or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple and Samsung's Australian case so large it calls for 'unprecedented' two-judge system
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple and Samsung's Australian case so large it calls for 'unprecedented' two-judge system

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
Apple and Samsung returned to Australian court on Monday to continue their years long patent battle, though a consolidation of patent claims has necessitated two federal court judges to hear the case, something that has reportedly never been done in the country.

Australian Federal Court


According to in-court reports from The Australian Financial Review, the two-judge system was required due to the sheer volume of patents in suit, with Apple alone asserting 19 properties on 120 infringement claims. The Cupertino, Calif., company is targeting nine Samsung smartphones and two tablets, while the Korean tech giant is leveraging seven wireless patents in counterclaims against the iPhone and iPad.

Apple counsel Stephen Burley said Monday's hearing was "the first time in the history of the Federal Court" that two judges presided over an initial case. Justice Annabelle Bennett, who has been part of the proceedings since the case began in 2011, is being joined by Justice David Yates in an attempt to sift through the mire of complex patents and filings.

In Monday's hearing, Burley attempted to demonstrate that the iPhone was effectively copied by showing archival footage of late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs introducing the original version of the handset at Macworld in 2007. During his keynote, Jobs went over a number of key hardware and software features, including multi-touch and Visual Voicemail.

Seen as somewhat of a quip at the time, Jobs noted after giving a run down of the original iPhone's multi-touch capabilities, "And boy, have we patented it."

Apple has had success in Australia's courts in the past, including an injunction against the Galaxy 10.1 tablet handed down by Justice Bennett in 2011. The ban was ultimately overturned on appeal.

The Australian Federal Court case is scheduled to run through the end of 2013.
post #2 of 14

I'm pretty sure that an already decided case doesn't require this much media crap or even a single judge.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #3 of 14
Two judges? So Apple doesn't have a patent on multi¿

These patent cases just linger on. I guess there's simply no end to this all. What's next? Apple to distribute TV in a different way, and the 'competition' to claim prior art? At least we won't see future patent claims to Google Glass.
post #4 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Two judges? So Apple doesn't have a patent on multi¿

These patent cases just linger on. I guess there's simply no end to this all. What's next? Apple to distribute TV in a different way, and the 'competition' to claim prior art? At least we won't see future patent claims to Google Glass.

There's already a dozen of them or more just on the hardware side of the project...

 

Here's a good but relatively unknown site that stays current on Google tech developments. 

http://www.seobythesea.com/2013/01/google-glass-hardware-patents/

http://www.seobythesea.com/2013/01/project-glass-patents/

 

Fortunately Google hasn't yet shown a tendency to sue over their IP. They just filed their first patent infringement suit in company history only two weeks ago. Hopefully it never becomes a habit.

 

Anyway, back to the thread topic. The Australian case has been so quiet for the past year or more I had forgotten all about it. Apparently they move no faster than US courts and with that much IP and so many claims this one probably ain't gonna be over for a looong time.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #5 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Fortunately Google hasn't yet shown a tendency to sue over their IP. They just filed their first patent infringement suit in company history only two weeks ago. Hopefully it never becomes a habit.

I'll read the links later, thanks.

I assume Google never sued before because they didn't have any patents before MM?
post #6 of 14
So when Apple wins this suit the conspiracies about the two judges being "in cahoots" will start to fly.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #7 of 14
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
So when Apple wins this suit the conspiracies about the two judges being "in cahoots" will start to fly.

 

"Apple has $130 billion. Even in Australian dollars, that's easily enough to bribe BOTH judges."

 

What's next, a Canadian Apple v. Samsung that features five judges?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #8 of 14
I think that Apple needs to widen this case into a kind of "class action" lawsuit. If the enjoin other companies that Samsung has willfully ripped off, they can show a pattern of abuse -- which makes it easier than trying to prove every bit of "prior art" or whether Apple deserves a patent for X, Y and Z. It's lear that Samsung's smartphones and pads that sell -- are rip offs, but it's a collection of patents and designs.



My mother picked up the Galaxy S phone for $49. Does any idiot want to argue why this phone is selling so well now? It's a good phone -- where it copies apple. Every bit of it that doesn't act like and iPhone -- shows poor design, ham-fisted design aesthetics, and no real clue as to how people interact. You know, like the cool light it has on it for photos and videos has to be turned off by exiting the app, going to the home screen -- swiping until you get the 1st home screen (there are 4 or 5 but you have to notice the dots to know that -- a divergence from the iPhone and it sucks). Then there's a bug on the center left of the screen that you drag out to turn it off/on.



Anyway -- my point is, that Apple is getting a reputation (because it's cheaper to hire media shills than to create good designs) for lawsuits. That they do pretty little things and then pretend they invented rounded corners. The Rounded corners are merely part of a shopping list -- pages long, of design elements that Samsung "borrowed" -- taken as a whole, it's the iPhone.



