Samsung says Galaxy Tab 10.1 will launch in Australia, despite Apple complaint
Samsung has revealed that the company still plans to sell a variant of its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Australia in the "near future," despite a court ruling that has barred the release of the U.S. version of the device.
Samsung has said that its forthcoming Galaxy Tab 10.1 set for release in Australia is different from the device sold in the U.S. -- which is the hardware Apple has targeted in its lawsuit. Because it is a different device, the Korean electronics company believes it is free to release its iPad competitor down under, according to a statement released to Ausdroid.net.
"no injunction was issued by the court and the parties in the case reached a mutual agreement which stipulates that the variant in question will not be sold in Australia," the statement says. "A Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 for the Australian market will be released in the near future."
The company did not reveal what the difference is between the U.S. Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the one that Samsung will release in Australia. The statement did reveal that no other Samsung smartphones or tablets are affected in the Australian market or other countries.
"Samsung will continue to actively defend and protect our intellectual property to ensure our continued innovation and growth in the mobile communication business," they said.
It was revealed on Monday that Apple won an agreement in Australian Federal Court preventing Samsung from selling the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1. A report from Bloomberg breaking the story made no distinction between the U.S. and Australian versions of the tablet.
Australia is one of a number of countries where rivals Apple and Samsung have sued each other for alleged copyright infringement. The dispute started in April, when Apple fired the first legal shot and accused Samsung of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad in a lawsuit.
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was added to Apple's case against Samsung in June, along with the Nexus S 4G, Galaxy S smartphones, and Droid Charge. In that filing, Apple asserted that Samsung has become "even bolder" in copying the iPhone and iPad.
Both Samsung and Apple have asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to ban the import of their competitors devices in America. But unlike in Australia, the U.S. commission has not taken such drastic measures thus far.
Samsung has said that its forthcoming Galaxy Tab 10.1 set for release in Australia is different from the device sold in the U.S. -- which is the hardware Apple has targeted in its lawsuit. Because it is a different device, the Korean electronics company believes it is free to release its iPad competitor down under, according to a statement released to Ausdroid.net.
"no injunction was issued by the court and the parties in the case reached a mutual agreement which stipulates that the variant in question will not be sold in Australia," the statement says. "A Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 for the Australian market will be released in the near future."
The company did not reveal what the difference is between the U.S. Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the one that Samsung will release in Australia. The statement did reveal that no other Samsung smartphones or tablets are affected in the Australian market or other countries.
"Samsung will continue to actively defend and protect our intellectual property to ensure our continued innovation and growth in the mobile communication business," they said.
It was revealed on Monday that Apple won an agreement in Australian Federal Court preventing Samsung from selling the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1. A report from Bloomberg breaking the story made no distinction between the U.S. and Australian versions of the tablet.
Australia is one of a number of countries where rivals Apple and Samsung have sued each other for alleged copyright infringement. The dispute started in April, when Apple fired the first legal shot and accused Samsung of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad in a lawsuit.
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was added to Apple's case against Samsung in June, along with the Nexus S 4G, Galaxy S smartphones, and Droid Charge. In that filing, Apple asserted that Samsung has become "even bolder" in copying the iPhone and iPad.
Both Samsung and Apple have asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to ban the import of their competitors devices in America. But unlike in Australia, the U.S. commission has not taken such drastic measures thus far.
Comments
To be fair that Samsung really needs a warning sticker. "This is not an iPad". You really need to know what your are looking for to see the difference. Seems unethical to me just like the fake agreement not to import the other version of knockoff.
If someone can't distinguish an iPad from a Galaxy Tab he has to be blind.
Negafox, it is always fun to have the average commenter refer to the considerable time and effort put out by both of these companies referred to as a "pissing match". I imagine you refer to Niagara Falls as a "slow drip" too.
I was wondering if Samsung was test-marketing their direct retail stores in China - you know - all those look-a-like "Apple Stores", I mean, why not take it to the next level. If you are going to wed yourself to mimicry, why not go all the way??
To be fair that Samsung really needs a warning sticker. "This is not an iPad". You really need to know what your are looking for to see the difference. Seems unethical to me just like the fake agreement not to import the other version of knockoff.
