Australian Federal Court Ends Ban On Samsung Galaxy Tab Sales

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Federal Court Ends Ban On Samsung Galaxy Tab Sales

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday November 29, 2011 @05:12PM from the apple-invented-the-kangaroo dept.

New submitter Dedokta writes "The Australian Federal Court has overturned the injunction placed on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and ordered Apple to pay court costs. Apple has applied for an appeal with the Supreme Court, but Samsung is now free to sell the Galaxy Tab within Australia. Samsung is not off the hook yet, however; the full case to see if they have indeed infringed upon Apple patents is still to be heard early next year."

129 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Good.... by jeremy85mai · 2011-11-29 17:17 · Score: 2

Good, step one for Apple to drop this frivolous lawsuit is complete.... Also, I find it interesting that in Australia, their supreme court takes cases like this. That could just be me being american though :/
1. Re:Good.... by mjwx · 2011-11-29 17:37 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Also, I find it interesting that in Australia, their supreme court takes cases like this. That could just be me being american though :/
  The supreme court is the highest court in each state, but below the federal court (I.E. Supreme Court of Western Australia or Supreme Court of Victoria). But the submitter had it wrong, this case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia who normally deals with corporate issues, trade practices, Industrial Relations and the like.
  
  Apple have made an appeal to the High Court of Australia which is the highest court in Australia. The High Court has no mandate to automatically hear cases, so if the High Court feel's Apple is wasting their time any appeal will be denied.
  
  What's important about this victory is that the evidence was heard by 3 Justices, not just one as was the case with the first injunction hearing and it was found by the three Justices that the original injunction was in error. The case still stands, Apple is still suing Samsung over alleged patent infringement, this hearing was only over the injunction. But this gives us an indication that there is some sanity in the Australian court system.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
2. Re:Good.... by quarrel · 2011-11-29 18:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  > The supreme court is the highest court in each state
  This is only sort of true (at least in NSW, but I assume elsewhere too?).
  You can appeal a decision of the NSW Supreme Court to the NSW Court of Appeal. However, the Court of Appeal is a branch of the Supreme Court in the they're established.
  Many corporate issues, trade practices and IR cases are also heard in State courts. It depends on the case in point .. (the NSW Dept of Fair Trading for instance, brings its cases in NSW. Many companies sue each other over contractual disputes in the state courts etc.)
  --Q
3. Re:Good.... by quarrel · 2011-11-29 18:18 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Just to be more of a pedant, Supreme Courts aren't really below the Federal Court. You can't appeal a decision of a Supreme Court to the Federal Court. They're different jurisdictions.
  --Q
4. Re:Good.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-29 19:08 · Score: 0
  
  High Court > Supreme Court
5. Re:Good.... by mjwx · 2011-11-29 19:13 · Score: 2
  
  Just to be more of a pedant, Supreme Courts aren't really below the Federal Court. You can't appeal a decision of a Supreme Court to the Federal Court. They're different jurisdictions.
  --Q
  To be fair, I was trying to keep it simple.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
6. Re:Good.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  High Court > Supreme Court
  Supreme Commander > Supreme Court.
7. Re:Good.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 12:42 · Score: 0
  
  The supreme court is the highest court in each state,
  True
  
  but below the federal court (I.E. Supreme Court of Western Australia or Supreme Court of Victoria).
  False
  
  this case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia who normally deals with corporate issues, trade practices, Industrial Relations and the like.
  Federal Crt deals with matters governed by Federal legislation.
  
  The High Court has no mandate to automatically hear cases, so if the High Court feel's Apple is wasting their time any appeal will be denied.
  s/mandate/obligation/
  
  But this gives us an indication that there is some sanity in the Australian court system
  In your opinion. Others might feel that indicates that the three judges lack the competence to understand what a shameless rip-off the Galaxy tablet really is. Not having had a chance to read the decision yet I'm reserving my judgment.
8. Re:Good.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  You can appeal a decision of the NSW Supreme Court to the NSW Court of Appeal. However, the Court of Appeal is a branch of the Supreme Court in the they're established.
  Yes where the Supreme Crt sits in original jurisdiction (ie with a single judge) appeal can be made to a bench of the Supreme Crt, which in NSW can sit as the Crt of Appeal (or the Crt of Criminal Appeal), but as you point out this is still the Supreme Crt. It is thus absolutely accurate to describe the Supreme Crt as the "highest court for each state." Where the Local Crt or the District Crt is the original jurisdiction appeal is also to the Supreme Crt. Your reply is so pedantic as to be wrong, like saying the HCA is not the highest crt in the land because it has on occasion sat in original jurisdiction (from which appeal to the full crt would be made) as I believe it would still sit in its role as the crt of disputed returns.
  
  Many corporate issues, trade practices and IR cases are also heard in State courts. It depends on the case in point ..
  
  It depends quite simply on whether the law arises out of CL or legislation passed by that state's legislature or whether the it arises out of legislation passed by the Cth parliament, or the Constitution.
and ordered Apple to pay court costs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-29 17:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

good.
What the courts really need to do is charge the party bringing the suit for _all_ costs to the other party. Real money might discourage patent trolls like Apple.
1. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by deburg · 2011-11-29 17:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Apple has money to spare. And the damage is already done. With the Christmas shopping started, early buyers would have settled on the Ipad2 instead of the Galaxy Tab as gifts. Question now is whether there enought Galaxy Tabs in stock for the rest of the Christmas season
2. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by arbiter1 · 2011-11-29 17:30 · Score: 2
  
  um in world of big corp lawsuits, its only pocket change to people at apple to pay court cost's and really don't stop anything as usually its what few hundred $$.
3. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by bhagwad · 2011-11-29 18:07 · Score: 2
  
  Like others have mentioned, court costs are minuscule for Apple. As it is for most big corporations. A better financial punishment I feel would be to pay a percentage of their profits for the next two years. The percentage depending on how frivolous the court thinks the case was.
  
