Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Australia Patents The Courts Apple

Apple Loses Tablet Battle In Australia 159

Posted by samzenpus
from the learn-to-play-nice dept.
New submitter harmic writes "The Australian Federal High Court has denied Apple's appeal against the earlier decision that overturned the ban on sales of the Galaxy Tab. The Samsung Android based tablets should be in the shops in a matter of days. Apple had attempted to appeal an earlier court ruling overturning the ban."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Loses Tablet Battle In Australia

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09, 2011 @06:40AM (#38313078)

    "Apple loses appeal to ban Samsung Galaxy Tab in Australia" - beyond your abilities to write that?

    Appalling title.

    • by errandum (2014454) on Friday December 09, 2011 @07:01AM (#38313142)

      How so? It's a fairly accurate description O_o.

      You're kind of nitpicking here, in my opinion.

      • by kno3 (1327725) on Friday December 09, 2011 @07:16AM (#38313170)
        Not in my opinion. It is an appallingly misleading title. The tablet battle definitely implies the sales battle. This title would almost always point to Apple not being as popular as another brand. Most people reading that title would not expect it to mean they loose a court ruling.
        • by Canazza (1428553)

          I did, but then again I'd read the story in another feed long before /. picked up on it...

        • by Xest (935314)

          I read it for what it was, but then, I suppose I was aware of the legal tussle in Australia between Samsung and Apple.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Yep that Apple may hurt a bit when someone pulls it out of your behind.
          Try to relax more, it won't hurt as much.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Most people would not expect apple to have chosen to battle in court, rather than competing in the marketplace on the merit of their products.

          This was a battle (chosen by apple), it was about tablets, it was in Australia, and they did lose. The title, although admittedly ambiguous, is hardly mis-leading.

        • by jedidiah (1196)

          It depends.

          It depends on just how well informed you are about tablets and the shenanigans surrounding them. If you aren't living in a cave and actively avoiding hearing about this stuff, it's pretty clear what the headline meant.

          If you are on Slashdot, you should not be quite so ignorant as to be confused by the headline.

      • by mjwx (966435)

        How so? It's a fairly accurate description O_o.

        You're kind of nitpicking here, in my opinion.

        It's not nitpicking as the actual infringement case is yet to be heard. This judgement only had to do with the injunction against Samsung.

        The case to decide if Samsung has infringed on anything is going to be heard next year. In the mean time, Samsung can sell their tablet on the open market.

        This does restore some confidence in the Aussie legal system though. I think Justice Bennett needs to keep her head down as her ruling was overruled by both three Federal Court judges then a High Court judge. Also

    • by ozbird (127571)
      "Samsung p0wns Apple." FTFY.
    • They may have lost the battle, but they can still win the war!

  • by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice@nOSPam.gmail.com> on Friday December 09, 2011 @06:43AM (#38313094)

    I'm surprised I've not seen this posted yet, but a few days ago Apple lost control of the iPad trademark in China after a dispute.

    http://www.macworld.com.au/news/apple-loses-trademark-in-china-no-longer-called-ipad-41378/ [macworld.com.au]

    • by horza (87255) on Friday December 09, 2011 @07:22AM (#38313186) Homepage

      That's interesting. Shenzhen trademarks the iPad back in 2000, then Apple launches the iPad in 2010 and promptly tries to sue Shenzhen for trademark infringement. Apple now cannot even call their tablet the iPad in one of the world's largest markets China. Their wildly illogical lawsuits, turning them into one of the world's most hated companies, are really starting to backfire everywhere.

      Phillip.

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by CubicleView (910143)
        I love bashing Apple as much as the next person (don't know why, it is irrational of me) but the linked atricle didn't mention anything about Apple sueing anybody. From the site

        Apple has lost a trademark dispute in China....
        As a result Apple may have to sell the iPad under a new name in China or pay up to $1.6 billion and purchase the trademark from a Chinese tech firm

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Shenzhen sold apple the international trademark to "iPad" back in 2006. That's what is up for grabs here.

        http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/video/2011-12/09/c_131297760.htm [xinhuanet.com]

        Plus never mind they have no product named, "iPad" either.

        I could name dozens of companies that are more hated in this world than apple. Xe, Halliburton, BP, News Corp, etc.

        Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that it's universal.

      • Interestingly enough when I was in college in 2005 one of the labs had a shelf with some old equipment from the late 90's early 2000. There sat an old wired VoIP phone with a plasticy label on top, it said "iPhone". I wish I could find a picture of it.

        Edit: Found it on wikipedia Linksys iPhone [wikipedia.org] it was created by InfoGear in '98.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        You forgot a pretty important fact...

