Apple Granted Galaxy Tab 10.1 Injunction in Australia

[watcha]

The simple solution for Samsung to not face legal cases like this is to not copy technology from other companies.

I am an advocate of more competition so clearly this decision is bad for the consumer, but Samsung knows the law, they know they shouldn't copy - and this judge clearly also knows the law and has said that Apple has a legitimate case. Samsung supplies some of the parts to the much bigger Apple company, and have now decided to try and duplicate what Apple offer. The Galaxy tab, Galaxy smart phone and the iPod rip-off are all extremely similar, in looks, features, and behaviour. They were bound to cross some patent lines along the way.

I think if a lot of you are honest, and this was the other way around - with Samsung having developed the iPad, iPhone and iPod, with Apple following up with 3 identical product lines using very similar technology - you would understand Samsung wanting to protect their intellectual property rights. You would also have moral issues for the fact that the entire product range is basically copied.

I want both Apple and Samsung to be successful - but I don't want Samsung to recreate Apple devices. I want something original. And because they copied (in the eyes of the law) - they are now paying the price.

You can criticise the legal system, but Samsung was very much able to avoid these legal suits if they had been original and not implemented patented technology.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]The simple solution for Samsung to not face legal cases like this is to not copy technology from other companies.You can criticise the legal system, but Samsung was very much able to avoid these legal suits if they had been original and not implemented patented technology.[/citation]
So did Apple get a total non-sales injunction passed against them when they copied the iPod menu?
http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Creative_Technology_patent_dispute
No, after 3 months they "bought" their way out of it for $100 million, guilty as sin but alolowed to keep doing it.
So two wrongs make a right do they?

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]So good that Apple has no power over Asia... We'll buy all we like and not only what some fruity company allowed. ~~~~[/citation]

lol so true. don't know where you're from mate, but they'll have to bribe the Indian govt. with 350 of their 378 billion dollars (and pay the rest to the judiciary) to let this happen here.

Samsung's too big in Asia for Apple to crApple-ing all over them.

And to the idiot who thinks Australia is a part of Asia...you really are an idiot...

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]So did Apple get a total non-sales injunction passed against them when they copied the iPod menu?http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple [...] nt_disputeNo, after 3 months they "bought" their way out of it for $100 million, guilty as sin but alolowed to keep doing it.So two wrongs make a right do they?[/citation]

The whole point of patents is that you are entitled to decide what you get in return for people using your patent.

Creative Technology wanted money, and that's what they got. Apple wanted their competitors to not use their patent, and that's what they've got so far.

I don't see the problem?

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]The whole point of patents is that you are entitled to decide what you get in return for people using your patent.Creative Technology wanted money, and that's what they got. Apple wanted their competitors to not use their patent, and that's what they've got so far.I don't see the problem?[/citation]
Creative wanted an injunction, but by then it was too late, Apple always gets what it wants

 

[dalethepcman]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]The simple solution for Samsung to not face legal cases like this is to not copy technology from other companies.[/citation]

Have you even looked at what Apple started this over? Apple is is suing Samsung because their tablet plastic is black and the word Samsung is silver. Let me quote the US patent for you.

U.S. Registration No. 3,475,327 is for a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with a gray rectangular portion in the center, a black band above and below the gray rectangle and on the curved corners, and a silver outer border and side. The color(s) gray, silver and black is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the configuration of a handheld mobile digital electronic device. The color gray appears as a rectangle at the front, center of the device. [the screen] The color black appears on the front of the device above and below the gray rectangle and on the curved corners of the device. The color silver appears as the outer border and sides of the device.

This is such bull that this was ever allowed to be patented. If you were to remove the phrase "handheld mobile" from the patent, it would be describing 99% of all flat screen devices (tablets, phones, tv's)

If Apple wins this, then they could just as easily apply for an Injunction against the PS Vita, as it actually has very rounded edges, and is made of black plastic with a silver lining, and has the words "Sony" in silver.
http://www.fromheroestoicons.com/blog/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/PS-Vita-frontal.jpg

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Creative wanted an injunction, but by then it was too late, Apple always gets what it wants[/citation]

Don't just plain life.

Creative ASKED initially for an injunction, just the same way Apple did. Apple offered Creative a settlement, and CREATIVE CHOSE TO ACCEPT IT. Samsung offered Apple a settlement, and Apple CHOSE NOT TO ACCEPT IT.

What's the problem?

 

[watcha]

Lie*

 

[eddieroolz]

Big ouch. But as I have said repeatedly in recent times; Samsung really can't argue its way out of this one, not after that series of images on Reddit that compared the similarities of Samsung products.