Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia GUI Patents Portables The Courts Apple

Apple Blocks Sale of Galaxy Tab 10.1 In Australia 316

Posted by timothy
from the about-that-rent-we're-seeking dept.
lukehopewell1 writes "Apple has obtained an injunction from an Australian court effectively blocking the sale of the new Android Honeycomb-powered Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1v. Apple Australia claims that the unit infringes on 10 of the Cupertino, California-based company's patents including the slide to unlock functionality as well as the edge-bounce feature. Samsung will provide Apple Australia with three units for study in coming weeks to ascertain whether or not the Korean gadget maker did in fact infringe on Apple's patented intellectual property."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Blocks Sale of Galaxy Tab 10.1 In Australia

Comments Filter:
  • by mykos (1627575) on Tuesday August 02, 2011 @01:14AM (#36956232)
    Old is new once again!

    I am fully confident that this thread will demonstrate the utmost civility of Slashdot users.
  • by Kenja (541830) on Tuesday August 02, 2011 @01:17AM (#36956252)
    Guess these new Adroid tablets may be worth taking a look at if they have Apple this scared. Course they could just be a bunch of jerks... hard to tell these days.
    • Why does it have to be one or the other? EIther way the Galaxy Tab does look pretty cool, then again I said I was going to wait for the Asus "Slider" tablet.
    • by Tasha26 (1613349)
      Can't Samsung use its political connections to block iPad in the whole of East of Asia?
      • I think Samsung only has pull in Korea. They both have a lot of money to throw around.

      • by Pieroxy (222434)

        It might work in China, but for the rest, I believe they have a judiciary system that is a bit autonomous so I guess it's going to be complex.

        That said, it's obviously easier for Apple since they were first to market. Samsung can hardly say "they copied us with their new iPad" since Samsung themselves (with Google obviously) cloned the iPhone and the iPad for so long.

    • Cheap Android tablets: so versatile [bbyopen.com]. (Note: don't click if you can't take a joke.)

  • Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by YodasEvilTwin (2014446) on Tuesday August 02, 2011 @01:18AM (#36956256) Homepage
    It's blocked UNTIL Apple can prove they infringed? Australia, crushing due process harder than the U.S. since 1994.
    • It's blocked UNTIL Apple can prove they infringed? Australia, crushing due process harder than the U.S. since 1996.

      Fixed, Howard was elected in 1996

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)

      by rust627 (1072296) on Tuesday August 02, 2011 @01:43AM (#36956382)

      Australia, enforcing US Patents and copyrights harder than the U.S. since 1994.

      Fixed it for you.

      Since an earlier Australian Government signed a 'free trade agreement' Australia has been in the interesting position of having to enforce US Patents and Copyright Laws above and beyond our own.

      Plus the 'free trade agreement' between our 2 countries means that US companies (and individuals) are free to pretty much do as they wish here, but we are still considered to be foreigners and subject to all the various tariffs and import restrictions as any other country in the US.

      • by deniable (76198)
        And the one time CSIRO turned around and used the FTA, a bunch of US companies bitched and whined.
    • by mjwx (966435) on Tuesday August 02, 2011 @01:50AM (#36956416)

      Apple's legal counsel Christian Dimitriadis

      Said the Ipad 2 was "fooly sikh" and that Apple "wants if fuckin money fuckin".

      Meanwhile

      Samsung's legal counsel Neil Murray

      Said that Apple was being a "wuss and should harden up" and that their counsel was a "flamin galah" stating that this case was "a few tinny's short of a six pack". He also commented elected to inform apple on "where to stuff ya bloody law suit".

    • by Cimexus (1355033)

      Sigh - this is what happens when articles/summaries are written by people with no idea how the law works. Do a bit of reading of the court's actual words, and generally about injunctions and discovery while you're at it. Slashdot always likes to make things sound more ridiculous/inflammatory than they really are.

    • by Xest (935314)

      Australia doesn't really suprise me anymore, but at least I know why now.

      One thing that came out of the British media hacking scandal was an interesting article on News International globally. Well, it turns out, Murdoch owns 70% of Australia's newspaper market and a fair chunk of TV news ownership on top.

