ie8 fix

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Samsung's Galaxy Tab sales ban lifted in rare Apple patent defeat

By | November 30, 2011, 4:01am PST

Summary: Samsung has won a rare patent battle with Apple in Australia, in an ongoing global legal war between the two tablet and smartphone giants.

Samsung is set to resume selling its Galaxy Tab tablets in Australia after a rare win against Apple in an ongoing, global patent dispute.

An Australian federal appeals court unanimously chose to lift the preliminary sales injunction that banned the sale of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1.

Samsung will not be able to sell its tablets immediately in the region, however. A stay was granted on the order until December 2nd at 4 p.m. local time. While this will reduce its time on the market in the run-up to Christmas, it allows Samsung to gather its pace and issue stock to local retailers.

The ban will allow Samsung to participate in the highly-anticipated Christmas markets, one of the busiest times for shopping in the annual calendar. Though Australia’s market is not as large as Germany’s or that of the United States, it remains a key market for competing products, including the iPad.

A sales injunction forced Samsung to stop selling its Android-powered tablets in Germany earlier this year, and a court in the Netherlands forced the company to modify some of its smartphone models.

Apple has since filed a preliminary sales injunction request in Germany to force the redesigned Galaxy Tab 10.1N off the shelves. Samsung has changed the appearance of the tablet to comply with Apple’s lawyers’ requests in a bid to circumvent the order.

While a rare victory for Samsung, where the seemingly one-sided war has seen Apple prevail in all but every jurisdiction it has brought a claim, it may not have significant impact on other cases around the world.

During the ongoing proceedings, it has been made clear that the Samsung range of tablets offers one of the greatest competitive threats to Apple’s iPad, though still a distant second in marketshare statistics.

It was only last week, Justice Lindsay Foster told the Australian appeals court that the initial preliminary sales injunction was “not terribly fair to Samsung”.

Read more on this story from ZDNet Australia.

Related:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from CNN, the Huffington Post, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

51
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Samsung's Galaxy Tab sales ban lifted in rare Apple patent defeat
Jacketty 7th Dec
Too bad that consumers who buy Apple products are locked into the platform as the cost of all the apps purchased have to stay within Apples very, very, very small actual device selection. With Android you can at least move your apps throughout an amazing array of devices. That is why I don't liker Apple products. It sucks you in to the bitter end.
Rare? Hardly. This would be common place if junk patents were cheaper to contest.
@BrentRBrian: ... this decision.
Dear ZDNet

I asked this before and I ask again: Why is a defeat for Apple "rare" and for its competitors "huge"?

Specifically why, every time something goes against Google, is it projected like the end of the road for the search giant and why when the same thing happens to Apple are adjectives like "rare" and "minor" used?
@Lord_of_the_Singhs
Google sells ads and by doing so takes money away from mainstream media. Apple buys more ads then Google. Mainstream media is just protecting their bottom line by siding with Apple.
0 Votes
+ -
@Jean-Pierre-

hmmmmm................
@Jean-Pierre-

If only consumers realized this. To many consumers read stuff on sites like this thinking it is unbiased reporting, when in reality they are basically reading nothing but roundabout Apple advertising. Sad.
@Jean-Pierre-

Interesting.
@Lord_of_the_Singhs

You can no more rightly compare "rare" and "huge" that you can "rare" and "minor." Reviewing only the patent violation suits by and against AAPL ove the past 3-4 months only, a loss would have to be considered rare indeed.

So, when something occurs RARELY (such as Apple's loss of a Patent lawsuit filed against AAPL) is indeed huge. Using 'rare" and "huge" in the same comparison is one thing, but to attempt to compare the two words is inane.
0 Votes
+ -
Rare ?
Legal007 Updated - 30th Nov
The times they are a-changin': November 2nd 2011 '' Apple loses tablet case against small Spanish firm '' . NT-K, the small Spanish firm, , is demanding compensation from Apple for losses during the ban of its product and is suing Apple for alleged anti-competitive behavior.
0 Votes
+ -
Android Tablet
cbhattarai 30th Nov
I really didn't expect to happen this as i was looking for the Samsung tab, because Apple is really Expensive.
http://www.gadgetmasala.com/latest-and-best-android-tablets-available-on-pre-order.html
@cbhattarai

If AAPL were to manufacture the iPad, iPhone or MBA from plastics, and cheap, flimsy frames and then violated AAPL's patents rather than innovate something exciting, revolutionary and magical, THEN AND ONLY THEN could the item be considered expensive. But, if you offer the public something that is truly new, innovative, revolutionary and magical and that same company filed and received a good, solid patent as a result of all the hard work, dead brain cells, THEN IT COULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED EXPENSIVE.

