Apple and Samsung are back in court in Sydney today, contesting the fate of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Apple says Samsung is “crashing through” its patents, but Samsung states that design should have nothing to do with the patent case.
ZDNet reports on the ongoing case, which today saw the emergence of video of the model of Galaxy Tab 10.1 that Samsung intends to bring to market, perhaps as early as this week. Apple’s claim now appears to be that the Australian version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 has been stripped of features to try to sidestep the patent issues. The article quotes Apple’s legal counsel as saying that
[Samsung will]have a go at launching a product and if they get caught out [infringing patents] , they’ll design around it. Samsung should clear the way before [it launches a product]rather than try to crash straight through”
Samsung, meanwhile, contests that the design of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 shouldn’t be a matter for consideration in a patent case. The article quotes Samsung’s legal counsel, David Catterns QC as stating to the court that
This case has nothing to do with form factor, nor shape, nor a white cardboard box: it’s a patent case … questions of our design rationale are irrelevant. [Apple]admits they didn’t sue us on earlier products that have these features. This product is more desirable [in the market]because it’s thinner.”
[ZDNet]
Joel
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 2:49 PMNo reason to start an inevitable Apple hating war in the comments. It’s simple.
In general, blocking competition isn’t great, it doesn’t look great for the company and iPad sales will still boom.
HOWEVER, if there are patents that Apple believes Samsung are using without permission, then Apple (or any company in the same position) should definitely fight for it. After all, it is their patents.
So don’t blindly hate Apple because you don’t know what said patents are and Apple obviously believes it’s patents they own.
Jack
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 3:06 PM+1
Andrew
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 3:19 PMWake up. In the EU suit, of the 10 patents in question, not only was Samsung found not to be infringing on 9 of them, those 9 were invalidated. That’s right, INVALIDATED. Apple had no business even having the patents let alone useing them to sue someone else with them.
The one patent that held up was related to the way the image viewer menu works. That is what got an injunction against Sammy. A grid view that then becomes a sliding series. It’s not groundbreaking secret technology that costs billions in R&D to develop. It’s obvious menu navigation.
This is cannon fodder tactics. Loading up with frivilous BS, flinging it at a wall in a desparate, childish, and disingenuous manner hoping that something sticks. …and you want to defend this kind of behavior?
Richard
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 3:41 PMFirstly that was in a single case, theres others where Apple has been making much larger inroads and Samsung is at risk of having its product blocked.
Secondly, thats an overseas court and a decision there should have no bearing on a decision here. If they are found guilty here will you then turn around and say “it was banned in Australia so it should be in the EU too”. I doubt it.
Thirdly the system is there for the very reasons to oversee such complaints. If Samsung has in fact done nothing wrong then the case will amount to nothing. The fact Samsung appears to be on the back foot in a number of markets, not just Australia, suggests they may be in some strife. In any event if they are as innocent as you believe then they have nothing to worry about.
Ohh and lastly, it’s not like Samsung doesn’t hold patents and isn’t retaliating itself. It’s also launched complaints in the past regarding competitors in other fields too.
TonyInTsv
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 3:54 PMExcept the not so small matter of the tens of millions of dollars spent on the court costs, inturn making things more expensive for people to buy.
The fact of the matter is, Apple is an immoral company.
A small company or independent inventor will invent something. Apple will see it and say we want to buy this patent. We don’t want to use it, we want to prevent our competitors from using it.
If the owner of the patent refuses, Apple file a patent for the same thing and use their high priced lawyers to take the patent, because they know the little guy can’t afford to fight it.
Now your saying that Microsoft and many others do the same thing, and that’s true. BUT Microsoft has never pretended to be philanthropic. Microsoft has always stood up and said, “we’re here to make money.” Apple on the other hand has always tried to give the appearance of “Butter wouldn’t melt on our mouth, can’t you see the halo?” all the while sticking the knife in the little guys.
Richard
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 6:42 PMI disagree that Apple has represented itself as anything more than a business for a very long time. Sure, in it’s marketing it may present some down to earth image but so does Microsofts in that regard. From a trade and deals perspective they’ve been ruthless for a long time.
Andrew
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 7:23 PMSo to paraphase: You agree that Apple are asshats. It’s nice to have finally cleared that up.
