Samsung’s desperate bid to save its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Australia has been turned down by Apple, and could mean that one of the iPad’s biggest Android rival never sees its launch down under.
It’s still unclear what Samsung actually offered Apple to settle the dispute, other than it would “help ensure an expedited court hearing,” but it clearly wasn’t enough for the Cupertino company. Apple’s attorney, Steven Burley, told the Federal Court today that it will see this dispute through to the end:
“It is one we don’t accept and there is no surprise. The main reason we are here is to prevent the launch (of the Galaxy 10.1) and maintain the status quo.”
A Samsung lawyer told the court that a settlement is “not going to be achievable…given the positions advanced by each party.”
Samsung has agreed to remove two features from its tablet that are allegedly guilty of infringing Apple’s patents, so there is still some hope for the Galaxy Tab in Australia just yet. The Korean electronics giant has also vowed to do its best to get the device launched:
“We’re willing to pull out all the stops to get it out by mid-October. We’re absolutely desperate.”
If it does launch, however, this may mean Australians get a slightly watered-down version of the device.
[via The Next Web]
Killian Bell is a freelance writer based in the U.K. He has an interest in all things tech and also covers Android over at CultofAndroid.com. You can follow him on Twitter via @killianbell.
10 responses to “Apple Turns Down Samsung’s Bid to Settle Galaxy Tab Lawsuit Down Under”
We don’t care – we’ve all got iPads
This headline suggests that Apple turned down a blow job from samsung to settle.
That’s what happens when you’re not original…
Samsung should just design their own products instead of copying the design of the iPad/iPhone, the USB adapters, chargers, packaging, and even use Apple logos in a Samsung store haha
Copying stuff is obviously asking for trouble. Call it, “common sense”
shit
That’s the real crux in the case. What constitutes copying and what doesn’t. How far can someone go with ‘inspiration’ before they go too far.
That question is part of why I think that Apple wants this to go to court and in as many places as possible. They want their definition of ‘copying’ validated legally. As well as their legal right to protection of their look and feel. A settlement is a bit like pleading no contest to a speeding ticket. You are paying the fine but the question of your guilt or innocence isn’t settled.
Apple pulled a similar move with Psystar. They had a dozen times they could have filed for a dismissal based on Psystar’s lame claims. But they didn’t. Why? Because by letting it ride and winning, there is now legal precedent they can use if some other dog is dumb enough to poop on their lawn. Psystar basically tried every remotely possible logic and all of them are now shot down. Which was well worth the legal costs Apple had to pay