or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple rejects Samsung compromise offer for Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple rejects Samsung compromise offer for Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
Apple has rejected an offer from rival Samsung that would have allowed the South Korean electronics maker to release its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Australia.

Samsung had offered last week to "help ensure an expedited court hearing" if Apple would allow the immediate launch of its tablet in the country, as noted by Reuters. Though Apple had conceded that the deal contained some potential benefit for the company, it ultimately decided to reject the offer.

"It is one we don't accept and there is no surprise. The main reason we are here is to prevent the launch (of the Galaxy 10.1) and maintain the status quo," Apple attorney Steven Burley told the Federal Court on Tuesday.

A settlement is "not going to be achievablegiven the positions advanced by each party," a Samsung lawyer told the court. The electronics maker has agreed to take out two features from its tablet that allegedly infringe on Apple's patents, leaving the two companies to debate over whether the devices violates just one of Apple's patents.

Samsung had previously agreed to delay sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia until after the judge issues a ruling on the injunction request, expected to come later this week.



The legal conflict between the two electronics giants has grown tense since Apple made the first move in April, accusing its rival of copying the look and feel of its iPhone and iPad. Samsung quickly responded with its own counter-complaints.

For its part, Apple has won a few early victories against Samsung in Europe. Last month, a German district court issued a permanent ban barring sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the country. A Netherlands court in August blocked some models of Samsung's Galaxy smartphones from being sold.

Attorneys for the iPad maker revealed last week that Apple co-founder Steve Jobs had approached Samsung last year to discuss its grievances. But, after negotiations broke down, Apple turned to the courts to resolve the matter.
post #2 of 47
Responding to questions from Justice Bennett about whether Samsung's model could be singled out, given there are other Android-based tablets on the market, Apple's lawyers said it saw the Galaxy Tab 10.1 as the main competitor to the iPad 2.

"This is vastly the one that is going to be targeting the iPad 2," Apple's counsel said.

"This is going to be launched on the market with the velocity of a fire hose and [the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is] going to just come in and take away iPad 2 sales so quickly that by the time we get to final hearing the full impact of the patent infringement will be [felt] to the detriment of Apple and to the benefit of [Samsung]."
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #3 of 47
If the ruling is expected to come later this week, what would expediting the hearing mean?
post #4 of 47
Apple is big. Samsung is big. They need to exist in this world together. I say let Samsung sell their device above the retail cost of apples. Lets say $99.00 higher than Apples iPad. That gives Apple the advantage and lets samsung sell their device.
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #5 of 47
As I said in the prior thread Apple has the upper hand or Samsung wouldn't have offered a fig leaf.
post #6 of 47
I'm glad this thing is one step closer to being done thank God
post #7 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

Responding to questions from Justice Bennett about whether Samsung's model could be singled out, given there are other Android-based tablets on the market, Apple's lawyers said it saw the Galaxy Tab 10.1 as the main competitor to the iPad 2.

"This is vastly the one that is going to be targeting the iPad 2," Apple's counsel said.

"This is going to be launched on the market with the velocity of a fire hose and [the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is] going to just come in and take away iPad 2 sales so quickly that by the time we get to final hearing the full impact of the patent infringement will be [felt] to the detriment of Apple and to the benefit of [Samsung]."

You do realize that apple has to make this sound urgent so that the court will act in a timely manner, it doesn't really mean that apple is worried about samsung, only that damage will be done if an infringer is allowed to sell through.
post #8 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by applecider View Post

You do realize that apple has to make this sound urgent so that the court will act in a timely manner, it doesn't really mean that apple is worried about samsung, only that damage will be done if an infringer is allowed to sell through.

Nice opinion. Any real evidence, or just a nice story you have devloped?

Currently Apple has no benefit to get this over with urgently. as the current situation is the one they want. No Samsung sales.

Getting it over urgenty may end up with what htey dont want, Samsung sales.
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #9 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

Apple is big. Samsung is big. They need to exist in this world together. I say let Samsung sell their device above the retail cost of apples. Lets say $99.00 higher than Apples iPad. That gives Apple the advantage and lets samsung sell their device.

Yes, a judge should set product prices.
post #10 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

As I said in the prior thread Apple has the upper hand or Samsung wouldn't have offered a fig leaf.

Olive branch
post #11 of 47
Banned over a drawing of a non existent product :-\\
post #12 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Olive branch

Samsung is looking fairly exposed at this point.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

blah, blah, blah

The reason Apple see it as the main competitor is that it's the most blatant copy, hence the bans on Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales in two countries so far.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #14 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

Apple is big. Samsung is big. They need to exist in this world together. I say let Samsung sell their device above the retail cost of apples. Lets say $99.00 higher than Apples iPad. That gives Apple the advantage and lets samsung sell their device.