        In 2006 the company sold Apple the âoeglobal trademarkâ for IPADâ"but later the companies disputed whether the $55,000 deal included China.

        from here [theepochtimes.com]

        • by jrumney (197329) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:03AM (#38313922) Homepage

          The "fact" as quoted is incorrect, as Proview (the company) sold its rights to another company, which sold them on to Apple in 2009.

          Probably the other company didn't care that their deal excluded China as they had no intention of doing business there, and when Apple bought it, they mistakenly believed they were buying the rights for the whole world, because the company name of the holder recorded for China matched the previous owner of the trademark they were buying apart from the city in which the company was based.

      • by DinDaddy (1168147)

        turning them into one of the world's most hated companies.

        Careful. Sometimes when you stretch something too much, it snaps back and stings you.

    • by Colourspace (563895) on Friday December 09, 2011 @07:46AM (#38313272)
      In communist China Slashdot is powered by your submissions..
      • Yup, that used to work back when Slashdot was more of a hobby-run project by Taco etc, but lets face it - Firehose just plain doesn't work with not enough people raising the decent stories out of the shit, and story submissions have become much more about ad views and referrals than community desires.

    • by narcc (412956)

      I submitted the story, as I'm sure many others did as well. It's like there's some conspiracy trying to keep it quiet. Hell, I found out about it on a thread on crackberry.com's forums that was locked almost immediately (another thread on the subject was deleted within minutes).

      It's an interesting story. Why the internet seems terrified of discussing it is beyond me.

  • denied with costs? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Friday December 09, 2011 @06:46AM (#38313102) Journal

    Googling it returns this news story, does it mean Apple will have to pay Samsungs legal costs or even what Samsung is going to claim they have lost because of it?

    Apple case isn't looking good, they are getting thrown out all over the world and the small wins are for trivial stuff Samsung can and has worked around. Meanwhile Apples reputation has taken a nosedive not being helped that Jobs epitaph seems to consist of "prick in a turtleneck". Screwing your partner out of a few hundred when he will one day make you a billionaire is just sad.

    I still wonder what Apple was thinking. Yes, the Samsung tablets and for that matter anyone elses look a lot alike. And? I tried it at a local super store. Gosh, they are indeed very similar. Then I wandered over the washing machine department. Talk about copy cats. Really, take a LOOK someday, they are ALL the same. Even the place you the soap in. I couldn't find a single model on display where the soap didn't go in on the left. Even the order of pre-wash, wash and fabric softener is like that, from left to right.

    And don't even get me started on fridges. white boxes the lot of them. About the only exception are the american models which ALL have the water dispenser in the LEFT door which is narrower then the right door.

    So maybe Apple was the first to copy the design from a prop maker. Was it worth it Apple? We who are not fanboys now have fresh ammo to slap your buyers around with now that the one-mouse button joke has gotten a bit stale (mind you, tablets do have only one mouse button... old jokes never die it seems, they just get re-used on slashdot). Injunctions thrown out, might have to pay whatever Samsung is going to claim as damages and you made a Korean mega-corp many times larger and closely tied to a not-so-democratic regime that has taken thousands up on thousands of western job as the sympathetic underdog.

    Maybe here is a hint for Apple, next time the lawyers suggest a strategy. Hit them!

    • Apple wasn't really the first either. The JooJoo (although it sucked) was released before the iPad was even announced.
      • by BasilBrush (643681) on Friday December 09, 2011 @07:38AM (#38313240)

        Not quite. Joo Joo was released March 25th 2010, whereas iPad was announced January 27th 2010.

        Joojoo was announced before the iPad. And it was released before the iPad. But it wasn't released before the iPad was announced.

        Note also that there's a qualitative difference between the Joojoo announcement and the iPad one. With the Joojoo announcement, there wasn't even a final look to the device for which they could show a picture. With the iPad announcement, the actual device was demonstrated live on stage.

        Joojoo was released 5 days before the iPad, but the look of it dated from after the iPad was demoed.

        • by PaladinAlpha (645879) on Friday December 09, 2011 @07:51AM (#38313300)

          Here's a JooJoo (then TechCrunch Tablet) prototype released April 9th, 2009 [techcrunch.com]. Take a look, and keep in mind the design patents Apple claims exclusive right to -- I would assert in public that Apple most likely copied the JooJoo, not the other way around.

          • Here's a JooJoo (then TechCrunch Tablet) prototype released April 9th, 2009 [techcrunch.com]. Take a look, and keep in mind the design patents Apple claims exclusive right to

            Things like a flat surface? Where is it? Do you guys still not understand how design patents work?

        • Ah, I see. I was under the impression that the JooJoo was first released in December 2009.
        • Are you trying to distort the truth?

          The JooJoo was released before the iPad, and was prototyped way before the iPad.

