or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Australian court overturns ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, Apple to appeal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Australian court overturns ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, Apple to appeal

post #1 of 120
Thread Starter 
An Australian court has overturned a preliminary injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 as part of the ongoing legal battle between Apple and its rival, but the iPad maker has indicated that it will appeal the ruling.

Gizmodo Australia reported on Wednesday that the Australian Federal Court had reversed an earlier decision to block sales of the South Korean electronics maker's 10.1-inch tablet.

The original ruling came last month from Justice Annabelle Bennett. Following the initial injunction, Samsung was quick to appeal the decision in hopes of releasing the device in time for the valuable Christmas shopping season.

Samsung lawyer Neil Young said in October that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 would be "dead" if it was delayed past Christmas.

According to the report, Apple announced its plan to appeal Wednesday's decision to the High Court "within minutes of the verdict being handed down." The Cupertino, Calif., company requested that the injunction remain in place until the appeal. The court agreed, issuing a "stay of orders" until Friday afternoon to give Apple time to file its appeal.



In response to Apple's complaints, Samsung has fired back with its own legal action against the company in Australia. Earlier this month, Justice Bennett set a March 2012 date for a full hearing on Samsung's patent complaints against its rival's iPhone and iPad devices.

Apple also succeeded in winning an injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 In Germany. Samsung has tried to work around the ban in the country by releasing a redesigned Galaxy Tab 10.1N. The company added a metal frame around the edges in an effort to circumvent Apple's deisgn-related intellectual property. Apple has filed a request to stop sales of the new device, with a hearing set for Dec. 22.
post #2 of 120
Tune in tomorrow for another episode of "As the Tablet World Turns" lol

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #3 of 120
Finally!, been waiting on this and didnt want to order from overseas.
post #4 of 120
Samsung is a cheating copy cat...
Their engineers must really take the iPads apart in order to copy them so closely.
I hope Apple drills them a new one.

Time will tell.
post #5 of 120
Finally some common sense! Comes down to the original Judge did not apply the law correctly.
post #6 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Samsung is a cheating copy cat...
Their engineers must really take the iPads apart in order to copy them so closely.
I hope Apple drills them a new one.

Time will tell.

I hear a clock ticking on Samsung TV dominance.
They'll get theirs.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #7 of 120
[IMG][/IMG]
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Finally some common sense! Comes down to the original Judge did not apply the law correctly.

Sure looks that way... Now it's time for Apple to compete rather than merely block.

They're both very nice devices, so either way the consumer wins.

"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #8 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by funkdis View Post

Finally!, been waiting on this and didnt want to order from overseas.

I know a lot of people in the same position.

I can't help but wonder if Apple didn't try to block the Galaxy if so many people would still want one.
post #9 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Now it's time for Apple to compete rather than merely block.

Because up until now Apple hasn't been competitive in the tablet market¡

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #10 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Because up until now Apple hasn't been competitive in the tablet market¡

Not when they don't even afford consumers a chance to choose by trying to block sale of competing products.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #11 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

[IMG][/IMG]

They're both very nice devices, so either way the consumer wins.

Of course, both are nice since one is a slavish copy of the other. And, no, if companies can't protect their IP there will be less innovation so the consumer will lose in the long-run.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


Sure looks that way... Now it's time for Apple to compete rather than merely block.

Like competing with a Xerox copy. That's not competition.

Regardless, the injunction on sales stays in place until the appeal is heard, etc. etc. and Samesung will be chewed up and mangled by the Australian legal system until next Christmas.
post #12 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Not when they don't even afford consumers a chance to choose by trying to block sale of competing products.

Oh please, get off your shaky pedestal and stop spinning this to make it sound like it's for the "consumers".

Simple fact. Company A makes a product, Company B copies it. Company B lets Company A do all the R&D on everything from the product, packaging, presentation, advertisement and shamefully pass it off as their own.

This has nothing to do with what's best for consumers. This is about protecting one's IP, and you very well know it.

You want what's best for consumers? Let Samsung actually design their own products and create a truly unique product and experience. That's consumer choice. That way, we all win.
post #13 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Oh please, get off your shaky pedestal and stop spinning this to make it sound like it's for the "consumers".

Simple fact. Company A makes a product, Company B copies it. Company B lets Company A do all the R&D on everything from the product, packaging, presentation, advertisement and shamefully pass it off as their own.

