Australian Federal Court Ends Ban On Samsung Galaxy Tab Sales 129
New submitter Dedokta writes "The Australian Federal Court has overturned the injunction placed on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and ordered Apple to pay court costs. Apple has applied for an appeal with the Supreme Court, but Samsung is now free to sell the Galaxy Tab within Australia. Samsung is not off the hook yet, however; the full case to see if they have indeed infringed upon Apple patents is still to be heard early next year."
Good.... (Score:2)
Re:Good.... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, I find it interesting that in Australia, their supreme court takes cases like this. That could just be me being american though :/
The supreme court is the highest court in each state, but below the federal court (I.E. Supreme Court of Western Australia or Supreme Court of Victoria). But the submitter had it wrong, this case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia who normally deals with corporate issues, trade practices, Industrial Relations and the like.
Apple have made an appeal to the High Court of Australia which is the highest court in Australia. The High Court has no mandate to automatically hear cases, so if the High Court feel's Apple is wasting their time any appeal will be denied.
What's important about this victory is that the evidence was heard by 3 Justices, not just one as was the case with the first injunction hearing and it was found by the three Justices that the original injunction was in error. The case still stands, Apple is still suing Samsung over alleged patent infringement, this hearing was only over the injunction. But this gives us an indication that there is some sanity in the Australian court system.
Re:Good.... (Score:4, Interesting)
> The supreme court is the highest court in each state
This is only sort of true (at least in NSW, but I assume elsewhere too?).
You can appeal a decision of the NSW Supreme Court to the NSW Court of Appeal. However, the Court of Appeal is a branch of the Supreme Court in the they're established.
Many corporate issues, trade practices and IR cases are also heard in State courts. It depends on the case in point .. (the NSW Dept of Fair Trading for instance, brings its cases in NSW. Many companies sue each other over contractual disputes in the state courts etc.)
--Q
Re:Good.... (Score:5, Informative)
Just to be more of a pedant, Supreme Courts aren't really below the Federal Court. You can't appeal a decision of a Supreme Court to the Federal Court. They're different jurisdictions.
--Q
Re: (Score:3)
Just to be more of a pedant, Supreme Courts aren't really below the Federal Court. You can't appeal a decision of a Supreme Court to the Federal Court. They're different jurisdictions.
--Q
To be fair, I was trying to keep it simple.
and ordered Apple to pay court costs (Score:4, Interesting)
good.
What the courts really need to do is charge the party bringing the suit for _all_ costs to the other party. Real money might discourage patent trolls like Apple.
Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple has money to spare. And the damage is already done. With the Christmas shopping started, early buyers would have settled on the Ipad2 instead of the Galaxy Tab as gifts. Question now is whether there enought Galaxy Tabs in stock for the rest of the Christmas season
A lot of Australians would not have even started shopping yet.
There's a psycological barrier for a lot of people, that Christmas does not start until December so a lot of people dont start Christmas shopping until December.
The smart ones (raises hand) got their Chrimbo shopping over and done with months ago, but I still have to shop for food and I hate the shops at this time of year.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Calm down yah flamin' galah! I can see you as dry as a dead dingo's donger, so down this tinnie, and you'll be right as rain.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Struth! "Chrimbo" is taking aussie slanging words to a a ridiculous extreme.
Fair suck of the sav.
It's British slang, although we seem to be getting more Pom's in Australia by the day
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, I see you've played "Knifie-Spoonie" before!
Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs (Score:4, Funny)
Apple has money to spare. And the damage is already done. With the Christmas shopping started, early buyers would have settled on the Ipad2 instead of the Galaxy Tab as gifts.
A real victory would have been: not just "pay the court costs", but also order them to: reimburse Samsung for lost sales of Galaxy tablets, assuming they would have sold just as well as iPad2 units, and send iPad2 customers an optional coupon to exchange their purchased iPad2 during that time for a Galaxy tab, at Apple's expense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
. . . and send iPad2 customers an optional coupon to exchange their purchased iPad2 during that time for a Galaxy tab, at Apple's expense.
Has this kind of punishment ever been handed out?
Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well let's be realistic, not a LOT of lost sales, only a few.
you may be right as far as what would have happened, and yet you're still thinking in terms of percentages.
They may well have sold hundreds of thousands of them by now...that's a LOT.
Re: (Score:1)
assuming they would have sold just as well as iPad2 units, and send iPad2 customers an optional coupon to exchange their purchased iPad2 during that time for a Galaxy tab, at Apple's expense.
