Samsung has been handed a rare win in its patent battle with Apple, with Australia's Federal Court deciding to overturn the injunction that prevents it from selling its Galaxy 10.1 tablet in Australia. Originally, a single judge of the court, Justice Annabelle Bennett, had granted Apple's request for an injunction against the …
... they bankrupt each other with these constant stupid and petty patent squabbles.
Maybe then we'll see some sanity return to the world as the next generation realise that their predecessors completely broke the system with their greed and work out something sensible.
Perhaps you don't realise that Samsung has the right to defend themselves. They're not allowed to sell a product they made because Apple made one first. The products aren't the same. What would you do if you were attacked & beat someone back & then heard from someone else they wished you'd both died. Where is the justice? Do you not want justice?
What would you like to be able to buy? Every next technical innovation or only the innovations that one company, the ultimate God company, built. They set the costs, the boundaries of its capacities & basically becomes law that you must buy these items. That is what happens if monopolies are allowed to develop. Look at what Microsoft did & what Intel almost did. It's Nazi-ism, a different religion.
Let Samsung protect itself against a meglamaniacal organisation
"...with each accusing the other of patent violations. Apple says the Galaxy 10.1 is a slavish copy of the iPhone". Should that be iPad?
As to the substance, the question facing a court issuing a temporary injunction is if it is needed to avoid irreparable harm. In this case the only consequences are financial and both companies have substantial sums they can use for compensation upon a final judgement. So where is the irreparable harm?
The point that the injunction "will effectively determine the matter on a final basis" seems to me to show a naivety by the court about the essence of the dispute. Apple are not likely to be any happier with a Galaxy DoubleTab 20.2 competing with a future iPad, and it is competition, rather than any outrage at having patents used without royalties, which lies at the heart of Apple's suit.
> "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
The future isn't in court
The court might reply that it can't be expected to make judgements based on supposed future devices, but rather on the actual devices on sale now and based on the arguments and evidence presented by the claimants and the law as it stands.
Won't give a toss
As long as the Galaxy Double-Pad 20.2 doesn't look or work like an iPad, I doubt whether Apple with give a rat's arse about it. Apple is not Suing SOny over their new tablets. Now, ask yourself, why would that be?
Because Sony have more money than God, can yank their entire entertainment catalogue from iTunes and because Apple want to force through a precedent decision against Samsung.
If you think a company with as wide an anti-competitive streak (hackintosh?) and as many well-fed lawyers as Apple are even slightly concerned about whether their patent trolling has any basis in fact, you're an idiot as well as an anonymous coward.
I think the logic is that the Samsung tablet is the most likely challenger so if someone is going to buy a tablet it will be that or the iPad.
If apple manage to take out the Galaxy Tab then people will buy the iPad rather than some other tablet seeing as they are both around the same price point.
Apple is anything but mad
Sony has so much IPR and in so diverse areas that it can obliterate a company like Apple. Apple has a small set of UI & Design IPR mostly picked up from BT fire sale "unused" patents. It has a very small amount of patents which are fundamental to "make things work(TM)". Compared to that Sony has a huge patent portfolio in silicon, CPU, graphics, visual displays and UI & Design.
Apple is simply not in the category to take on Death Star class adversaries. It will be many years at this rate before it can face Sony or IBM in court and win. So it would have avoided picking on Sony even if Sony tab was an exact rip-off of the iPad.
And further more Sony's tablets are totally unlike the iPad, to the point where they can be argued as being the most innovative (rightly or wrongly) devices in that class. I'd kill for a Tablet S, but then again £80 cheaper is the Asus Transformer.
If anything, Samsung has lost out here by trying to ape the iPad too much. They shot themselves in the foot by excluding items such as an SD card slot and as consumers wake up to the choice offered in the market, there are far more attractive options with better aesthetics (the forthcoming Transformer Prime) and function (Tablet S).
Let Apple and Samsung continue to fight and meanwhile other OEMs are coming up with some great ideas in hardware design.
They will if they think they can get away with it...
Let's hope some hefty damages are awarded to Samsung, Apple needs to be smacked down hard to teach it a lesson.
the Court has said that some of Apple’s touch screen patent documents... “provide greater support for Samsung’s defence of non-infringement than they do for Apple’s case on infringement"... A similar statement is made regarding Apple’s heuristics patent
LOL. Says it all.
What sort of client state are you when you don't let US business interests come before the interests of others? This wouldn't have happened in W's day, let me tell you that.
Now, be a good country and go back to being a fawning client state of the US, like all of the English-speaking nations (ahem)  and most of the Western world.
 The Irish would like to be excused as they are now Germany's bitch.
This is bad for Apple
The Apple argument has been that the Samsung device looks just like an iPad. I'd bet Samsung's marketing department will be using that idea with gusto. "We don't think so but even Apple thinks this is as good as an iPad - but cheaper".
"Samsung's strategy has been criticized as widening the row...................
..........................far beyond Australia, drawing European authorities into the spat and leading to an EU investigation into whether the row is stifling competition."
Really? By whom pray? Precisely how wide does this "widening" have to be before it is wider than the other party starting patent/copyright litigation in 5 - 6 countries on three different continents before Samsung had so much as issued their first writ?
The best thing for the Judge to do
In a case like this where it will end up being thrown out for being a load of bollix, is to ban sales of the iPad for the same length of time that the tab has been off the shelves. That would shaft Apple good an proper pre xmas.
Federal Appeals Court equals three to five judges!
The only avenue left for Apple Computers is the full Australian High Court, full bench, the very same group who normally give miscreant tax dodgers the thumbs down! .
Interestingly, Apple Computers is also being sued by the Australian Government funded research organization the "C.S.I.R.O." over WiFi wireless communication patent technology infringement too!
Oh, the irony!
Why go through the charade of the various lower courts? Why not just go straight to the High Court since that's where everything is decided anyway?
Plus of course the fact that there are those of us that point blank refuse to live in Apple's walled garden, and therefore will never purchase any Apple product.
So it becomes impossible to harm Apple sales to me, as they would still only get 100% of nothing.
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Analysis Microsoft's licence riddles give Linux and pals a free ride to virtual domination
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16
- I KNOW how to SAVE Microsoft. Give Windows 8 away for FREE – analyst
- Geek's Guide to Britain How the UK's national memory lives in a ROBOT in Kew