Richard
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 7:47 PMSure. Same with half the companies out there including Samsung. I don’t really care but, I don’t buy products based on how a company represents itself.
Andrew
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 8:12 PMSo you are magically and revolutionarily immune from marketing? I think you are just as caught up in the reality distortion field as every other mindless consumer drone out there. Maybe you should stop for a moment to figure out whether or not you *need* a tablet at all before making massive claims like that.
Viper
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 12:13 AMI do. I had macs for about 10 years. I stopped using apple products 5 years ago precisely for that reason.
light487
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 4:05 PMIf it’s banned here and not somewhere else, then there is clearly something wrong with either the OTHER system of justice or ours. The very fact that there is a possibility that it could be banned in one place but another clearly shows that not all laws are equal. Therefore, copyright and patent laws at a global level are “fail” right from the start.
For this kind of thing, we really need a “United Nations” level of court system. These are megacorporations operating on a global scale, not some corporation operating within the constraints of a single autonomous region.
I know it’s a stupid idea.. but I had to voice it. I’ll go back to my corner now.. :)
Richard
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 10:09 PMWay to blow that out of context.
I was saying I don’t care if the company is run by arsehats. I will and do buy products from companies that are run by supposed arsehats because it doesn’t effect my personal day to day experience with the product.
Sure, advertising has it’s effect but thats not really related to what I was responding to.
Richard
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 8:56 AMresponded to the wrong post.
Andrew
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM1) They are the same complaints. The trade dress isses are also lumped in there as with the EU case.
2) The overseas courts results are indicative of the overall validity. The fact that you can find loopholes and fight semantics of wordings in any one system does not increase the validity of any claim.
3) “Thirdly the system is there for the very reasons to oversee such complaints.” Yes it is. It is not however there to be abused in a tactical manouvers/stall tactics for market advantage.
4) “Ohh and lastly, it’s not like Samsung doesn’t hold patents and isn’t retaliating itself.” Yup. Actual patents which were awarded based on genuine R&D. Samsung’s complaints are based on chip manufacture and radio technologies. Something that they have worked on for many, many years. Nuts and bolts genuine tech that the industry depends upon. This is Samsung punching someone in the face for being a gossip queen. Do you really think Samsung would be countersuing if not for Apple’s initial assault?
Richard
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 6:51 PMSame complaint but still different cases.
As I mentioned, if they are innocent then that will be shown. The fact that Apple has managed to get so far in a number of countries says they at the very least have a case here regardless of what one court may have ruled elsewhere. The fact this has gone on for this long in multiple countries is a better indication that they have a valid case and that there is enough evidence to take the claims through the legal proceedings.
Andrew
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 7:20 PMAll it says is that they are employing the same scattershot technique in many locations to disrupt Samsung’s deployment of an obviously solid product. Apple’s concern isn’t that they are “stealing technology” but that they are reducing Apple’s marketshare. Android will eventually dominate the tablet space as it does the phone space. The longer they stall now, the more ground they can own moving forward.
This is straight up abuse of the legal system. Win or lose, the time it takes to deal with the red tape directly results in marketshare increase (reduced decrease) and subsequently, profit.
Richard
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 7:52 PMIt doesn’t help their marketshare at all unless they can convince a court there is enough of a case initially to get the sales of the product pulled off the market. If they can’t do that then any other legal actions will be pretty much transparent to the end user. You can’t just spit the dummy and expect a products sale to be stopped, there has to have been something there to back it.
And of course it’s about marketshare, I don’t think Apple would deny that.
Andrew
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 8:01 PMHuh? It doesn’t help marketshare to prevent a company selling a competing product in the same market?? Herp derp.
Apple file. They get a preliminary injunction. Samsung then have to wade through the red tape. It’s a ‘guilty before proven innocent’ loophole.. and Apple are abusing it.
Richard
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 10:10 PMReread the very first sentence…
…herp derp indeed
Guess who
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 1:46 AMI like it how 95% of comment,s related to any kind of apple news, are apple hating comments, a number comments are from apple fanboys who are obvious trolls, and just a few logical comments that actually make sence, authors of which are blamed by the apple-haters to be apple fanboys. =.=
James
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 2:52 PMagreed totally Joel. Apple has the right to protects its patents if it has a chance to and obviously the courts say they have a case. Why not persue it. If I were head of apple, I would too.