  Let's see Apple (or any other corporation) file a frivolous case now.
4. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by mjwx · 2011-11-29 18:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Apple has money to spare. And the damage is already done. With the Christmas shopping started, early buyers would have settled on the Ipad2 instead of the Galaxy Tab as gifts. Question now is whether there enought Galaxy Tabs in stock for the rest of the Christmas season
  A lot of Australians would not have even started shopping yet.
  
  There's a psycological barrier for a lot of people, that Christmas does not start until December so a lot of people dont start Christmas shopping until December.
  
  The smart ones (raises hand) got their Chrimbo shopping over and done with months ago, but I still have to shop for food and I hate the shops at this time of year.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
5. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by mysidia · 2011-11-29 18:41 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Apple has money to spare. And the damage is already done. With the Christmas shopping started, early buyers would have settled on the Ipad2 instead of the Galaxy Tab as gifts.
  A real victory would have been: not just "pay the court costs", but also order them to: reimburse Samsung for lost sales of Galaxy tablets, assuming they would have sold just as well as iPad2 units, and send iPad2 customers an optional coupon to exchange their purchased iPad2 during that time for a Galaxy tab, at Apple's expense.
6. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by davetv · 2011-11-29 19:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  In Australia, this would require a separate court action. It might yet occur.
7. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by moozey · 2011-11-29 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  . . . and send iPad2 customers an optional coupon to exchange their purchased iPad2 during that time for a Galaxy tab, at Apple's expense.
  Has this kind of punishment ever been handed out?
8. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by TheTurtlesMoves · 2011-11-29 20:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Well perhaps not in Australia. But in Germany its the automatic fee for getting a injunction in place that is then later found to be without merit. Apple could be on the hook for a lot of "lost sales".
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
9. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by Max+Littlemore · 2011-11-29 21:09 · Score: 2
  
  Struth! "Chrimbo" is taking aussie slanging words to a a ridiculous extreme.
  
  --
  I don't therefore I'm not.
10. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by MenThal · 2011-11-29 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  A better financial punishment I feel would be to pay a percentage of their profits for the next two years.
  Uhm, wouldn't they just do some Hollywood accounting then, ensuring that they aren't turning a profit for those two years?
11. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by CubicleView · 2011-11-29 22:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Apple has money to spare. And the damage is already done
  I have mixed feelings about this. Samsung got a slap in the face for sure, and this has already affected the design of their future products, so even if the court say otherwise, battle won by Apple. But I can't help but feel this was the first (or second ish) shot in a war that utltimitly Apple can't win.
12. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  Well let's be realistic, not a LOT of lost sales, only a few.
13. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  Yep. The whole tablet market is not even 5% of smartphone market, let alone desktop/laptop market.
14. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by Teeroy32 · 2011-11-30 01:29 · Score: 2
  
  Crikey, fair shake of the sauce bottle mate
  
  --
  I don't have an attitude problem, Its you that has a problem with my attitude
15. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by CowTipperGore · 2011-11-30 02:00 · Score: 2
  
  But I can't help but feel this was the first (or second ish) shot in a war that utltimitly Apple can't win.
  Apple wins by delaying competition as long as possible. Just like with the mobile phone market, you can be certain that Apple's market domination will be cut into significantly by other makers across the next year or two. Apple is willing to spend a lot on legal maneuverings for nothing but the time it buys them.
16. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that won't be much help unless Apple releases a new product soon. And I mean new, not "new" like iPhone 4S.
  It's like early 90s for Apple again, except Jobs won't come back this time.
17. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by Max+Littlemore · 2011-11-30 02:56 · Score: 2
  
  Don't come the raw prawn with me mate, or I'll do me flamin' block!
  
  --
  I don't therefore I'm not.
18. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by bhagwad · 2011-11-30 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  They can't do that. Their stock price would crash and their execs wouldn't get their bonuses etc...
19. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by kqs · 2011-11-30 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  assuming they would have sold just as well as iPad2 units, and send iPad2 customers an optional coupon to exchange their purchased iPad2 during that time for a Galaxy tab, at Apple's expense.
  So you're saying that in places where both Samsung tablets and iPad2s are on sale without restrictions, Samsung tablets are selling just as well as iPads?
20. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by MenThal · 2011-11-30 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Remember from Dilbert; growing companies lose money, and if they're paying Samsung a lot from profits, then they aren't growing fast enough. ;)
  Anything that would deflate the EBITDA would then be positive for long term shareholders, as the Samsung cut basically comes out of their pocket. Investing in a lot of new projects and new hires would then be a plus for shareholders, as the unwanted "profit-sharing" is reduced. Hell, exec bonuses may even increase, as long as they are taxed as salary and hit the bottom line before the profit.
  They'd just go something like this: "We're doing it to retain key personnel and becoming more competitive in a market with more players, not to screw over Samsung, who just coincidentally happens to be one of those players" ... yeah right. See next court battle, where Stan Lee will make a guest apperance.
21. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by bhagwad · 2011-11-30 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Those are loopholes easy to plug. We can even get innovative and make them pay a percentage of their last three years of profits! Let's see them wiggle around now :D
22. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by Nadaka · 2011-11-30 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently, his phylactery was in his liver. Who would have guessed?
23. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by rtb61 · 2011-11-30 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  In other words keep sales up while insider traders and Apple executives dump the Apple stocks and aren't those Apple insiders busy selling shares http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=aapl.
  Of course don't forget those mega corporate executive bonuses, for each month they can keep the prices up, the bigger the their bonus and damn the long term consequence, like all those pension funds that are going get stuck with Apple stuck as a result of under the table off shore, keep buying that stock commissions.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
24. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by SleazyRidr · 2011-11-30 06:15 · Score: 2
  
  Calm down yah flamin' galah! I can see you as dry as a dead dingo's donger, so down this tinnie, and you'll be right as rain.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
25. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  So take it out of Gross Income, then, they would only be able to pay nothing buy stopping all sales for 2 years, close all accounts (interest counts towards Gross Income), stocks/bonds/investments, etc... 2 years of no income to beat paying a fee would almost guarantee lost mindshare which means shareholders get mad and possibly sue
26. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by mjwx · 2011-11-30 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Struth! "Chrimbo" is taking aussie slanging words to a a ridiculous extreme.
  Fair suck of the sav.
  