The cost of an item should never be viewed as expensive if what you are purchasing truly is made from the highest quality materials and made to specs that no one else uses much less thinks about, then it can't be thought of as expensive. If that item is still working as it was designed to do 5 years prior and working well, its cost is incalculable. And, it certainly is not expensive.

If, on the other hand, the purchased item is made from materials that rarely last more than a year, if that long, and is cheaply made and flimsy rather than solid, where "solid" is the gold standard, then it's EXPENSIVE.

REMEMBER, there is a big difference between "expensive" and "dear."
0 Votes
+ -
conclusion
kalimeru 1st Dec
@Rbutler222

all the devices that Apple has delivered these past few years are, by your own words, extremely expensive. More so, their prices can only be justified on the fact that people keep buying them.
If I worked at Apple I would price them even higher!! Like double or more! Then a half-price or 15% "discount" would seem lovely to all those "enlightened" consumers!
I agree with you on all you said! wink

PS: if you truly analyse these past few devices, nothing is new or unheard of, nothing is cutting-edge technology or even medium-edge technology sometimes, and some "upgrades" are comprised on things that were already available on many other devices years before!

Years ago I looked to Apple as a good example of quality, though pricey.
Nowadays it's only overpriced, with nice package. Like a mistress :P
@Rbutler222
So using this logic then Apple should be able to charge $10,000 for an Ipad because its made of high quality materials and it is exciting, revolutionary, and magical.

And Disney world should charge you $100,000 for admittance because of the unique, exciting, and magical experience you have inside their gates.
It was only last week, Justice Lindsay Foster told the Australian appeals court that the initial preliminary sales injunction was ???not terribly fair to Samsung???.

I have to wonder if she in in Samsung's pocket... after all Samsung slavishly copied the iPad right down to the very packaging and thus far the Australian court is the only one to lift the ban.

As for the rarity of Apple losing a patent suit like others here have pointed out that is becoming less rare.
@Pete "athynz" Athens

Actually it's another way around. The judge that issued the ban, Annabelle Bennett, is married to the senior partner, David Annabelle, of the firm that repersenting in Apple's case.

So no wonder the federal appeals court wants to lift the ban.
@Samic Many of us have been wondering why Bennett didn't just recuse herself from the case originally. If this fraternal relationship between Bennett and Apple is sufficiently explored, I wonder to what degree the AU court could be liable for damages from lost sales during the period in which the erroneous injunction was in place. Probably not a gambit Samsung wants to pursue at this time, but Bennett's decision to remain on the case was clearly an embarrassment to the AU legal system.
@Samic

Samsung might wait until the 'dust settles' and then bring this apparent conflict of interest to the attention of the Australian Judiciary. I do know that in many US states, such a 'conflict' could be grounds for removal from the bench.
@Samic Yep, and you likely will not see another one in the AU anyway!
@Samic Interesting - do you have any proof of this?
@Samic
@Pete "athynz" Athens

Yes, her husband and the Barrister representing Apple in her court are senior members of '5 Wentworth'. I am not sure whether this is a firm. Someone suggested that it is a chambers where all the lawyers suppose to work independantly.

One more thing, the Judge Annabelle Bennett herself is an alumni of '5 Wentworth'.

Google '5 Wentworth', you could see their website and under 'People' link in their website you could see all senior members. David Bennett is the husband of the Judge Annabelle Bennett. In their website, it is clearly stated Annabelle Bennett is an alumni of '5 Wentworth'.

I still think that, to be fair, Annabelle should have not taken the job as a judge in this Apple v Samsung.
@Samic Due to the involvement of her husband and no recusing herself I would suspect she would be less favorable to Apple just so it didn't look like there was an issue. Not saying that is why the ban was lifted, just how I would expect somebody to act in this situation.
@Pete "athynz" Athens
slavishy copied?? The screen is not even the same aspect ratio!
Something wrong in this sentence:- The ban will allow Samsung to participate in the highly-anticipated Christmas markets, one of the busiest times for shopping in the annual calendar. (4th para).
@Raju Das - its potentially correct.. like inverse metaphoric sarcasm.. you know like you and me meet at the shopping mall and we say 'heey how are you going mate, haven't sued you for a while!" .. - "yeah sue you soon too!!". Its ok. I'm more interested in finding out busiest times in other calendars (not the annual calendar, the other, important ones like Darian or semilunar calendars.. ! happy ).
It saddens me to see these companies trying to undo each other, if Apple actually feels any product is a threat to them they simply bring suit on a junk patent basis and prevent that products sale. This prompts Samsung to bring suit against the new i-phone on the same basis. In the end no matter which platform or product you prefer, as a consumer you are the ultimate loser, as the costs of petty litegation trickle down to US!!!! Competition breeds product improvement and price reduction untill you compete in court. Perhaps we should give the courts a new tool to levy major fines for any suit determined to be frivolous, to minimize these childish antics!
0 Votes
+ -
Not so fast
frabjous 30th Nov
@tjmajka As Pete said, "after all Samsung slavishly copied the iPad right down to the very packaging and thus far the Australian court is the only one to lift the ban."
Apple was the 1st to package a product like that... I think not.