Collusion and price fixing are illegal in Australia as well as pretty much anywhere else.

I'm pretty sure a judge in a civil case is not able to instruct litigants to break the law as part of a settlement.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #15 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by applecider View Post

You do realize that apple has to make this sound urgent so that the court will act in a timely manner, it doesn't really mean that apple is worried about samsung, only that damage will be done if an infringer is allowed to sell through.

Faster conclusions are still ideal. It's not actually reasonable to delay product sales on a time sensitive design (if the court battle lasted for months or years such a device could be out of date/spec) just because it favors Apple. In the reverse situation it wouldn't be fair either. Really both sides need non ambiguous terms for what would resolve this matter in terms of design concessions or otherwise because Apple won't be able to block Samsung indefinitely.
post #16 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Faster conclusions are still ideal. It's not actually reasonable to delay product sales on a time sensitive design (if the court battle lasted for months or years such a device could be out of date/spec) just because it favors Apple. In the reverse situation it wouldn't be fair either. Really both sides need non ambiguous terms for what would resolve this matter in terms of design concessions or otherwise because Apple won't be able to block Samsung indefinitely.

Why not? If the Samsung is a knock-off job it should be treated the same way as all the other ripoff Asian copies of other peoples' designs and inventions and like pirate CDs, be run over with a steamroller.
post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Olive branch

You don't contact the company you copy and offer a compromise [an olive branch] if you have the upper hand.
post #18 of 47
Samsung should try to offer engrave "Designed by Apple in California Assembled in Korea" at the back of Galaxy Tab. It may work.
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissMac2 View Post

Why not? If the Samsung is a knock-off job it should be treated the same way as all the other ripoff Asian copies of other peoples' designs and inventions and like pirate CDs, be run over with a steamroller.

My sentiments precisely.
post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

As I said in the prior thread Apple has the upper hand or Samsung wouldn't have offered a fig leaf.

Or an olive branch.
post #21 of 47
Still banned over a drawing...I can't agree with that unless the drawing was actually used in the design of a product. It wasn't.

I don't see how people can agree to that. That means any company with any drawing can essentially attempt to bar any company over any product similar to the drawing of the non-existent product.

It'd be an easier pill to swallow if the Tab looked like the iPad exactly or if the TouchWiz overlay was a rip of iOS.
post #22 of 47
i'm no fan of samsung.

there is a rumor (http://www.etnews.com/news/detail.ht...mc=m_012_00001) in s. korea that samsung will use the same courts that apple used to get its injunctions to ban the sale of the iphone 5 in europe. it looks like samsung is going to put on a show.
post #23 of 47
It just seems like an admission of guilt on Samsung's part.
post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

It just seems like an admission of guilt on Samsung's part.

That's like saying every criminal who pleads guilty in court is, well, guilty.

Small problem. A lot of criminals plead guilty just to get lighter sentences even though we'll learn later on they never did the crime. They know their chances of getting off the hook are slim to none.


Samsung just realizes they're at a disadvantage.
post #25 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napoleon_PhoneApart View Post

Or an olive branch.

I like figs more than olives.
post #26 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

It just seems like an admission of guilt on Samsung's part.

Agreeing to remove/change two parts before the case went to trial is more of an admission.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #27 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

Nice opinion. Any real evidence, or just a nice story you have devloped?

Currently Apple has no benefit to get this over with urgently. as the current situation is the one they want. No Samsung sales.

Getting it over urgenty may end up with what htey dont want, Samsung sales.

What are you talking about? Apple is attempting to convey a sense of urgency regarding the possible damage done by what they are arguing is an infringing design, in order expedite a ruling in their favor.

The only "getting over" would be the permanent ban on Galaxy Tab sales.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #28 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

As I said in the prior thread Apple has the upper hand or Samsung wouldn't have offered a fig leaf.

Olive branch? Unless you meant that Sammy is trying to cover up something that it is ashamed of.
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

Apple is big. Samsung is big. They need to exist in this world together. I say let Samsung sell their device above the retail cost of apples. Lets say $99.00 higher than Apples iPad. That gives Apple the advantage and lets samsung sell their device.

So Samsung won't sell as many but they will make $99 MORE PROFIT PER UNIT. How does this help Apple or hurt Samsng? Stupid idea IMO.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #30 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

What are you talking about? Apple is attempting to convey a sense of urgency regarding the possible damage done by what they are arguing is an infringing design, in order expedite a ruling in their favor.