      It's no wonder their country is politically fucked. Why on earth would you ever let one person control that much of any type of media? What utter lack of irrationality allowed the Aussies to let things get

      • by mjwx (966435)

        It's no wonder their country is politically fucked. Why on earth would you ever let one person control that much of any type of media? What utter lack of irrationality allowed the Aussies to let things get that bad?

        Actually, politically we're a lot better off then the US at the moment. Our parliament can get things done and our tiny national debt is decreasing.

        Despite what a few angry ultra-nationalists will say.

        One thing that came out of the British media hacking scandal was an interesting article on News International globally. Well, it turns out, Murdoch owns 70% of Australia's newspaper market

        Ever wonder why Newscorp is losing money hand over fist. Yep, they own 70% of the media but

        • by Xest (935314)

          Has the inquest in Australia got any momentum behind it though? I really want to see Murdoch's empire fall, but it already looks like the momentum here in the UK which was at the heart of it all has completely gone and it's back to business as usual sadly.

  • What the hell? If you get sued you have to send three review units to your competitor for analysis?

    Uhh... can I get three Galaxy Tabs if I sue Samsung too?

    • by Dahamma (304068)

      Samsung will provide Apple Australia with three units for study in coming weeks to ascertain whether or not the Korean gadget maker did in fact infringe on Apple's patented intellectual property

      Even better, apparently Apple gets to decide if it infringes. Can't wait to hear their decision!

      • by mjwx (966435)

        Samsung will provide Apple Australia with three units for study in coming weeks to ascertain whether or not the Korean gadget maker did in fact infringe on Apple's patented intellectual property

        Even better, apparently Apple gets to decide if it infringes. Can't wait to hear their decision!

        Not quite, Apple get a chance to prove it in court. The court gets to decide if the infringement has actually taken place.

        If Apple cant prove their claims they open themselves up to a heap of claims for compensation by Samsung.

        A very high stakes game of poker here, with the pot being measured in billions of Aussie dollars (about 1.1 USD).

        • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday August 02, 2011 @02:51AM (#36956670)

          They've had a massive rise in profitability that anyone who isn't stuck in a cave can't have missed. However, what some people don't seem to realize is it has almost entirely been in a new market, consumer electronics, not their computer division. Their computer sales have gone up, but not near to the levels of their consumer electronics and only after the CE products made them a name.

          So if they want to keep that profitability, and all companies want that, they have to keep that market.

          For a time, no problem. It started with the iPod which became a fashion accessory. People didn't get MP3 players, they got iPods. It was what was cool to have and nobody could compete because nobody else could make an iPod. Well that market is pretty saturated these days. People don't buy new MP3 players all the time, and the iPod fashion has faded a bit (though it is still strong). So while it makes them money, it doesn't make them money like it used to.

          Enter the iPhone and now iPad. The iPhone did great because it captured a new part of the smartphone market: casual users. Other smartphones were very business oriented, the iPhone was for consumers who wanted a toy. The iPad of course went in to a new market entirely, since tablets like it really aren't competition for full out tablet PCs.

          All is well and Apple makes billions... However Android is a real threat to that. It has become extremely good and has been eating away at the iPhone market (and everyone else's). The tablet market was safe, but now it is entering there. It has a ways to go but is getting better at a rapid pace, Google improves it very quickly.

          Apple is seeing their consumer electronics markets evaporate, turn in to regular commodity markets where you have to compete on price which Apple has never done well. This won't kill Apple, but it could seriously shrink them and companies view that as just as bad.

          So they have to attack and try and stop it, in any way they can.

          I just hope they don't succeed. I don't want a world where only one company can provide certain kinds of technology. Competition is nearly always good for the consumer.

        • by Dahamma (304068)

          Ok, the post was mostly a joke, but if you want to get quantitative...

          "Billions of Aussie dollars"... eh, yeah. Quick search shows consensus estimate of ~300k iPads sold in Australia. Let's be conservative and call that 500k tablets total, at $500 per unit that's still only $250M gross revenue, and even with Apple's absurd $200 profit margins that's under $100M net for the entire market. Samsung's share of the market is TINY right now, probably a few million in profit at best in Australia. Patent licen

        • A very high stakes game of poker here, with the pot being measured in billions of Aussie dollars (about 1.1 USD).

          Oh, wow - I didn't realize Australia's currency had depreciated so dramatically! It's like the Weimar Republic all over again...

