Print 33 comment(s) - last by Cheesew1z69.. on Oct 14 at 10:09 AM

  (Source: Paramount Pictures)
Apple extends its Galaxy Tab 10.1 ban from Germany to Australia

When it comes to protecting its intellectual property, Apple has recently been on the warpath. Unfortunately for Samsung, it has been on the receiving end of a barrage of legal challenges from Apple. Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 has already been kicked out of Germany (Europe’s third largest tablet market), and now Apple has won an injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Apple was granted an injunction against Samsung with regards to its Galaxy Tab 10.1. Samsung had previously stated that it would not introduce the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia until the judge’s ruling was handed down; now it appears that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 will likely never legally see the light of day in the country for "slavishly" copying Apple's iPad.

Samsung made a last ditch effort earlier this month to appease Apple by offering to remove two offending touch-related features from the Galaxy Tab 10.1, leaving just one touch-related patent in dispute – Apple soundly rejected that offer.

It should be carefully noted that the injunction has nothing to do with the actual look of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, but the aforementioned patents on touch interfaces. The infringement comes courtesy of a heuristics patent (AU 2007286532) and a patent involving the manufacturing process uses on the iPad/iPad 2 touch screen (AU 2005246219). A third patent, (AU 2008258177), was thrown out by Apple. 

Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents contends that these two touch-based patents could bar future Android tablets from making an appearance in Australia:

After today's decision, I believe no company in the industry be able to launch any new Android-based touchscreen product in Australia anytime soon without incurring a high risk of another interim injunction. The two patents on which today's ruling is based aren't Galaxy Tab 10.1-specific at all. They will affect all Android-based smartphones and tablet computers, across all vendors.

If Apple wins the Australian case at the end of the main proceeding, all Android-based products will effectively be shut out of the Australian market forever, unless Google or its device maker partners settle with Apple. Therefore, Google and Samsung will have to fight very hard to have the asserted patents declared invalid, or at least have their scope narrowed.

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
Not surprisingly, Samsung isn't too happy with the court's decision and says that it is seeking additional legal advice. "Samsung will continue its legal proceeding against Apple's claim in order to ensure our innovative products remain available to consumers," the company said in a statement. "This is a part of our ongoing legal proceeding against Apple's claim."
Samsung also makes note of the wireless technology patents that it holds and claims Apple is infringing upon. "Our wireless standard patents are essential for mobile business,” Samsung added. “We will continue to legally assert our intellectual property rights against those who violate Samsung's patents and free ride on our technology."
Apple sees Samsung as a major threat in both smartphones and tablets. Samsung is the number two smartphone manufacturer behind Apple, and the Galaxy Tab family of Android-based tablets are widely seen as the most credible challenger to the iPad. Crushing Samsung’s Android-based offerings would give quite a bit of breathing room for Apple’s iPhone and iPad products which are expected to account for 49 percent and 21 percent respectively of Apple's revenue by 2013 according to Piper Jaffray’s Gene Munster.

Sources: The Sidney Morning Herald, City Press, Apple Insider, FOSS Patents

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

take them down
By shockf1 on 10/13/2011 6:14:09 AM , Rating: 5
how much longer will all the android makers put up with these tactics from apply before they get there acts together to crush apple in joint littigation.

RE: take them down
By amanojaku on 10/13/2011 8:36:54 AM , Rating: 4
Agreed. It's sad that a single company can claim legal ownership over a product it didn't even create, and for which patents and shipping products already existed. Apple's claims on design and function are similar to Christian Louboutin claiming sole ownership over red-soled high heels. Maybe Samsung should hire Yves Saint Laurent's lawyers.

RE: take them down
By xytc on 10/13/2011 3:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
So in fact Apple took different parts from different manufacturers like LCD screens, multitouch panels, chips, and other stuff and give them to Foxconn which produced for them the iPhone and iPad.
Now basically Apple didn't have any patents related to those products since Apple didn't produced them, they just bought those products from different manufacturers.

Then watch out the tricky part they produce a square phone or tablet and patent that square then with that patented square they try to minimize and render useless the other dozens of patents that are related to real technology inside a smartphone like GSM standards, 3G, 4G technology, LCD dispaly patents, multitouch panel patents, photo camera patents, antenna patents, ram memory patents, storage memory patents, CPU and GPU patents, and who knows what other patents are found inside a smart phone, and all those useful patents Apple is trying to minimize and trying to render them useless with a square patent, how genius is that ?

RE: take them down
By Natch on 10/13/2011 8:42:50 AM , Rating: 2
Don't be surprised when Apple starts doing their own version of "Minority Report", and makes legal claims that bar other cell phone companies from selling future products that haven't even been thought up yet.

"We know we'll think of it, and patent it, first your honor, so would like you to block everyone else from using our technology now, before it's too late."

RE: take them down
By Solandri on 10/13/2011 2:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
That's pretty much what the injunction in Germany is. It's a design patent based on a drawing made 6 years before Apple ever released the iPad. Some of the iFans tried to make a point of it, saying the Samsung digital picture frame (an actual product sold at retail in 2006) wasn't prior art because the drawing pre-dates it.

