“Samsung argues that the judge who ordered its Galaxy Tab 10.1 to be banned from sale in Australia ‘misunderstood and misapplied’ basic requirements of the law and elements of her reasoning were ‘grossly unjust.'” Asher Moses reports for The Sydney Morning Herald.
“Apple was successful in October in winning a temporary injunction banning sales of Samsung’s tablet in Australia until a final hearing could take place next year,” Moses reports. “Samsung’s lawyer claimed Justice Bennett did not attempt to properly evaluate the strength of Apple’s case for infringement or whether the patents in question were invalid. He said she decided Apple had a prima facie case for patent infringement without conducting the proper tests… ‘We contend that the primary judge made a series of fundamental errors in her disposition of the interlocutory application. They were all errors of principle,’ Samsung’s lawyer told the court. ‘Her honour misunderstood and misapplied the basic requirements concerning interlocutory injunctions as laid down in [previous cases].'”
Moses reports, “Apple’s lawyers rejected Samsung’s arguments and said Justice Bennett had made “no error in principle” and had carefully considered a complex case. He said she would have been keenly aware of the serious consequences of granting Apple the temporary ban on the tablet.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: You know what’s really “grossly unjust?” Trying to trick less savvy consumers into buying inferior knockoffs of other company’s original ideas.
Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
