# Judge blocks Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales in Australia at Apple’s request!



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 13, 2011)

Jesus, the patent troll war continues...



> Claiming Samsung copied the iPad’s design, Apple has successfully achieved their mission in getting an Australian judge to block Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 from being sold in Australia,reports _Sydney Morning Herald_. Apple says that Samsung is infringing on two patents, and the judge ruled until changes are made the Galaxy Tab 10.1 can’t be sold from this point on.
> 
> Apple and Samsung have current litigation continuing over in Europe and the United States. Apple has already successfully blocked the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany and hopes to do so elsewhere.
> ​Samsung won’t start addressing the core patent issue (screen patent) with the Galaxy Tab 10.1 quite yet. They want to prepare a proper defense against Apple. Interestingly, Samsung has setup a temporary store across from a Sydney Apple Store selling Samsung Galaxy S IIs for $2, to detract from the upcoming iPhone 4S launch Friday. The fight continues…



Incredible! Samsung are going to lose the few sales they would have made in the holiday sales if this ban holds. Looks like this war is going to continue...anyone want to lay bets on who will come out on top?


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2011)

It's all bullshit from start to finish. I hope Samsung are successful in blocking the iPhone 4S so that they all then have to come to their fucking senses and stop this ridiculous nonsense - which us consumers are ultimately all funding.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 13, 2011)

Indeed it is but Samsung's response will just make it worse, when everyone throws mud everyone gets dirty. And it's possible Android may be screwed in Australia according to this:



> “After today’s decision, I believe no company in the industry [will] be able to launch any new Android-based touchscreen product in Australia anytime soon without incurring a high risk of another interim injunction,” writes the oft-cited patent blog FOSS Patents.


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2011)

With the way Apple are gunning for them on these _probably legal but frankly dodgy_ patent claims, Samsung has no choice now but to take the fight to Apple. No choice at all. What else can they do? They offered Apple a compromise a while ago and were told to stuff it.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 13, 2011)

Apple also offered them a deal early on too. I'm not saying I agree but I totally see why Apple have chosen this course.


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2011)

I don't recall any Apple deal being offered before they'd starting trying to block Samsung sales. When was this?

Samsung's offer is well documented though, but it would appear that Apple are trying to kill off the competition through the courts.


> Lawyers for Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. on Friday offered Apple Inc. a deal on a patent dispute over the two companies’ tablet computers that could allow the Korean company to launch its Galaxy Tab 10.1 device in Australia.
> 
> The agreement, if accepted by Apple, could see the tablet’s launch next week, Samsung’s attorney David Catterns told Dow Jones Newswires after a hearing at the country’s Federal Court in Sydney.
> 
> ...


http://www.redmondpie.com/samsung-m...to-allow-galaxy-tab-10.1-launch-in-australia/


----------



## tarannau (Oct 13, 2011)

From the same Redmond Pie article, strangely omitted from your quote:



> Honestly speaking, it is a _little_hard siding with Samsung when you see stuff like _this_.



The link in the quote above makes a very persuasive case tbf - even in a jokey, half arsed amateur web page type of way. There's more than a slight bit of copying of look and feel, right down to the packaging. Someone in Samsung's marketing team surely must have realised - where's the bloody differentiation in that? This dispute could have been pretty easily avoided with a bit more savvy on their part


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2011)

tarannau said:


> From the same Redmond Pie article:


You're right. There's a plug that looks like a plug with a standard USB port, there's a white box with a product picture on the front (!), a USB plug and a mic app that has an illustration of a mic on the front. Totally compelling stuff.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 13, 2011)

Oh balls. Even a pound shop chain wouldn't try to pass off something quite so similar as a competitor's well established packaging design and brand without a little bit of hesitation. For a company as large as Samsung, against a market leader as prone to litigation as Apple it seems textbook daft. What were their marketing team thinking of?


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2011)

Yes. Damn those curved corners, rows of icons and flat screen with a bezel surround. Never seen anywhere before Apple invented them!

(you have actually read the full text of their claim, yes?)


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2011)

But the point isn't about what the right thing to do is, whether the patents, design rights or claims are absurd, who is the good guy or any these other things.

For me the point is that when you are in business, and are aware of the sort of minefield you can so easily walk into over these issues in general, its sensible to take some basic steps to reduce the risk of getting screwed in court. So when I talked about packaging in a previous thread, it wasn't about whether that aspect on its own has merit, it was about Samsungs failure to reduce certain risks. They should have anticipated that Apple were most likely to attack tablets that were in roughly the same screen-size class as the iPad, decided which 'similar' features were worth the risk, stuck with those, but bent over backwards to differentiate as many other aspects of the product as they could.

Its very easy to conflate these different legal battles between Samsung & Apple into one, and the stuff I saw detail of in the last thread that mentioned the packaging, was for Europe not Australia if I remember correctly. Given that a quoted article above mentions the screen patent as being the core patent issue, perhaps we should focus on that one here? What is it, anyone got links to good detail? Cheers


----------



## tarannau (Oct 13, 2011)

editor said:


> Yes. Damn those curved corners, rows of icons and flat screen with a bezel surround. Never seen anywhere before Apple invented them!
> 
> (you have actually read the full text of their claim, yes?)



It hardly makes a difference really does it? You would expect a claim about look and feel to drag in the entirety, the kitchen sink and much more, all wrapped up in overblown legalese. I doubt either of us are sufficiently versed in the vagaries of patent law to make an informed judgement. It all seems faintly ridiculous to me.

As does Samsung's daft choice in failing to differentiate their product so spectacularly tbh. They could have given Apple far less ammunition.