This has nothing to do with what's best for consumers. This is about protecting one's IP, and you very well know it.

You want what's best for consumers? Let Samsung actually design their own products and create a truly unique product and experience. That's consumer choice. That way, we all win.

In the end it's not even relevant. As far as I can tell, this holiday season people are rushing to buy the Kindle Fire, or those Acer/Asus/Toshiba/Lenovo cheap tablets, few people want the Galaxy Tab. Even the Playbook got a boost by lowering the price to $199.
post #14 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Finally some common sense! Comes down to the original Judge did not apply the law correctly.

Or did.

Apparently the laws are that an injunction can only be granted if it is felt that the requesting party will win the final case. Bennett believed the answer to that question was yes.

This new judge believes the answer will be no, Samsung will win. So the injunction was lifted.

Come Friday Apple could file their appeal and win and the injunction is back. Samsung will file their appeal and get it reversed and so on and so on until the final case
post #15 of 120
Now Samsung is free to have zero sales in Australia.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #16 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Oh please, get off your shaky pedestal and stop spinning this to make it sound like it's for the "consumers".

Simple fact. Company A makes a product, Company B copies it. Company B lets Company A do all the R&D on everything from the product, packaging, presentation, advertisement and shamefully pass it off as their own.

This has nothing to do with what's best for consumers. This is about protecting one's IP, and you very well know it.

You want what's best for consumers? Let Samsung actually design their own products and create a truly unique product and experience. That's consumer choice. That way, we all win.

If that's what it takes to make you feel better...

Though my Galaxy Tab 10.1 is of a completely different aspect ratio, material composition, and screen resolution than either my iPad or iPad 2, the camera locations are completely different as are the operating systems on which the devices run, and the GT 10.1 doesn't feature a single [HOME] button anywhere on its front surface, in addition to being both thinner and lighter than either of my Apple tablets.

Anyone who could go into a store, see a Samsung Galaxy Tab in a box clearly marked SAMSUNG GALAXY TAB and Android Technology, and still thinks it's an Apple iPad is likely too daft to ever use a modern piece of technology anyway.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #17 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Now Samsung is free to have zero sales in Australia.

..

lol
post #18 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

If that's what it takes to make you feel better...

Though my Galaxy Tab 10.1 is of a completely different aspect ratio, material composition, and screen resolution than either my iPad or iPad 2, the camera locations are completely different as are the operating systems on which the devices run, and the GT 10.1 doesn't feature a single [HOME] button anywhere on its front surface, in addition to being both thinner and lighter than either of my Apple tablets.

Anyone who could go into a store, see a Samsung Galaxy Tab in a box clearly marked SAMSUNG GALAXY TAB and Android Technology, and still thinks it's an Apple iPad is likely too daft to ever use a modern piece of technology anyway.

Remember: Your View-Point Is Not The Only Perspective
post #19 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Oh please, get off your shaky pedestal and stop spinning this to make it sound like it's for the "consumers".

Simple fact. Company A makes a product, Company B copies it. Company B lets Company A do all the R&D on everything from the product, packaging, presentation, advertisement and shamefully pass it off as their own.

This has nothing to do with what's best for consumers. This is about protecting one's IP, and you very well know it.

You want what's best for consumers? Let Samsung actually design their own products and create a truly unique product and experience. That's consumer choice. That way, we all win.

Oh, he fundamentally doesn't get your argument.

Here's an analogy. If DaHarder was in history class, he'd happily copy the top student's answers on the final exam knowing that it'll boost his own score on the test. And if the top student should complain about it, DaHarder would accuse the top student of trying to "block competition" instead of "competing fairly."

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #20 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

If that's what it takes to make you feel better...

Though my Galaxy Tab 10.1 is of a completely different aspect ratio, material composition, and screen resolution than either my iPad or iPad 2, the camera locations are completely different as are the operating systems on which the devices run, and the GT 10.1 doesn't feature a single [HOME] button anywhere on its front surface, in addition to being both thinner and lighter than either of my Apple tablets.

Anyone who could go into a store, see a Samsung Galaxy Tab in a box clearly marked SAMSUNG GALAXY TAB and Android Technology, and still thinks it's an Apple iPad is likely too daft to ever use a modern piece of technology anyway.

