

Samsung wins appeal, Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction overturned - caf
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-30/samsung-wins-apple-appeal/3704158

======
caf
This seems to capture the general flavour of the ruling:

    
    
      It is sufficient for us to express the view that, on the
      present state of the evidence, there is a real and
      substantial prospect that the importation into and supply
      in Australia of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 will not infringe
      claim 6 of the Touch Screen Patent. We have referred to
      a number of difficulties that confront Apple in making good
      its case on infringement. It may well be that, on a final
      hearing, Apple will meet these difficulties. But
      difficulties they are. Whilst we would not be prepared to
      say that Apple's case on infringement is not open to be
      argued, the difficulties to which we have referred do
      affect the assessment at the present time of the probability
      that, if on a final hearing the evidence remains the same,
      Apple will be found to be entitled to final injunctive
      relief for infringement of that claim. If Apple has
      established a prima facie case at all (which we doubt), it
      is founded upon a construction argument which, if the
      evidence remains as it is, is unlikely to succeed at trial.

------
ars
If I were in the market for a tablet I would certainly look at the the Galaxy
Tab.

If Apple considers them their biggest threat, then that's quite an
endorsement.

~~~
fondue
They were the biggest threat at the time the lawsuit was filed. I think the
target will be changing to Amazon and ASUS in the near future.

------
fpgeek
Just started looking at it, but I like this bit from the initial list of court
orders:

    
    
      7. The respondents pay the appellants’ costs of and  
      incidental to the application for leave to appeal and the 
      appeal.
    

The appellants are Samsung and the respondents are Apple. I don't know about
Australia, but in the US winning court costs tends to be a big deal.

~~~
cturner
In line with what inclinedplane said, I've always found it strange that costs
are generally not awarded in US legal culture. Awarding costs takes a lot of
the momentum out of strategic and extortive lawsuit practices, and gives
people a lot more incentive to settle out of court - a practice that's broadly
regarded as a good thing. If anyone knows a reason it's not done, I'd be
interested to hear it.

