Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Australia The Courts Apple

Australian Court Blocks Sales of Samsung Galaxy Tablet 158

Posted by samzenpus from the no-tablet-for-you dept.
jimboh2k writes "Apple has succeeded in blocking the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Australia until a final hearing can be heard in the case down under. The judgment on Thursday could effectively kill chances of the tablet ever launching properly in Australia after Samsung claimed further delays to the product would threaten hopes of gaining traction."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Court Blocks Sales of Samsung Galaxy Tablet More

Australian Court Blocks Sales of Samsung Galaxy Tablet

Comments Filter:

  • This may not be so good for Apple... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NimbleSquirrel ( 587564 ) on Thursday October 13, 2011 @04:57AM (#37699388)
    This could potentially work against Apple if Samsung go after the iPhone 4S on Oz. Precedent has been set, and it would be quite difficult for Apple to argue that an injunction shouldn't block the iPhone4S if Samsung decide to assert their hardware patents.

    • Re:This may not be so good for Apple... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Thursday October 13, 2011 @05:03AM (#37699408)

      Uhh, there's no precedent set here... It's the norm that if you're found to violate a patent that an injunction is given. Apple wouldn't argue that in injunction shouldn't block the iPhone 4S because that would be mean... they would argue that an injunction shouldn't block the iPhone 4S because they already licensed samsung's patents when they took out a RAND license on the 3G patent pool.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        As far as I know the judge didn't rule that patent violation took place, but until the ruling is made on patent violation Samsung can't sell the Galaxy tab.

        Seems a bit strange to me... you know... "innocent until proven guilty"...

        • I don't know how law works in Australia, so take this as an answer to your question that is applicable in the US but maybe not AUS. First, there is no "innocent until proven guilty" well anywhere except TV and armchair attorneys. It's "burden of going forward" and "burden of persuasion." But it's irrelevant here anyway. There is no "guilty" in civil court. It's liable not liable. Second, an injunction is not relief. An injunction is merely to maintain the status quo to prevent any irreparable harm while the

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Grail ( 18233 )

          An injunction simply means that the Judge has decided that there is enough substance in this case to warrant it actually proceeding. Thus until the case is resolved, Samsung is not allowed to ship a potentially infringing product.

          If Samsung wins the case, Apple will be liable for damages.

          So don't worry, Samsung iPad fans, you might end up being able to buy your iPad ripoff in Australia after all!

    • I'm wondering if the bigger mistake is the message to handset makers that if you use Andriod you get sued and products get blocked. Not just apple of course as there seems to be new suit against an Android maker every other day, but really have to wonder if at some point this becomes counter productive. Yes, Apple wants to beat Android, but what happens if you scare all the handset makers away from Android? Obviously they aren't going to stop making phones. Don't own one myself, but with good review the

    • Except:

      1) Most of the patents Samsung is asserting over Apple are covered by F/RAND requirements and

      2) As I understand it, Apple has already bought licenses to Samsung's patents through their parts suppliers who pay royalties to Samsung.

      I don't think Samsung has as much of a leg to stand on as people think they do.
      • 1) F/RAND doesn't mean free. Apple effectively wants to pay nothing, and Samsung aren't willing to roll over. Nokia had the same issue and Apple settled with them before anything could be established in case law (for which no details have been made public - which has lead some to believe that Apple would have lost). Samsung have entered into patent cross-licensing arrangements with other manufacturers who license their patents. Samsung are claiming (amongst other things) that such cross-licensing deals are

        • 1) F/RAND doesn't mean free. Apple effectively wants to pay nothing

          No, apple has already paid for the RAND patent pool for 3G, samsung want to double charge them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      This could potentially work against Apple if Samsung go after the iPhone 4S on Oz. Precedent has been set, and it would be quite difficult for Apple to argue that an injunction shouldn't block the iPhone4S if Samsung decide to assert their hardware patents.

      The Australian legal system is not precedent based.

      Secondly, it's a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

      Finally, Justice Bennett needs here head examined. There is no reason to deny competition and absolutely no reason to rule against Samsung after Apple have been caught lying to the court.

  • This judgement delivered by JudgeBuddy for iPad. This is ridiculous. Singling out 5-10 patents which Apple Claims Samsung's infringing on, which are guaranteed to be covered by "prior art" with the hope of delaying a rival product until it's no longer saleable. Antitrust much?

    • Judgement could be used to ban ANY android device (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dell623 ( 2021586 ) on Thursday October 13, 2011 @05:12AM (#37699458)
      The judgement is based on broad patents that would be violated by any Android touchscreen based phone or tablet in Australia [wordpress.com] This goes way beyond the German ruling as it is not based on a design patent. Apple can now ask for a ban on any android device in Australia and it will most likely be granted. You can't blame Samsung for asserting FRAND patents, this ruling has equal anti trust/monopoly implications as it grants Apple a monopoly on tablet devices in Australia and could be used to do the same with smartphones. Apple have refused to license these patents. Software patents are now hurting consumers directly, beyond the tax we have been paying on devices that goes to play patent trolls and patent lawyers e.g. the $5-10 on every android device that goes to Microsoft. Now they are being used to kill consumer choice.

