violence.

As everyone can see the notice was sent by Apple itself not by an US institution like a tribunal or a governmental agency.

Even juridical acts can be a form of violence expecially if they came from a big organization against a small retailer. The fact that there is no physical violence put them in another plan but violence and intimidations are always of the same nature and qualifies this act as mafia (in my point of view).

RightOnComment• 14 years ago

In the USA the government is the mafia. Similar to mafia's strength with 40 percent unemployment in So. Italy. The goal of US government is 40 percent unemployment which will give them ultimate control over the population. It has nothing to do with Republican or Democratic parties. You see the truth.

jiggy2011• 14 years ago

Citation needed.

einhverfr7• 14 years ago

I remember reading in a 1st Circuit (I think) opinion that something like 60% of challenged patents are invalidated. This strategy strikes me as quite dangerous for Apple. They risk losing on average a bit over half of the patents at issue, and they could lose everything. Worse, even if they win, the patents at issue will be worked around and it will be a temporary setback. Apple really gets very little out of this fight.

So yeah, given that reality it would probably be smarter to try to focus on, well, actually trying to dominate in the marketplace rather than in the courtroom.

chucknelson• 14 years ago

"... actually trying to dominate in the marketplace rather than in the courtroom."

They're doing both, and it's a very slippery slope if they send the message that they are not willing to protect their patents.

I do agree, though, that it is a shame all of this effort is put into legal battles for what is usually minimal benefit. And that goes for the legal system in general.

sjwright• 14 years ago

> They risk losing on average a bit over half of the patents at issue

And the other half get significantly strengthened.

einhverfr7• 14 years ago

define "strengthened."

I don't know what percentage of patents survive by being read narrowly by a court.

The thing is that three things can happen to a patent when it is challenged:

1) The court can say "that's not a valid patent" kind of like the Supreme Court recently did in Mayo v. Prometheus (Prometheus patented how to interpret test results. The Supreme Court said you couldn't patent the results of the test, just the method of testing.)

2) The court can say "Ok, so the following is legitimate prior art, and additionally if we read this broadly, it can't be patentable, and so what's left when we read it narrowly and leave out the areas covered by the prior art is yours." In this case the patent is "strengthened" in the sense that everyone has a better idea of what will happen next time in court but it is also narrowed.

3) The court can let the patent stand as-is.

The problem is that while the latter two seem like they strengthen the legal position the next time around, where a patent was previously unknown or disputed, they also weaken the market impact because they provide larger reasons to work around the patent.

So I don't know. I don't see an upside for Apple here other than a very, very temporary edge in the marketplace.

thoughtsimple• 14 years ago

No doubt Apple and their lawyers know this too. What they get out of this is temporary removal of a competing product from sale. This almost certainly has bottom line benefits for Apple.

Courtrooms and patents are just another tool big corporations use to compete. Apple is particularly aggressive as is Microsoft but many companies do this. Motorola comes to mind and Nokia as well.

This needs to be fixed at the congressional level but good luck with that. Congress thinks the current patent system is pretty much perfect. Hopefully, with people like Posner finally speaking out, this changes

Sukotto• 14 years ago

It may just be my perverse nature, or some variant of Streisand Effect... but this just makes me want to buy one.

[disclosure: I'm long AAPL]

neovive2• 14 years ago

It's quite sad to see this. How many people here are using the Galaxy Nexus? Google just pushed the 4.1 update and it is simply an awesome device and os. It definitely serves a more technical audience than the iPhone, but the power and customizability is amazing. I like the iPhone, but I just prefer the flexibility of the Nexus and the fact that no contract is required. The direct from Google model and Android's open philosophy simply works better for me. Choice is a good thing, the last time I checked.

RegEx• 14 years ago

Thanks for the recommendation. AT&T contract just expired, and I'm looking into getting an Android.

neovive2• 14 years ago

Besides the nice hardware on the Nexus (although not quite as powerful as the Galaxy S III), you get almost instant OS updates. Other devices have to wait a few months (if they ever get the updates) since the carriers control the updates and have custom themes on top of Android.

rbanffy2• 14 years ago

Someone should introduce Tim Cook and judges Posner and Alsup. I'd love to watch the ensuing conversation.

dsirijus• 14 years ago

Throw in Jesus and Zappa. As likely to happen.

suresk3• 14 years ago

Ignoring the obvious patent ridiculousness, I'm a little bit surprised and dismayed to see Apple going so hard after Android in this way.

1) As a consumer, competition in this space is overwhelmingly positive. You can already see a number of improvements Apple has made to iOS as a result of Android, and a strong Android OS will continue to keep them on their toes.

2) You have to wonder if it is even good for Apple to win in the long run. They have so much control over the iPhone ecosystem, getting too much market share in the mobile/tablet space would very likely garner unwanted attention from the DOJ. It is possible Android is a significant buffer against an anti-trust action similar to what Microsoft saw in the 90's.

briandear2• 14 years ago

They aren't going after Android (in this case.) This is about Samsung.

alttab2• 14 years ago

This just tells me to go out and buy one of these, since Apple sees it as a threat. Which means its probably a decent device. They haven't pulled a stunt like this on all the other crappy tablets that have come out.

suresk3• 14 years ago

Like briandear mentioned, this is more directed towards Samsung in particular (although Android itself is a big part of it, and this is part of a broader war on Android), but at least part of the reason I think Apple is going after the Galaxy Tab so strongly is that is that, from a physical perspective, it looks quite a bit like the iPad. When a few of my co-workers got them and had them sitting on their desks, I sort of assumed that they were iPads - they very closely resemble them.