  It's British slang, although we seem to be getting more Pom's in Australia by the day
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
27. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by thedarknite · 2011-11-30 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  Looking at the table of transactions it looks like the board members selling full shares and then exercising options to get the same amount they just sold. So Jung Andrea still has the same amount of AAPL stock but happens to also have an extra $1.8 million in the bank.
  
  --
  A game has objectives and is competitive, anything else is just play
28. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by dudpixel · 2011-11-30 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Well let's be realistic, not a LOT of lost sales, only a few.
  you may be right as far as what would have happened, and yet you're still thinking in terms of percentages.
  They may well have sold hundreds of thousands of them by now...that's a LOT.
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
29. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by Teeroy32 · 2011-11-30 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  bloody hell, to many Occa's, need to bust a stubbie on someones noggin, oh fuck it she'll be right mate
  
  --
  I don't have an attitude problem, Its you that has a problem with my attitude
30. Re:and ordered Apple to pay court costs by Zanadou · 2011-12-01 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I see you've played "Knifie-Spoonie" before!
Supreme Court = High Court by quarrel · 2011-11-29 17:23 · Score: 5, Informative

Apple have sought leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, Australia's highest court. So it's like the Supreme Court in the US - there are no appeals beyond that, and they get to pick and choose what cases they take, so there is little certainty Apple will get anywhere appealing now.
(The Supreme Court usage in the summary is misleading to Australians because Supreme Courts here are State-based courts.)
This is a good ruling I think. You could readily buy the 10.1 here online (ebay etc) and have it shipped to you - cheaper than you'd pay a local retailer too. If there is merit to Apple's case they'll be able to get damages down the line for the patent infringement.
--Q
1. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by nedlohs · 2011-11-29 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well in theory there's the Privy Council, though it would somehow have to turn into a constitutional issue of state versus federal power and the High Court would have to go against its previous statement that it will never grant such leave in the future.
2. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by quarrel · 2011-11-29 18:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No, there isn't.
  The Australia Acts (Federal and State) removed appeal to the Privy Council in the 80s for Australians.
  The High Court doesn't and can't grant an appeal to the Privy Council (and this predates even the Australia Acts).
  --Q
3. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by HJED · 2011-11-29 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  Actually whilst the High Court has declared it is not bound by decisions of the Privy Council, State Supreme Courts can in some cases appeal to the privy council.
  See here
  
  --
  null
4. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-29 19:05 · Score: 0
  
  Right in that link it says the opposite of what you claimed and effectively since 1986 Great Britain is a foreign power and the Council has absolutely no jurisdiction.
5. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by HJED · 2011-11-29 19:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Although the path of appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council had been effectively blocked, the High Court could not block appeals from State supreme courts directly to the Privy Council. Nor did the Constitution limit, or provide for legislation to limit, such appeals. The expense of any appeal to the Privy Council in London had been a deterrent: in any year, there had never been more than a handful. Nonetheless, by the 1980s the possibility of appeal from a State supreme court was seen as outdated.
  
  Constitution s 74 has not been amended, and the Constitution cannot be amended by legislation.[4] Nonetheless, s 11 of the Australia Act goes as far as legislatively possible, to make s 74 a dead letter.
  I read that section as saying that whilst it is not normal to do so, the state supreme courts have the power to send appeals to the privy council and have not ruled it out.
  
  --
  null
6. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by nedlohs · 2011-11-29 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  You are simply wrong on both counts.
  
  The Australia Acts (Federal and State) removed appeal to the Privy Council in the 80s for Australians.
  Parliament did as much as they could do to remove the Privy Council. However, Parliament can't change the constitution and nobody bothered with a referendum to do so.
  And while some parts of the consititution had conveniant "Until the Parliament otherwise provides" language, s74 does not and there hasn't been a successful referendum to change it so it still applies.
  The High Court declared it won't ever do that in the future though, but that's not actually legally binding.
  
  The High Court doesn't and can't grant an appeal to the Privy Council (and this predates even the Australia Acts).
  The high court did so once in 1912, so you are factually incorrect again.
7. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by Hognoxious · 2011-11-29 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  Is this Privy Council an Australian one, or is it the one back in the mother country?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
8. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by quarrel · 2011-11-29 20:56 · Score: 1
  
  You're wrong, sorry to say :)
  Yes, in 1912 it did - but until the Statute of Westminster we were essentially not independent and cases this far back on these issues have little relevance today. By pre-dating the Australia Acts I meant the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 & the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 - which closed it off as an avenue from the High Court (except in a particular circumstance that the UK Parliament closed off when they passed their own Australia Act stopping the States going to the Privy Council).
  The legislative effect of these was that you must have a certificate of the High Court to go to the Privy Council and the High Court will not grant one. s74 may as well be void.
  --Q
9. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by quarrel · 2011-11-29 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  The Mother Country. Most Commonwealth countries traditionally could appeal back to "the Queen in Council" to have decisions settled by the highest Court in "the land" as it were.
  See:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Committee_of_the_Privy_Council
  --Q
10. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by MichaelSmith · 2011-11-29 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah its in that other country. The one with the queen and the clock. I voted for the Australian republic the last time it came up and I will probably do so again but one problem is that the same change has to happen in all states as well as the federal government otherwise you are left with a horrible mess.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
11. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by Max+Littlemore · 2011-11-29 21:28 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Well if you get really pedantic, your all wrong because everything your posting is based on the assertion that the state and federal parliaments and the courts in Australia are legitimate. There are plenty of legal problems dating back almost 1000 years that could be used to argue that they aren't and that acts of parliament have no power over us because we are not party to any contract with them...
  One relevant point is the Mabo decision which basically said, "Yeah the Crown broke its own law in occupying this continent and that makes the whole thing illegitimate, but we're going to just say that we've been established here long enough we must be legitimate... or at least legitimate enough to assert our own legitimacy".
  I think the same kind of thing applies with appeals to the Privy Council. According to the letter of the law and the history, s74 is as legitimate as anything else in the artifice of the Commonwealth, but convention agrees with you that it's pretty much void.
  