    • I'd like to see the Patent Office held liable for granting such ridiculous patents in the first place. The lawyers are just playing the game that they've been trained to play, and corporations being corporations are doing the same.

      At least this is two big companies that can afford the legal costs to fight. Smaller players don't stand a chance. The real enemy here is the game that's being played.

  • With all these vendors tripping over each others patents it will likely result in a bunch of cross licensing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by slydder ( 549704 )

      Actually no. The situation was stable and acceptable to all involved until Apple bought their way into the mobile industry. Standard practice was to, more or less, do what one wanted as long as the others could too. Certain licensing was required and the big boys held to that, but Apple doesn't want to play with/like the rest. Which more or less means that either they all get together and put a stop to Apple or they wait it out and let Apple deal with all of them one after the other.

      Either way it's a lose

      • until Apple bought their way into the mobile industry. .

        ?

        Not sure what you mean by this. They designed the iphone, introduced it and it sold well. Did the same with ipad. How did they buy their way into the mobile industry in any way differently than every other manufacturer of such devices?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Kharny ( 239931 )

          not sure either, apple didn't buy anything, it took nokia around 5 years to see any money for their patents.

          Afaik samsung never got anything yet for their 3g patents at all.

  • Gov't - because nothing is too small to screw with (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Thursday October 13, 2011 @05:07AM (#37699426) Homepage Journal

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

    • Re:Gov't - because nothing is too small to screw w (Score:5, Funny)

      by Errol backfiring ( 1280012 ) on Thursday October 13, 2011 @05:18AM (#37699478) Journal
      Yes. Don't you see them competing fiercely in court?

  • I don't care who just died (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AbRASiON ( 589899 ) * on Thursday October 13, 2011 @05:59AM (#37699660) Journal

    This company needs to be knocked off their perch. ESPECIALLY as Australian people have a penchant for strongly following the rules of tall poppy syndrome.
    Anecdotal comment: Out of the 50 staff I work with in my team in the office, we have had the following phone purchases in the past 12 months

    1x iphone 4
    5x galaxy S2
    1x galaxy 1 series
    3x HTC Android phones
    2x Acer Android phones (surprisingly good, Liquid Metal phone - 120$ AUD outright!)
    1xAsus Transformer
    0xipads

    Also of note, 2 of those Android purchases were directly moving FROM iphones to Android. If I increase that threshold to 18 months*, I can add another iphone 4.
    The sentiment in the office and amongst all the nerds I know except 2 die hards is that "Apple is evil" and generally to be avoided. It's basically 'not cool' to own an iphone at the moment, at least with the people I speak with. (If you can't tell, I'm one of the converts)

    I have in the past 12 months though, recommended an iphone for someone surprisingly. A girl who had an iphone 3gs she dropped it and shattered it, she's not tech savvy and already has an iphone with itunes backup, it would be silly to push my 'Android agenda' on the girl when clearly an iphone would suit here.
    Flame comment begin: and to be genuinely honest, I see the iphone as the 'dumbest' of the smartphones, it's perfect for people like her because it's like the old Nokia 6110 of smartphones, simple and basic. You can't do much but you can't break much either. (Yes I genuinely believe that and I owned 3 of the things)

    * and the guy who got his iphone 18 months ago is envious of everyones Galaxy S2, he's switching to Android at the end of his 24 month contract.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tyrione ( 134248 )
      Cry me a river. Invent a new market segment and drive it. Or drown your sorrows.

      • I guess being litigious fuckstains now translates to "driving a market segment" good to know, thanks.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by natd ( 723818 )
      I work in an office of 300 (company of 35,000) and all I see are iPhones for those who can and 'other' (mostly Android) for those picking the cheapest bundled plan. Most that I see arer iPhones, ie people actually using them as a smartphone. My wife put an open water bottle in her handbag in May and her 3GS was gone. Maybe my fault for thinking that charging it might help. Eitherway, with the iPhone 5 on the way I told her she had to get something non-contract to pass the time. The Galaxy S whatever has be
      • I'm not sure if I can trust the opinion of someone who's solution to a wet piece of electronics is "give it more power" (there's definitely an Apple user joke in there). You can say all the same things about an iphone. I hate the UI, don't want to take the time to jailbreak it. Unfortunately for your argument iphonehacks.com actually exists.

        The amount of things you have to hack to get an iphone to do what you want is just as much as for an android phone. Maybe a little more for an iphone. The only d

  • Make the lawyers fight it out in a cage filled with snakes, horny kangaroos, and drop bears. Last man/woman stand wins. It's the Aussie way.
    (don't get all ruffled Aussies, it's just a joke)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )
      Two lawyers enter, one lawyer leaves.
      And we don't need another hero, just a tin of tuna :)
      • > Two lawyers enter, one lawyer leaves.

        That is just seriously messed up. What kind of evil are you advocating anyway?

        Please stop and rethink.

        How about: two lwayers enter, zero lawyers leave.