So you're saying that in places where both Samsung tablets and iPad2s are on sale without restrictions, Samsung tablets are selling just as well as iPads?
Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple has money to spare. And the damage is already done
I have mixed feelings about this. Samsung got a slap in the face for sure, and this has already affected the design of their future products, so even if the court say otherwise, battle won by Apple. But I can't help but feel this was the first (or second ish) shot in a war that utltimitly Apple can't win.
Re: (Score:3)
But I can't help but feel this was the first (or second ish) shot in a war that utltimitly Apple can't win.
Apple wins by delaying competition as long as possible. Just like with the mobile phone market, you can be certain that Apple's market domination will be cut into significantly by other makers across the next year or two. Apple is willing to spend a lot on legal maneuverings for nothing but the time it buys them.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, that won't be much help unless Apple releases a new product soon. And I mean new, not "new" like iPhone 4S.
It's like early 90s for Apple again, except Jobs won't come back this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, his phylactery was in his liver. Who would have guessed?
Re: (Score:2)
In other words keep sales up while insider traders and Apple executives dump the Apple stocks and aren't those Apple insiders busy selling shares http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=aapl [yahoo.com].
Of course don't forget those mega corporate executive bonuses, for each month they can keep the prices up, the bigger the their bonus and damn the long term consequence, like all those pension funds that are going get stuck with Apple stuck as a result of under the table off shore, keep buying that stock commissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Let's see Apple (or any other corporation) file a frivolous case now.
Re: (Score:1)
A better financial punishment I feel would be to pay a percentage of their profits for the next two years.
Uhm, wouldn't they just do some Hollywood accounting then, ensuring that they aren't turning a profit for those two years?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Remember from Dilbert; growing companies lose money, and if they're paying Samsung a lot from profits, then they aren't growing fast enough. ;)
Anything that would deflate the EBITDA would then be positive for long term shareholders, as the Samsung cut basically comes out of their pocket. Investing in a lot of new projects and new hires would then be a plus for shareholders, as the unwanted "profit-sharing" is reduced. Hell, exec bonuses may even increase, as long as they are taxed as salary and hit the bott
Re: (Score:2)
Supreme Court = High Court (Score:5, Informative)
Apple have sought leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, Australia's highest court. So it's like the Supreme Court in the US - there are no appeals beyond that, and they get to pick and choose what cases they take, so there is little certainty Apple will get anywhere appealing now.
(The Supreme Court usage in the summary is misleading to Australians because Supreme Courts here are State-based courts.)
This is a good ruling I think. You could readily buy the 10.1 here online (ebay etc) and have it shipped to you - cheaper than you'd pay a local retailer too. If there is merit to Apple's case they'll be able to get damages down the line for the patent infringement.
--Q
Re: (Score:2)
Well in theory there's the Privy Council, though it would somehow have to turn into a constitutional issue of state versus federal power and the High Court would have to go against its previous statement that it will never grant such leave in the future.
Re:Supreme Court = High Court (Score:4, Informative)
No, there isn't.
The Australia Acts (Federal and State) removed appeal to the Privy Council in the 80s for Australians.
The High Court doesn't and can't grant an appeal to the Privy Council (and this predates even the Australia Acts).
--Q
Re: (Score:2)
See here [wikipedia.org]
Re:Supreme Court = High Court (Score:4, Informative)
Although the path of appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council had been effectively blocked, the High Court could not block appeals from State supreme courts directly to the Privy Council. Nor did the Constitution limit, or provide for legislation to limit, such appeals. The expense of any appeal to the Privy Council in London had been a deterrent: in any year, there had never been more than a handful. Nonetheless, by the 1980s the possibility of appeal from a State supreme court was seen as outdated.
Constitution s 74 has not been amended, and the Constitution cannot be amended by legislation.[4] Nonetheless, s 11 of the Australia Act goes as far as legislatively possible, to make s 74 a dead letter.
I read that section as saying that whilst it is not normal to do so, the state supreme courts have the power to send appeals to the privy council and have not ruled it out.
Re: (Score:1)
I read that section as saying that whilst it is not normal to do so, the state supreme courts have the power to send appeals to the privy council and have not ruled it out.
You misread. It's not up the the SupCrt to "send" appeals, but for an appellant to bring an appeal. So what you wrote above, to wit that "[s]tate Supreme Courts can in some cases appeal to the privy council," is a nonsense.
To continue the quote where you left off ...
