Samsung misrepresented its surprise in EU iPad-clone ban
After Apple won a preliminary injunction against sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the EU, Samsung claimed that "injunction was filed with no notice" and that "the order was issued without any hearing or presentation of evidence from Samsung," but both claims appear to be false.
According to a report by FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller, the Landgericht Düsseldorf (German district court) issued a release yesterday noting that Samsung had actually filed a protective "pre-emptive opposition" pleading with the court a week before the injunction was granted.
After the court acted to stop sales of the Galaxy Tab, Samsung claimed in public that Apple had arranged the injunction with any notice and without any presentation of evidence by Samsung, but given that Samsung was actively filing papers against the injunction, those claims do not appear to fit the facts.
Mueller noted that, "This kind of communication strategy on Samsung's part is old-school spin doctoring and only serves to strengthen my impression that Samsung is in a legally weak position against Apple."
Samsung's misrepresentations down under
Samsung published a similarly non-factual response after Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales were blocked in Australia, claiming that "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."
In the same press release, the company claimed both that its agreement with Apple was confined to "a Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 variant that Samsung Electronics had no plans of selling in Australia" and that "a Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 for the Australian market will be released in the near future," as if nothing had happened at all.
In reality, Apple demonstrated the currently shipping American version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to the court, which Samsung construed as being "a variant" that it "had no plans of selling in Australia," because the Australian version hadn't shipped yet.
Samsung agreed to ship Apple three editions of its Australian versions for review before going on sale in Australia, but those models weren't ready yet. The company has no ship date for the "variants" it plans to actually sell, and offers no comment on what will change to help get the devices past the intellectual property infringements that were holding up existing "variants."
Further, the only reason "no injunction was issued by the court" was because Samsung voluntarily agreed not to sell it, making a legal injunction unnecessary.
This all happened before
Samsung's wild public spin of the legal proceedings that are interrupting sales of the tablets Apple refers to as "slavish copying" of the iPad is reminiscent of the company's original introduction of the new model, which depicted actors presenting phony experiences of having their life changed by the as yet unreleased product.
Samsung also claimed its new Galaxy Tab 10.1, which was still months away from release, was lighter and thinner than Apple's iPad 2. Reviewers at InformationWeek comparing the new Galaxy Tab prototype against iPad 2 have since published photos that show that the iPad 2 is actually thinner than the nonfunctional cases Samsung demonstrated.
After asking Samsung for comment, the report stated, "there was really no official Samsung response other than to say that the specifications are 8.6 mm. He was at a loss for words."
Last fall, Samsung similarly announced sales of its original Galaxy Tab had reached 2 million, before admitting that its "sales" were simply inventory padding shipped to stores, and that actual sales to end users were far smaller.
According to a report by FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller, the Landgericht Düsseldorf (German district court) issued a release yesterday noting that Samsung had actually filed a protective "pre-emptive opposition" pleading with the court a week before the injunction was granted.
After the court acted to stop sales of the Galaxy Tab, Samsung claimed in public that Apple had arranged the injunction with any notice and without any presentation of evidence by Samsung, but given that Samsung was actively filing papers against the injunction, those claims do not appear to fit the facts.
Mueller noted that, "This kind of communication strategy on Samsung's part is old-school spin doctoring and only serves to strengthen my impression that Samsung is in a legally weak position against Apple."
Samsung's misrepresentations down under
Samsung published a similarly non-factual response after Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales were blocked in Australia, claiming that "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."
In the same press release, the company claimed both that its agreement with Apple was confined to "a Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 variant that Samsung Electronics had no plans of selling in Australia" and that "a Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 for the Australian market will be released in the near future," as if nothing had happened at all.
In reality, Apple demonstrated the currently shipping American version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to the court, which Samsung construed as being "a variant" that it "had no plans of selling in Australia," because the Australian version hadn't shipped yet.
Samsung agreed to ship Apple three editions of its Australian versions for review before going on sale in Australia, but those models weren't ready yet. The company has no ship date for the "variants" it plans to actually sell, and offers no comment on what will change to help get the devices past the intellectual property infringements that were holding up existing "variants."
Further, the only reason "no injunction was issued by the court" was because Samsung voluntarily agreed not to sell it, making a legal injunction unnecessary.
This all happened before
Samsung's wild public spin of the legal proceedings that are interrupting sales of the tablets Apple refers to as "slavish copying" of the iPad is reminiscent of the company's original introduction of the new model, which depicted actors presenting phony experiences of having their life changed by the as yet unreleased product.
