Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Wins One-Week Extension of Galaxy Tab Sales Ban in Australia

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,964
39,961



Just a day after an appeals court ruled to lift the sales ban on Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia, Bloomberg reports that Apple has won a one-week extension of the ban while the company attempts to appeal the decision.
High Court Justice John Dyson Heydon today extended the ban on the release of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 to Dec. 9. On that day, the country's top court will consider Apple's request for permission to appeal a lower court's order issued earlier this week, which lifted a ban on the product that has been in place since mid-October.

"A stay for one week will cost Samsung, in effect, one week's trade," Heydon said, following a 90-minute hearing in Sydney. The extension will hurt Samsung "but not to extend the status quo is likely to be injurious to Apple," he said.
Click to expand...
Samsung had been planning to begin selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia today ahead of shipments into the country this weekend. The company was rushing to bring the device to market in time for the holiday shopping season, but has been forced to put those plans on hold for the time being.

apple_samsung_logos.jpg



Samsung argued that every day of delay is crucial as the clock continues ticking on the holiday shopping season, claiming that Apple has no basis for an appeal of the ruling, but the court is willing to keep sales on hold until it can hear Apple's side of the request for appeal.

Apple and Samsung are also battling over the Galaxy Tab in Germany, where Apple previously won an injunction barring the sale of three different models of the device. Samsung tweaked the design of its Galaxy Tab 10.1 several weeks ago in an attempt to skirt around the injunction, but Apple has filed a request to have the new Galaxy Tab 10.1N banned from sale as well, arguing that the new design still infringes on Apple's design for the iPad.

Article Link: Apple Wins One-Week Extension of Galaxy Tab Sales Ban in Australia
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/01/apple-wins-one-week-extension-of-galaxy-tab-sales-ban-in-australia/
While the Apple fan inside me is having a party for this, as an IT manager and a consumer I got to say ouch for Samsung and Australian consumers! If Apple ends up dominating the market not just in sales (as it is now), but also being the only player, some retailers and local shops may start selling iPads way over their suggested prices -which in some countries already are.
From a legal perspective this case can indirectly/directly effect all the other legal wars in the EU and USA between Apple and other tablet makers, ending up that "cheaper entry-level" iPad that is rumoured even more distant and unlikely as Apple won't need it if it's the only tablet seller!
Still the fanboy inside me says: GO APPLE! :apple::D
 
Why do you continue to post a Samsung logo that is disproportionately larger than the Apple logo? It looks ridiculous.
 
The ban is unwarranted. Hopefully Apple will focus more on innovating and less on lawsuits.
 
scoobydoo99 said:
Why do you continue to post a Samsung logo that is disproportionately larger than the Apple logo? It looks ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Wow, complaining about a logo, childish.
It is indeed not good for a healthy competition but on the other hand the galaxy tab still does look like an iPad, but I wish this "war" was over and start making your own good inventions Samsung.
Your Tv sets are top designs so why can't you do the same with Mobile computers?
 
Andronicus said:
The ban is unwarranted. Hopefully Apple will focus more on innovating and less on lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Apple's view is that they are innovating and Samsung is copying. Which means they are violating trademarks and trade dress. And under US law, Apple has to actively act to stop all such violations of all degrees, locations etc or risk losing said protections.

That said, under Australian law, if the Judge feels that a petitioner will win the final case than he/she can agree to an injunction. Bennett's opinion was yes. This new judge disagreed.

And how much effect will this really have on Samsung's sales. Are they all that huge in areas where the Tab is still on sale. Or is all this grossing over a few dozen units
 
Mean while Amazon Fire is selling like hotcakes. Does Samsung really matter anymore? And the Asus transformer prime will be the new flavor of the month. You can't stop them all.
 
scoobydoo99 said:
Why do you continue to post a Samsung logo that is disproportionately larger than the Apple logo? It looks ridiculous.
Click to expand...
It appears that MacRumors is using equivalent logo image height, rather than square area.

Perhaps you would share your thoughts on what you might think to be a more equitable graphical logo presentation strategy. After all, you are a famous animated sleuthing canine.
 
Christmas time

charlituna said:
And how much effect will this really have on Samsung's sales?
Click to expand...

Given the fact it's Christmas gift shopping season, I would say this is a big hit. I doubt it would have been much of an issue on any given non December week.
 
scoobydoo99 said:
Why do you continue to post a Samsung logo that is disproportionately larger than the Apple logo? It looks ridiculous.
Click to expand...

OK, if they make them the same width then it's going to be ridiculously disproportionately smaller then the Apple logo. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
charlituna said:
Apple's view is that they are innovating and Samsung is copying. Which means they are violating trademarks and trade dress. And under US law, Apple has to actively act to stop all such violations of all degrees, locations etc or risk losing said protections.

That said, under Australian law, if the Judge feels that a petitioner will win the final case than he/she can agree to an injunction. Bennett's opinion was yes. This new judge disagreed.
Click to expand...
The Australian case has nothing to do with trademarks or trade dress. ;)

It's over two patents (one for touch screen manufacturing process) of which Apple stands a good chance of having invalidated and the other is for finger heuristics.
 
