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

Australian Retailer Ready for 'Cat and Mouse' Game with Apple over Galaxy Tab Sales

acidfast7 said:
Hey clown. I'm arguing the people are better with an MBA than a tablet for almost the same cost.

Learn to read the thread before posting.
Click to expand...
First, double is not "almost the same". Second, I did read it, and your comments show you have no idea what a tablet is for. Which is not a crime. However, ripping on other posters because they do understand the usefulness probably should be.

----------
Renzatic said:
At least moles are small and easy to clean up.
Click to expand...

Not in Ember.
 
FakeWozniak said:
What, you say.

In the real world, a court made the decision and Samsung lost. This isn't between dMavo and Apple, it's between dMavo and the Australian courts. You seem to be in your own personal reality distortion field.
Click to expand...

No samsung did not lose. Its a preliminary injunction. It was granted before Samsung could appeal it or defend itself.
 
JAT said:
First, double is not "almost the same". Second, I did read it, and your comments show you have no idea what a tablet is for. Which is not a crime. However, ripping on other posters because they do understand the usefulness probably should be.
Click to expand...

"Double" only applies for the base WiFi iPad. Given how in any discussion of tablets here people talk like 3G is essential, you're suddenly talking about the much more expensive 32GB/64GB WiFi models, which are "almost the same" as a base MBA, yes.
 
Lennholm said:
This was your answer to a question aimed at Apple (I assume hypothetically). LTD, as much as you want believe it, you're not Apple, you're just a wannabe.
Click to expand...

It's not hard to guess Apple's answer. It was a pretty dumb question to ask in the first place, since consumers don't care about corporate litigation. You really think they'll forego an iPad or iPhone 4S because one company is suing another tech company over patent technicalities?

LOL, right.
 
*LTD* said:
They will, however, bow down to the courts.

. . . of the injunction prohibiting the sale of the device in that country.
Click to expand...

And the Australian courts will only rule on law. If the transaction for the sale of the device takes place outside of Australia then the injunction does not cover it.

----------
Shrink said:
This company challenging Apple will feel the wrath of god fall upon it.
Click to expand...

You'll find Apple's sway on Australia's courts is basically zero. Unless they make a convincing argument of law the courts will throw them out.

----------
jdpruitt said:
I'm with Apple on this. It's a poorly ripped-off product - the patents are pretty clear.
Click to expand...

Design patents are bullcrap. The shape or styling of any product is defined by the constructs of it's underlying hardware and usage. That's why Apple's tablet copies existing concept designs from decades ago and also copies tablets that have been on the market prior to the ipad.

When you get down to it the problem is a broken patent system that allows bogus patents to get through.
 
FrankieTDouglas said:
He said he was diehard, not blind and ignorant to shortcomings.
Click to expand...

And the Appleonians don't like that. They tend to prefer blindness and ignore shortcomings.

gri said:
Exactly - Apple has more money - only for a few days - then the US of A. And they want to go against that, how stupid is that? Apple can afford to sit out and drag a lawsuit, they have to pay lawyer fees.
Click to expand...

Do you think that everyone should just bow down to Apple? How stupid would that be? It won't be long until the government gets involved like they did with Microsoft.
 
AppleScruff1 said:
And the Appleonians don't like that. They tend to prefer blindness and ignore shortcomings.



Do you think that everyone should just bow down to Apple? How stupid would that be? It won't be long until the government gets involved like they did with Microsoft.
Click to expand...

Not saying they should - but that Goliath might not the best opponent as Apple has the longer breath , I.e. more $$$ - for any court case than most other companies... Pick your battles...
 
gri said:
Not saying they should - but that Goliath might not the best opponent as Apple has the longer breath , I.e. more $$$ - for any court case than most other companies... Pick your battles...
Click to expand...

Got it. Now I understand how you meant it. ;)
 
something3153 said:
"Double" only applies for the base WiFi iPad. Given how in any discussion of tablets here people talk like 3G is essential, you're suddenly talking about the much more expensive 32GB/64GB WiFi models, which are "almost the same" as a base MBA, yes.
Click to expand...

Except the MBA doesn't have 3g, so it is hardly a justification for the comparison. So the cheapest MBA costs about twice the cheapest iPad. The reality is that the MBA is a different device with a different purpose so the comparison is pretty meaningless anyway. I use an iPad every day and you can't walk around with the MBA while you use it. The fact that you can't imagine a use for the iPad does not mean the iPad is useless, it probably means your imagination could use a little help. Apparently millions of people have a better imagination than you. And a use for a computing device that is not a laptop.
 
acidfast7 said:
I'm arguing the people are better with an MBA than a tablet for almost the same cost.

Learn to read the thread before posting.
Click to expand...

No, you were arguing that somehow "real" scientific presentations couldn't be done on the iPad. Several scientists said you were wrong (and I agree).
 
jacksonjesse said:
It's worth siting this guy's history. He's been previously convicted of running a business that sold pirated software. And what was the name this genius gave his business? "Pirated Software Group". You can't make this stuff up.

http://www.out-law.com/page-664
Click to expand...

