Apple rejects Samsung compromise offer for Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia
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 achievable?given 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.
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 achievable?given 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.
Comments
"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]."
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.
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.
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.
As I said in the prior thread Apple has the upper hand or Samsung wouldn't have offered a fig leaf.
Olive branch
Olive branch
Samsung is looking fairly exposed at this point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Olive branch
You don't contact the company you copy and offer a compromise [an olive branch] if you have the upper hand.
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.
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.
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.