Last week, Samsung approached Apple with a compromise that would let company sell the Galaxy Tab in Australia. Apple rejected this settlement, opening the door for a long legal battle.
Apple said this compromise was “one we don’t accept and there is no surprise. The main reason we are here is to prevent the launch and maintain the status quo.” Check the Reuters link, that’s actually what Apple’s lawyer said. This is sombre news for Samsung which was looking for an easy way out in this and possibly other legal battles it is fighting with Apple.
Besides Australia, the two companies are also battling it out in Germany, Japan, the US and South Korea. It’s a nasty situation that’s likely to get worse before it gets better. [Reuters]
Shogun
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 8:25 PMWell, at least Apple has finally come out and openly said that they’re only interested in totally supressing the competition. So this patent war has been an excuse from the start. A time wasting exercise.
What a farce. I hope that Judge Bennett takes note of this and chucks the whole thing out of court. This is wasting the court’s time, and also the taxpayer’s dollars to cover Apple’s own bottom line.
It would also be nice to see Samsung stand up and display some of their own corporate muscle, and start fighting to stop the Iproducts from being sold until this legal stoush is done and dusted.
Before someone points the finger and calls me a Fandroid, my home has both Apple products and Samsung products, all of which perform their various functions to my complete satisfaction.
poltak
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 8:56 PMPretty much summed it up.
rational user
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 4:06 AM@shogun Have you SEEN the Galaxy Tab? The ENTIRE product is a DIRECT RIP OFF of the iPad – even the CHARGER is IDENTICAL in EVERY WAY except the color.
Samsung got what they deserved.
Noother
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 9:32 AMDo you even own both? I have a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and my friend has an iPad, and their interface as well as size/shape look nothing alike. We have a group of friends we meet up with on the weekends, and most like the interface on the Galaxy as well as its features. The only thing the iPad has on Galaxy with my friends is the app store (mainly due to a few multiplayer games it has that android doesn’t).
Shogun
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 10:02 AM@ “Rational” User
If you’re referring to that previous Giz article showing the similarities comparison put together by that rabid apple fanboi a week or so ago
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/09/samsung-has-like-totally-never-ever-copied-apple/
then I hate to disillusion you but it’s a complete crock. Let’s see:
– Icons on the shop wall were put there by staff in error, not Samsung, and was fixed when notice was made.
– The USB wall adaptor is a bog standard unit made by a third party electronics company that colours and labels it to suit the customer. Pretty sure I’ve seen the same unit in Dick Smith with their logo on it “OMG they’ve ripped off Apple!”
– The Galaxy Tab boxing and device shown are the original 7″ Galaxy Tab from last year, not the current 10.1v. The 10.1v has a different aspect ratio, different sizing, different packaging (look up some pictures on Amazon, see for yourself – and don’t tell me Apple has patented the white box either)
– As for the USB cables, well the USB one end is a standard, and the flat connector at the other end is a different length, different thickness, and different pin set up. The outer metal protective casing with prongs to keep it from falling out of the socket may look similar when two pictures of differing scale are put side-by-side, but are not even close to the same when held together IRL.
IRL, if you were to look at the Ipad and 10.1v side and not be able see the difference (even without the difference in company logo), then I would suggest you go see an optometrist as soon as possible. Before you do tho’, I have this property with a view on the Moon that I’d like to sell you…
Think RATIONAL, Rational
wsDK_II
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM@ rational user
bad troll is bad.
i feel sorry for you iBot
tsengan
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 9:43 PMWell said.
ben
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 8:54 PMreally who cares.
Danny Allen
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:15 PMI love comments like yours. You 1. clicked the article. 2. read it. 3. took the time to make a comment. Yet don’t care. Fail.
LyndonL
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 1:37 AMBahahahah go Danny!
EckyThump
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 9:30 AMHah, +1
ponton
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 10:05 AMThanks for making my morning, got a good laugh out of this!
Ollie
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 10:26 AMThis is what is called trolling. He probably doesn’t care, but may as well make his point and get a response from it. Which is pretty much what happened.
Win.
awallafashagba
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 12:18 PMSssh !
Ruen
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 9:08 PMFrom my understanding, the only way I can interpret the comment made by Apple’s laywer is that he is admitting that the legal action taken by Apple was undertaken for the sole purpose of maintaining their dominance in basically a monopolistic tablet market.
“…maintain the status quo.” what could he mean by the ‘status quo’ other than Apple’s monopoly in this market?
Steve
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 9:16 PM“The main reason we are here is to prevent the launch and maintain the status quo.”
Wow. I still can’t believe they actually said that. How can they think they’ll come off as the good guy now? They’re basically openly admitting to being bullies who’ll maintain their dominance by any means necessary, including litigation to squash competition.
wsDK_II
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 10:14 AMthey are arrogant, what do you expect?
Richard
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 9:22 PMPersonally I think it’s a bit hard to pass judgement either way without actually knowing what Samsung proposed, but perhaps thats just me.
Hamish
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 9:30 PMNot just you.
BenDTU
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 9:38 PMYeah, let’s not let facts get in the way of a little Apple hating, right?
Ruen
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 9:56 PMIts not Apple hating (not for the most part. . . yet, wait until daylight hours)
However its hard to look at the aforementioned comment in any other fashion than what we are saying, a near blatant admission of abusing legal authority to maintain market dominance.
Until such is clarified to explain otherwise, people are going to take that at face value.
Ozoneocean
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:15 PMThis is exactly what I was thinking. ANY company represented by legal people who do this deserves some serious scrutiny. It doesn’t matter if they’re Apple, Samsung or BHP, there are no other words for it: this is bad.