How about "Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in Korea"
They just need to redo the skin and redesign the connector cable and dock....
Why they can't use an standard connector?
How about "Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in Korea"
Best. Comment. Ever.
While some have interpreted that at first sight as a flat denial of the problems Samsung faces down under, the statement is actually very weak. It is, in fact, an admission of pretty serious problems because it denies only strawmen and navigates around the real issues.
Foss thinks Samsung's response is weak:
Perhaps, instead of FOSS Mr. Mueller has to change the name of the blog to fudpatents
She damaged the screen from the back by just caring it in her bag. Samsung needs to change the back from cheap thin plastic to something durable. The staples guy almost snapped the device into two when we showed him the defect screen with bubbles in the center. Yes I got my money back and my wife went back to her iPad.
If you want that someone believes you, you can't be so irreal.
My wife got one to try and returned it in ten days. While it is true that the Galaxy is a true iPad competitor with honeycomb 3.1 and some nice features like a better screen and flash, the device is way to flimsy. She damaged the screen from the back by just caring it in her bag. Samsung needs to change the back from cheap thin plastic to something durable. The staples guy almost snapped the device into two when we showed him the defect screen with bubbles in the center. Yes I got my money back and my wife went back to her iPad.
Right there is Samsung's defense against Apple. They can break the Tab into two in front of the judge and claim, "We didn't copy this from the iPad. "
To be fair that Samsung really needs a warning sticker. "This is not an iPad". You really need to know what your are looking for to see the difference. Seems unethical to me just like the fake agreement not to import the other version of knockoff.
What the Galaxy Tab really needs is a sticker on the back that reads: "Designed by Apple in California"
I can see Samsung scrambling to unwrap all those Tablets, stamping the boxes "Australian version" and rewrapping them.
Negafox, it is always fun to have the average commenter refer to the considerable time and effort put out by both of these companies referred to as a "pissing match". I imagine you refer to Niagara Falls as a "slow drip" too.
I was wondering if Samsung was test-marketing their direct retail stores in China - you know - all those look-a-like "Apple Stores", I mean, why not take it to the next level. If you are going to wed yourself to mimicry, why not go all the way??
Because the difference between "mimicry", "copy" and "competition" fails to get through your thick brain.
Its human nature to label things in as simplest form as possible. The most universally accpeted thoughts are usually in dicotimies. (ie Good vs bad, high vs low, fast vs slow etc). When the grey areas are introduced, people tend to throw it out of their conscious.
No person in their right mind would confuse this for the iPad. The TouchWiz interface on the Galaxy series, maybe. Apple's really being a bitch on this one. If the accessories are the problem, then ask for an injunction against the accessories instead of the whole product. And, no, a similar charging port shouldn't count as an accessory or be the focus of a design infringement lawsuit; nobody makes their purchasing decisions based on a charging port.
once one starts using the pad you would have to be brain dead to not know it wasn't ios, but, if you walk by and pick one up i must admit it looks and feels just like an ipad 2. so i really can't blame apple for the look and feel part of it. funny thing is that i looked at every android tablet available and all of them except for 2 seemed really thick and heavy: samsung 10.1 and the asus transformer (heavier and larger than the samsung by a tad). the samsung is priced with ipad, looks and feels like an ipad, so why buy the samsung and not the ipad?
The article contradicts itself. There's no injunction, yet the court barred the sale of the device? It seems to me that the parties themselves came to the agreement in question.
The analysis I linked to earlier addresses this:
Samsung states that "[n]o injunction was issued by the court". That doesn't mean that Apple's complaint was denied with prejudice. It just means that the court will look at this again as soon as Samsung presents the Australian version of its product, and Samsung does not explain why that one would be less likely to be found infringing than the U.S. version. Until Samsung provides that explanation, the most likely explanation is that this just delays the point in time at which the decision gets taken, but the basis for that decision won't be much different. The court may have been uncomfortable about taking a decision at this stage no matter how much common sense suggests that Samsung's patent infringement problems will be the same with the Australian version of the product.