Slashdot Mirror
Apple Blocks Sale of Galaxy Tab 10.1 In Australia
lukehopewell1 writes "Apple has obtained an injunction from an Australian court effectively blocking the sale of the new Android Honeycomb-powered Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1v. Apple Australia claims that the unit infringes on 10 of the Cupertino, California-based company's patents including the slide to unlock functionality as well as the edge-bounce feature. Samsung will provide Apple Australia with three units for study in coming weeks to ascertain whether or not the Korean gadget maker did in fact infringe on Apple's patented intellectual property."
Old is new once again!
I am fully confident that this thread will demonstrate the utmost civility of Slashdot users.
Guess these new Adroid tablets may be worth taking a look at if they have Apple this scared. Course they could just be a bunch of jerks... hard to tell these days.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
It's blocked UNTIL Apple can prove they infringed? Australia, crushing due process harder than the U.S. since 1994.
Thanks for the review Apple!
Yeah thanks Apple, and here's a brick for that walled garden. I bet you know just where to stick it, but so that you don't infringe on any patents, be sure to stick it SIDEWAYS.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Apple doesn't sue someone because they are scared, they sue them because they are a competitor.
But he did
http://damnyouautocorrect.com/
Make SELinux enforcing again!
If you can't do better then sue better.
Rocket Surgeon.
Seriously, if "Slide to Lock" deserves a patent, someone in the USPTO should be hit over the head with a hammer. Repeatedly.
Apple's legal counsel Christian Dimitriadis
Said the Ipad 2 was "fooly sikh" and that Apple "wants if fuckin money fuckin".
Meanwhile
Samsung's legal counsel Neil Murray
Said that Apple was being a "wuss and should harden up" and that their counsel was a "flamin galah" stating that this case was "a few tinny's short of a six pack". He also commented elected to inform apple on "where to stuff ya bloody law suit".
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Samsung are clearly infringing on Apple's right to be the only tablet device manufacturer. Just like IBM should rightly have been the only computer manufacturer.
Samsung will provide Apple Australia with three units for study in coming weeks to ascertain whether or not the Korean gadget maker did in fact infringe on Apple's patented intellectual property
Even better, apparently Apple gets to decide if it infringes. Can't wait to hear their decision!
Not quite, Apple get a chance to prove it in court. The court gets to decide if the infringement has actually taken place.
If Apple cant prove their claims they open themselves up to a heap of claims for compensation by Samsung.
A very high stakes game of poker here, with the pot being measured in billions of Aussie dollars (about 1.1 USD).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Yeah, that's Apple being scared. It's definitely not your wishful thinking projecting emotions onto a business decision.
They're trying to block the entry of a competitor via the legal system as opposed to competing with them once the product is released.
That is not a business decision, that's an admission they cannot compete.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Samsung didn't copy Apple any more than Apple copied a whole bunch of previous products. Samsung has definitely improved on what Apple has done and that is why Apple is feeling threatened.
I have both an iPhone4 and a Galaxy S. The Galaxy S running Android 2.3.4, which is what the SGS II ships with, looks and feels very different to the iPhone. It also provides a much more useful tool than the iPhone in that you can send files over bluetooth, use it as a mass storage device without needing iTunes, watch flash videos, etc etc. Apple knows this and they are scared.
I don't therefore I'm not.
This looks like the patent here Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image .
It's already in the process of being rejected due to a re-examination, "Claim 1 is not novel (and lack an inventive step) in light of the prior art document"
Although it doesn't help they have 21months before it will lapse due to the rejection.
I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
lol. google was a late entrant into the search provider space. there were at least a dozen others already by the time the came along and finally taught everyone how too make money off of internet advertising... ;)
In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
Yeah, talk about feeding the beast.
Galaxy Tab is sooo good even Apple's tried to stop its release!
Copying doesn't preclude improving upon, so that isn't what Samsung is accused of. Plus the two patents mentioned are for trivial UX features that are hardly ground breaking innovation in and of themselves.
Part of the reason that people are venting at Apple in this case is because yet again we see the absurdity of the patent and legal systems ably demonstrated by what is a pretty lame lawsuit (we think this product may infringe our patents, so ban all imports and give us full access so we can decide if this is actually the case or not - i.e. they're not even saying that it definitely infringes). I mean seriously, how on earth is sliding your finger across the screen to unlock the device something so amazingly innovative that Apple should be able to patent it?!
Another big part of the reason is that instead of competing by producing a better product and letting the market decide, Apple are increasingly hiding behind their lawyers. Their response to Android in general has been to sue rather than to find a better way to compete in the open market place. They could produce better devices, a wider range of devices, they could release the OS and allow other manufacturers to build iDevices, they could choose to specialise in various niches, they could try and revolutionise another market sector, etc. They have chosen to do absolutely none of those things, despite the end consumer benefitting from any and all of them, instead releasing relatively minor incremental updates to the same products and attempting to use the legal system to wipe out the competition.