Good research. Look at his picture in the SMH news article. He looks like a sleazy car salesman. Nice picture of wife, that looks like a clubbing dress rather than a wedding dress. This guy loves the camera.
 
gri said:
Not saying they should - but that Goliath might not the best opponent as Apple has the longer breath , I.e. more $$$ - for any court case than most other companies... Pick your battles...
Click to expand...

And what menas that it has more cash in a cse like this that can last a lot of time?
 
A bit of clrification is needed it seems...

Hi everyone,

We respect everyone's views even if we don't agree with them.

However, before stating that:
1. we are breaking the law
2. we sell an illegal/banned product
3. we will kneel down to Apple etc etc

try to take some time out and read the facts surrounding the current Court proceedings in Australia.

The below link should help:
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD1243/2011/actions

Apple, as big as their pockets may be, cannot, as of right now, stop us, or anyone else not associated with Samsung Australia, from selling the Samsung Galaxy 10.1 tablets to the Australian consumers.

So as much as some of you Apple fanboys think otherwise, we need to disappoint you.

Here's the crux of the matter:
1. The Samsung Galaxy 10.1 tablets are not banned in OZ
2. Apple, whilst trying to use its intimidation tactics, has no legal right to make the demands they had made

So take a chill pill and stay tuned. We pick our battles well :)

Cheers,
dMavo
 
johncrab said:
I find it interesting in reading the Steve Jobs book that Wozniak's dad always taught Woz to hang in the middle, never be #1 or at the top of anything. I've shared this philosophy because I know what happens to those at the top. They have everyone shooting at them. The one thing human society hates more than a loser is a winner and they seek to bring them down. Look at Microsoft. Without Bush's intervention, it would have been broken up. Martha Stewart made a fortune from nothing and yes, she had to be brought down. Apple is now in the unenviable position of leader in a number of categories with the whole world shooting at it and based on the past, this does not bode well for the future. But what does one do? Hobble one's self?
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with being number one or good at what you do. It's when that power is wielded in a corrupt, illegal or uncompetitive way. Martha Stewart was convicted of a crime, so she went to prison for it - and rightly so, so bad example.

Apple some may recall copied the original ipod interface from Creative and had to payout as a result. They are now stopping the sales of a product that they think is similar, right down to the shape?! Can we not decide as the buying public?

Apple are not completely blameless and their business practices leave a lot to be desired.
 
Last edited:
gri said:
Sorry, can you clarify your question?
Click to expand...

sorry, posting after just wake up and in a language that it isn't your native language have to be forbidden

I wanted to say:

And what means that it has more cash in a case like this that won't last a lot of time because is an easy case?
 
dMavo said:
Hi everyone,

We respect everyone's views even if we don't agree with them.

However, before stating that:
1. we are breaking the law
2. we sell an illegal/banned product
3. we will kneel down to Apple etc etc

try to take some time out and read the facts surrounding the current Court proceedings in Australia.

The below link should help:
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD1243/2011/actions

Apple, as big as their pockets may be, cannot, as of right now, stop us, or anyone else not associated with Samsung Australia, from selling the Samsung Galaxy 10.1 tablets to the Australian consumers.

So as much as some of you Apple fanboys think otherwise, we need to disappoint you.

Here's the crux of the matter:
1. The Samsung Galaxy 10.1 tablets are not banned in OZ
2. Apple, whilst trying to use its intimidation tactics, has no legal right to make the demands they had made

So take a chill pill and stay tuned. We pick our battles well :)

Cheers,
dMavo
Click to expand...

Really?

So then, why the need to set up servers specifically handling Galaxy 10.1 orders outside of OZ? Expecting an overwhelming flood of Galaxy 10.1 orders?

Why the need to import from parallel distributors in other parts of Asia? Didn't stock up and now Samsung Australia can't sell you any? Why is it that they can't sell you any?

If you have nothing to be afraid of, then all that maneuvering and statements about "we're ready" and "we pick our battles well" should all become unnecessary.

Unless there's something you're not telling us…...
 
SingaporeStu said:
Really?

So then, why the need to set up servers specifically handling Galaxy 10.1 orders outside of OZ? Expecting an overwhelming flood of Galaxy 10.1 orders?
Click to expand...

In case the current injunction against Samsung is extended to local 3rd parties.

SingaporeStu said:
Why the need to import from parallel distributors in other parts of Asia? Didn't stock up and now Samsung Australia can't sell you any? Why is it that they can't sell you any?
Click to expand...

Dude you're so clueluess. If you had any idea about the case you would know that these tablets were never available in OZ and Samsung Australia had never started distributing them in the first place. Maybe the reason they cannot sell us any is because Apple took them to Court and an injunction took place? DOH!

SingaporeStu said:
If you have nothing to be afraid of, then all that maneuvering and statements about "we're ready" and "we pick our battles well" should all become unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Correct, we have nothing to be afraid of, either now or later and that's why we're so open about it.

Unless there's something you're not telling us…...[/QUOTE]

Please try to come up with somewhat more complicated questions.
 
ReanimationN said:
Things to note:

- The injunction against Samsung stands on one product and one product only. Samsung is free to sell any of its upcoming tablets.

- The judge that granted an injunction is married to one of the senior counsel members of Wentworth 5- the barrister firm representing Apple in the court case. Conflict of interest?
Click to expand...
If that's true that seems like kind of a big deal. Why isn't the press reporting this alleged conflict of interest?
 
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