“We’ll be up to Galaxy Tab 10.27 and iPad 9 by the time we’re able to launch,” Samsung counsel declared in a Sydney court today in the ongoing cat fight between Galaxy Tab 10.1 and iPad 2.
Click to enlarge
Sydney’s Federal Court 18C was where the tab rivals took each other on today, with Apple looking to halt the sale of foe Samsung’s new Galaxy Tab 10.1, as it looks to be a serious threat to the reign of the iPad 2.
Samsung were looking to launch the product later this week in Australia but are unable to do so, at present, although this could change once a second hearing to be held on Thursday this week takes place.
Australia, is now emerging as the latest battle ground in the dirty cat fight between the duo, which is already taking place in courts in US and Europe.
Apple, who claims to be concerned about the infringement of three patents it alleges Samsung have violated relating to touchscreen, swipe technology and touch sensor panels, is looking to ban the new Tab on this basis, and used the device packaging and demo of the touchscreen workings of the Tab as part of evidence submitted to Justice Bennett in court today.
The three patents in question – were rejected by Samsung counsel David Catterns on the basis that – “it has nothing to do with form factor, shape or white cardboard,” referring to Apple’s summoning the white box packaging used by the Tab as evidence of copying the iPad.
But Australia is hugely important to Apple as a market, Apple Counsel Steven Burley declared, with iPhone now “ubiquitous” among consumers here.
Apple also bemoaned the potential loss of sale, “demoralising” effect on brand value and a denigration of the ‘halo effect,’ where if consumers buys an iPad, leads them to purchase other Apple products.
But if consumers opt for a Samsung instead, the ‘halo’ would fall away, causing further loss of revenue.
This appears to be the main worries of one of the most valuable companies in the world – loss of sales to a rival, hiding behind veil of patents and if the South Koreans argue their case well enough could see a verdict in their favour.
Apple also cited R&D costs asociated with the patents although the exact figures were not disclosed in front of the court, was submitted to the Judge as evidence.
And not to mention the harm to its iTunes business and third party developers, with iPad now boasting 425K applications, Apple counsel added.
When the judge queried the importance of the iPad, Apple counsel declared you would want to be “living under a rock” to not have heard about the ‘transformative” device, although conceded HP and Toshiba had brought out tablet computers previous to the first launch in January 2010.
Apple’s value has increased a whopping 859% on the sale of its cult iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch, all carriers of the patents now under contention.
Burley also referred to “transformative nature of iPad 2” as a “key product for education and business” in Oz, with several schools in Victoria as well as Commonwealth Bank all adopting the device.
Samsung council David Catterns came back with strong arguments and sought to head straight to the nub of the argument which is, in his opinion, “has nothing to do with form factor, shape or white boxes. ”
Basically, Cupertino are rattled because the Tab 10.1, which it has successfully already banned in several Euro countries, is “formidable” and thinner than the acclaimed “thinner, faster, lighter” iPad 2.
Samsung representation rejected Apple patents claims, which it took almost two hours to argue out in court today, as “trivial.”
“It is inconceivable that a patent as trivial as this (referring to the ‘swipe gesture) will restrain our launch,” he added.
“It’s the thinness of the device that concerns them, it is formidable because it is thinner.” The ‘open’ Android OS is also a clear advatage of the Galaxy, he added.
Apple didn’t care about the alleging features until we came up with a more attractive product,” he added, referring to the 7″ Galaxy Tab released last year with similar technology to the Tab 10.1 features now under contention.
Catterns also rejected Apple’s argument of Apple being “inconvenienced” by the arrival of a cloned iPad. The real inconvience is Samsung have an ” attractive competing product” and not the loss of iTunes or other third party developers.