The average consumer never benefits when a single manufacturer focussed on the premium end of the market is given free reign of entire classes of device. As a consumer, even an Apple fanboi (if you are one), you should be cheering on the competition knowing that it means more people will find the ideal device for them and that the competition will push all the manufacturers to keep improving their products at a far faster rate than if one company maintains a monopoly.
That is not a business decision, that's an admission they cannot compete.
Because Sumsung's Android gear has been selling so well they've decided to no longer report the numbers, to ...um... not make anyone jealous. You can see why Apple might be shaking in their boots.
Could you have found a more biased site. They readily admit they are paid by Apple. Besides that proves nothing. If Apple isn't scared, why are they trying to get the courts to prevent Samsung from selling a much demanded competing product. Sorry if this shatters your fanboyish delusions.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Who makes the screens in the iPad? Who is begging who to please supply them with more screens?
I think Apple is scared, that it might not be getting the next generation of screens if Samsung has need for it themselves. If Samsung can make more money selling tablets then selling screens, Apple is screwed because Samsung is currently in the lead in the screen market especially oled.
Also, this isn't just about tablets, iPhone sales are lower then Android sales and Samsung sells a lot of Android phones.
Apple is trying to get rid of the competition. Same as MS did with IE and we all know how that worked out for browser users. Apple without competition would be as boring in its line-up as MS.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I love it how ACs come in here and try to re-write history.
oh well a registered account, do you feel special? your link ignores everything prior to 2007 but just so you know the world did exist before the iphone.
were apple first with a touchscreen phone? No.
were apple first with a grid of icons on a touchscreen phone? No.
were apple first with apps on a touchscreen phone? No.
I can see you have difficulty believing that such things existed before 2007 and that these 'magical' things could not have been invented by anyone but apple, but samsung didn't 'steal' any ideas any more than apple 'stole' those ideas, you can't have it both ways.
I like apple, and i like most of their products, but i hate douchebags who act as if apple are the inventors of everything its ok when apple takes ideas from others but not when others take ideas from apple.
Re-read what you've written: improved on what Apple has done. It's the "what Apple has done" bit that may indicate patent infringement. Rightly or wrongly, patents are used by companies to protect their revenue-making ability. You have to be totally blind to not see the Galaxy S as (at least in part) a copy of Apple's case design and GUI.
They've had a massive rise in profitability that anyone who isn't stuck in a cave can't have missed. However, what some people don't seem to realize is it has almost entirely been in a new market, consumer electronics, not their computer division. Their computer sales have gone up, but not near to the levels of their consumer electronics and only after the CE products made them a name.
So if they want to keep that profitability, and all companies want that, they have to keep that market.
For a time, no problem. It started with the iPod which became a fashion accessory. People didn't get MP3 players, they got iPods. It was what was cool to have and nobody could compete because nobody else could make an iPod. Well that market is pretty saturated these days. People don't buy new MP3 players all the time, and the iPod fashion has faded a bit (though it is still strong). So while it makes them money, it doesn't make them money like it used to.
Enter the iPhone and now iPad. The iPhone did great because it captured a new part of the smartphone market: casual users. Other smartphones were very business oriented, the iPhone was for consumers who wanted a toy. The iPad of course went in to a new market entirely, since tablets like it really aren't competition for full out tablet PCs.
All is well and Apple makes billions... However Android is a real threat to that. It has become extremely good and has been eating away at the iPhone market (and everyone else's). The tablet market was safe, but now it is entering there. It has a ways to go but is getting better at a rapid pace, Google improves it very quickly.
Apple is seeing their consumer electronics markets evaporate, turn in to regular commodity markets where you have to compete on price which Apple has never done well. This won't kill Apple, but it could seriously shrink them and companies view that as just as bad.
So they have to attack and try and stop it, in any way they can.
I just hope they don't succeed. I don't want a world where only one company can provide certain kinds of technology. Competition is nearly always good for the consumer.
You do realise that all the companies selling any computer or telephony gear that you might want to own have been the initiator or the subject of litigation at one time or another? If you don't want to own tech from any company that has ever brought an injunction or started a lawsuit over fear of patent infringement then you should stay away from: Microsoft, IBM, Adobe, Google, Oracle/Sun, HP, Dell, Samsung, Nokia, Sony, Nintendo etc., etc.. This is normal for the tech industry, even if you just use a truly free Linux distro like Debian you wouldn't be able to buy any decent hardware to run it on.
*slide to unlock*
Multiple devices have had this for ages - it's called the 'hold' switch (present on PSPs, old Sony walkmans, etc.)
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Unfortunately, the standard for prior art on patents is not "It works kinda like that other thing I saw in a different context." - Apple's "innovation" in taking the hold switch concept and implementing it in a touch-based interface is sufficient for it to be granted a patent, for better or worse.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
You are wrong, but i wont bother explaining why, just assume by the complicated sentences i put together, that i am smarter then you and shut up
There, i reworded your post a bit.
Honestly, i try to NOT be an asshole online, but whenever i see people trying to win an argument with a post that is essentially null in terms of content, i cant help myself
People, what a bunch of bastards
If you read about the 10.1 tab, the design been released in Australia is different from the US one. The reason apple want version of it is to see if it violates the same claims, which 1/2 of them are about design - ie coped the IPAD etc. Samsung will be happy to do this - because they can get damages from apple if the hold up was without merit.