  --
  I don't therefore I'm not.
12. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  There is nothing that says parliament or the courts need a 'contract' with anyone. You nor anyone else 'signs' a contract. Any 'social contract' is the consequence of birth within a given period of time within a given cultural and social grouping and expresses a relationship between members of that community, not the government and each individual. First year Uni students may think they've found something that overturns the whole government, but by the end of the first year (hopefully the first semester) they realise their mistake.
  Besides, the phrase 'social contract' is a means by which to encapsulate a very complex relationship and is not meant to concretely mean that each person has to agree to the government representing them or else it has not legitimacy.
  This sort of silliness that somehow there is a means by which some 1000 year old claim would make the Australian government illegitimate is childish.. As anyone with a basic knowledge of sociology and anthropology would know, governments are legitimate and their authority exists because they are considered as such by the absolute majority of the population. This is in evidence by people adhering to general laws and permitting government officials, police, courts etc to make decisions and carry them out. This is the case in non-dictatorships where obvious, lethal force, or other similar examples of violence are not the primary tools used to keep the population 'in check'.
  Further more, the claims about Mabo are spurious. The High Court's determination related only to Crown land and not that of private land holders. It did not raise any questions about the legitimacy of the current, past or future Australian governments or courts nor about their ability to make decisions.
13. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by CowTipperGore · 2011-11-30 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  If there is merit to Apple's case they'll be able to get damages down the line for the patent infringement.
  Apple isn't after patent infringement money down the line - they want to keep competitors out of the market as long as possible.
14. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by Max+Littlemore · 2011-11-30 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  Hhhm, I think some of what you just posted reinforces my point in a round about sort of way. If you adhere strictly to the letter of the law, there is plenty to invalidate government but we don't because it makes more sense not to. I wouldn't know about first year uni students but I know well enough about our law and history. I know that the basis of our law is in contracts between British royalty and the pope and that we (or our ancestors) were never party to those contracts and neither the Crown or Papacy had the right to enter into those contracts on our behalf. That combined with the League of Nations/U.N. debarkle and the murkiness around the Letters Patent make for some interesting thought experiments.
  My point about Mabo is that I believe the High Court made an error in law. That is that the High Court, being a product of the system introduced illegally by the Crown, had no jurisdiction in the case and was/is itself an illegal entity. Proceeds of crime if you will. That it was a determination on Crown land is irrelevant when you take into account the fact that private land was given by the Crown either through commerce or occupancy but the Crown never had the right to give it. Of course the High Court could not rule in any other way without ceasing to exist and to rule on the legitimacy of governments or the constitution would have been outside their jurisdiction, so they did what they had to. And sure, you could argue statute of limitations, but again that is part of a system that is introduced by a criminal mob from Great Britain and is therefore illegitimate.
  I wouldn't say and have never said that any of our governments can't make decisions, but if you think for a moment that an act of parliament is a law, you're a fool. Any judge knows that.
  Again, more interesting thoughts. The law is an ass.
  
  --
  I don't therefore I'm not.
15. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by nedlohs · 2011-11-30 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  So I'm wrong?
  Even though the point I countered was that the High Court had never done such a thing and couldn't have ever done such a thing. And you state "it did", but somehow that means I'm wrong even though it is exactly what I claimed.
  And to show that I'm wrong in saying that theoritically if the High Court decided to it could issue such a certificate but never will since it has said it won't you make exactly that same claim?
  Do you have a different definition of "wrong" to me?
  I'm working on "wrong" meaning "not correct". But you say I'm wrong and offer the explanation that I'm correct on both counts? So what definition are you using?
16. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-11-30 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  If there is merit to Apple's case they'll be able to get damages down the line for the patent infringement.
  Apple isn't after patent infringement money down the line - they want to keep competitors out of the market as long as possible.
  So why don't they sue all competitors instead of just those who copy their design?
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
17. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by CowTipperGore · 2011-11-30 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  So why don't they sue all competitors instead of just those who copy their design?
  Who else had a product competing in the same market segment as the iPad? As a self-avowed fanboy, surely you understand that Apple doesn't consider a $200 Android 2.1 tablet as their competition. The Galaxy Tab was the only real threat hitting the market at that point. It is inevitable - there will be some decent Windows tablets available and enough good Android tablets that their strategy is no longer viable. In the meantime, they will have raked in a ton of cash as the only game in town.
18. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-11-30 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  So why don't they sue all competitors instead of just those who copy their design?
  Who else had a product competing in the same market segment as the iPad?
  Are you fucking kidding me? Or do you exclude every tablet that doesn't copy the iPad as close as possible?
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
19. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 13:24 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, that's exactly why all those Apple's lawsuits didn't really fly, because Samsung copied them too closely.
  Don't you find TFA's "injunction overturned" and "copied too closely" kinda contradicting each other?
20. Re:Supreme Court = High Court by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  I read that section as saying that whilst it is not normal to do so, the state supreme courts have the power to send appeals to the privy council and have not ruled it out.
  You misread. It's not up the the SupCrt to "send" appeals, but for an appellant to bring an appeal. So what you wrote above, to wit that "[s]tate Supreme Courts can in some cases appeal to the privy council," is a nonsense.
  To continue the quote where you left off ...
  