EckyThump
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 3:04 PM:’ Zeeeiiiip! #]
Patrick
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 3:55 PMDon’t want to get pulled into this whole argument but as a software developer it really annoys me when people describe something as obvious. Someone still has to invent it for the first time. Then if they have nailed it the solution seems obvious.
Glen
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 4:04 PM+5 .. The solution is simple normally, it’s just coming up with the solution that’s hard. Smarter people than I come up with solutions, I just use them.
andy
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 4:13 PMApple: the new Patient Troll company …serious USA needs to fix their screwed patient system up…
James
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 4:26 PMI don’t know about Patient’s, their health care system is screwed but PATENTS however, needs some work obviously
MotorMouth
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 4:36 PMIf I was Samsung, I’d do something to wreck iPad supply, arrange a strike or have the factory producing the A5 chips closed down for three months for OH&S breaches or something, then see who gets the last laugh. Seriously, what Apple are doing is tantamount to pissing off your waiter and no-one would blame Samsung for spitting in Apple’s food. (Well, the courts might but most people would say “good on ‘em”.)
I definitely agree with TonyinTsv, Apple are very much an immoral company. Yes, there are plenty of others but I think Apple are very close to the bottom of the barrel. They royally screw absolutely everybody, not to provide superior value for their customers, who they screw worst of all, but to maximise shareholder value. Even if their products were any good for my needs, and they are so not, I would make do with inferior products on principle.
Joel
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 4:52 PMYeah damn Apple for suing Samsung for patent infringement. They should just let everyone walk all over them because patents are useless yeah!
Also I’m glad you said “I would make do with inferior products”, implying that Apple products are indeed superior. Also, incase you haven’t heard, Apple constantly tops customer satisfaction polls, so I’m pretty sure us Apple customers are happy, not feeling screwed at all.
Richard
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 7:00 PMExcept they’d be open to more lawsuits since it’s quite likely there is supply obligations built into the agreements. Furthermore, Apple is their largest customer so in addition to the before mentioned issues they’d be additionally losing that revenue.
Samsung probably wants to be selling components to someone, but in the tablet market at least Apples really the only player that has stock flying off the shelf so they’re by far and away the best partner to have on board.
As it is Apple has been looking at alternative supplies for many if not all of its components already so by the time Samsung can likely make such a move it likely won’t hurt Apple too much assuming the other suppliers manage to meet demand.
Johnny P
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 4:52 PMApple have our best interests at heart. Why play divx files natively… oh no our processors are crap so lets only allow Mp4 to keep the user experience there. Ditto for youtube, facetime, multi tasking etc
TSH
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 4:54 PMCouldn’t the whole “confusing similarity” thing be cleared up with some public polling? Just stand there in a shopping centre for a week with the two devices (and two packages), see if people can tell the difference between the two.
Rituparno
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 7:10 PMSamsung S2 did ate the market of Apple Iphone- but still Aple s market leader- and will always be! I recently ventured to know more bout Apple designs of iphone5 & stumbleupon this- Do check it out!
http://liveoncampus.com/wire/for/Apple
Stephen
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 7:39 PM“Samsung should clear the way before [it launches a product] rather than try to crash straight through”.
Is Apple saying that its competitors should clear their products through Apple before releasing them?
Callum
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 7:51 PMThey must really see them as a threat because why else would they feel the need to sue?
Aaron
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 7:54 PMwhen I get my time machine, I’m going back to patent the television in my great grandfather’s name, then come back to the present reap the rewards of 8 decades of litigation, Marty McFly style.
Nick
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 9:32 PMI think the Gizmodo editors are getting a real kick out of the commenters here. All these Samsung Vs. Apple articles are an archive for miserable haters.
ryan
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 12:05 AMSamsung all the way!!!
ozoneocean
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 2:57 AMIt’s not about rights and wrongs guys, it’s about market share and how much you pay your lawyers to do their job.
Meanwhile the consumer suffers when their choice is restricted.
Mic
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 8:34 AMMy simple understanding of patents is that if you have one, and can be shown to have discoverd that another entity is infringing upon it, then you are legaly obliged to defend that patent or risk losing it.