[emphasis added]
The reason that this is for all practical purposes no longer possible
Re: (Score:2)
You are simply wrong on both counts.
Parliament did as much as they could do to remove the Privy Council. However, Parliament can't change the constitution and nobody bothered with a referendum to do so.
And while some parts of the consititution had conveniant "Until the Parliament otherwise provides" language, s74 does not and there hasn't been a successful referendum to change it so it still applies.
The Hig
Re: (Score:2)
Is this Privy Council an Australian one, or is it the one back in the mother country?
Re: (Score:2)
The Mother Country. Most Commonwealth countries traditionally could appeal back to "the Queen in Council" to have decisions settled by the highest Court in "the land" as it were.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Committee_of_the_Privy_Council [wikipedia.org]
--Q
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah its in that other country. The one with the queen and the clock. I voted for the Australian republic the last time it came up and I will probably do so again but one problem is that the same change has to happen in all states as well as the federal government otherwise you are left with a horrible mess.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong, sorry to say :)
Yes, in 1912 it did - but until the Statute of Westminster we were essentially not independent and cases this far back on these issues have little relevance today. By pre-dating the Australia Acts I meant the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 & the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 - which closed it off as an avenue from the High Court (except in a particular circumstance that the UK Parliament closed off when they passed their own Australia A
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well if you get really pedantic, your all wrong because everything your posting is based on the assertion that the state and federal parliaments and the courts in Australia are legitimate. There are plenty of legal problems dating back almost 1000 years that could be used to argue that they aren't and that acts of parliament have no power over us because we are not party to any contract with them...
One relevant point is the Mabo decision which basically said, "Yeah the Crown broke its own law in occupying t
Re: (Score:1)
Hhhm, I think some of what you just posted reinforces my point in a round about sort of way. If you adhere strictly to the letter of the law, there is plenty to invalidate government but we don't because it makes more sense not to. I wouldn't know about first year uni students but I know well enough about our law and history. I know that the basis of our law is in contracts between British royalty and the pope and that we (or our ancestors) were never party to those contracts and neither the Crown or Papacy
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm wrong?
Even though the point I countered was that the High Court had never done such a thing and couldn't have ever done such a thing. And you state "it did", but somehow that means I'm wrong even though it is exactly what I claimed.
And to show that I'm wrong in saying that theoritically if the High Court decided to it could issue such a certificate but never will since it has said it won't you make exactly that same claim?
Do you have a different definition of "wrong" to me?
I'm working on "wrong" mean
Re: (Score:2)
If there is merit to Apple's case they'll be able to get damages down the line for the patent infringement.
Apple isn't after patent infringement money down the line - they want to keep competitors out of the market as long as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is merit to Apple's case they'll be able to get damages down the line for the patent infringement.
Apple isn't after patent infringement money down the line - they want to keep competitors out of the market as long as possible.
So why don't they sue all competitors instead of just those who copy their design?
Re: (Score:2)
So why don't they sue all competitors instead of just those who copy their design?
Who else had a product competing in the same market segment as the iPad? As a self-avowed fanboy, surely you understand that Apple doesn't consider a $200 Android 2.1 tablet as their competition. The Galaxy Tab was the only real threat hitting the market at that point. It is inevitable - there will be some decent Windows tablets available and enough good Android tablets that their strategy is no longer viable. In the meantime, they will have raked in a ton of cash as the only game in town.
Re: (Score:2)
So why don't they sue all competitors instead of just those who copy their design?
Who else had a product competing in the same market segment as the iPad?
Are you fucking kidding me? Or do you exclude every tablet that doesn't copy the iPad as close as possible?
Only a partial victory (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
I wish you didn't sound like any of this matters...
Re:Only a partial victory (Score:4, Informative)
Apple managed to get a stay in the lifting of the ban until 4pm Friday, to give them enough time to get an urgent High Court hearing, so the way isn't clear for Samsung just yet.
I highly doubt Apple will get a High Court hearing, let alone one tomorrow given the fact the actual alleged infringement case is ongoing in the Federal Court. This case was just over the injunction.
Re: (Score:1)
I wish... (Score:3)
...we had consumer power, so we could avoid these companies that banter back and forth like shitty brats.
Thanks to the same lawyer armies, no competition has survived gestation.
When society collapses and we return to dirt living, I will vote against these scum by simply not sharing where I got my water. better start gettin outdoors now lawyer goons!
