> "So where is the irreparable harm?"
as they said before (Apple), that a consumer will stick to which ever device they buy first, therefore if the consumer buy an iPad, s/he will choose iPad for their next tablet and they will advocate the iPad in his/her circle. This is why Apple want the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to be blocked from sale _before_ X'mas and not after.
Paying Samsung for damages _later_ is small price to pay to ensure that you have some loyal customers for the next few years.
> "rather than any outrage at having patents used without royalties, which lies at the heart of Apple's suit."
The reply to this point appears in the article, in-case you missed it, here it is: "Apple’s touch screen patent (Australian patent 2005246219) documents “provide greater support for Samsung’s defence of non-infringement than they do for Apple’s case on infringement … If Apple has established a prima facie case at all (which we doubt), it is founded upon a construction argument which, if the evidence remains as it is, is unlikely to succeed at trial.”" << this is taken from the Federal Court judgment, don't accuse El'Reg of taking side with this line.
forgive my EngRish