Sign in / up

back to article Apple vs Samsung: on and on and on

Samsung looks like having to delay the Australian launch of its Galaxy 10.1 even longer, with a federal court judge saying she needs more time to consider the case. In previous hearings in Australia, the launched had been delayed until at least the end of this week. However, justice Annabelle Bennett has indicated a brief …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Awww...

    O ye! Ze German way of "ban firscht, ascht die questions later" idiot-cy, executed down-under way.

    Time to consider. Yes. The act of considering requires knowledge and the ability to think. If rounded rectanges are indeed patentable. Moses would open up the Indian Ocean and have a field day at its center. Or the much overused phone ear+mouthpiece simile/graphical representation is stolen. Right. As if the phone "icon" ever was anything but the 40's and 50's rotary dial phone device, put out of commision 20 years ago.

    Of course Samsung is trying to steal Apple's market. Because it's not Apple's market. It's "a" market. If Samsung makes a more compelling product, it sells more, eats more pie. That's the way it works.

    Apple is only concerned about its apple cart, and is trying to commandeer the judge into giving it a hand selling its shiny yet stale product.

    Stupid thing is, it's working. Good going, you Aussie judge of an idiot. I'd insult you if judges over here were any better.

    4 0
    1. Roger Jenkins
      Reply Icon

      Stupid Judge?

      I fail to see why the judge in this case should be labelled stupid. It is a judge's job to interpret and apply the law. This type of case is most unusual in Australia and may well set a precedent.

      The judge doesn't have to or need to take into account anything but the law, but in doing so needs to get it right or set a bad precedent. No matter which way the judge orders, there will be an appeal, no judge wants the appelaite judges to consider that the original verdict was 'stupid' and overturn it.

      If indeed there is any stupidy in this case it is with the original law that allows such a case to be brought. Perhaps we can say that the politicians that passed the law allowing this case are stupid.

      Hang on.........

      1 1
  2. Equitas
    Paris Hilton

    Who's stupid?

    Whoever else is stupid, clearly those who buy Apple products for reasons no better than trendiness should have a claim to the title.

    Paris, because even she wouldn't necessarily have a claim on the title for that reason.

    0 0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like