  ... Thus, for practical purposes, the Australia Act has eliminated the remaining methods of appeal to the Privy Council.
  [emphasis added]
  The reason that this is for all practical purposes no longer possible, is that under s11(4)(b) of the AA, permission would either have to be sought from (i) an Australian Court, or (ii) "Her Majesty in Council" (ie the Privy Council), all of which have committed themselves to refusing any such requests. Remember that the AAs were passed not only by the C'th parliament but also by all states and also the UK parliament (sitting as the Imperial Parliament). The legislatures and courts in all relevant jurisdictions ganged up here to kill s74 without asking us.
  Neither state supreme courts (of course), nor litigants appearing before them, "can in [any] cases appeal to the privy council." They can petition Her Majesty in Council to hear such appeal or seek leave from an Australian court to make such appeal. But since these will certainly be refused, and since the LPAs of most (all?) states now prohibit lawyers from proceeding on matters without "reasonable prospects of success," they would find it inordinately difficult even to do that.
  Does that help your reading?
Only a partial victory by Billlagr · 2011-11-29 17:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Apple managed to get a stay in the lifting of the ban until 4pm Friday, to give them enough time to get an urgent High Court hearing, so the way isn't clear for Samsung just yet.
1. Re:Only a partial victory by joocemann · 2011-11-29 17:33 · Score: 0
  
  I wish you didn't sound like any of this matters...
2. Re:Only a partial victory by mjwx · 2011-11-29 17:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Apple managed to get a stay in the lifting of the ban until 4pm Friday, to give them enough time to get an urgent High Court hearing, so the way isn't clear for Samsung just yet.
  I highly doubt Apple will get a High Court hearing, let alone one tomorrow given the fact the actual alleged infringement case is ongoing in the Federal Court. This case was just over the injunction.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
3. Re:Only a partial victory by Billlagr · 2011-11-29 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you, but stranger things have happened..
4. Re:Only a partial victory by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-29 20:50 · Score: 0
  
  you know i do hope it goes to the high court
  on the condition that the if apple loses the federal court case, the high court orders apple to compensate samsung the full cost of lost sales during the period of injunction, for which samsung can select an equivalent market
  so if the sgt is selling 1:2 against ipad in france, and there were 1m ipad's sold during the injunction period, apple would need need to compentsate samsung the cost of 500,000 sgt's
  because at this point apple are just being pricks about the whole thing
I wish... by joocemann · 2011-11-29 17:25 · Score: 2

...we had consumer power, so we could avoid these companies that banter back and forth like shitty brats.
Thanks to the same lawyer armies, no competition has survived gestation.
When society collapses and we return to dirt living, I will vote against these scum by simply not sharing where I got my water. better start gettin outdoors now lawyer goons!
1. Re:I wish... by joocemann · 2011-11-29 17:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  By the way, I'm posting from a samsung, and was just on an apple at work.... reminds me of the OWS photo demonstrating how people cannot function in modern society with the dichotomy of "support the oligopolies or be dysfunctional".. The photo where people protesting corporations had corporate products.... We are so screwed.
2. Re:I wish... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  Well, what other products are they going to have? It's rather hard to make your own cell-phone from scratch.
3. Re:I wish... by joocemann · 2011-11-30 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Well, what other products are they going to have? It's rather hard to make your own cell-phone from scratch.
  Exactly my point.
Very little to say to this... by drhodesmumby · 2011-11-29 17:26 · Score: 4, Informative

Except for the inevitable: win. The patent system, and to a lesser extent intellectual property as a whole, is causing severe problems in several industries worldwide. Technology it seems is suffering more than any other, and it's obvious why; with emerging markets such as smartphones and tablets there's everything to play for. Ecosystems haven't had time to settle down or seize the consumer yet, hardware is rapidly advancing and the field in general is in a state of flux. If you can gain dominance now and maintain it for as long as it takes for the market to settle down then you'll effectively monopolise it for the long-term, just as Microsoft managed with Windows and IE. The stakes are considerably higher too. Mobiles are growing so much faster than either the desktop or notebook markets and mobiles are so much more deeply ingrained into the average consumer's everyday life that quite frankly the potential for growth, both in profit and mindshare, is huge. With all this, it's scarcely surprising that companies are playing dirty. I only hope that this is the beginning of a backlash against Apple; when one company is a clear winner, that makes the consumer as much into the loser as any competitor.
1. Re:Very little to say to this... by Theaetetus · 2011-11-30 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  The patent system, and to a lesser extent intellectual property as a whole, is causing severe problems in several industries worldwide. Technology it seems is suffering more than any other... with emerging markets such as smartphones and tablets... hardware is rapidly advancing... Mobiles are growing... the potential for growth, both in profit and mindshare, is huge.
  ... so, the technology industry isn't suffering at all?
  I keep hearing this "patents stifle innovation" argument repeated over and over, but it seems to disregard the stunning advances we've had over the past two decades.
2. Re:Very little to say to this... by anonymov · 2011-11-30 03:11 · Score: 2
  
  it seems to disregard the stunning advances we've had over the past two decades.
  Are those stunning advances due to or in spite of patents?
3. Re:Very little to say to this... by Theaetetus · 2011-11-30 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  it seems to disregard the stunning advances we've had over the past two decades.
  Are those stunning advances due to or in spite of patents?
  Doesn't matter... The argument is that patents stifle innovation - ergo, there should be no innovation. Assuming arguendo that those stunning advances are in spite of patents, patents clearly aren't stifling them.
  If the alternate claim is that the industry would be exponentially more advanced, absent patents, then that's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof, rather than just an unsupported conclusion.
4. Re:Very little to say to this... by anonymov · 2011-11-30 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to be mistaking stifle `(1) (transitive) To interrupt or cut off` with stifle `(2) (transitive) To repress, keep in or hold back.`
  And no, nowhere in my post were words like "exponentially" or "absent". I'm pretty sure all the lawsuit frenzy shows that current patent laws do hold back (which is stifle(2)) the technology.
5. Re:Very little to say to this... by Theaetetus · 2011-11-30 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to be mistaking stifle `(1) (transitive) To interrupt or cut off` with stifle `(2) (transitive) To repress, keep in or hold back.`
  And no, nowhere in my post were words like "exponentially" or "absent". I'm pretty sure all the lawsuit frenzy shows that current patent laws do hold back (which is stifle(2)) the technology.
  [Citation needed]. Where's your evidence that the technology would be farther ahead?
6. Re:Very little to say to this... by anonymov · 2011-11-30 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  [Basic logic needed] A tech start-up stopped by patent on "method for conveying textual information using electromagnetic radiation ... claim x) wherein EMR is in 400-700 THz frequency range ... claim x) wherein EMR is emitted by device ... claim x) wherein EMR is reflected by device" == one less piece of technology in the world.
7. Re:Very little to say to this... by Theaetetus · 2011-11-30 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  [Basic logic needed] A tech start-up stopped by patent on "method for conveying textual information using electromagnetic radiation ... claim x) wherein EMR is in 400-700 THz frequency range ... claim x) wherein EMR is emitted by device ... claim x) wherein EMR is reflected by device" == one less piece of technology in the world.
  Google Patents says "No results found for "method for conveying textual information using electromagnetic radiation"." How about some real evidence rather than what you've made up?
  Additionally, your "basic logic" fails. The fact that a patent owned by a company stops an infringer doesn't mean that the patented techology doesn't exist in the world. In fact, it's highly likely that the patent owner or a licensee makes it. Your conclusion simply doesn't follow, even from the "facts" that you created... which raises the question - if you're inventing evidence to support your position, how come you still failed?
8. Re:Very little to say to this... by anonymov · 2011-11-30 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Google Patents says "No results found for "method for conveying textual information using electromagnetic radiation"." How about some real evidence rather than what you've made up?
  You just missed that *whoosh* when packets of electromagnetic radiation emitted/reflected by your display device went over your head. Case in point, with sufficient obfuscation and sufficiently dumb patent examiners you can patent something like this (spoiler: it's just electronic sales catalog). Best part is that to make such patent void you need to have a lot of money and free time for courts.
  