Richard
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 8:54 AMPersonally I don’t think it’s that bad legally or otherwise. If Samsung has breached their patents, which still has to be ruled on, and their stance is they will not and have no intent on licensing those patents then surely the ball was in Samsungs court months ago to work around them then?
Again, I’m not sure who is right either way but if Samsung is found to be breaching Apples IP then surely Samsung is just as at fault for proceeding with the products release in the state it was rather than fixing the offending aspects before hand. It is after all Apples right to protect its patents. Apples defiance here would be no worse than a company shipping products with no due respect to the IP of another; if thats how things unfold (which they may not).
Ruen
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 10:41 AMI think the issue here is more due to the fact that Apple rejected a proposed ‘peace offering’ from Samsung, now I don’t think anyone here have specifics regarding what that peace offering entailed, for all intents and purposes Samsung may have been willing to pay Apple a margin of profit off each Tab sale in regards to whatever patents Apple claim they have infringed, simply in order to have the Tablet out before the Christmas period.
Apple’s response to rejecting the offer is simply damning on Apple’s part, not only are they flat out saying they are rejecting the offer Samsung made, but also in essence any other offer Samsung might make it order to, in their own words, ‘maintain the status quo’ which is being interpreted by the wider community as their market monopoly.
Commander Shepard
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 9:47 PMIll maintain the status of my foot up apples ar5e
MotorMouth
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 9:57 PMHey Kelly, your spell-check might accept “somber” but your high school English teacher would be appalled. It also makes it hard to give you any credibility as a journalist.
Danny Allen
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:19 PMSomber is US spelling, as this is a US-fed article. And it’s now fixed. Next time, please just point out if I miss an Australian spelling fix in the edit, rather than being a douche bag. Credibility amongst fellow readers and all that.
Womp
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:05 PMHow many weeks ago did Jobs retire?
If you really want to continue with the pretense that gizmodo does not have a creepy bromance/@rsek!ss!ng/stalker thing for Jobs do not you think that it is about time you found another picture to post everytime you mention Apple? One that does not have Jobs in it.
Danny Allen
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:11 PMHuh? It’s a funny picture. And a picture that’s become synonymous with Gizmodo’s Samsung Galaxy Tab court battle coverage. That’s where it begins and ends man. Relax. Sometimes an apple is just an apple — not a secret plot to feed the world GM modified fruit with Steve Job’s monogram on it. You’ve been couped up in the dark for too long.
Womp
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:54 PMWell, maybe I am a little sensitive about the apple thing, but Jobs has gone, and that picture is getting more dated by the day, somebody is going to have to find a replacement picture sooner or later.
Tim
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 1:56 AMIt is a bit like how they continue to show the ‘enhanced’ Galaxy S and Tab photographs whenever they talk about the case too. The Galaxy S App draw displayed to look like the Apple Homescreen, and the Galaxy Tab layout to show just icons arranged like the iPad – rather than the widgets that form the home screens.
Danny Allen
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 2:18 PMPut together something stylish and or funny for me and we’ll run it, and credit you.
sparhawk0
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 4:40 AMAnd that Paplaptine photoshop is clearly from the outdated pre-Blu-ray release of RotJ, when the new HD version has been available for weeks now.
Gah! Can’t you guys do _anything_ right?
EckyThump
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 9:35 AMPersonally I don’t give a crap about the picture, but could you at least dial it back a bit this time around,.. please!! #]
Ozoneocean
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:12 PMThat quote is scary. This has basically become an open abuse of the Australian legal system.
I don’t care what companies are involved- When you are OPENLY exploiting our laws like this for the sake of market share and corporate advantage you are undermining our country as a whole.
The Judicial system suffers a lot of abuse and sneaky dealing, but something this blatant and on this scale reminds me of the corporatisation of the USA- and that’s some bad crap.
James
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 1:10 AMApple: We’ve created a whole new magical Tablet. As well as this we have driven the demand for such a device and have convinced the world they all need one of these.
Samsung (a year later): ummm we have one too now!
Apple: Better get lawyers son, better get reeeal good ones.
sparhawk0
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 4:42 AM“Status quo”? I hope the ACCC’s ears pricked up at that point.
Brendan
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 7:54 AMSo apple just wants to block a major player entering the tablet market. Now why would a buy an apple products, just to look after their bottom line?
Looks like nothing but Android products for me now
Andrew
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 10:14 AMThats the whole point of the patent system. To reward innovation with a monopoly. If Samsung has breached a patent they will lose, if they haven’t they will win, if the patent doesn’t stand up for prior art etc then the patent will be deemed invalid. Unfortunately often the only way to determine this is through the courts, its nothing new. Due to the nature of the capitalist system, corporations unfortunately have to look after the bottom line for shareholders. This means that if they allow a product that breaches patents held by the company to erode their market share, the directors are not doing their job properly and have the shareholders to answer to. That’s the reality, it sometimes seems crap but its the world we live in and reap the benefits of. If someone has an better alternative come forth!
DONAR
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 10:38 AM…and just where did Apple get the “S” from for the iPhone 4S? The Galaxy S!
Samsung should add that to the countersuit, make them rename it the iPhone 4Q.
chefu
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 10:58 AMit’s actually a carry over from the 3GS…. remember it?… the iPhone that came out before the galaxy…
Peter
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 11:31 AMRight, gonna get me a Amung Galaxy!
vijay
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 1:59 PMso i can loose my hope of buying 8.9 in australia :(
Rituparno
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 9:24 PMIs Samsung a threat to Apple’s iPhone – http://liveoncampus.com/wire/show/3114259?utm_source=Blog&utm_medium=Seeding&utm_campaign=Ritu