        I think that sounds much better.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 )

      +1 for the drop bears

      • Drop Bears are struggling to maintain numbers nowadays, the hoop snakes have killed most of them off.
  • Apple is getting all of these PRELIMINARY injunctions; which potentially hurt Samsung big-time in the long run. If Samsung ends up winning the actual court battle, does Apple have to compensate them somehow?
  • All your patents are belong to us.

  • These childish patent wars have got to stop.

    It sickens me that companies like Apple and Samsung are flinging patents around, while great men like Dennis Ritchie who contributed so much more to the world never achieved anywhere near the riches of these technology leeches.

    What ever happened to competing on the merits of your product instead of the size of your legal team?

    Want to fix the patent system? Deny the rights of corporations to hold patents. Only the actual inventor or creator, a real flesh a

    • Re:Madness (Score:5, Insightful)

      by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Thursday October 13, 2011 @07:56AM (#37700476) Homepage Journal

      Until there's a way to put a corporation in jail, they should not have the same rights as people.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Nadaka ( 224565 )

        I refuse to accept that corporations are people until Texas executes one.

      • Would you feel better if the name on the lawsuit was the CEO's instead of Apple Corp.? Corporations aren't people, not even legally - but they are _comprised_ of people, who do have rights.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by msobkow ( 48369 )

          Actually, in the US, corporations DO have the rights of citizens. Look it up.

          They don't in any other nation as far as I know, but in the US, they do.

          • No they don't. A corporation can't vote. It's a fiction that anti-corporate rabble like to blather about. They have _some_ of the "rights" of citizens, but that's because they are _comprised_ of citizens.

    • It sickens me that companies like Apple and Samsung are flinging patents around

      Do not blame Samsung. This is 100% Apple's fault. Samsung is doing nothing more than trying to defend itself against an evil, abusive, monopolist. If somebody got mugged in an ally, would you critize that person for trying to fight back?

      • Nope, and that's why Apple is in the right here. Spend 5 seconds actually examining the allegations and you will see Apple is on very solid ground, the look and feel of the Galaxy Tab is clearly inspired by several patented aspects of the IOS interface. Or did everyone come up with those things at the same time? C'mon man, nothing is easier to prove than hardware/interface ripoffs. As I said in my other comment, just because lax patent laws in the home country let the product roll out doesn't mean Apple is

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by msobkow ( 48369 )

          It was all conceived at Xerox PARC decades ago. Read up on Alan Kay's work there. All Apple did is BUILD something like the tablet devices envisioned all those years ago. There are also clear examples to the tablet designs throughout science fiction, particularly the Star Trek PADD devices, so Apple didn't even invent the idea of shiny surfaces or rectangular form factors.

          They didn't invent the multi-touch screen; they just used it.

          They didn't invent the icon; they used them.

          The didn't invent the

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by msobkow ( 48369 )

            The technology behind the multitouch screen we all know and love started when Wayne Westerman and John Elias started a company called Fingerworks in 1998

            original article [iphonealley.com]

        • Rounded corners are not a patented aspect, visual looks of interfaces are not a patented aspect either.

          And i'm pretty sure the look and feel aspect has already been tried and they lost.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation [wikipedia.org]

    • I agree with your sentiments, but I think your perspective would be different if this was a Chinese company and they barred the Iphone from being sold in China and then sold a very similar looking device with an OS licensed and then designed to function as similarly as possible. Sometimes legitimate patents really are violated.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Like assassinations, what comes around goes around.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Acron ( 1253166 )
      No, this is a very good thing. We actually should want these companies to start suing the living daylights out of each other, killing product introductions with actions like this, etc. That will hopefully drive the pain threshold high enough for big companies to the point they will get behind serious patent reform. As they have the money and own the politicians, once they start backing it we should see it get done.
  • Well there's a bigger picture, here. Apple is picking a few fights with Samsung in response to how Samsung is playing their cards in other markets. I'm a teacher working in South Korea, and it shouldn't come as much of a surprise at how dirty Samsung is stealing the rug out from under Apple, here, when the market WANTS Apple - both foreign and local. Samsung is a monster conglomerate that does pretty much everything... but it's also no secret that they, too, are guilty of bending laws and borrowing ideas (
    • Thank you, man. I tried to make this point and I got rated down. I used to be a bit critical about how American tech companies do business, but once you get to Asia you see how real hard ball is played. I can't fault Apple at all for what they are doing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by caseih ( 160668 )

      Well I like my Galaxy S. I don't want an iPhone (I have an iPod Touch that gets used less and less). For what I do, the Galaxy S is a better fit than the iPhone. And as far as copying goes, the iPhone itself borrowed heavily from designs in years past (wish I could remember the name of the phone that looked like the iPhone but predated it). There are only so many ways to design a phone with a big touch screen. As far as software function goes, well Android and iOS both seem to copy each other. My Gala

  • Steve Jobs is gone. I suspect that most of this is what we will see out of Tim Cook. Even when Jobs was here and all this started, I bet Tim was actually calling the shots and defacto CEO just to make sure that the change of leadership which everybody knew was coming would work. At least that was my theory way before Steve actually stepped down and not just some bit of Jobs worship. When hearing about the iPhone and iPad, it was always Tim Cook talking about getting the deals in Asia and cornering all the p

Slashdot Top Deals

If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro

Close