Australian Judge Wants Apple to Provide iPad Sales Impact to Consider Samsung Ban

[dgstorm]

According to a report from Bloomberg, the Australian Court Judge in the ongoing Apple vs. Samsung legal battle has indicated that she wants U.S. and UK sales figures from Apple to provide hard evidence that sales from the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 has had a negative impact on iPad sales. From the beginning, one of the primary arguments from Apple was that because of the “remarkable similarity of the Samsung product” it will steal sales from the iPad in Australia. Samsung's lawyer, Neil Murray has countered that “People want an Android product, so they will buy an Android product. This is not impacting the sales of Apple.”

Samsung even went as far as to ask the court to force this disclosure from Apple. The Australian Federal Court Judge, Justice Annabelle Bennet, denied this request, but did make it clear to Apple, “Unless Apple puts on evidence showing the impact in the U.S. or U.K., I can’t draw any positive assumptions." For now, while the court case is pending, sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 have been put on hold in Australia.

In an interesting side-note,

In the U.S., Samsung is arguing that Apple stole the design for its iPad from the Stanley Kubrick 1969 film “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

That's pretty funny, and makes me want to re-watch my copy of that classic Si-fi film. Only in America...

Source: GalaxyForums.net via GalaxyTabForums.net via SlashGear and Bloomberg

 

[redcloud]

Enough with the litigating, we need more innovating. Sounds like Apple dislikes competition??? Maybe they are fearful of being outinnovated. In any case, we consumers welcome competition. This is what helps improve the product and its development systems.

 

[OffWorld]

Here's the clip the Samsung suit apparently references from 2001: A Space Odyssey

Also, don't forget that Star Trek: The Next Generation featured the PADD (Personal Access Display Device) which not only was a primarily touch-interface networked tablet computer it also had rounded corners and similar thickness to the first iPad. They were called PADDs in scripts as early as 1987, but was not called a PADD on screen until 1992.

IMO, both of these should definitely count as "prior art" to vacate Apple's patent claims.

 

[redcloud]

Maybe if these corporations spent less money on lawyers, they could spend it on development. Competition is normal and healthy. Apple had a good run of technology, now they have to contend with a little competition, boohoo.