There is more to the Apple vs Samsung case than just the box... trade-dress infringement is only one of Apple's claims.

It goes much deeper with IP and patents.
post #21 of 120
If something *that* much a copy doesn't get banned then nothing will. Patents are obviously meaningless in Australia. Or those judges think their job is to dispense "fairness." No sorry, it's to dispense justice, i.e. to punish wrongdoers, such as Samsung in this case. So do your job.
post #22 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

If something *that* much a copy doesn't get banned then nothing will. Patents are obviously meaningless in Australia. Or those judges think their job is to dispense "fairness." No sorry, it's to dispense justice, i.e. to punish wrongdoers, such as Samsung in this case. So do your job.

Can you explain what the case in Australia is about? Because I think you don't know nothing about it
post #23 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

If something *that* much a copy doesn't get banned then nothing will. Patents are obviously meaningless in Australia. Or those judges think their job is to dispense "fairness." No sorry, it's to dispense justice, i.e. to punish wrongdoers, such as Samsung in this case. So do your job.

ASCII. The next justice on the bench of the FCA. LOL

What was copied? What was issue in this case? Very little to do with the shape, evidently:

From ITWire:

"It left two remaining patents relied on by Apple to push its case, comprising a heuristics patent (2007286532), which corrected a user's intended finger gestures on the touch screen, and the manufacturing techniques behind the iPad and iPad 2's touch screen (2005246219)."
post #24 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

If something *that* much a copy doesn't get banned then nothing will. Patents are obviously meaningless in Australia. Or those judges think their job is to dispense "fairness." No sorry, it's to dispense justice, i.e. to punish wrongdoers, such as Samsung in this case. So do your job.

I'll be the first to condemn Samsung when it comes to TouchWiz. I think they intentionally copied Apple's trade dress to sell phones.

The tablets though are a different story.

A person would have to be a complete idiot to look at a Galaxy Tab and an iPad and think they were the same thing.
post #25 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

If that's what it takes to make you feel better...

Though my Galaxy Tab 10.1 is of a completely different aspect ratio, material composition, and screen resolution than either my iPad or iPad 2, the camera locations are completely different as are the operating systems on which the devices run, and the GT 10.1 doesn't feature a single [HOME] button anywhere on its front surface, in addition to being both thinner and lighter than either of my Apple tablets.

Anyone who could go into a store, see a Samsung Galaxy Tab in a box clearly marked SAMSUNG GALAXY TAB and Android Technology, and still thinks it's an Apple iPad is likely too daft to ever use a modern piece of technology anyway.

Obviously, the only viewpoint that matters is the one in his own mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Oh, he fundamentally doesn't get your argument.

Here's an analogy. If DaHarder was in history class, he'd happily copy the top student's answers on the final exam knowing that it'll boost his own score on the test. And if the top student should complain about it, DaHarder would accuse the top student of trying to "block competition" instead of "competing fairly."

Your analogy would have sprayed everywhere had I been drinking at the time I read your post! That describes DaHarder perfectly!
post #26 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

A person would have to be a complete idiot to look at a Galaxy Tab and an iPad and think they were the same thing.

Oh yeah, the Galaxy Tab is a true original. Created a whole new category of device they did, Samsung.
post #27 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I hear a clock ticking on Samsung TV dominance.
They'll get theirs.

You wish.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #28 of 120
Just in time for the fire sales to begin to get rid of Galaxy Tabs no one wants.
post #29 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

You wish.

That's your reply?! Seriously?! You could at least put a little effort into your post. Perhaps create a counter-argument that paints a picture as to how Samsung got to a successful position in TV sales and how their empire in this market segment is built well enough that even a disruptive company like Apple won't be able to shake their position.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #30 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

the Galaxy Tab is a true original. Created a whole new category of device they did, Samsung.

I completely and utterly disagree. The Galaxy Tab isn't a new device category at all.

The Galaxy Tab is definitely Samsung's/Google's take on the same tablet market the iPad is in.
post #31 of 120
DaHarder

Once a troll always a troll. ignore!
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
post #32 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

The Galaxy Tab is definitely Samsung's/Google's take on the same tablet market the iPad is in.