  The fact that a patent owned by a company stops an infringer doesn't mean that the patented techology doesn't exist in the world. In fact, it's highly likely that the patent owner or a licensee makes it.
  Err, no, you still fail basic logic. a) Producing already patented technology != advancement, b) When (claimed to be) patented technology is a part of new device, _whole_ new device gets locked away, if start-up doesn't have money and will to defend it in court, c) You might want to read on concept of patent troll.
9. Re:Very little to say to this... by Theaetetus · 2011-11-30 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  Google Patents says "No results found for "method for conveying textual information using electromagnetic radiation"." How about some real evidence rather than what you've made up?
  You just missed that *whoosh* when packets of electromagnetic radiation emitted/reflected by your display device went over your head.
  Translation: "Oh, shiat, I didn't think you'd actually check on what I pulled from my ass."
  
  Case in point, with sufficient obfuscation and sufficiently dumb patent examiners you can patent something like this (spoiler: it's just electronic sales catalog). Best part is that to make such patent void you need to have a lot of money and free time for courts.
  Not really. It already expired. And it's also not "just an electronic sales catalog", since it can do part association, which a regular sales catalog can't.
  
  The fact that a patent owned by a company stops an infringer doesn't mean that the patented techology doesn't exist in the world. In fact, it's highly likely that the patent owner or a licensee makes it.
  Err, no, you still fail basic logic. a) Producing already patented technology != advancement, b) When (claimed to be) patented technology is a part of new device, _whole_ new device gets locked away, if start-up doesn't have money and will to defend it in court, c) You might want to read on concept of patent troll.
  You haven't yet even begun to support your point, and yet you're claiming I fail basic logic? You started by claiming that because a mythical patent existed (one which has been shown to not actually exist), a technology is denied to the world. Now, you acknowledge that that technology isn't actually denied to the world, because the patent owner may manufacture it. Sounds like you refuted your own point.
  And if the patent owner is producing the product, they're not a patent troll, by definition. You might want to read up on the concept of patent troll.
10. Re:Very little to say to this... by anonymov · 2011-11-30 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Translation: "Oh, shiat, I didn't think you'd actually check on what I pulled from my ass."
  Yes, I pulled a patent on any kinds of printed/displayed text out of my ass and you was sufficiently dumb to go and try searching for it in USPTO database. You'll make an excellent patent examiner.
  
  Not really. It already expired. And it's also not "just an electronic sales catalog", since it can do part association, which a regular sales catalog can't.
  Before it expired, it was used to try and sue a bunch of firms, until the judge said that it's obvious. But yes, since you don't see it as obvious, even it is, I can just repeat you'd make a great patent examiner.
  
  ...
  Oh, dang it, it's all too stupid to quote it by parts. You fail not only basic logic, but also basic reading comprehension and basic literary devices.
  No, I didn't claim existence of mythical patent on reading, it was a hyperbole of an obvious patent. No, I didn't claim patented technology is denied to the world, I claimed that allegedly using patented technology for _new_ products deny said new products, which you failed to read and comprehend (really, I should get a patent on that EMR thing and license it to patent examiner material like you). No, not all patent owner are producing the products, but they still sue alleged infringers allegedly using said alleged patents in their alleged new products. That's what we call "patent troll".
11. Re:Very little to say to this... by Theaetetus · 2011-11-30 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, dang it, it's all too stupid to quote it by parts. You fail not only basic logic, but also basic reading comprehension and basic literary devices.
  Translation: "[backpedal, backpedal, backpedal] Well, you're stupid! And you should be a patent Examiner! Because they're stupidheads, too!"
  Look, kid, it's nice that you've learned to operate a computer, but perhaps you should think a little harder before you hit that submit button.
12. Re:Very little to say to this... by anonymov · 2011-11-30 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Look, kid, it's nice to call other "kids", but when you're trying to discuss patents and can't even read patent description and claims to recognize an obvious hoax, you pretty much lose all credibility.
  If you wish, I might license you my patent on a system comprising a network of electrically and chemically cells and method of compartmentalizing, connecting and exciting the network from claim (a) in ways facilitating cognitive processes. You really could use it.
13. Re:Very little to say to this... by anonymov · 2011-11-30 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Oops, I accidentally a word. But it's covered by claim c) from that patent that extends method from claim (b) to allow reconstruction of lacking information based on surrounding context.
14. Re:Very little to say to this... by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-11-30 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  So a startup's only product already exists - so they have to co e up with something new instead. I can see see how that's stifling innovation.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
15. Re:Very little to say to this... by anonymov · 2011-11-30 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  There are finite resources that can be spared on R&D.
  Let's take that invalidated electronic sales catalog patent for example.
  So you want build a retailer software suite, and then you suddenly find out that you can't implement obvious part of it in obvious way without either going to court or paying up for a license, or you have to swallow it and do meaningless modifications to already obvious process. Whichever way you choose, thanks to patent office misjudgement and patent law, you have to redirect resources that could have gone in other parts of system to fix things that weren't broken in the first place.
  No, "they have to come up with something new" doesn't mean that if someone would patent the wheel we'd have antigrav chassis by now, we'd only have wheels of all the fun shapes for our horse carriages.
16. Re:Very little to say to this... by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-11-30 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  There are finite resources that can be spared on R&D.
  And that's why startups shouldn't be forced to actually come up with something new-
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
17. Re:Very little to say to this... by anonymov · 2011-11-30 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  And that's why startups shouldn't be forced to invent a hundred shapes of wheel.
18. Re:Very little to say to this... by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-11-30 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  Lets ignore that the patents on wheels have run out - you complain that your startup building wheels failed?
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
19. Re:Very little to say to this... by anonymov · 2011-11-30 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  No, I complain that my startup building them new-fangled internal combustion engine carriages ran out of money to finish the engine, because engineers had to invent square wheels and catenary roads to work around a patent on round wheel.
Re:Consumers will suffer because of this decision by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-29 17:30 · Score: 1