However, Samsung is in the manufacturing business -- and a lot of companies have their electronics go through the Samsung factories. The "good ones" get to enjoy that awesome honor of having their privileged manufacturer "borrow" design tech and processes that any cloner would kill to have. Samsung knows where all the parts come from, knows every step of making their competitors goods -- and so they can turn around on a dime and do it cheaper.



Apple isn't the only company Samsung has done this to, and it's about time this court case expands to reflect that. Because let's be real; it's more than a court case -- it's public perception. If a dozen or more companies come forward and say; "we got mugged too" -- it's no longer about Apple anymore -- it's now about Samesong. Companies will start getting their electronics fabbed with another Chinese company -- because the discounts at Samsung turn out to be too expensive.
Edited by Fake_William_Shatner - 2/26/13 at 7:28am
post #9 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


I'll read the links later, thanks.

I assume Google never sued before because they didn't have any patents before MM?

 

More like they didn't have a shipping product before. Google is a services company and most of their IP is behind a firewall. They have quite a few apps but those are more on an open source model (they are good to this community) -- but those all aim back at their service platform.
post #10 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

More like they didn't have a shipping product before. Google is a services company and most of their IP is behind a firewall. They have quite a few apps but those are more on an open source model (they are good to this community) -- but those all aim back at their service platform.

Exactly, that is indeed what I thought. Possibly Gatorguy has 'more on it'...

I would your other post but it's a bit difficult without paragraphs; can you go back in and edit?
post #11 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


I'll read the links later, thanks.

I assume Google never sued before because they didn't have any patents before MM?

They already had a couple thousand prior to the Moto purchase. They've always stated an aversion to filing lawsuits, considering it a matter of last resort. I hope that doesn't change,

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #12 of 14
For some reason my Paragraph returns never show up on AppleInsider. It might be because I've got various controls on cookies, javascripts and trackers going (I turn on things that allow the website to work and that's it). I'll try and put in

Returns by using HTML -- but it doesn't always parse them correctly.

post #13 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

They already had a couple thousand prior to the Moto purchase. They've always stated an aversion to filing lawsuits, considering it a matter of last resort. I hope that doesn't change,

Ah, ok, thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

More like they didn't have a shipping product before. Google is a services company and most of their IP is behind a firewall. They have quite a few apps but those are more on an open source model (they are good to this community) -- but those all aim back at their service platform.

That is what I expected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

I think that Apple needs to widen this case into a kind of "class action" lawsuit. If the enjoin other companies that Samsung has willfully ripped off, they can show a pattern of abuse -- which makes it easier than trying to prove every bit of "prior art" or whether Apple deserves a patent for X, Y and Z. It's lear that Samsung's smartphones and pads that sell -- are rip offs, but it's a collection of patents and designs.

Fully agree, good point.
Quote:
Anyway -- my point is, that Apple is getting a reputation (because it's cheaper to hire media shills than to create good designs) for lawsuits. That they do pretty little things and then pretend they invented rounded corners. The Rounded corners are merely part of a shopping list -- pages long, of design elements that Samsung "borrowed" -- taken as a whole, it's the iPhone.

However, Samsung is in the manufacturing business -- and a lot of companies have their electronics go through the Samsung factories. The "good ones" get to enjoy that awesome honor of having their privileged manufacturer "borrow" design tech and processes that any cloner would kill to have. Samsung knows where all the parts come from, knows every step of making their competitors goods -- and so they can turn around on a dime and do it cheaper.

Apple isn't the only company Samsung has done this to, and it's about time this court case expands to reflect that. Because let's be real; it's more than a court case -- it's public perception. If a dozen or more companies come forward and say; "we got mugged too" -- it's no longer about Apple anymore -- it's now about Samesong. Companies will start getting their electronics fabbed with another Chinese company -- because the discounts at Samsung turn out to be too expensive.

Excellent points here; I think Asian companies really believe that to copy someones else's work is indeed meant as flattery: they do this in so many markets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

For some reason my Paragraph returns never show up on AppleInsider. It might be because I've got various controls on cookies, javascripts and trackers going (I turn on things that allow the website to work and that's it). I'll try and put in
Returns by using HTML -- but it doesn't always parse them correctly.

Thanks for the fix. Don't really know why that was needed to begin with; I just hit the Quote button, and start typing, paragraph breaks and all - like Apple, just works.
post #14 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

However, Samsung is in the manufacturing business -- and a lot of companies have their electronics go through the Samsung factories.  The "good ones" get to enjoy that awesome honor of having their privileged manufacturer "borrow" design tech and processes that any cloner would kill to have. Samsung knows where all the parts come from, knows every step of making their competitors goods -- and so they can turn around on a dime and do it cheaper.

 

Can you give us an example of such a company whose product was built "through the Samsung factories", and then cloned?   Thanks!   

 

(Apple devices were not put together by Samsung.)

 

As for parts, selling CPUs and Flash memory does not tell a chip manufacturer what the end device's UI or shape looks like.


Edited by KDarling - 2/26/13 at 2:20pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple and Samsung's Australian case so large it calls for 'unprecedented' two-judge system