Feeds

back to article Samsung gets a few days of Christmas

Australia’s High Court has refused Apple’s application for special leave to appeal in the ongoing Apple-Samsung case. Readers will recall that after the Federal Court in Sydney lifted the injunction that had kept the Galaxy 10.1 off the shelves, Apple immediately requested a stay on the orders so it could seek leave to appeal …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge
Unhappy

Sanity finally prevails...

But at what cost? At the end of the day Samsung has lost huge amounts of profits, Apple huge lawers fees, and as stated, in six - twelve months, both devices will be being pulled off shelves to make way for the Next Big Thing (tm).

All in all, both of them look like kids at the end of a schoolyard brawl - and all because of a few rounded corners...

It'll be interesting to see if Samsung tries to get damages out of Apple.... I hope to god they don't Im getting sick of reading these stories and realising *any* result from *any* development in the case effectively means *nothing* to the consumer.

7
2
Silver badge
Terminator

Not for a few round corners

People will remember "Apple had Samsung tablets pulled" and think "Samsung had trouble with the tablet", "Embattled Samsung" and "Embattled Android" long after it is back in the shops.

I'm not convinced that most people will differentiate between the preliminary injunction ending and "Apple and Samsung worked it out." The injunctions make it look as though the aggressor has won, even though they haven't. Plus it builds unrealistic expectations in people's minds about how good the Samsung product is, possibly leading to disappointment with the experience which people will talk about in their social circles.

I'm afraid that this is still a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario for Apple.

2
5
Silver badge
Unhappy

You forget.

The whole lot are run by lawyers. What is good for them is all that matters to them and the consumer and shareholders both be buggered!

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Lawsuit in Australia is not over design

It has nothing to do with round corners. The injunction was granted over software patents.

0
3
Facepalm

Correct

Apple sued Samsung because Google implemented pinch-to-zoom in Android.

Make sense? No.

0
1
Silver badge
Thumb Up

@ P.Lee

100% agree that the injunctions could be extremely damaging for Samsung - and I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. I expect Samsung to see things the same way and try and get a hefty amount of damages for the whole kerfuffle, although from everything I've read there's a bit of a streisand effect going on - everyone is talking about getting one because Apple don't want anyone to get one. Either way, a boost to income looks to be on the horizon for Samsung (as long as talk turns into action - and as it looks to be one of the best android tabs on the market, I'd say there's a good chance they'll be selling a lot of them in the coming weeks - sles will tell the final story though).

As for building up unrealistic expectations, it could be worse - at least Samsung aren't billing the thing as being "magical and revolutionary".

0
0
Pint

Ah!

Ah, the standard Yankee "MBA" best business practices, sue the competition with frivolous patent law suits, in order to maintain the monopoly and the profits and screw the end users for every cent they own!

8
1
Silver badge
Thumb Up

I think need a tablet

And I'm looking to the Samsung.

Clearly Apple think its a threat, so it must be pretty good.

5
3

I'd read this first if I were you

http://www.thegalaxytabforum.com/index.php?/topic/6141-update-from-samsung-re-oil-slick-newton-rings-issue/

Apple might have done Samsung a favour. How much more widely might this problem have been reported if the Galaxy Tab had been on sale.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

A pity...

...that Apple didn't think to file a similar lawsuit against Microsoft 20-odd years ago

1
1
Silver badge

A bigger pity

That Xerox didn't file one against Apple 30-odd years ago.

6
1
Anonymous Coward

Why on earth would they have done that? Despite what you think, there was a legitimate business transaction involved. Hate Apple all you like but get your facts right.

Or are you know more than Xerox and all it's lawyers? Thought not.

1
1

If Samsung win

If Samsung win this in the end, can they sue Apple for lost profits?

0
0
Silver badge

$$$$

I presume the prices are AUD and not USD?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

It's almost the same!

1 Australian dollar = 1.0092 U.S. dollars

1
0
Black Helicopters

not when it comes to IT

I think it's usually something like A$1 buys US$0.80 worth of stuff...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Meanwhile...

... over in France

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/12/french-court-denies-samsung-request-for.html

For heavens sake switch of the BS machine

0
0

Um

At some point you have to hit back. Apple is suing every single Android manufacturer, are they not?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I like Apple kit but all this shite is utter ballcocks! I'm glad to see some sense prevailing and Samsung can finally be allowed to get on with it.

2
0

So retailers should just ignore these bans in the future?

..and wait for the inevitable overturn of the ban to use as their defence in court, when the firm that instigated the ban finally gets them in court individually as punishment for flouting the ban.

i.e. assume the ban will be overturned eventually so continue selling the banned items?

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.