A very high stakes game of poker here, with the pot being measured in billions of Aussie dollars (about 1.1 USD).
Oh, wow - I didn't realize Australia's currency had depreciated so dramatically! It's like the Weimar Republic all over again...
#DeleteChrome
Cash and bribe is how justice and other forms of business work in China.
We cry "hey apple, why can't you do better?" because that is exactly what we want. We don't want to see them defeat the competition with a legal department over the fact they both unlock the screen similarly (which in honeycomb isn't slide to the left to unlock its slide in any direction from a certain distance). We want to see them bring a superior product to market, and you should want that too. You don't see the car industry fighting like this instead they embrace competition and race each other, then the technology from the race cars makes its way into our cars. I'm not sure but I don't think any one blocks competitors car imports because they used the same slightly slopping down bonnet, hump in the middle with four doors and a flat boot or the same placement and use of a horn; how hard would cars be drive if they all had to have a unique interface.
Rocket Surgeon.
I love it how ACs come in here and try to re-write history.
It's not just ACs that "rewrite history"; I was using SPB Mobile Shell with widgets and grids of icons on a Samsung 830w back in Feb 2007 - well before the iPhone was released. Worked great, too - configurable, easy access, and even had a slide-out keyboard similar to the Blackberry phones.
As far as I can tell and remember, the iPhone was little more than a pretty feature phone - no apps (I was a regular user of Handango back then, plenty of apps for the WM platform), no Exchange support, no cut-and-paste, no multitasking, little more than what most LG and Samsung and Nokia feature phones offered. And considerably less functionality than the Symbian and Windows Mobile smartphones offered.
But it looked pretty, and Apple is great at marketing...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I remember, when I first started posting on Slashdot (using a different account with a late 90's UID) when people would howl in rage at Microsoft saying that Apple was justified with their early 90's Look and Feel lawsuit. That Microsoft had ripped off Apple and deserved to be punished. It seemed as thought the mind of the consensus thought Apple was the good guy for litigating the look and feel lawsuit and MSFT was the bad guy. Spin forward almost 15 years and suddenly Apple is the bad guy for doing exactly what it did to Microsoft. What I'm interested to know is - have opinions revised themselves so that the original Apple lawsuit is considered a bad overreach (remember that Apple only lost on a licensing technicality) - or is this another "when it's done to Microsoft it's good/when it's done to Android it's bad" case of Slashdot cognitive dissonance?
Who makes the screens in the iPad? Who is begging who to please supply them with more screens?
Multiple sources according to CNET : "Industry online paper DigiTimes is also reporting that Chimei Innolux will also help in producing screen replacement units for iPads along with LG Display and Samsung Electronics."
I think Apple is scared, that it might not be getting the next generation of screens if Samsung has need for it themselves. If Samsung can make more money selling tablets then selling screens, Apple is screwed because Samsung is currently in the lead in the screen market especially oled.
Apple doesn't use OLED screens, Samsung so far hasn't proven itself in the tablet market unlike in the smartphone market and even there it can't touch Apple's volume. Doesn't seem so scary to me.
Also, this isn't just about tablets, iPhone sales are lower then Android sales and Samsung sells a lot of Android phones.
Apple is trying to get rid of the competition. Same as MS did with IE and we all know how that worked out for browser users. Apple without competition would be as boring in its line-up as MS.
I'll agree the gloves are definitely off and no punches are being pulled but it's no use blaming the player for the rules of the game. Patent reform is the only thing that will end this once and for all.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
No, no, no, that's a Troll. A proper Fanboi would go like this: "Apple make fantastic gadgets. They really know how to design the user experience. Samsung are just copycats, one step up from KIRFers."
And an Astroturfer would say, "While I'm a Samsung user, and I love their products, I have to side with Apple on this one. Samsung did, after all, copy the iPad in many ways, and you have to give it to Apple, they're the only real innovators in terms of UI and technology."
My blog
But if, say, Ford were to finally invent a flying car, and decided to register a patent titled "door lock... on a flying car". Would you be happy if Ford were then able to stop any other manufacturer from building a flying car simply because they held a patent on the door locks? Never mind that door locks had been on cars, Ford were awarded them specifically for flying cars.
This is what Apple has done. People invented sliding locks and mechanisms hundreds if not thousands of years before Apple copied this simple mechanism and were awarded a patent for it because they did it "on a mobile phone". That isn't innovation and certainly isn't worth twenty years of market exclusivity. And it's a really lame way to try and compete in a free market.
It is a simplistic argument, but so is your response. Were Apple the first to manufacture a smart phone or a tablet? No. Were innovators automatically granted unrestricted monopolies on market segments that they create, then you would not have your beloved iDevices in the first place. Competition drives the market place, spurring Apple on to create new toys for you to buy just as much as any other company. Without competition all you will end up with is stagnation.
No, patents do not need to be defended to remain valid. You are thinking of trademarks.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.