          • by mgiuca (1040724)

            Depreciated? It's worth more now (or at least, it was last week) than ever before in its history.

          • by mjwx (966435)

            A very high stakes game of poker here, with the pot being measured in billions of Aussie dollars (about 1.1 USD).

            Oh, wow - I didn't realize Australia's currency had depreciated so dramatically! It's like the Weimar Republic all over again...

            I meant 1:1.1 USD.

  • by ShakaUVM (157947) on Tuesday August 02, 2011 @01:38AM (#36956364) Homepage Journal

    Seriously, if "Slide to Lock" deserves a patent, someone in the USPTO should be hit over the head with a hammer. Repeatedly.

    • Hell, you should patent that! It's a great idea. And considering Apple is using "Slide to UNlock", you could probably get away with it.
    • by Urkki (668283) on Tuesday August 02, 2011 @02:01AM (#36956466)

      Seriously, if "Slide to Lock" deserves a patent, someone in the USPTO should be hit over the head with a hammer. Repeatedly.

      I think this may have already happened. It would explain a lot.

      • by Yaur (1069446)

        I think this may have already happened. It would explain a lot.

        I believe the preferred method is to hit them over the head with a sack of money.

    • by melikamp (631205)

      should be hit over the head with a hammer. Repeatedly.

      Please cease and desist. You are referring to a patented business method.

  • by Spikeles (972972) on Tuesday August 02, 2011 @02:22AM (#36956560)

    This looks like the patent here Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image [ipaustralia.gov.au].

    It's already in the process of being rejected due to a re-examination, "Claim 1 is not novel (and lack an inventive step) in light of the prior art document"

    Although it doesn't help they have 21months before it will lapse due to the rejection.

    • by thegarbz (1787294)

      This is the same patent office that initially accepted a patent on The Wheel [ipaustralia.gov.au] errr I mean a "Circular Transportation Facilitation Device". Ironically enough apparently when the patent was filed the guidelines for filing a patent specifically stated "There's no need to re-invent the wheel".

  • Someone must have the "Wipe to Clean" patent on cleaning your butt. That's only reason I can explain the abundance of crap patents like "Slide to Unlock." I'll be submitting my patent for "Pour into Glass" for beverages; I'm sure to make a killing.
  • is the reason I do not own a Mac. It is the reason I do not own an iPod or an iPad or an iPhone. And am unlikely to ever do so.

    The patent system may be broken, but it is not the patent system that is killing technology, it is Apple. If they can't make all the money from it, then no-one can. I believe that is Mr Jobs' philosophy.

    Well, Mr Jobs, you can stick your technology where the sun don't shine.
    • You do realise that all the companies selling any computer or telephony gear that you might want to own have been the initiator or the subject of litigation at one time or another? If you don't want to own tech from any company that has ever brought an injunction or started a lawsuit over fear of patent infringement then you should stay away from: Microsoft, IBM, Adobe, Google, Oracle/Sun, HP, Dell, Samsung, Nokia, Sony, Nintendo etc., etc.. This is normal for the tech industry, even if you just use a tru
      • by dbIII (701233)
        I'd put Adobe and Cisco at the top of the list due to litigation that resulted in wrongful imprisonment and was thrown out of court in both cases as soon as it hit a Judge. I doubt Microsoft or Apple have had anyone locked up just becuase they didn't like what they were saying.
      • by sosume (680416)

        Oh noes, everybody does it, so it's justified, right?

  • by powerspike (729889) on Tuesday August 02, 2011 @03:18AM (#36956762)
    If you read about the 10.1 tab, the design been released in Australia is different from the US one. The reason apple want version of it is to see if it violates the same claims, which 1/2 of them are about design - ie coped the IPAD etc. Samsung will be happy to do this - because they can get damages from apple if the hold up was without merit.
  • I remember, when I first started posting on Slashdot (using a different account with a late 90's UID) when people would howl in rage at Microsoft saying that Apple was justified with their early 90's Look and Feel lawsuit. That Microsoft had ripped off Apple and deserved to be punished. It seemed as thought the mind of the consensus thought Apple was the good guy for litigating the look and feel lawsuit and MSFT was the bad guy. Spin forward almost 15 years and suddenly Apple is the bad guy for doing exact

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...