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2011)

Samsung could - and have - argued that a near identical form factor to the iPad was seen in the film 2001!


> "As with the design claimed by the [Apple patent], the tablet disclosed in the clip has an overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface, a flat back surface (which is evident because the tablets are lying flat on the table's surface), and a thin form factor," Samsung said.


But it's all fucking ridiculous of course, but tech firms should never have been allowed to make such daft patent claims in the first place.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2011)

What makes me rant is that regardless of how ridiculous it is, its not patent trolling. Its just an example of what patents etc are actually for, but being fought in an ugly way where the most amicable conclusions are not forthcoming, at least one side won't compromise, and the battle is very visible to the public.

And as for the notion that this form of patent nuttiness is whats costly to the consumers, I find it quite likely that all the times patent issues are settled in friendly ways between companies, for example by seeking to use a patent officially by paying a fee to a willing partner before you even start manufacturing the product, cost us plenty.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 13, 2011)

tarannau said:


> It hardly makes a difference really does it? You would expect a claim about look and feel to drag in the entirety, the kitchen sink and much more, all wrapped up in overblown legalese. I doubt either of us are sufficiently versed in the vagaries of patent law to make an informed judgement. It all seems faintly ridiculous to me.
> 
> As does Samsung's daft choice in failing to differentiate their product so spectacularly tbh. They could have given Apple far less ammunition.



Samsung ripped off Apple intentionally, they knew that people are affected by implied brand association. They made a business decision to allow them to compete better in the market place, they're now paying for that decision by Apple's business decision...


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2011)

elbows said:


> And as for the notion that this form of patent nuttiness is whats costly to the consumers, I find it quite likely that all the times patent issues are settled in friendly ways between companies, for example by seeking to use a patent officially by paying a fee to a willing partner before you even start manufacturing the product, cost us plenty.


Who do you think ultimately pays for all these legal teams currently doing battle in the courts?


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Samsung ripped off Apple intentionally, they knew that people are affected by implied brand association. They made a business decision to allow them to compete better in the market place, they're now paying for that decision by Apple's business decision...


That's your _opinion_. The courts have yet to make a judgement on that and even then their judgement has to be made in the light of the quite frankly _ridiculous_ claims that can be made via expensive legal teams working the system.

Simple question: how many people do you think went into a shop for an iPad and inadvertently came out with a Galaxy Tab instead? That is the case Apple have to prove. They have to prove that Samsung's supposed copying is damaging their record-breaking, sky-high, nothing-for-you-charities, obscenely vast profits.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 13, 2011)

You're rationalist attitude toward brand association makes no sense. Sorry but there it is...


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2011)

Great comments on Slashdot:


> All of these patent laws and copyright laws - all they do is promote innovation and competition, don't they?





> Yes. Don't you see them competing fiercely in court?





http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/...n-court-blocks-sales-of-samsung-galaxy-tablet


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2011)

editor said:


> Who do you think ultimately pays for all these legal teams currently doing battle in the courts?



Im just suggesting that the array of patent licensing fees that are often coughed up per device cost the consumer plenty too.


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2011)

There's a great analysis of the claims here. To start you off, here's the list of trade dress elements that Apple insists Samsung are infringing.



> *Hardware and software trade dress claims*
> 
> 
> a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
> ...


Most of the above describes my Sony TH55 from 2004, and then there's this. But we've covered all this before.


----------



## sumimasen (Oct 14, 2011)

To those of you who don't listen to the excellent This American Life podcast but are interested in this topic, there's a really fascinating episode about it from a few weeks ago: When Patents Attack! 

www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack


----------



## sumimasen (Oct 14, 2011)

Should add, it's not specifically about Apple vs Samsung, but how the original concept of patents has been warped and exploited into ridiculous proportions.


----------



## Winot (Oct 14, 2011)

editor said:


> There's a great analysis of the claims here.



That is a good analysis.  I suggest everyone reads it before commenting further.


----------



## elbows (Oct 14, 2011)

Yes that analysis was useful, and I think further adds to the notion that by copying multiple aspects you make it easier to build a case against you.

I see there were developments in the US court case today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15305448



> *Samsung's tablets infringe patents owned by Apple, a US judge has ruled.*
> However, she warned that Apple needs to prove the validity of those patents if it is to win an injunction preventing the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Tab.



I would not be surprised if that process takes a while and enables Samsung to carry on selling throughout the holiday season, especially as the US does plenty of shopping for thanksgiving which isn't all that far away now.
Oops & lol:



> At one point in the hearing the judge held both Samsung and Apple products up on the air and challenged the defence to whether they could identify which device was which.
> Samsung attorney Ms Sullivan, who was roughly 10 feet away, responded: "Not as this distance your honour."
> Another lawyer for Samsung correctly distinguished the two.


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2011)

Apple's appeal has just iFailed. Consumers have every right to be furious.


> Australia’s High Court has refused Apple’s application for special leave to appeal in the ongoing Apple-Samsung case.
> 
> Readers will recall that after the Federal Court in Sydney lifted the injunction that had kept the Galaxy 10.1 off the shelves, Apple immediately requested a stay on the orders so it could seek leave to appeal the Federal Court’s decision to the High Court.
> 
> ...





> Samsung slays Apple in tablet war
> 
> One of the judges today said Apple only won the original ban by the “skin of its teeth” as Samsung was penalised for refusing to agree to an early final hearing. Apple acknowledged that there was a “prospect of irredeemable harm” on the part of both Samsung and Apple in this case.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Dec 15, 2011)

Cheeky fuckers!
Nice bit of PR spinning though  







http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/15/samsung-takes-aim-at-apple-with-australian-galaxy-tab-ad-credit/


----------

