Australian retailer ignores injunction, sells Galaxy Tab

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
An Australian retailer continues to sell Samsung's Galaxy Tab despite a temporary country-wide injunction, ignoring threats of legal action from Apple.



Online electronics purveyor dMavo has sold and continues to sell the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia under a temporary injunction, and is attempting a risky business restructuring to thwart legal action from Apple, reports The Sydney Morning Herald.



dMavo managing director Wojtek Czarnocki said that his company created "a new entity" to handle requests specifically for Samsung's tablet, hoping to sidestep legal issues related to the injunction by taking orders through a European server outside of Australian court jurisdiction and shipping the tablets from Asia.



Several Australian retailers have ignored Apple's threats and continue to profit from demand for the barred Samsung tablet. Apple has yet to seek any official legal action against the resellers, however the company is reportedly threatening to sue.



"Was Apple just bluffing or do they really want to play the cat and mouse game," Czarnocki asked. "We're up for it."



It would be relatively simple to extend Apple's injunction to individual online resellers because it already applies to device maker Samsung, said Melbourne law firm Watermark's senior associate and patent specialist Mark Summerfield. The iPad maker could apply to the Australian Federal Court for further injunctions even if a seller was based overseas, however it would be difficult to enforce without Apple asking international courts to cooperate.



"Moving the business unit, and the servers, offshore does not absolve them of liability for patent infringement in Australia," Summerfield said. "The acts of selling to Australian purchasers, and importing infringing products into the country, remain actionable as infringements."



The patent lawyer explains that independent Australian companies could be held liable for infringement, costs and damages in this particular case, adding that there is a precedent for such patent disputes.



"In June last year three people were jailed (one of them for three years) for contempt, after ignoring Federal Court injunctions relating to copyright and trademark infringement," Summerfield said. He goes on to allude that Czarnocki could be charged individually as "company directors are not immune from personal liability for decisions made on behalf of a company."



Czarnocki is expecting to sell the Galaxy Tab at least until Samsung's appeal which is set for Nov. 25. According to the dMova manager, Apple would have to bring the retailer to court before that date, which he claims is unlikely to happen.



"We'd be amazed, though not unprepared, should that occur," Czarnocki said.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 56
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ...

    Several Australian retailers have ignored Apple's threats, profiting from demand for the barred Samsung tablet. Currently Apple has not taken sought any official legal action against the resellers.



    "Was Apple just bluffing or do they really want to play the cat and mouse game," Czarnocki asked. "We're up for it."

    ...



    Why don't these people just get iPads?
  • Reply 2 of 56
    So it is clear to me that dMavo is run by criminals. I wouldn't buy from them knowing how they feel about breaking laws. They probably don't treat their employees well either.
  • Reply 3 of 56
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post


    ...They probably don't treat their employees well either.



    They probably beat their wives, too.
  • Reply 4 of 56
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,782member
    Hoping for 2 squares a day in prison?
  • Reply 5 of 56
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,511member
    Funny that the article posted a picture of him and his wife at their wedding. Looks like a vegas-style wedding and he looks like a total player.



    On the story at hand, Apple has billions of dollars in the bank and most likely a nuclear arsenal of lawyers.



    They're not bluffing and dMavo is about to get it right up his backside.
  • Reply 6 of 56
    forisforis Posts: 25member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post


    So it is clear to me that dMavo is run by criminals. I wouldn't buy from them knowing how they feel about breaking laws. They probably don't treat their employees well either.



    Got it in one. This guy already has a criminal record... looks like he's touting for more. Add to that the fact that this story is being given the treatment by Google shill and Apple-hater Asher Moses (aka a Fairfax "journalist"), and you have one grubby little story.
  • Reply 7 of 56
    If they stop this firm, they wont be able to do anythin against any of the SEA owned and operated companies sending the products across to Australia. Then again, the Australians could travel into SEA, NZ, well prettty much anywhere and purchase the product to their hearts content.
  • Reply 8 of 56
    Lol...high tech equivalent of bootleggers and run runners! Outlaws with Internet servers.
  • Reply 9 of 56
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Lot's of snarky irrelevant comments on this tempest in a teapot.