While I think Apple would still be pursuing them without the physical resemblance, at least some of the strong reaction you're seeing is due to it, so I wouldn't necessarily take their reaction as an endorsement of the Tab (although I have heard it is quite good).

eli• 14 years ago

According to the Isaacson book:

“I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.” - Steve Jobs in 2010.

And to Eric Schmidt regarding patent licensing: ”I don’t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want.”

jarek4• 14 years ago

"... and that notifications UI, I want that too." ;)

briandear2• 14 years ago

Samsung DID straight up copy Apple. Apple isn't going after other manufacturers, just this specific one for these specific devices. Here's a little side-by-side comparison of what Samsung did: http://atomicsupersky.com/post/26275796849/on-the-samsung-ga...

This all could have been avoided if Samsung didn't blatantly copy Apple. I mean, they even copied the same color for the phone icon. If you go into Photoshop and compare the two greens, they are identical. You don't accidentally do that. Samsung had the intent to copy. It isn't even about the under-the-hood aspects (which can be another discussion,) this is about the clear and obvious ripoff of Apple design.

Samsung did this to themselves. The point of this injunction is that consumers could be confused. After all, even Samsung's own lawyers couldn't distinguish the Galaxy from the iPad at a distance of 10 feet.

munchor• 14 years ago

Your comment made me laugh so hard.

vibrunazo3• 14 years ago

You're confusing trademarks with patents. Trademarks are supposed to avoid consumer confusion. In fact, in trademark lawsuits it's required that you establish that there's consumer confusion, or else you have no case. It's common on these lawsuits that consumers are interviewed and asked if they're confused by the products. Apple would've done this if they had a trademark case against Samsung. In any other IP case which isn't trademark, pointing confusion, as in the Samsung lawyer example, is just a meaningless gimmick that serves no real purpose. [1] But Apple isn't suing Samsung for trademark infringement, they're suing for patents. Which means to stop Samsung for using Apple's technological "inventions". So your argument is invalid, Apple is not trying to establish confusion. They're going specifically after Samsung simply because they're by far the biggest target. And the examples in your blog are blatant cherry-picking. [2]

[1] http://www.bonkersworld.net/obvious-similarities/

[2] http://www.bonkersworld.net/great-artists-steal/

taligent8• 14 years ago

You might want to do a bit of research on something called a "design patent".

mkr-hn8• 14 years ago

It's easy to see that they copied on the software side, but there are only so many ways you can distinguish a flat rectangle while making it useful for its intended function. Not everyone is willing to take a huge leap like with the nice-looking and distinct Lumia 900.

As for the box, I like Samsung's. All apple did was plaster a picture of the iPad on the front of a box.

thechut4• 14 years ago

Lets at least compare the products in question. The link in your comment compares the Galaxy Tab 7 to the iPad 2, and even then is making its comparison based on very old pictures. I went to Samsung's and Apple's website and downloaded images of the home screen of the products in question.

Quick side by side job-

Tab10 vs iPad: http://i.imgur.com/3jnEf.png

Galaxy Nexus vs iPhone: http://i.imgur.com/eZAyj.png

You are free to choose which you think looks "better" but the design is not even similar. One is made of glass of and aluminum, the other of glass and plastic. The differences between the the Galaxy Nexus and the 4s is even more striking. My comparison doesn't go a good job of showing the scale but they are no where near the same size either.

If you really want to compare old and completely unrelated devices, have a look at this picture that made its rounds on Google+ during the #boycottapple time: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nMgzXpDyNhA/Ta3iBWUo3bI/AAAAAAAAM1...

taligent8• 14 years ago

Nice work there detective. Unfortunately that Galaxy you showed is the 10.1n which is the modified version to make it deliberately look different than an iPad.

Here is the "original" Galaxy Tab.

http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/...

incision• 14 years ago

Grow up.

The simple fact is this: Apple can't demonstrate 10, let alone any meaningful number of people who accidentally bought a Galaxy when they meant to pick up an iPad/iPhone.

It doesn't happen.

RommeDeSerieux• 14 years ago

The galaxy nexus is a stock android device, no such UI modifications from samsung are present here. Instead, apple is going after device-wide search and some other ridiculous patents.

pilgrim6892• 14 years ago

This is similar to how Scott toilet paper completely copied Charmin toilet paper.

Exhibit A, a Scott toilet paper roll:

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4937842907021398&pid=1.5

Exhibit B, a Charmin toilet paper roll:

http://www.coloredtoiletpaper.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01...