nice troll sir may i have another?
In a related incident: by Metabolife · 2011-11-29 17:31 · Score: 5, Funny

The court also ruled that consumers are allowed to take a single bite into an apple so long as they bite from the bottom.
1. Re:In a related incident: by BluBrick · 2011-11-29 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  The court also ruled that consumers are allowed to take a single bite into an apple so long as they bite from the bottom.
  I thought they'd first have to kiss that bottom.
  
  --
  Ahh - My eye!
  The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
Australian retailers have wasted little time. by mjwx · 2011-11-29 17:42 · Score: 2

A few Aussie retailers have already started advertising the SGT for sale. Kogan for example is offering the SGT for A$50 or more cheaper then the equivalent Ipads (which Kogan also sell).

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
1. Re:Australian retailers have wasted little time. by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-11-30 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  A few Aussie retailers have already started advertising the SGT for sale. Kogan for example is offering the SGT for A$50 or more cheaper then the equivalent Ipads (which Kogan also sell).
  IOW the SGT costs too much to sell. $200 is the most people will pay for a non-iPad tablet.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
what would you expect by rust627 · 2011-11-29 18:12 · Score: 2

This is the same company that is charging an extra AU$80:00 toAU$120 per iPad just because the boat turns right and comes here to Australia rather than turning left and going to the USA.

--
da da da dum indeed.
1. Re:what would you expect by Max+Littlemore · 2011-11-29 21:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah! What is with that? It's cheaper to get someone in the US to buy something and send it over than it is to buy it here but we are closer to China/Taiwan... And it's not just Apple. I figured out the cheapest way to get an eePad transformer with a doc is to buy the parts separately from the US and Hong Kong. You can save $100 on the cheapest local price.
  
  --
  I don't therefore I'm not.
2. Re:what would you expect by PoopCat · 2011-11-30 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing more (and perhaps bigger) boats go to the US than AU from China. Economies of scale and all that. Plus US customers are typically engaged in a race to the bottom where price is concerned (although Apple products seem to be excluded from this, at least w.r.t other vendors).
Damage Done by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-29 18:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

The damage has already been done though. Who's going to want to buy a Galaxy Tab when they can get something newer and probably better? Unlike Apple that releases but one new tablet every year, there are dozens of Android manufacturers constantly putting out new products that trump what was available months ago. In this kind of environment, a delay of a few months is huge. Since the initial delay, both Amazon and Barnes & Noble have released new devices for cheap that undercut almost everything else and ASUS is about to release the Transformer Prime which dominates the Galaxy Tab on the high end. Sure Samsung won, but they still lost.
1. Re:Damage Done by Max+Littlemore · 2011-11-29 21:48 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Possibly, but I think the one good thing that came from this for Samsung is the free publicity. Geeks all know about the Transformer Prime, but average consumers don't and probably won't find out about it for ages because Asus don't really advertise much.
  Meanwhile Samsung has been all over the papers and mainstream news sites and it has been obvious to a lot of them that Apple is frightened that the Galaxy might be better than an iPad if the comments on the (very pro Apple) Fairfax news are anything to go by. The whole episode has created a bit of an anti Apple backlash and I wouldn't be surprised if it plays out to Samsung's advantage in the medium term.
  
  --
  I don't therefore I'm not.
Update and two cents by Wasusa · 2011-11-29 18:18 · Score: 3, Informative

Quick update on this: http://www.news.com.au/technology/tablets/samsung-wins-australian-appeal-case-in-apple-tablet-war/story-fn6vigfp-1226210226842 They can't actually start selling yet, and apple are trying to overturn the overturned decision. And why would you get a Galaxy tab, especially now that the Transformer is out and about
1. Re:Update and two cents by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  Did you really just ask why someone would buy a tablet now that a new smartphone is out?
2. Re:Update and two cents by toriver · 2011-11-30 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  How is the Transformer a phone?
Re:Consumers will suffer because of this decision by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-29 19:09 · Score: 1

I'm a millionaire and I have a Nexus S. You must be one of those creative barista's.
Re:Consumers will suffer because of this decision by Max+Littlemore · 2011-11-29 21:37 · Score: 1

Hehehehe. I have a Samsung and an iPhone and I can promise you the Samsung is the better phone. Easier text entry (fuck that onscreen keyboard in iOS sux dogs arse), real bluetooth, a file system, a removable battery, expandable memory, flash and the ability to act as a usb mass storage device without the need for itunes on any machine I want to connect to.
Whenever I see someone with an iPhone I think "you poor idiot". Blinded by bling without the ability to actually think things through for yourself.