For U.S. patents you have to be able to demonstrate a working prototype to be granted a patent (the patent examiner doesn't always enforce this, but they can). But I guess in Germany, you can just make something up, submit a drawing of it, and presto you own the rights to it for 20+ years. Down that path lies insanity, as billions of minds get to work drawing and patenting every shape and form they can think of, trying to predict what the next big-selling future product will look like.

RE: take them down
By Tony Swash on 10/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: take them down
By drycrust3 on 10/13/2011 11:29:38 AM , Rating: 1
which is that Apple is winning cases because they have a case

Looking at the first of those patents, it sites US patent 5825352, which according to the US Patent office has Logitech as the assignee, not Apple.

RE: take them down
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2011 11:46:42 AM , Rating: 5
The quickest and easiest way to halt all these legal cases is simple - company's like Samsung should stop copying Apple and stop including features that Apple has a patent on. Then all the lawyers go away. Magic.

Sure, and Apple can remove the cellular antennae in their phones. Because Samsung spent billions in research and development on cellular technology and Apple is infringing on those patents. Then this all goes away. Magic :)

That sounds a lot more tangible and relevant than "hey your stuff looks like ours!".

Some copying of trend setting designs is OK

Oh yeah? I'm sorry but is there a well defined "okay" limit for design-sharing that Apple can point to and say a line was crossed? No, it's entirely arbitrary.

This isn't about designs or looks. It's about Apple who believes they "created" the smart phone and seeks to be the sole provider of said device. Even the most retarded fanboi can see that competition from other manufacturers pushes the iPhone to be better for end users. But nope, not you Tony. One phone to rule them all! How draconian.

the obvious elephant in the room

Wrong. The real elephant in the room is Apple's patents on vague and generic design terms aren't valid and never should have been granted in the first place. Germany and Australia? Big deal Tony. They only filed there in the first place because they knew those courts were sympathetic. Only thing that matters in the end is where this goes in the U.S courts.

RE: take them down
By sprockkets on 10/13/2011 1:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
I have a better solution; I'd be the judge, show Mr. Cook his buddy's Picaso quote, remind him he owns the tablet market, then tell him to stop whining like a b|tch and grow a pair.

RE: take them down
By Tony Swash on 10/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: take them down
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2011 10:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
You believe cellular technology, which cost billions to develop, is under FRAND but you think Apple owns the exclusive rights to black rectangles?

Okay that pretty much says it all. Keep enjoying those -1's.

RE: take them down
By semo on 10/13/2011 9:47:06 AM , Rating: 3
I say unleash the European Commission on them to soften them up first.

RE: take them down
By vazili on 10/13/2011 10:00:44 AM , Rating: 4
My thoughts exactly. They have yet to step in. They were all over microsoft, why not apple? Isn't apple limiting consumer choice?

RE: take them down
By Brandon Hill on 10/13/2011 10:24:42 AM , Rating: 1
Ohh, so you want some fresh Apple Sauce, with the final solution being Apple Juice and/or Cider ;)

What case?
By ChicoMonster on 10/13/2011 10:40:07 AM , Rating: 5
It's a shame that most legal systems ignore common sense. The technical patents you can't really argue with but the design ones are bogus. Nobody confuses i-stuff for Samsung/HTC/LG stuff and if they do they're not likely to pay the premium for i-stuff anyway.

Apple had a great thing going with their "premium products" when they had no competition. Android products collectively gave Apple a thrashing with the perfect combination of quality, price and selection (something for everyone). Apple's response was not "innovation" as they are fond of saying, it was blatant bullying.

I love my i-pod touch and my 6 year old son loves his even more. It's a quality product that I ultimately decided was worth the money. I would be lying if I said that I wouldn't buy an Android alternative for a few bucks less though. Apple just needs to realize that they're never going to have the market share they did before. They can fight all they want but the people have spoken.

RE: What case?
By Justin Time on 10/13/2011 6:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
The injunction is not a judgment of the case itself, but reflects the assessment of the judge that Apple has a case to argue which they could possibly win - even though they could also possibly lose.

The interlocutory process provides relief to an applicant based on the "balance of convenience", provided the applicant can show a legal basis for their argument.

As Apple is the existing product and Samsung is not yet available for sale, Apple were given the relief on that basis.

Apple has no right to those patents...
By Iaiken on 10/13/2011 11:43:19 AM , Rating: 2
The Australian patents that were cited by the court as applicable are all ideas stolen from University of Toronto and University of Delaware research white papers that were published in 1985.

The earliest Apple patents on the subject date back to only 2005 and after 20 years of research on the subject at 7 major universities, I would argue that the patents are invalid because the technology was not new and by then it should have been considered blatantly obvious.

Apple has absolutely zero right to these cited patents and as such has no right to sue Samsung to protect them. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like any given patent system is willing to look beyond it's own borders to see that they are protecting multinational thieves.