Also, I usually like to shop for rolls by unpackaging them, placing them side by side, stepping back 20 meters and just staring at them from the other side of the store, and now I was totally confused as to which was which. I don't understand why more people aren't up in arms about this. Scott clearly had the intent to copy Charmin's paper-around-roll design philosophy. The world needs more patents to prevent this.

mkr-hn8• 14 years ago

There are toilet paper patents: http://www.onemanclapping.org/2009/01/patents-toilet-paper.h...

pkulak2• 14 years ago

Well, I don't know much about the actual lawsuit, but in order to get back into compliance Samsung has rolled out an update that disables the search function from searching the actual phone. That's right, Apple has somehow patented a text-based search of the items on a device. What a brilliant, non-obvious idea! Right up there with the light bulb. I deserves a government-sanctioned, and protected, monopoly!

rcavezza• 14 years ago

I love the British legal system... a U.K. judge said the tablet is “not as cool,” and thereby doesn’t infringe on the iPad.

fidotron• 14 years ago

Potentially a smart judgment, because if Apple were to try and overturn it they'd have to argue that their competitors are as cool as they are.

tosseraccount• 14 years ago

Apple's suing on "form factor" ???? We need to curtail the Patent Industry, not Samsung.

einhverfr7• 14 years ago

Evidently Apple has patented the rectangle and working their way up to the wheel....

ams61102• 14 years ago

To be fair, no. They argument is not that the device is rectangular. Their argument is that very specific elements of the device and its packaging are virtually identical to Apple's designs.

moe• 14 years ago

It's sad to see what Apple is becoming.

They can not win this war, probably not even delay the outcome by a measurable margin.

Meanwhile Android begins to leapfrog them not only on hardware (which has been the case for a while, short of tablets) but also on software and the holy grail of user-experience.

They still have quite an edge on the UX-front but that is destined to fade if they don't come to their senses really soon now.

pooriaazimi• 14 years ago

The way I understand it, they're not doing it for profit. They're doing it to scare the hell out of Google, Samsung and HTC not to copy the design of Apple's products. They're just making an example of Samsung to show that they're ready to whatever necessary to protect their IP, even at the cost of tarnishing their own brand.

neya2• 14 years ago

Everyone talks about how innovative Apple is and how innovative Steve Jobs was and how he changed 'the world'. But no one talks about how much innovation Apple has crippled more than they had contributed.

For example, a recent broad patent called Universal Search was used by Apple to sue Android OEM's and the end result? The feature was removed from certain Android phones to avoid litigation. And mind you, Universal search had long existed before Apple had patented it. This is just one example, but there are many many broad patents that Apple uses to cripple innovation. The end result is that the users lose more than these companies because they are missing out a lot of features that their devices are capable of implementing. Funny how this is something that is not written much about by these tech Journalists. You never see someone writing how Apple crippled innovation, but only how 'cool' Apple is or how 'innovative' they are. Pathetic.

We need a better, unbiased source for technology news. The current set of tech journalists sound more like Apple sales men. We live in a world where we are forced to read what the journalists think of the news rather than just the news itself. Hope someone from HN builds such a platform.

taligent8• 14 years ago

I love the fact that the huge legal teams from Samsung, HTC, Google etc can't find prior art for Apple's "universal search" patent but you can.

Or maybe if you actually read the patent you would realise it is for a specific client side, plug-in based implementation which at its time definitely didn't exist on any OS.

neya2• 14 years ago

Ok, I'll come your way. So be it, let's assume this is a very 'innovative patent' as per your theory. Do you think they should be suing all the OEM's for such a ridiculous patent? As an end user, I lost a very important feature on my phone just because a random company whose products I don't even want to own is trying to prove how innovative it is. If you still support them, then I have nothing else to say. Have a nice day.

creamyhorror4• 14 years ago

Wait, no prior art was found? Did I miss an announcement, a failed patent suit, or some other piece of news, or are you just assuming things there?

If the original patent is specific enough to cover only Apple's particular method of searching a phone, then how could Android's unified search be found to be infringing without some sort of reverse engineering or source code examination? If this examination had been done, surely we'd have the results published somewhere.

On the other hand, if the patent was general enough to cover any search across multiple components on a device, then surely it should not have been granted and we should not be cheering for a company that exercises such a monopoly?

If this unified search patent can be used to stop a phone from searching through multiple data types and components, do you actually think that's something that should stand up in court in the first place? Or are you just going to argue that Apple is just making use of the monopolies granted by the system, the rules of the game, and should be excused anyhow?

justin_hancock• 14 years ago

Although its not on mobile didn't Google's desktop search tools cover an awful lot of this? I certainly remember it returning, emails, documents and other textual data in the result. It also had plugin support.

It may not have existed on mobile but one could argue that much of it did already exist on the desktop, bringing similar functionality to a mobile is not especially innovative in my opinion, its a feature at best. Integrating things is not innovative either.

I would love to see the fireworks of Apple taking Google to court on search patent infringement.

rrggrr• 14 years ago

Ordered one a minute ago in protest.

dhughes• 14 years ago

If you're in the US and near the Canadian border both are available here in Canada, I think.

http://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Products/Galaxy_Nexus

I don't know if is the new one or not: http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/samsung-samsung-10-1-...

Apple tells retailers to stop selling the Galaxy Nexus and Tab

Related Stories