The sad fact is just about every feature of the iPad has been described in fiction well before now. Do the owners of 2001 a space Odyssey receive royalties from apple for blatantly ripping off their concept?
0 Votes
+ -
It is a win. You know neiter Samsung nor Apple pay my bills and as long as Samsung won it fair and square its all good. I'm sick of various companies registering patents nonsensically for anything and everything (including rights to display specific colurs in supoermarket producs ?!!?!?) as soon as they think there is glimps of chance that somebody could actually invent it one day and then making their money on court cases. It is a system created to protect the system if you know what I mean. It does not stimulate economy, invention, or human race overall. And Apple REAALLLY irks a lot of its user base (me included) here in Aus anyway with their currency conversion rates, which is so far from actual conversion rates on the market that its not funny. So there was potentially a hidden message to Apple Aus here sent by some influential 'users'...
As a lot of lawyers would say" These types of lawsuits, beat ambulance chasing any day".
Samsung should sell its Galaxy Tabs at breakeven and then sue Apple for loss of opportunity in about 12 months. On top of that, they should offer free swap-your-iPad-for-Galaxy-Tab and sell those iPads back to Apple at full price as compensation. Also, I would like to swap my Xoom for a Galaxy Tab and Apple should buyback the Xoom as they stopped me from buying a Galaxy Tab in Australia.
@warboat You really do live in a fantasy land don't you?
0 Votes
+ -
counting
somereader 30th Nov
Well, it is a new way to count, I think. One=rare, two=common.
Still have to ignore a lot. A "non-practical" victory in Germany of Samsung, a loss on almost everything of Apple in the Netherlands....
Claiming something, and proving something are two completely different things.

Apple's weakness is starting to surface, as many legal jurisdictions across the world apparently are considering whether Apple's patents have any merits at all?

Once these patents fail the legal test, then they are rendered impotent, even if they have a Patent # registered for it...

And that is the only avenue left for Apple. To have its patents declared invalid. After which, they'll have to change strategies of shoot first (legally), then ask questions later.

To think all this wasted money on litigation and preventing competition could have been used for progressing the state-of-the-art instead.

But what goes around, comes around. And Apple started first, by suing everybody perceived as a threat to their Apple's corporate greed.

