Steve Jobs’ patent enables Apple to shut down any new Android product in Australia

“In a posthumous triumph for the late Steve Jobs, one of his more than 300 patents — a patent on touchscreen heuristics — just helped Apple score a major legal win in Australia that lends momentum to its patent enforcement efforts against Samsung at a critical juncture,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents.

“The Federal Court of Australia ordered an interim injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 over strong suspicions of the infringement of two technical invention patents,” Mueller reports. “The interim injunction will be in force until the court resolves the matter in a full-blown main proceeding, at which point in time the product will likely be obsolete in this rapidly-evolving market.”

Mueller reports, “The patents at issue are not tablet-specific. They are very broad and can hardly be worked around, unlike various other intellectual property rights that Apple asserted and Samsung recently engineered around. After today’s decision, I believe no company in the industry be able to launch any new Android-based touchscreen product in Australia anytime soon without incurring a high risk of another interim injunction. The two patents on which today’s ruling is based aren’t Galaxy Tab 10.1-specific at all. They will affect all Android-based smartphones and tablet computers, across all vendors.”

Much more in the full article – recommended – here.

MacDailyNews Take: Android’s chickens have finally begun coming home to roost.

23 Comments

  1. Yeah, I love the marketing line on the Galaxy Tab ad at Dulles:

    IT’S TIME TO TAB.™

    LOL!! Compare that to Apple’s:

    Our most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device at an unbelievable price.

    Winner?…

  2. … willing to share – at a reasonable cost, I’d assume – this technology? Not that Apple needs the money, but it shows Good Faith. It isn’t like the Galaxy, or any Android-based tablet or smart phone, is likely to grab significant market from Apple’s products, is it?

    1. Android already has higher market share as an OS in smartphones. Why give them any leg into the tablet world.

      Remember, Google started into smartphones OS’s while Eric Schmidt was on the Apple board. (he was Google’s CEO).

      When Steve realized he had a mole on the board, Apple’s and Google’s fight became the techno battle for the next decade.

    2. If I broke into your house numerous times and stole valuable property that belonged to you and that you created, would you say “oh what the heck it’s only my property” and bail them out of jail, or would you press charges?

      (Not being dis-respectful, just using that as an analogy. It may not be spot on, but you get the idea.)

      1. … has a greater market share than the iPhone? That has to be Apple’s fault, right? All carriers have sold out of the stocks provided by Apple!
        Look … if Apple can sell all they can make, do you really care how many “the other guy” sells? Is it not good enough that you win? Must everyone else lose?

      2. … giving it away. I suggested licensing it. For a reasonable price. This would give them less incentive to steal. More important, it would jack up the penalty for stealing.

        1. Steve Jobs stopped clone-licensing in 1997 when he returned to Apple. Apple successfully halted Psystar from using Mac OS X on their PCs. SJ has stated in 2007 that they “filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone. And we intend to protect them.” Which means no licensing. And I don’t blame them.

    1. Nonsense, touchscreen phones and tablets have been using styluses for over 10 years. It’s not vital to use several finger gestures.

      It’s not the same as a radio in a cell phone vital.

    2. Apple never signed deals with international standard organizations with the agreement to FRAND terms — contrary to what Samsung (and Nokia, among others) has done with their’s GSM/3G patents.

      So Apple is free to do however they want.

  3. This is the right decision. Why should competitors slavishly copies Apple’s design. They could have a round-shaped tablet instead of the Applesque shape. They could have use a stylus or the primitive information kiosk-based touch interface to differentiate themselves. They could have compete on merit instead of on unethical methods such as the ruthless cutthroat price-cutting or BOGO schemes.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.