--
I don't therefore I'm not.
Nothing to do with rounded corners by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-11-30 00:17 · Score: 2

Since this seems to be a recurring meme in all Apple-on-Samsung angst hereabouts, note that this does not apply in this case - the patents that Apple used to obtain the original ban were technology patents, not design patents. Most notably, one of them is a patent on capacitive multitouch.
1. Re:Nothing to do with rounded corners by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 00:40 · Score: 0
  
  Apple do not make screens, they but them from elsewhere, even Samsung. The hardware is doing the work, software cannot do something hardware doesn't support. I.e. you cannot multitouch a screen than only feeds back a single point. Their screens are already designed to handle simultaneous feedback and it's up to the software people how they wish to implement it.
2. Re:Nothing to do with rounded corners by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-11-30 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  So far as I understand, the patent is actually specifically on the design of multitouch hardware.
Re:Consumers will suffer because of this decision by ThosLives · 2011-11-30 00:46 · Score: 2

Whenever I see someone with an iPhone I think "you poor idiot". Blinded by bling without the ability to actually think things through for yourself.
Why does this type of sentiment exist? I don't mean specifically for Brand X or Brand Y, but in general? Shouldn't the sentiment be "I'm glad there are both Brand X and Brand Y, because there are indeed legitimate reasons to use either brand, not the least of which is simply personal preference"?
Consider this - while I prefer Coke, I'm glad there is Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, RC Cola, etc. because then everyone has a chance to drink the beverage they prefer. The only times I get really mad is when a restaurant has an exclusive contract with the beverage I least prefer (in this case I'm often better off to be honest, as I default to water).

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Re:Consumers will suffer because of this decision by E+IS+mC(Square) · 2011-11-30 01:28 · Score: 1

That's how everthing was, before apple and apple fanbois started throwing shit at others. Case in point - the ridiculous legal war we are discussing here.
Re:Consumers will suffer because of this decision by Max+Littlemore · 2011-11-30 03:01 · Score: 1

Why does this type of sentiment exist?
Because there is a massive fan base out there for a company that makes shit products. Sure the hardware might be okay (if you could change the battery yourself or add additional storage) but the software ecosystem is so locked down that you can't use the hardware to it's potential and the whole package is overpriced. This is why I think of iIdiots as idiots. I have no particular adherence to any brand, I just hate brands with abusive business practices.

--
I don't therefore I'm not.
Re:Consumers will suffer because of this decision by kqs · 2011-11-30 04:53 · Score: 1

Odd, I thought that Apple fans were supposed to be the deluded pretentious elitists.
Re:Happy Holidays from the Golden Girls! by hairyfeet · 2011-11-30 06:53 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, did I miss a memo? Is there a reason why the lyrics from a lame old show about horny old women is suddenly a new meme? What's next "The Facts Of Life"?
As for TFA...yay Ozzies? I never saw why Apple got their knickers in a twist, to use a /. car analogy it would be like Ferrari getting pissy about the new mustang. Apple has the brand name and a lot of what sells IS the brand, its like Prada. You'll have Apple and then you'll have the knockoffs and while the geekers might like anything with Android for the regular Joes that Apple logo is worth paying the extra scratch, like the Nike logo or Adidas swoosh.
I guarantee you that anybody walking around in OZ with a Galaxy tab will be asked "What kind of iPad is that?" and when you have THAT level of branding frankly all this BS comes off as a little childish. Its a knockoff folks, when the judge can hold both it and an iPad and say "quick which one is your product?" and they can't answer? its a knockoff. And this is from someone who hasn't owned shit with an Apple logo except for a free G3 B&W I have in the closet that I still haven't figured out what to do with, maybe gut it and put in a AMD quad? It is a pretty case.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
to come back here and tell our enemies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 08:42 · Score: 0

They may have taken our tabs
but they will never take our freedom!
Re:Consumers will suffer because of this decision by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-11-30 10:47 · Score: 1

Why does this type of sentiment exist?
Because there is a massive fan base out there for a company that makes shit products.
IOW you are a fan of Samsung, that's why you have this sentiment. At least you have an explanation.

--
Fandroids hate facts.
Re:Consumers will suffer because of this decision by Max+Littlemore · 2011-11-30 10:52 · Score: 1

If you are implying I am being in any way deluded, pretentious or elitist, could you please explain how?
There's no delusion in any of my points and I have already explained factually why Apple products are shittier than other equivalents.
I'm not pretentious because I'm not pretending anything. This is just me being myself stating what I experience.
It's hardly elitist to point out how shitty products from a particular brand are when they clearly are in comparison to the majority of the competition. I even use an iPhone for work (I did tell the manager who made the decision to get them it was a stupid decision and explained why) and as a telephone with email and a calendar it is okay. I still take my Android phone with me everywhere because it has features I need to actually do my job, as did the Nokia N900 I had previously. Is that elitist or just sensible?
If you are an Apple fanboi with hurt feelings, I'm sorry. I deliberately avoided things like the UI design where Android has buttons that behave consistently and iOS doesn't because these are purely matters of taste.

--
I don't therefore I'm not.
Re:Consumers will suffer because of this decision by Max+Littlemore · 2011-11-30 11:12 · Score: 1

No Cheerful MacFanboi, I am not a fan of Samsung as such. I have a Samsung phone and it is better for doing my job than the iPhone work has supplied me. Previously I had a Nokia N900 which I preferred. I'm not a fan of any brand. They make good products and bad products and I assess them on their merits. Apple hasn't made anything that has impressed me for about 6 years and even then it was an expensive way of getting a Linux laptop with a silly keyboard so I didn't buy it.
I do get the shits with some brands because of the way they behave, like the case in TFA. I also tend to avoid Sony gear because of their love of Sony only interfaces (e.g. memory stick, betamax) although they haven't done one of those for a while. There may be other brands I don't like much, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

--
I don't therefore I'm not.
Re:Consumers will suffer because of this decision by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2011-11-30 12:19 · Score: 1

You know what I pity? People who don't get the irony of consumer product-based elitism. And no, I don't own an iPhone.

--
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Re:Happy Holidays from the Golden Girls! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-30 22:14 · Score: 0

I don't know what kind of people you hang out with, but here in Oz everyone knows an Android device by sight when they see one. I don't know if it's because we have the second highest smartphone penetration in the world, or just because it's not that hard to tell the difference and the brand awareness for both is very high
Apple loses again by Meski · 2011-12-08 14:08 · Score: 1

And today, Apple lost leave to appeal to the High Court. http://www.itnews.com.au/News/282786,galaxy-tab-101-heads-to-christmas-shelves.aspx

The 10.1 is scheduled to hit retail outlets this Monday.