Now's time to pay the piper... Also Apple's greed is attracting the attention of anti-trust regulators authorities world-wide. Not too smart of a move Apple...

~~~~~~~~~~
Everything that goes up, must eventually come down...
{Empirical observation}
@WinTard Just as you said, claiming something and proving it are completely different things.
Actually triplicate??? My sincere apologies...
Duplicate, my apologies...
0 Votes
+ -
Discount!
hdrew 30th Nov
Apple invests billions in developing cool, amazingly designed handheld devices. But using the courts to thwart competition is nothing new to Apple, they sued Microsoft because Windows 1.0 resembled the Mac System.

Competition from Windows, PC manufacturers, open source developers and others: PC's, the internet, ISVs, the industry in general - have empowered billions.

Competition helps to distribute $100 tablets and netbooks to poor students in Asia and Africa, not corporate philantropy. Millions of young engineers and programmers, many from emerging markets, earn a decent living because of what they learned on PCs.

The US military is deploying thousands of Android tablets because the platform allows customization of apps and security hardening (imagine launching lethal weapon apps in iTunes happy
0 Votes
+ -
And Apple lost ...
Patanjali 30th Nov
@hdrew
... because it was about 'look and feel'. Trouble was that there are very few ways in which the visuals could be implemented and that is a good enough reason. Basically, if the way to implement an idea is fairly obvious and can only be done in a very limited number of ways, or in no other way, then there is no IP to protect!

But, somehow this simple maxim has been forgotten in the more recent patents, beside the obvious prior art that seems to be ignored.

I remember one Apple patent was about being able to make changes to a front screen by manipulating another screen on the back. Well, anyone who had a CRT TV did that quite often! So where is the 'novel way'?
How is this a "rare" defeat for Apple? It's been more like the trend.

Last I counted Apple lost every claim they made in the Netherlands except for one trivial patent on a scrolling mechanism for the photo gallery.

Then this current overturning of Australia's injunction.

The only place Apple has had somewhat success so far is in Germany, but that remains to be seen as an appeal is also in process.

In this legal battle wins aren't based on whether an injunction is placed or not. It's based on which claims successfully go through the court. If Apple wins an injunction because 1 trivial patent was considered infringed upon while 9 other major patents were rejected, then that is a loss for Apple, not a win, even though Apple "won" an injunction.

This is what happened in the Netherlands. It is not a simple tally of how many injunctions Apple wins in x number of countries as you simple media people like to think it is.
Apple is the Big Goliath in the Tablet and Mobile Phone business so they are now the target. But now they are acting like Microsoft (look for the open source legal battle between Linux and SCO, if you dig deep enough you'll find it was partially backed by MS). If they can't beat their competition they will sue them out of business. And they've begun to partner with MS to beat up on Android (or the manufacturers who are using that platform). Since Android is open source and Linux based it has Millions of software engineers and contributors cheering for it in the shadows (vs MS and Apple who only have a few tens of thousands). So you see they appear to be the underdog again against the established giants in the industry. This is going to be an interesting and long term battle.
As for rare failures.. Didn't the Netherlands court throw our nearly all the case except for a patent on image galleries that Samsung has since worked around?

http://www.osnews.com/story/25098/Apple_Scores_Meaningless_Dutch_Court_Victory_Against_Samsung/

I'd class that as a failure since it didn't stop the sale of anything at all.
Just a snippet to show the F@nboys here just how innnovative apple are, here is a snippet I prepared earlier.
**************************************************
So I started wondering. What in Android was stolen product from Apple?
* Was iPhone the first touch screen phone? (Nope, IBM Simon did that in 94.) There were others too, like the Motorola Accompli 008.
* Was multitasking what Google stole from Apple? (Nope, the first Iphones had no multi tasking and it was added in much later than Androids arrival which had it from the start.)
* Was iPhone the first B/G/N wireless connected phone? (Nope, this Accton page shows they were already selling Mobile wireless chips in 2006 and PDA???s with wireless were already about.)
* Was iPhone the first phone with a browser? (Nope, that happened in 1997.)
* Was iPhone the first phone with an icon based layout? (Nope, lots of phones were doing that before the iphone) http://netdna.webdesignerdepot.com/uploads/cellphone_design/dkmb86g_625htm73zfg_b.jpg
* Was iPhone the first camera phone? (Nope, Phillipe Kahn did that back in 97)
* Was iPhone the first music playing phone? (Nope, that one goes to Samsung back in 1999) http://www.textually.org/ringtonia/archives/2004/12/006262.htm
* Was iPhone the first GPS phone? (Nope, people were doing that back in 1999.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeoSentric
So, what did Apple ???invent??? that was so ground breaking? Pinch to zoom maybe? because it seems to me that all they did was combine the functionality of a touch screen PDA with a GSM phone. And they were not the first to do that either. http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/10903_na/10903_na.HTML

If half the people in the above links had been as patent frenzied as Apple have proven to be, we'd not have the iphone or Android as they are now..

Also, lets be honest, their design patents are vague.. and Samsung are right to suggest that the design was in the public domain long before apple came along.


Something to think about.
@frankieh

Might I add that pinch to zoom was also not Apple's idea. It has been around for decades.

On top of that Jeff Han made a demonstration in 2006 what he had been working on since 2000 or so, which is a lot of touch heuristics and how the UI responds to the user. What you saw there is what you see in every Apple, and a lot of other company's, touch products today.

Search Jeff Han on youtube for his TED presentation.
I have just bought a Samsung. This battle has convinced me more than anything else that I detest Apple and all it stands for.
@Snak Wow, I am sure they are going to be very upset when they hear this sad
@Snak ....Amen....another person with a clue
@Snak Same reason I bought a B&N Nook - I dont even need an e-reader, but MS craps all over these companies. I figured the least I could do is pony up some $ in support of the one company with enough stones to give MS the finger.

Software patents suck in general, Microsoft sucks in great specificity.
I'm getting the feeling that Apple crying wolf on the small stuff now is going to bite it in the butt when crunch time really comes
Very pig headed of Apple, another reason for me not to buy a single Apple products.
If they can not handle a little competition, then guess afraid people will find out they make junk......Sad
Sure glad to see someone with a clue.....now maybe Samsung can open the market a little bit
Too bad that consumers who buy Apple products are locked into the platform as the cost of all the apps purchased have to stay within Apples very, very, very small actual device selection. With Android you can at least move your apps throughout an amazing array of devices. That is why I don't liker Apple products. It sucks you in to the bitter end.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix