Slashdot Mirror
Apple Loses Tablet Battle In Australia
New submitter harmic writes "The Australian Federal High Court has denied Apple's appeal against the earlier decision that overturned the ban on sales of the Galaxy Tab. The Samsung Android based tablets should be in the shops in a matter of days. Apple had attempted to appeal an earlier court ruling overturning the ban."
"Apple loses appeal to ban Samsung Galaxy Tab in Australia" - beyond your abilities to write that?
Appalling title.
I'm surprised I've not seen this posted yet, but a few days ago Apple lost control of the iPad trademark in China after a dispute.
http://www.macworld.com.au/news/apple-loses-trademark-in-china-no-longer-called-ipad-41378/
Googling it returns this news story, does it mean Apple will have to pay Samsungs legal costs or even what Samsung is going to claim they have lost because of it?
Apple case isn't looking good, they are getting thrown out all over the world and the small wins are for trivial stuff Samsung can and has worked around. Meanwhile Apples reputation has taken a nosedive not being helped that Jobs epitaph seems to consist of "prick in a turtleneck". Screwing your partner out of a few hundred when he will one day make you a billionaire is just sad.
I still wonder what Apple was thinking. Yes, the Samsung tablets and for that matter anyone elses look a lot alike. And? I tried it at a local super store. Gosh, they are indeed very similar. Then I wandered over the washing machine department. Talk about copy cats. Really, take a LOOK someday, they are ALL the same. Even the place you the soap in. I couldn't find a single model on display where the soap didn't go in on the left. Even the order of pre-wash, wash and fabric softener is like that, from left to right.
And don't even get me started on fridges. white boxes the lot of them. About the only exception are the american models which ALL have the water dispenser in the LEFT door which is narrower then the right door.
So maybe Apple was the first to copy the design from a prop maker. Was it worth it Apple? We who are not fanboys now have fresh ammo to slap your buyers around with now that the one-mouse button joke has gotten a bit stale (mind you, tablets do have only one mouse button... old jokes never die it seems, they just get re-used on slashdot). Injunctions thrown out, might have to pay whatever Samsung is going to claim as damages and you made a Korean mega-corp many times larger and closely tied to a not-so-democratic regime that has taken thousands up on thousands of western job as the sympathetic underdog.
Maybe here is a hint for Apple, next time the lawyers suggest a strategy. Hit them!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
So they denied an appeal to an overturn on a ban. Oh boy, without the title I wouldn't have understood who won and who lost.
Apple wastes a gazillion dollars trying to get the Galaxy tablet banned, and fail... only to find out later that Samsung kills the product themselves due to slow sales, a la HP Touchpad and RIM whatever
I guess you'll have to compete on quality product attributes now like features, support and other factors... You know... Fairly...
Or maybe you still don't get it.
The Lisa & Mac were total ripoffs of the stuff Jobs saw at Parc. How come Apple seem to think the rules on stealing ideas apply to everyone except themselves? Does being (allegedly) "cool" somehow make hypocrisy ok?
It's not going so well for Samesung http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/12/french-court-denies-samsung-request-for.html
IS caused by the Patent system.
Honestly, all it does is stifle creativity. I made a square, you cant make a square too!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Xerox were "kindly" allowed to buy apple stock in return for letting apple engineers visit their research centre. Apple never directly paid for any of the innovations they used.
in my language prost means stupid :)
Frist Prost is actually an english phrase that means "I'm stupid" too. :P
Stupid like the legal warfare shenanigans between idevice companies. And the companies themselves.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Really, injunctions are - and should be - rare. This was not unexpected, and really doesn't affect the infringement suit much.
Xerox were "kindly" allowed to buy apple stock in return for letting apple engineers visit their research centre. Apple never directly paid for any of the innovations they used.
For fsck's sake - we're talking about Xerox here, not some naive Mom & Pop corner shop that the slick businessmen from Apple could con into selling their shop for a handful of shiny beads. An outfit like Xerox should have the nous to check whether oil had been discovered on the site or the new interstate was likely to be built next door. Xerox willingly did a deal with Apple, and they're big enough and ugly enough to eat the consequences. Fair play to Apple.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/08/samsung-loses-iphone-4s-france?newsfeed=true
Fandroids hate facts.