The only "getting over" would be the permanent ban on Galaxy Tab sales.

Assumption of a positive result for an injunction is a big assumption. They are not judging a permanent ban.
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The reason Apple see it as the main competitor is that it's the most blatant copy, hence the bans on Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales in two countries so far.

Perhaps go back to see what the bans are based upon, and the current situation in Australia.
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napoleon_PhoneApart View Post

Or an olive branch.

Perhaps an eucalyptus leaf. Ah, I miss the smell.
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa View Post

Samsung should try to offer engrave "Designed by Apple in California Assembled in Korea" at the back of Galaxy Tab. It may work.

If Samsung had Designed in Korea Made in Australia then it might have a better chance. Then again commodity electronics manufacturing can't compete with banking and mining in terms of "importance" to the Australian economy, at least from what I can see.
post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa View Post

Samsung should try to offer engrave "Designed by Apple in California Assembled in Korea" at the back of Galaxy Tab. It may work.

Best solution yet!
post #35 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

i'm no fan of samsung.

there is a rumor (http://www.etnews.com/news/detail.ht...mc=m_012_00001) in s. korea that samsung will use the same courts that apple used to get its injunctions to ban the sale of the iphone 5 in europe. it looks like samsung is going to put on a show.

A show indeed - must be a lot of money at stake for Samsung to go to all the trouble.
post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa View Post

Samsung should try to offer engrave "Designed by Apple in California Assembled in Korea" at the back of Galaxy Tab. It may work.

or "Designed and Assembled in Korea and loosely resembles a drawing by Apple that has never and will never be an actual product."
post #37 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Banned over a drawing of a non existent product :-\\

Not in Australia.

I know, it can be hard to keep all these lawsuits straight. But in Australia, the major legal obstacle that would impede Samsung from selling its product is apparently the potential infringement of several technological patents, rather than issues of form factor and physical appearance.
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

Not in Australia.

I know, it can be hard to keep all these lawsuits straight. But in Australia, the major legal obstacle that would impede Samsung from selling its product is apparently the potential infringement of several technological patents, rather than issues of form factor and physical appearance.

oh, in that case (depending on the validity of the patents - pro apple or not, a lot of patents are overly broad yet still granted) go Apple.

I'm against the Germany case BECAUSE the object that Samsung infringed upon doesn't look like an iPad...and doesn't even exist.
post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by applecider View Post

You do realize that apple has to make this sound urgent so that the court will act in a timely manner, it doesn't really mean that apple is worried about samsung, only that damage will be done if an infringer is allowed to sell through.

Apple have said that any sale to a competing platform is viewed as a permanent loss of a customer largely because that customer is unlikely to change platforms once they have invested in applications. Turning that around, Apple must believe that they have a customer for life if they make the first sale. With that as a background is it any wonder that Apple have assumed a 'take no prisoners' approach to competitors in general and specifically when dealing with intellectual property issues. Samsung is the leader in the competition not just because of the size of the company, but because it has substantial knowledge of the technical particulars of the Apple product and the cost of components and hence Apple's margins. That knowledge and Samsung's willingness to accept lower margins makes Samsung a formidable competitor. One should not forget that Samsung makes a profit on the manufacture of their components used in the product and benefit from the production volume to amortize costs of their component R&D as well as the production facility. In short, Samsung is even more vertically integrated than Apple.

Apple is at a point where the iPhone is at risk because it is falling further behind the competition both in terms of 4G implementation and pricing of products whic cost the consumer and the carrier a good bit less. Recent data indicate that the sales of smart phones to younger users, even those whose parents have iPhones, have been largely Android based products. Apple's traditional method of justifying the price premium has been to differentiate it's products by quality, device integration and technology incorporated. If rumors are to be believed, Apple is about to introduce new function and features to the new iPhone and will probably have a lower priced model to try to get the new user who they hope will remain with Apple in the future. That still leaves the 4G problem. Thus, the question is whether this new interim model will be enough to keep people carrying them ot the door at retail. We shall see.
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

What are you talking about? Apple is attempting to convey a sense of urgency regarding the possible damage done by what they are arguing is an infringing design, in order expedite a ruling in their favor.

The only "getting over" would be the permanent ban on Galaxy Tab sales.

Please. I have a Galaxy smartphone. I have a Tab. My wife has an iPad and an iPhone. They don't look like each other except that they are rectangular, have a touch screen and are largely all glass covers. This needs to go away and there's room for both. If this ends up in a protected patent IP fight, things can go sideways in a second.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple rejects Samsung compromise offer for Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple rejects Samsung compromise offer for Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia