Samsung Galaxy Tab ban overturned in Australia; Apple granted stay

“The Federal Court of Australia has overturned the preliminary injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in a stunning verdict read to the Federal Court this afternoon,” Luke Hopewell reports for ZDNet Ausitralia.

“The unanimous decision made by Federal Court Justices John Dowsett, Lindsay Foster and David Yates ordered that the injunction made by Justice Annabelle Bennett be overturned, allowing the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 to be released in Australia,” Hopewell reports. “In a surprise move, however, Apple legal counsel Stephen Burley SC then sought a stay of the orders handed down by Justice Foster so that an appeal against the overturning of the injunction could be heard before the High Court of Australia.”

“Naturally, Samsung had strong objections to the stay of orders. ‘This order serves to prolong the injustice held against Samsung,’ the Korean gadget-maker’s representatives told Justice Foster today, adding that any stay or appeal to the High Court would see Samsung crippled in the upcoming Christmas shopping season. ‘Any stay, no matter how short, given the [impending] … Christmas season would prove further hardship to Samsung,'” Hopewell reports. “Justice Foster conceded to the orders proposed by Apple and issued a stay of orders until 4pm (AEDST) on Friday so that Apple could file its appeal in the High Court of Australia.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Let’s see what the High Court of Australia has to say about Samsung’s obvious and slavish copying of Apple’s patented IP.

Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

Related article:
Judge: Can you tell me which is iPad and which is yours? Samsung lawyer: ‘Not at this distance your honor’ – October 14, 2011


  1. Most cars look superficially the same but the driving experience and the durability are quite different from one manufacturer to the other. Same thing with tablets. I think Samsung will win the court case but will lose in the market.

  2. Androids use Apple & Microsoft technologies to power their Android phones & pay royalty payments for every phone sold. Once MS gets their Win8Phone + Nokia Phones in gear, they will not want Android around very long.

  3. I think Apple’s goal here IS to kill Android. Ideally, Apple does this by establishing a legal precedent with a successful action against Samsung. Apple can’t sue Google directly since the company does not directly collect fees for its Android software. This forced Apple to instead sue Google commercial licensees that actually earn money from the derivative copies of iOS software and hardware.

  4. How ridiculous. At the hearing a couple of the judges were asking/stating things like, “would it be such a hardship for Apple if Samdung was to sell its devices? Would it really make Apple bankrupt?”

    This is tantamount to saying, “Ok we understand this burglar broke into your house and stole your TV set, but come on, the burglar has to eat too…..will it really make you homeless?

    The law really is an ass if this goes through.

    1. In most cases, the law is not the ass as it’s been drafted without the benefit of 20/20 vision.

      Laws are proposed and prepared by well meaning representatives of the public (I think they’re called politicians…) then gets interpreted and applied by a bunch of bureaucrats who’ve never had to get out there and earn a dime the hard way – the way an entrepreneur has to.

      It’s the bureaucrats, particularly the ones in their ivory towers insulated from the GFC, that really get us down… They myopically try and interpret laws that flawed to start with.

      I’d much rather be judged by a jury of my peers (entrepreneurs) than a bunch of bureaucrats any day!

      1. That would be absolutely a train wreck. A jury of entrepreneurs making decisions about IP are going to think more about how their decision may affect their business than justice.

        You obviously don’t know any judges. They are, for the most part, highly concerned with making the right decision under the law. Sometimes their decision making is bound or dictated by what the law requires. Sometimes there is no written law to handle the specific dispute, so they do what they can. But the last thing a judge is is a bureaucrat.

  5. Yeah. Entrepeneurs have to rule! They know it all, are fair etc. How could they be earning money if they didn’t. Stop this freaking stupid talk. As if being a judge is a hobby (or making laws). This laws are here so entrepreneurs don’t fuck everybody over.

  6. Why does Apple keep getting screwed by the courts? Apparently Oracle isn’t doing any better. It seems the courts want to protect Google and free Android enterprise in order to keep consumers happy with low prices.

  7. What’s the point of innovating and bringing it to the masses when your competitors are allowed to copy your right off the bat. You spend billions developing new stuff and companies like Samdung, Goople goes and copies your stuff and the court allows it. Worse one is giving it away so that your competitor gets a free ride to profit.

  8. From page 14 of’ “Samsung Savior” the recent biography of the Samsung chairman Lee kun-hee (authored by Yo-seb Ko): “When Lee Kun-hee began trying to run Samsung, it was a company incapable of developing or learning technology from other companies, a company run by managers who were charged with stealing technology from competitors, who operated on the concept that technology is better stolen and not developed…”. It seems that in spite of the great strides Samsung has made, this underlying culture still prevails at the heart of the organization..

Reader Feedback

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