Re:I wish... (Score:4, Insightful)
By the way, I'm posting from a samsung, and was just on an apple at work.... reminds me of the OWS photo demonstrating how people cannot function in modern society with the dichotomy of "support the oligopolies or be dysfunctional".. The photo where people protesting corporations had corporate products.... We are so screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what other products are they going to have? It's rather hard to make your own cell-phone from scratch.
Exactly my point.
Very little to say to this... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
it seems to disregard the stunning advances we've had over the past two decades.
Are those stunning advances due to or in spite of patents?
Re: (Score:1)
it seems to disregard the stunning advances we've had over the past two decades.
Are those stunning advances due to or in spite of patents?
Doesn't matter... The argument is that patents stifle innovation - ergo, there should be no innovation. Assuming arguendo that those stunning advances are in spite of patents, patents clearly aren't stifling them.
If the alternate claim is that the industry would be exponentially more advanced, absent patents, then that's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof, rather than just an unsupported conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be mistaking stifle `(1) (transitive) To interrupt or cut off` with stifle `(2) (transitive) To repress, keep in or hold back.`
And no, nowhere in my post were words like "exponentially" or "absent". I'm pretty sure all the lawsuit frenzy shows that current patent laws do hold back (which is stifle(2)) the technology.
Re: (Score:2)
[Basic logic needed] A tech start-up stopped by patent on "method for conveying textual information using electromagnetic radiation ... claim x) wherein EMR is in 400-700 THz frequency range ... claim x) wherein EMR is emitted by device ... claim x) wherein EMR is reflected by device" == one less piece of technology in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are finite resources that can be spared on R&D.
Let's take that invalidated electronic sales catalog patent for example.
So you want build a retailer software suite, and then you suddenly find out that you can't implement obvious part of it in obvious way without either going to court or paying up for a license, or you have to swallow it and do meaningless modifications to already obvious process. Whichever way you choose, thanks to patent office misjudgement and patent law, you have to redirect res
Re: (Score:2)
There are finite resources that can be spared on R&D.
And that's why startups shouldn't be forced to actually come up with something new-
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why startups shouldn't be forced to invent a hundred shapes of wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I complain that my startup building them new-fangled internal combustion engine carriages ran out of money to finish the engine, because engineers had to invent square wheels and catenary roads to work around a patent on round wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Patents says "No results found for "method for conveying textual information using electromagnetic radiation"." How about some real evidence rather than what you've made up?
You just missed that *whoosh* when packets of electromagnetic radiation emitted/reflected by your display device went over your head. Case in point, with sufficient obfuscation and sufficiently dumb patent examiners you can patent something like this [google.com] (spoiler: it's just electronic sales catalog). Best part is that to make such patent void you need to have a lot of money and free time for courts.
The fact that a patent owned by a company stops an infringer doesn't mean that the patented techology doesn't exist in the world. In fact, it's highly likely that the patent owner or a licensee makes it.
Err, no, you still fail basic logic. a) Producing already patented technology != advancement, b) When (claimed to
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: "Oh, shiat, I didn't think you'd actually check on what I pulled from my ass."
Yes, I pulled a patent on any kinds of printed/displayed text out of my ass and you was sufficiently dumb to go and try searching for it in USPTO database. You'll make an excellent patent examiner.
Not really. It already expired. And it's also not "just an electronic sales catalog", since it can do part association, which a regular sales catalog can't.
Before it expired, it was used to try and sue a bunch of firms, until the judge said that it's obvious. But yes, since you don't see it as obvious, even it is, I can just repeat you'd make a great patent examiner.
...
Oh, dang it, it's all too stupid to quote it by parts. You fail not only basic logic, but also basic
Re: (Score:2)
Look, kid, it's nice to call other "kids", but when you're trying to discuss patents and can't even read patent description and claims to recognize an obvious hoax, you pretty much lose all credibility.
If you wish, I might license you my patent on a system comprising a network of electrically and chemically cells and method of compartmentalizing, connecting and exciting the network from claim (a) in ways facilitating cognitive processes. You really could use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, I accidentally a word. But it's covered by claim c) from that patent that extends method from claim (b) to allow reconstruction of lacking information based on surrounding context.
In a related incident: (Score:5, Funny)
The court also ruled that consumers are allowed to take a single bite into an apple so long as they bite from the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
The court also ruled that consumers are allowed to take a single bite into an apple so long as they bite from the bottom.
I thought they'd first have to kiss that bottom.