RE: Apple has no right to those patents...
By Tony Swash on 10/13/11, Rating: -1
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/13/2011 12:59:13 PM , Rating: 3
I think YOU need to get real.

By Solandri on 10/13/2011 2:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
Generally the legal systems in all the countries where hearing are are occurring are pretty robust and not particularly corrupt. Real lawyers will argue the details into the ground and real judges and juries will make decisions and I for one am happy for them to do so. Who else could decide?

You haven't been following patent lawsuits over the last decade very closely, have you?

Monsanto, RAMBUS, NTP, are the biggest ones to come to mind. It's pretty clear to most reasonable observers that the legal system built around patents is fubar, it's just that the lawyers and politicians keep perpetuating it since it means more money for them. This isn't something directed specifically at Apple. In a way I'm kinda cheering Apple on since the more ridiculous it gets, the easier it will be to convince the public that we're in serious need of patent reform.

By gwem557 on 10/13/2011 8:38:49 PM , Rating: 1
Gee, apple should just stop copying Android designs, then?

Nah. Lord Jobs Hath Spoken. It's okay for apple to be hypocritical and predatory...just not anyone else.

The worst thing about Jobs' death? iTards will turn him into a martyr.

Asking a judge to judge this...
By BugblatterIII on 10/13/2011 4:09:03 PM , Rating: 2 like asking a blind man to judge whether two pictures are similar.

Yes this case wasn't about looks, but it was still about patents on obvious ways to do things. Clearly not obvious to the judge.

RE: Asking a judge to judge this...
By Tony Swash on 10/14/2011 5:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
Did you see that in the US legal case between Apple and Samsung the judge held up the iPad and Samsung tab tablet above her head and asked the Samsung legal team to tell her which was which. They struggled to do so :)

By Cheesew1z69 on 10/14/2011 10:09:58 AM , Rating: 2
Not quite...

At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which. "Not at this distance your honor," said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away. "Can any of Samsung's lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?" Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.

By Stuka on 10/13/2011 11:50:21 AM , Rating: 3
Where are all the anti-competitive whistle blowers who freaked out over which free browser people were using? Apple, in it's decision to 100% oppose licensing, is actively seeking to destroy market competition here, not simply streamlining it's user experience.

By bh192012 on 10/13/2011 1:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
"I own an iPhone an was a early adopter of it with the first touchscreen with its functions of its time ."

Why do people keep saying stuff like this? This isn't the only example, but merely the first one I could think of.

By Onimuto on 10/13/2011 8:27:13 PM , Rating: 1
that's nice and all i can quickly use Google to fine even more if that pleases you. Sorry to burst your bubble. Verizon tried to get me to buy the LG. Meh LG had nothing on the function of the iphones digatizer. I understand more now. I can see where takingyourpoints, tonyswash, and pirks are saying now. daily tech is really anti apple regardless what the topic is Sad. I speak out for free markets , true competition. Sure i hate apple at this current time for the shit they are pulling on samsung. I have respect for Samsung. Alot of posters on this site are typical Americans who could care less and just trash and trash. Not caring what it takes to create. Samsung the worlds second largest/ sometime largest semiconductor chip provider <they and Intel fight for this spot allot >. I give props to apple i can understand why most hate APPLE in general due to the fans blind faith and judgmental mind set. Apple PC i already posted how this mac pro-book i have is trash sitting next to my MSI which the msi cost $800 less. Sorry if your but-hurt but iPhone was the first phone i had touched between verizon att sprint t mobile that had such a great touch screen of that time period. ignoring this is makes you no better and worse then the apple cult following.

By NellyFromMA on 10/13/2011 9:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
I love the picture from the Godfather hahaha.

question re: patents and usage?
By mackx on 10/13/2011 10:27:43 AM , Rating: 2
samsung were trying to prevent apple from using their 3g etc patents in korea right? but people here/anandtech were saying that they're essential patents or something so you can't deny anyone the right to them - just demand a fee for it?

wouldn't multitouch fall under that category as well? by denying others the right to use this "patented" (stupid patent!), then these governments are effectively giving apple the go ahead to have a monopoly

yet another reason to hate apple i guess

Just a reminder
By sprockkets on 10/13/2011 1:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
That "victory" in Germany is mostly useless; retailers can still buy tablets from Samsung in Korea and can market the table themselves. Only Samsung Germany cannot import the product nor advertise it.

Wonder if this the same for Australia.

Time to strike back Samsung
By justjc on 10/13/2011 5:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
I would say that this would be a good time for Samsung to strike back and deny the iPhone 4S access to any market. After all Samsung bought two patents that covers every thinkable way Apples dual antenna solution could work in 2007.

I'm talking about US patent US 7,643,853 B2 and US 2007/0111677 A1

The case is covered at where the professor that predicted the antenna problem in the original iPhone 4 is interviewed about the new model.

By spaced_ on 10/14/2011 3:26:18 AM , Rating: 2
As per title. The wheel was invented in 2001. By a fellow Australian.

Now if only he would take action against those damned automobile companies 'slavishly' copying his wheel!@#@!#$@#

"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki