Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Loses Tablet Battle In Australia

Posted by samzenpus on from the learn-to-play-nice dept.

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."

12 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. Also lost iPad trademark in China by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

    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/

    1. Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China by horza · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's interesting. Shenzhen trademarks the iPad back in 2000, then Apple launches the iPad in 2010 and promptly tries to sue Shenzhen for trademark infringement. Apple now cannot even call their tablet the iPad in one of the world's largest markets China. Their wildly illogical lawsuits, turning them into one of the world's most hated companies, are really starting to backfire everywhere.

      Phillip.

      --
      Property for sale in Nice, France
    2. Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 4, Informative

      Article detailing the lawsuit here. Apple did, in fact, sue the local business asserting a stronger claim to the trademark.

    3. Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Informative

      Shenzhen sold apple the international trademark to "iPad" back in 2006. That's what is up for grabs here.

      http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/video/2011-12/09/c_131297760.htm

      Plus never mind they have no product named, "iPad" either.

      I could name dozens of companies that are more hated in this world than apple. Xe, Halliburton, BP, News Corp, etc.

      Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that it's universal.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    4. Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China by jrumney · · Score: 4, Informative

      Shenzhen sold apple the international trademark to "iPad" back in 2006.

      The city of Shenzhen never held the iPad trademark. Proview Technology (Taipei) sold the trademark that they held in a number of countries, but Proview Technology (Shenzhen) chose to hold onto the trademark in China.

    5. Re:Also lost iPad trademark in China by jrumney · · Score: 4, Informative

      The "fact" as quoted is incorrect, as Proview (the company) sold its rights to another company, which sold them on to Apple in 2009.

      Probably the other company didn't care that their deal excluded China as they had no intention of doing business there, and when Apple bought it, they mistakenly believed they were buying the rights for the whole world, because the company name of the holder recorded for China matched the previous owner of the trademark they were buying apart from the city in which the company was based.

  2. Re:denied with costs? by stainlesssteelpat · · Score: 4, Informative

    down here loser pays, they lost with costs.

    --
    War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, the lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade.- Shelley
  3. Re:denied with costs? by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not quite. Joo Joo was released March 25th 2010, whereas iPad was announced January 27th 2010.

    Joojoo was announced before the iPad. And it was released before the iPad. But it wasn't released before the iPad was announced.

    Note also that there's a qualitative difference between the Joojoo announcement and the iPad one. With the Joojoo announcement, there wasn't even a final look to the device for which they could show a picture. With the iPad announcement, the actual device was demonstrated live on stage.

    Joojoo was released 5 days before the iPad, but the look of it dated from after the iPad was demoed.

  4. Re:Isn't it about time Xerox sued Apple? by jo_ham · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nice rewrite of history.

    Apple paid for the use of Parc's innovations. They later had "seller's remorse" when they decided they should have asked Apple for more than what they got, but in classic style they didn't see the value in what they had, but felt entitled to try and change the terms of the deal afterwards.

    There was no "ripping off" of Parc technology - it was all shared in exchange for money/shares/compensation.

  5. Re:Its not me rewriting history by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    Kindly allowed to buy at a reduced price. And if they hadn't sold the stock, it would be worth several billion dollars today.

  6. Re:Over in France by Mark19960 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because it's Florian, and yes - he is a troll.

  7. Re:denied with costs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Err, no, "X, but ON THE INTERNET" criticisms are directed on base claims of those patents, like "drag-n-drop slider changing program state on reaching one of the ends, but on a touchscreen"