          • Why compare announce dates to release dates? Are you trying to distort the truth?

            That was my question of the GP poster. It was he that did it, not I.

            The JooJoo was released before the iPad, and was prototyped way before the iPad.

            Which I pointed out before you did. What I also pointed out and you missed is that the final exterior look of the Joojoo only came after the iPad had been demoed.

          • Are you trying to distort the truth?

            The JooJoo was released before the iPad, and was prototyped way before the iPad.

            But long after the rumors about an Apple Tablet started. Not top mention that iOS started on a tablet [engadget.com].

    • by errandum (2014454)

      There might be two reasons for that:

      There are no patents on those form factors;
      They already expired;

      Or maybe back in the day when that was invented they didn't allow patenting simply on general ideas on how a device should look.

      • It's that the patents expired. Domestic applianced used to come in all sorts of shapes, with the words "patented" and "pat-pending" sprinkled liberally about. But once something's been around for 20 years, it's open for everyone to adopt, and the entire market converges around the designs of the popular models.

        • by khipu (2511498)

          You're confusing design patents and utility patents. Patents that cover the external appearance of a device are design patents, not utility patents.

          (Design patents must be on non-utilitarian aspects of a design. Given that thinness, bezels, and rounded corners are utilitarian, Apple's design patents don't have a chance in hell to stand up to any serious legal challenge.)

      • by chrb (1083577) on Friday December 09, 2011 @08:00AM (#38313324)

        "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." - Bill Gates

        It wasn't that patenting wasn't allowed, it was just that nobody really understood how generic and obvious patents would be treated in the future. If I could time travel to 1995, I could tell myself to patent connecting a GPS receiver to a laptop and having it query a database running on a secondary server. That would now be called mobile geolocation services, and the patent would be worth billions of dollars. Similarly, at some point in the 90s, I had the idea of transferring executable objects as part of a client/server display. That would now be called a web applet, and again the patent would be worth billions.. If I had only known that adding the suffixes "on the web" or "on a mobile device" was a valid way to create new patents, then I would have patented "telephony... on [the web/mobile device]", "video... on [the web/mobile device]", "instant messaging... on [the web/mobile device]". But, back then, who knew that the system would turn out to be so crazy?!

    • by stainlesssteelpat (905359) on Friday December 09, 2011 @07:16AM (#38313168)
      down here loser pays, they lost with costs.
      • by esocid (946821)
        What about the potential of lost sales during those 2 months?
        • by mjwx (966435)

          What about the potential of lost sales during those 2 months?

          Not until the actual infringement case is over. That case hasn't been heard yet and will be heard early next year.

          If Apple loses the infringement case, they are not only liable for Samsung's legal costs but also

        • by mjwx (966435)
          Lets try this again :)

          What about the potential of lost sales during those 2 months?

          Not until the actual infringement case is over. That case hasn't been heard yet and will be heard early next year.

          If Apple loses the infringement case, they are not only liable for Samsung's legal costs but also can be sued for the estimated loss of revenue whilst there was an injunction. Both the legal costs and loss of revenue will be hotly debated by Samsung, Apple and the judges. It will get messy.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Gaygirlie (1657131)

      MMO Quests are like orgasms:

      You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

      Hmm, maybe that's why I've always liked chain-quests.

  • by Spy Handler (822350) on Friday December 09, 2011 @07:08AM (#38313150) Homepage Journal
    Apple wastes a gazillion dollars trying to get the Galaxy tablet banned, and fail... only to find out later that Samsung kills the product themselves due to slow sales, a la HP Touchpad and RIM whatever
    • by Xest (935314) on Friday December 09, 2011 @07:25AM (#38313202)

      It'd be even more funny if that happened after Apple had been made to pay for millions in lost sales caused by the ban they requested.

      • by jo_ham (604554)

        It would still be a drop in the bucket compared to iPad sales, and Apple would put it down to a cost of doing business.

        If Samsung had lost then they'd just have to use some that unspent R&D budget to pay the fines, and deduct the lost sales in Australia from it.

        Due to the lack of any sense of humour in slashdot moderators, the previous sentence was A JOKE.

    • by itsdapead (734413)

      Apple wastes a gazillion dollars trying to get the Galaxy tablet banned, and fail... only to find out later that Samsung kills the product themselves due to slow sales, a la HP Touchpad and RIM whatever

      In that case, as long as Apple have already done enough to postpone the Touchpad-esque below-cost firesale until after Christmas, or maybe even until the iPad 3 appears, they can probably chalk up a net win.

    • not funny at all (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khipu (2511498) on Friday December 09, 2011 @10:11AM (#38314038)

      Given how fast the Android market is evolving, Samsung only had a few months to make a profit on the 10.1. Apple killed that window of opportunity with their injunction. Now, newer and better tablets are already out.