Australian retailers have wasted little time. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A few Aussie retailers have already started advertising the SGT for sale. Kogan [kogan.com.au] for example is offering the SGT for A$50 or more cheaper then the equivalent Ipads (which Kogan also sell).
IOW the SGT costs too much to sell. $200 is the most people will pay for a non-iPad tablet.
what would you expect (Score:2)
This is the same company that is charging an extra AU$80:00 toAU$120 per iPad just because the boat turns right and comes here to Australia rather than turning left and going to the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Damage Done (Score:2, Interesting)
The damage has already been done though. Who's going to want to buy a Galaxy Tab when they can get something newer and probably better? Unlike Apple that releases but one new tablet every year, there are dozens of Android manufacturers constantly putting out new products that trump what was available months ago. In this kind of environment, a delay of a few months is huge. Since the initial delay, both Amazon and Barnes & Noble have released new devices for cheap that undercut almost everything else and
Re:Damage Done (Score:4, Interesting)
Possibly, but I think the one good thing that came from this for Samsung is the free publicity. Geeks all know about the Transformer Prime, but average consumers don't and probably won't find out about it for ages because Asus don't really advertise much.
Meanwhile Samsung has been all over the papers and mainstream news sites and it has been obvious to a lot of them that Apple is frightened that the Galaxy might be better than an iPad if the comments on the (very pro Apple) Fairfax news are anything to go by. The whole episode has created a bit of an anti Apple backlash and I wouldn't be surprised if it plays out to Samsung's advantage in the medium term.
Update and two cents (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How is the Transformer a phone?
Nothing to do with rounded corners (Score:3)
Since this seems to be a recurring meme in all Apple-on-Samsung angst hereabouts, note that this does not apply in this case - the patents that Apple used to obtain the original ban were technology patents, not design patents. Most notably, one of them is a patent on capacitive multitouch [hpa.com.au].
Re: (Score:2)
So far as I understand, the patent is actually specifically on the design of multitouch hardware.
Apple loses again (Score:2)
The 10.1 is scheduled to hit retail outlets this Monday.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a millionaire and I have a Nexus S. You must be one of those creative barista's.
Re: (Score:2)
Hehehehe. I have a Samsung and an iPhone and I can promise you the Samsung is the better phone. Easier text entry (fuck that onscreen keyboard in iOS sux dogs arse), real bluetooth, a file system, a removable battery, expandable memory, flash and the ability to act as a usb mass storage device without the need for itunes on any machine I want to connect to.
Whenever I see someone with an iPhone I think "you poor idiot". Blinded by bling without the ability to actually think things through for yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does this type of sentiment exist? I don't mean specifically for Brand X or Brand Y, but in general? Shouldn't the sentiment be "I'm glad there are both Brand X and Brand Y, because there are indeed legitimate reasons to use either brand, not the least of which is simply personal preference"?
Consider this - while I prefer Coke, I'm glad there is Coke, Pepsi,
Re: (Score:1)
That's how everthing was, before apple and apple fanbois started throwing shit at others. Case in point - the ridiculous legal war we are discussing here.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is a massive fan base out there for a company that makes shit products. Sure the hardware might be okay (if you could change the battery yourself or add additional storage) but the software ecosystem is so locked down that you can't use the hardware to it's potential and the whole package is overpriced. This is why I think of iIdiots as idiots. I have no particular adherence to any brand, I just hate brands with abusive business practices.
Re: (Score:1)
Odd, I thought that Apple fans were supposed to be the deluded pretentious elitists.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are implying I am being in any way deluded, pretentious or elitist, could you please explain how?
There's no delusion in any of my points and I have already explained factually why Apple products are shittier than other equivalents.
I'm not pretentious because I'm not pretending anything. This is just me being myself stating what I experience.
It's hardly elitist to point out how shitty products from a particular brand are when they clearly are in comparison to the majority of the competition. I even us
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is a massive fan base out there for a company that makes shit products.
IOW you are a fan of Samsung, that's why you have this sentiment. At least you have an explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
No Cheerful MacFanboi, I am not a fan of Samsung as such. I have a Samsung phone and it is better for doing my job than the iPhone work has supplied me. Previously I had a Nokia N900 which I preferred. I'm not a fan of any brand. They make good products and bad products and I assess them on their merits. Apple hasn't made anything that has impressed me for about 6 years and even then it was an expensive way of getting a Linux laptop with a silly keyboard so I didn't buy it.
I do get the shits with some brand
Re: (Score:2)
You know what I pity? People who don't get the irony of consumer product-based elitism. And no, I don't own an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)