Refllections

I can't comment on all the ins and outs of the law, but the case is pretty simple to me on a moral level. Apple makes money by taking huge risks. Launching the iPad was a tremendous risk. Tablets hadn't been doing much for ten years or so. They made millions of tablets, of a brand-new design, and took the risk that they would, like the Microsoft tablets, sell maybe 50,000 of them. Before that, the costs and risks of the iPhone. And the iPod. Sure, things that were similar to other products, but went so far beyond them that they were completely new things.

So Samsung and the others not only copy the iPad, in tiny details, copying many of the same icons, making sure that their tablet is almost identical to the iPad from a few feet away -- and that's okay? Copying, not taking risks, not putting together the end-to-end solutions, that's okay?

Sure, tablets didn't belong to Apple. But the way their tablet works, the interface, details of the icons -- Apple has shown people how to use their competitors. They can design much more quickly, because, heh, heh, the hard work is done. They don't have to write an OS, they've got one given to them. That looks an awful lot like the iPad.

Should Apple just keep on taking huge risks by bringing out new media for communication, and not complain when people copy? They did that after the Mac, when nasty ol' Steve wasn't around to use his hobnail boots on the copiers. And Microsoft ate their lunch, and by '91 had completely gone beyond Apple.

This gives all the motivation to the copiers, not to the innovators. The copiers make money even though they're lazy, and riding on the hard work of Cupertino. I don't think that's a good idea either. If Samsung goes for something new, works at it for three or four years, and out-innovates Apple, I'd say they should have a little while to make money from their invention, and not just get imitated to death.
 
Swift said:
I can't comment on all the ins and outs of the law, but the case is pretty simple to me on a moral level. Apple makes money by taking huge risks. Launching the iPad was a tremendous risk. Tablets hadn't been doing much for ten years or so. They made millions of tablets, of a brand-new design, and took the risk that they would, like the Microsoft tablets, sell maybe 50,000 of them. Before that, the costs and risks of the iPhone. And the iPod. Sure, things that were similar to other products, but went so far beyond them that they were completely new things.

So Samsung and the others not only copy the iPad, in tiny details, copying many of the same icons, making sure that their tablet is almost identical to the iPad from a few feet away -- and that's okay? Copying, not taking risks, not putting together the end-to-end solutions, that's okay?

Sure, tablets didn't belong to Apple. But the way their tablet works, the interface, details of the icons -- Apple has shown people how to use their competitors. They can design much more quickly, because, heh, heh, the hard work is done. They don't have to write an OS, they've got one given to them. That looks an awful lot like the iPad.

Should Apple just keep on taking huge risks by bringing out new media for communication, and not complain when people copy? They did that after the Mac, when nasty ol' Steve wasn't around to use his hobnail boots on the copiers. And Microsoft ate their lunch, and by '91 had completely gone beyond Apple.

This gives all the motivation to the copiers, not to the innovators. The copiers make money even though they're lazy, and riding on the hard work of Cupertino. I don't think that's a good idea either. If Samsung goes for something new, works at it for three or four years, and out-innovates Apple, I'd say they should have a little while to make money from their invention, and not just get imitated to death.
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't innovate, they popularize things. Samsung is the innovator.
 
dethmaShine said:
You are diverting from your usual goal.

You're here to hate on Apple followers, not Apple. Please stick to it. Duh!
Click to expand...

I'm not hating Apple. They don't innovate. Innovating is bringing something new. And Apple didn't do that.
 
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

+1 this whole issue seems kind of childish. Apple is just being a bully, there are a million other iPad copiers, but they just want publicity/to get rid of there biggest possible competitor. The iPad is definitely a superior product, they should let the market play itself put.
 
Sticking by their guns!

Apple are right to stick by their guns.
It shows they honestly believe in what they are fighting.

If you invented something, and you can prove it. Also protecting it legally with patents. You too would feel the same way, and be forced to defend what has been copied.

They thought of it first, it's all there on paper.

I originally was on the other side of the fence, but I have recently thought about it in depth and this could be an important battle for the future of all innovation. Protecting innovators isn't a bad idea. Whether they are rich innovators isn't the question.
 
thenerdal said:
I'm not hating Apple. They don't innovate.
Click to expand...

See, again?

innovate |ˈinəˌvāt|
verb [ no obj. ]
make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products: the company's failure to diversify and innovate competitively.
• [ with obj. ] introduce (something new, esp. a product): innovating new products, developing existing ones.
DERIVATIVES
innovatory |-vəˌtôrē|adjective
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from Latin innovat- ‘renewed, altered,’ from the verb innovare, from in- ‘into’ + novare ‘make new’ (from novus ‘new’).
Click to expand...

But yes, you are allowed to hate on doltishly.
 
dethmaShine said:
See, again?



But yes, you are allowed to hate on doltishly.
Click to expand...

I know the definition. There were tablets before the iPad came out. iPad was not innovative. There were touch screen phones before the iPhone came out, not innovative.

They're just good with advertising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back