      Apple lost the case but they hurt Samsung badly. Apple should be made to pay for the harm they did to Samsung. And Apple may have opened themselves up to similar claims against them in the future, as other companies will now start to take out silly design patents as well and use them against Apple product launches.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09, 2011 @07:23AM (#38313198)

    I guess you'll have to compete on quality product attributes now like features, support and other factors... You know... Fairly...

    Or maybe you still don't get it.

  • by Viol8 (599362) on Friday December 09, 2011 @08:03AM (#38313330)

    The Lisa & Mac were total ripoffs of the stuff Jobs saw at Parc. How come Apple seem to think the rules on stealing ideas apply to everyone except themselves? Does being (allegedly) "cool" somehow make hypocrisy ok?

    • by jo_ham (604554) <joham999&gmail,com> on Friday December 09, 2011 @08:34AM (#38313426)

      Nice rewrite of history.

      Apple paid for the use of Parc's innovations. They later had "seller's remorse" when they decided they should have asked Apple for more than what they got, but in classic style they didn't see the value in what they had, but felt entitled to try and change the terms of the deal afterwards.

      There was no "ripping off" of Parc technology - it was all shared in exchange for money/shares/compensation.

      • Xerox were "kindly" allowed to buy apple stock in return for letting apple engineers visit their research centre. Apple never directly paid for any of the innovations they used.

        • by gnasher719 (869701) on Friday December 09, 2011 @08:58AM (#38313526)

          Xerox were "kindly" allowed to buy apple stock in return for letting apple engineers visit their research centre. Apple never directly paid for any of the innovations they used.

          Kindly allowed to buy at a reduced price. And if they hadn't sold the stock, it would be worth several billion dollars today.

          • by Viol8 (599362)

            Sorry , which bit of the fact that Xerox PAID Apple money, not the other way around, and allowed apples engineers to use their ideas are you having trouble grasping?

        • Xerox were "kindly" allowed to buy apple stock in return for letting apple engineers visit their research centre. Apple never directly paid for any of the innovations they used.

          For fsck's sake - we're talking about Xerox here, not some naive Mom & Pop corner shop that the slick businessmen from Apple could con into selling their shop for a handful of shiny beads. An outfit like Xerox should have the nous to check whether oil had been discovered on the site or the new interstate was likely to be built next door. Xerox willingly did a deal with Apple, and they're big enough and ugly enough to eat the consequences. Fair play to Apple.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Viol8 (599362)

            The point is that apple got paid to use someone elses inventions. Xerox were certainly led by typical BA type know nothing donkeys but that doesn't make Apples behaviour right or the hypocrisy any less.

            • The point is that apple got paid to use someone elses inventions.

              ah, you are indeed being intentionally dense, my friend. As others pointed out, the deal struck between Xerox and Apple used discounted Apple shares as compensation. The stigma you are attempting to attach to the deal just isn't there. And Apple innovated far more than they borrowed. You're view of this history is, quite simply, entirely inaccurate. To put it another way, what you believe is not the truth. [folklore.org]

        • by jo_ham (604554)

          They traded it for stock in Apple, that Xerox were foolish enough to sell on before it became really valuable - like I said, they didn't see Apple or the GUI going anywhere, it was more a curiosity to them.

          If they'd kept hold of the shares they "kindly" received in exchange for their tech they'd have to worry about buying one of those really big safes that can hold a billion in $100's.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn4vC80Pv6Q&feature=related [youtube.com] totally looks and works like the Mac - not.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by khipu (2511498)

      How come Apple seem to think the rules on stealing ideas apply to everyone except themselves?

      Group think: if you talk to Apple employees, they really firmly believe that Apple invented it all. Steve Jobs's reality distortion field also applied to himself, as you can see from his over-the-top remarks on a "thermonuclear war on Android" (ironic given how much iPhone rips off from the people who created Android).

      And it's self-reinforcing because they keep getting away with it.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday December 09, 2011 @08:35AM (#38313432) Homepage

    IS caused by the Patent system.

    Honestly, all it does is stifle creativity. I made a square, you cant make a square too!

  • This was just Apple appealing the removal of the injunction against Samsung selling their tablets. The infringement case is still going on, however. The court merely ruled that if Samsung is found to infringe, monetary damages would be an appropriate remedy, so a total and preemptive ban on sales is unnecessary.

    Really, injunctions are - and should be - rare. This was not unexpected, and really doesn't affect the infringement suit much.

  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Friday December 09, 2011 @11:58AM (#38315268) Homepage

    Look, Sheila, that's one of those Samsung doodads that's so good that Apple tried to have it banned.

    You can't buy that kind of publicity.

"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." -- George Bernard Shaw

Working...