That's not how I see it. There was no (significant) tablet market, everyone was fighting over Netbooks. Then out of nowhere Apple came out with the iPad, and it was unexpectedly successful, and other companies, caught off guard by this success, rushed to copy it as close as they legally (and intellectually) could.

If that's how to we got to where we are, it is disingenuous to regard the Samsung and the Apple as simply competitor tablets. It would be truer to it's origins to say the Galaxy is not the Samsung tablet, but the Samsung iPad, and therefore Apple have every right to take a close legal look at it.
post #33 of 120
LG had an iPAD out in 2001! Almost a decade before the Apple's iPAD. Obviously, the idea for these devices are not as "creative" as Apple would like us to think it is.


"The Digital iPAD, a Linux-based Web pad, was demonstrated for the first time by South Korean hardware manufacturer LG Electronics at the CeBIT computer fair in Hanover, Germany this week."

http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/N...-pad-at-CeBIT/
post #34 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenadams View Post

LG had an iPAD out in 2001! Almost a decade before the Apple's iPAD. Obviously, the idea for these devices are not as "creative" as Apple would like us to think it is.


"The Digital iPAD, a Linux-based Web pad, was demonstrated for the first time by South Korean hardware manufacturer LG Electronics at the CeBIT computer fair in Hanover, Germany this week."

http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/N...-pad-at-CeBIT/

1) What is your point? That Apple isn't the first one to use the letters i-p-a-d to form a word or that tablets existed before Apple's iPad.

2) I have doubts that device was ever more than a dressed up skunkworks project as I can't find any reviews or sales on the device. I can find info on Fujitsu's iPad which arrived in 2002. It's presumed Apple paid Fujitsu around $4 million for the trademark.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #35 of 120
The point being that Apple didn't create the mousetrap but just built a better one and they shouldn't go nuts just because a competitor decides to build an even better mousetrap, they're both playing the same game. These patent lawsuits are ridiculous and the only losers are going to be us, the customers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) What is your point? That Apple isn't the first one to use the letters i-p-a-d to form a word or that tablets existed before Apple's iPad.

2) I have doubts that device was ever more than a dressed up skunkworks project as I can't find any reviews or sales on the device. I can find info on Fujitsu's iPad which arrived in 2002. It's presumed Apple paid Fujitsu around $4 million for the trademark.
post #36 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenadams View Post

The point being that Apple didn't create the mousetrap but just built a better one and they shouldn't go nuts just because a competitor decides to build an even better mousetrap, they're both playing the same game. These patent lawsuits are ridiculous and the only losers are going to be us, the customers.

So you're saying that Apple shouldn't sue a company for creating a device that they feel infringes on specific patents because the device exists in a product category that Apple wasn't the first to enter? That's neither rational nor explains why you choose the LG Digital iPAD when computer tablets existing much earlier. I'd say you choose the LG Digital iPAD specifically because of its name, therefore a trademark argument, not a patent argument.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #37 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

~SolipsismX~

Better, Harder, Faster, Stronger?
post #38 of 120
Apple should take what if any case they have with Google. As for design, look at the picture, there's a center button on the bottom that looks simple and similar to the Apple iPAD.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So you're saying that Apple shouldn't sue a company for creating a device that they feel infringes on specific patents because the device exists in a product category that Apple wasn't the first to enter? That's neither rational nor explains why you choose the LG Digital iPAD when computer tablets existing much earlier. I'd say you choose the LG Digital iPAD specifically because of its name, therefore a trademark argument, not a patent argument.
post #39 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Then out of nowhere Apple came out with the iPad, and it was unexpectedly successful, and other companies, caught off guard by this success, rushed to copy it as close as they legally (and intellectually) could.

If that is the case I can't see how you end up at the conclusion that the Galaxy Tab is a copy of the iPad. The Galaxy Tab and the iPad are different in both form and function.

If you had spent any amount of time with Android tablets and the iPad you would know what I mean.

What you can reasonably (and correctly) say is that Samsung copied Apple's market strategy.
post #40 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenadams View Post

Apple should take what if any case they have with Google. As for design, look at the picture, there's a center button on the bottom that looks simple and similar to the Apple iPAD.

No there isn't. Check again.

Whilst you're at it note that it's also designed for landscape and has a 16x9 display ratio.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Australian court overturns ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, Apple to appeal
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Australian court overturns ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, Apple to appeal