Samsung also claimed its new Galaxy Tab 10.1, which was still months away from release, was lighter and thinner than Apple's iPad 2. Reviewers at InformationWeek comparing the new Galaxy Tab prototype against iPad 2 have since published photos that show that the iPad 2 is actually thinner than the nonfunctional cases Samsung demonstrated.
After asking Samsung for comment, the report stated, "there was really no official Samsung response other than to say that the specifications are 8.6 mm. He was at a loss for words."
Last fall, Samsung similarly announced sales of its original Galaxy Tab had reached 2 million, before admitting that its "sales" were simply inventory padding shipped to stores, and that actual sales to end users were far smaller.
Comments
Source Marco.org
what a pathetic company.
If this report is true.... How is this Blog any more valid than the last report from Samsung????
This isn't really relevant but I think people will enjoy it anyway
Source Marco.org
Wow, looking pretty good up against such legendarily successful gadgets
If this report is true.... How is this Blog any more valid than the last report from Samsung????
What on earth do you mean? Samsung claimed that they hadn't had a chance to present their side of the case before the preliminary injunction. Mueller has turned up the fact that they did. Are you claiming that he's wrong? That he's lying? That it doesn't matter? What?
Samsung needs to learn that old cowboy saying: "Never miss a good opportunity to shut up."
Wow, looking pretty good up against such legendarily successful gadgets
I figured that was probably the point.
Besides, if they tossed the iPad?s, what, 30 million units, onto the graph, it would look a little distorted. Though that too would be fairly amusing.
What on earth do you mean? Samsung claimed that they hadn't had a chance to present their side of the case before the preliminary injunction. Mueller has turned up the fact that they did. Are you claiming that he's wrong? That he's lying? That it doesn't matter? What?
I am saying that his blog has not been validated any more than Samsung's claimes have been validated...
Yes, I think it is quite possible either one is lying, but which one?
I am saying that his blog has not been validated any more than Samsung's claimes have been validated...
Yes, I think it is quite possible either one is lying, but which one?
Given the motivations of both, I'll take Mueller's posts over Sam 'Quite Smooth' Sung.
I am saying that his blog has not been validated any more than Samsung's claimes have been validated...
Yes, I think it is quite possible either one is lying, but which one?
Since Samsung have a consistent practice of stretching the truth, then as they say 'leopards can't change their spots'
Unfortunately if you think that Samsung has not copied iPad, then you are blind or living in dreamland.
I am saying that his blog has not been validated any more than Samsung's claimes have been validated...
Yes, I think it is quite possible either one is lying, but which one?
If you read his blog you'd note he discusses a press release, which he provides a link to.
http://www.lg-duesseldorf.nrw.de/pre...2009/11-09.pdf
I believe you'll find the relevant passage is
'Bei der Entscheidung lag der Kammer weiterhin eine Schutzschrift der Verfügungsbeklagten vom 29.07.2011 vor, in der diese im Wesentlichen vorgetragen haben, dem Antrag der Firma Apple Inc. fehle es an der für eine einstweilige Verfügung erforderlichen Dringlichkeit'
Which talks about the defendant having made a Schutzschrift on the 29th of July. My german is terrible so I'll not attempt a direct translation. Play with google translate a bit and you should be able to puzzle it out, or ask a friendly german of course.
I figured that was probably the point.
I was aware that that was the point. I thought the graph was quite amusing.
If this report is true.... How is this Blog any more valid than the last report from Samsung????
Sorry. I can't really be bothered to reply to this.
I think you mean without any notice...
This isn't really relevant but I think people will enjoy it anyway
Source Marco.org
I loved my turbo GFX16 and the portable gaming device (Lynx?) that used the same cartridges as the console. Loved the thin cartridges.
PS Samsung is grasping at straws.
Spewing out knee-jerk reactions to Apple lawsuits might fool some of the people some of the time. But it won't fool any judges.
Samsung needs to learn that old cowboy saying: "Never miss a good opportunity to shut up."
You haven't been reading the comments of Apple haters on CNET or the like. It has fooled all of those people all of the time. They cry for Samsung the "poor victim" and scream at Apple the "mean control freaks". It just goes to show you that people will believe their hearts more than the facts any day.
I started my career in part-time computer support for my organization and it was the facts that got me interested in Macs and Apple. It is my heart that makes me love the facts about Apple's greatness.