The shares cost Apple NOTHING to hand over. And for that NOTHING they got *paid* AND got access to Xerox's research! Whether the shares would be worth a billion by now is irrelevant, they still cost apple NOTHING.
It was a typical Jobs style business deal:
"You give me money and access to all your research and I'll give you this bit of paper which might or might not be worth something in the future".
Given how fast the Android market is evolving, Samsung only had a few months to make a profit on the 10.1. Apple killed that window of opportunity with their injunction. Now, newer and better tablets are already out.
Apple lost the case but they hurt Samsung badly. Apple should be made to pay for the harm they did to Samsung. And Apple may have opened themselves up to similar claims against them in the future, as other companies will now start to take out silly design patents as well and use them against Apple product launches.
Are you trying to distort the truth?
The JooJoo was released before the iPad, and was prototyped way before the iPad.
That was expected though, it was a nothing to lose shot from Samsung.
In 2000 Cisco acquired a company that had used it, and quickly dropped the line. Then Cisco fraudulently tried to resurrect the trademark after Apple came asking about iPhone.
Look, Sheila, that's one of those Samsung doodads that's so good that Apple tried to have it banned.
You can't buy that kind of publicity.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"Not in my opinion"
Actually it is.
Apple is the one that defined the battle as "allowed to be sold" or "we don't compete on product merits".
So in your opinion, you'd like a different headline. But eventually, you "got" it, so what's your worry? That someone not as smart as you won't get it?
I love it how every thread with "apple" in the tag line ends up a flame war between apple fanbois and haters. on-topic, fellas.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/09/apple-loses-big-against-motorola-in-germany/
Remember when businesses had to make better products than their competitors in order to compete, instead of continually suing them? Yeah...that was nice.
They may have lost the battle, but they can still win the war!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Perjury, fraud upon the USPTO. ILLEGAL. Cisco hadn't used the trademark for years until Apple showed up asking about using the name (yes, Apple asked first), then Cisco swore upon penalty of perjury to the USPTO that it had been using it in order to renew it, and even slapped an iPhone sticker on a Linksys VOIP phone retail box as their the required evidence that a Cisco iPhone product was out in the market (which it wasn't). Cisco's lucky their trademark attorney wasn't disbarred.
Apple iOS is not an operating system for routers and other networking devices, so technically Apple would have had an arguable case for non-infringement. There is no way in hell this consumer OS could be confused with the networking OS, and the purpose of trademark is the prevention of consumer confusion ("I want a phone with iOS, hey this Apple iPhone doesn't have Cisco IOS on it!") or fraud (like Apple selling iOS as a Cisco IOS fake for a networking device, not gonna happen).
But that doesn't matter since Apple LICENSED the iOS trademark from Cisco before the name change for undisclosed considerations.
What lame, baseless complaints are you going to try now?
Cisco has one, the one they got from Infogear. Timeline:
The trademark was awarded to Infogear in 1999, Cisco bought them in 2000, and sold its last "iPhone" product before this matter in 2001.
The trademark was up for renewal on 11/16/2005, and Cisco didn't bother, having abandoned the mark. But there is a six month grace period.
Then in mid 2006 Apple came to Cisco asking about using it with an Apple phone that was to be announced in early 2007.
Cisco immediately used the grace period to renew the trademark twelve days before its absolute expiration in order to get leverage on Apple for a higher license fee.
But to do that, Cisco had to show that it had been using "iPhone" in commerce, and submit a photo showing the mark in use. Cisco slapped an "iPhone" label on a Linksys VOIP phone and swore under penalty of perjury that it was in use. Cisco was so hurried that the label was placed on top of the shrinkwrap on the box for the photo. Cisco wouldn't rebrand and sell that as an iPhone until months later, after the trademark would have expired.
That is perjury. That is fraud.
Apple apparently pointed this out to Cisco after Cisco's talk about suing, and Cisco quietly dropped the issue, talking about some "interoperability promise" over its use that never happened. My bet is Apple said "Go ahead, take us to court, and we'll show your fraud," but Apple wanted the issue resolved before the January launch of Apple's phone.
Writing this on my wife's iPad, really Apple, this thing sucks... Super frustrating to do what should be simple tasks in this modern age. Competition is a good thing, stop cock blocking.
-- the Aussie
he sayd "first pRost" not "first post". I know "first post" means "I'm stupid" in english :D