    I don't think it will do much for anybody (the feisty retailers, Samsung, Apple, or Australians.)

    Nobody will go to jail, but might cost them more than the publicity they're clearly seeking.
  • Reply 10 of 56
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 11 of 56
    dunksdunks Posts: 1,254member
    This is just a small time individual trying to leverage the media attention. Other Australian-owned sites operating out of Asia have been doing this media shtick for a while.



    You can predict the length of these matters by the wittiness of the hashtag.
  • Reply 12 of 56
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member
    Someone in Macrumors said



    "Things to note:



    - The injunction against Samsung stands on one product and one product only. Samsung is free to sell any of its upcoming tablets.



    - The judge that granted an injunction is married to one of the senior counsel members of Wentworth 5- the barrister firm representing Apple in the court case. Conflict of interest? "



    If what he said true about the Judge, of course there has been conflict of interest. Now I my curiousity why the Australian Judge awarded the injunction would be solved, if this is confirmed.
  • Reply 13 of 56
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    Why don't these people just get iPads?



    It's Pepsi vs Coke.



    Some people like the taste of android better.
  • Reply 14 of 56
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by deadPeanut View Post


    It's Pepsi vs Coke.



    Some people like the taste of android better.



    More like iPods vs PlaysForSure players made by second-rate manufacturers.



    Some people like the taste of pre-chewed bubble gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe.
  • Reply 15 of 56
    These guys will soon stop selling these Tabs as soon as they found out there really is not a lot of people buying.
  • Reply 16 of 56
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by arjaosx View Post


    These guys will soon stop selling these Tabs as soon as they found out there really is not a lot of people buying.



    If people aren't buying it, then apple wouldn't need an injunction.



    I've played around with android phones from HTC and Samsung. IMHO they're as good as my girlfriends iPhone.
  • Reply 17 of 56
    russellrussell Posts: 296member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post


    So it is clear to me that dMavo is run by criminals. I wouldn't buy from them knowing how they feel about breaking laws. They probably don't treat their employees well either.



    Impersonating an officer isn't breaking the law?

    Ask an employee at Apple's Elk Grove operations or Cupertino area if they are treated well.
  • Reply 18 of 56
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Russell View Post


    Impersonating an officer isn't breaking the law?

    Ask an employee at Apple's Elk Grove operations or Cupertino area if they are treated well.



    How about some evidence that an Apple employee impersonated a police officer?



    Even the guy who made the complaint never said that. He said that the alleged Apple employee didn't say that he WASN'T a police officer - which isn't required by law.
  • Reply 19 of 56
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,590member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hjb View Post


    Someone in Macrumors said



    "Things to note:



    - The injunction against Samsung stands on one product and one product only. Samsung is free to sell any of its upcoming tablets.



    - The judge that granted an injunction is married to one of the senior counsel members of Wentworth 5- the barrister firm representing Apple in the court case. Conflict of interest? "



    If what he said true about the Judge, of course there has been conflict of interest. Now I my curiousity why the Australian Judge awarded the injunction would be solved, if this is confirmed.



    So you are a legal expert? This is nonsense - there is no conflict of interest as law firms make sure to isolate cases such as this from anyone in the firm that might have a conflict. She is a judge, he's a lawyer. So you think one of them needs to give up their job? Total BS.
  • Reply 20 of 56
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    How about some evidence that an Apple employee impersonated a police officer?



    Even the guy who made the complaint never said that. He said that the alleged Apple employee didn't say that he WASN'T a police officer - which isn't required by law.



    No, the didn't say they were police, but it was implied when the two officers introduced themselves.

    The guy who made the complaint said that he never would of let them in if he knew they weren't cops.
Sign In or Register to comment.