

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales ban lifted in the US - coldskull
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19796178

======
josteink
So Apple has successfully ruined one competitor's ability to compete, innovate
and bring products to market. And lost.

In a free market that should be the most punishable offense of all.

How much is that going to cost Apple? How many _billions_ will they be forced
to pay in punitive damages?

Will they be banned from making similar claims in the future? Have they lost
"karma" so when serving the next "ban kthx plz"-request, they will have to
prove their case more thoroughly? Will their existing, similarly baseless
claims be re-investigated and maybe denied or withdrawn?

What have we (as people, and as a judicial system) learned from this which
means we can punish abuse and avoid having cases like this happen again?

This is after all in the US, and in the US we do not want anything to hinder
the free market, right?

~~~
killahpriest
The Galaxy Tab was not destroyed by this ban. The Galaxy Tab was destroyed by
itself.

If you've ever used a Galaxy Tab, you would know how terrible of a device it
is.

~~~
maskedinvader
not sure which galaxy tab you are talking about, but I am proud owner of the
galaxy tab 10.1 wifi and Its a beautiful device. The hardware was definitely
comparable if not better than ipad 2, id agree the OS (honeycomb) was totally
a let down but once I got ICS, the tablet has worked well for me. So yeah I'd
beg to disagree (atleast for 10.1)

~~~
killahpriest
I'm talking about the 10.1. Agreed, the hardware is nice. The implementation
of the OS is terrible, absolutely terrible.

------
jacquesm
So, if the ban was not justified does that mean Samsung now gets to claim
losses?

~~~
fredley
The whole business continues its decent into farce if not.

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 has been destroyed by this temporary ban. While it's been
banned nobody's been developing for it, and there's been no chance for any
kind of 'buzz'. Its window has now passed, and it'll likely never really get
off the ground.

For one company to be able to do that to another with a spurious ban is
ridiculous.

~~~
ben1040
Its window had passed before the injunction. The ban went into effect June 26,
2012, a full year after the Galaxy Tab 10.1 went on the market.

Meanwhile, the Galaxy Tab 2 10.1's successor, which was not affected by the
injunction, had been out for a month and a half (it came out early May 2012).

------
perlpimp
I love and support apple from the first days when I went to canada I fell in
love with Macs, we had those black and white ones and with Think Pascal. I
wrote some code, got some A's for work and so on. I am not fan boy but I have
deep respect for that Apple is to me and the industry.

Frankly it all has gotten out of hand - after all this is all is a good sport,
bloody noses aren't necessary. Samsung should negotiate reasonable royalty,
apple should agree. Slap on some disclaimer how "apple" their products are and
apple should calm down and refocus on their products - as a leader of the
industry. Perhaps look for another strict leader like Steve Jobs was - but
with experience in the industry. Tim Cook with maps fiasco frankly didn't
impress me at all. See comparision of two apology letters from cook and jobs.

And they should put it all behind.

However apple has been know as a being a brilliant kid with short attention
span and tantrums to remember. So I'll make a bit of popcorn and watch on...

~~~
mrich

      However apple has been know as a being a
      brilliant kid with short attention span and
      tantrums to remember.
    

It is interesting how companies often exhibit traits of their influential
founders. This would be a good characterization of Jobs.

~~~
tsieling
A short attention span. Really. You think you build a digital ecosystem around
premium hardware and breaking content licensing logjams and forcing open the
price of cellular data with a short attention span. That's.... interesting.

------
EricBurnett
Note that the redress for lost sale is yet to be determined. Samsung may get
some or all of the 2.6M bond Apple posted at the start of the injunction,
although how much isn't clear.

~~~
zmmmmm
It's kind of weird to me that Apple was able to claim irreparable harm would
occur if the Tab was sold, and then when it IS banned incorrectly they only
have to compensate such a small amount that clearly was not 'irreparable'.

ie. if they claimed irreparable harm would occur from the sale of the device,
then compensation in samsung's direction should naturally cause them that same
'irreparable' harm that they said was going to occur.

~~~
corin_
Not necessarily, I think.. tell me if this logic holds up.

In a hypothetical situation where I clone the iPhone and manage to bring it to
market for $1, if I am allowed to do it and it sells X times then it could
mean X(big price) losses to iPhone, whereas if I am blocked from selling it
then I am only losing X($1) from those lost sales.

~~~
__alexs
Price elasticity of demand is not linear.

------
cube13
It's worth pointing out that Samsung should have had this overturned a month
ago when the jury made it's verdict( [http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2012/09/judge-cant-lift-b...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2012/09/judge-cant-lift-ban-on-samsung-tablet-even-though-its-not-
infringing/) ), but could not, because they appealed the initial decision back
in June. That moved the jurisdiction to the federal appeals courts. After the
decision came down that they did not infringe with the Tab 10.1, Koh was not
able to lift the ban until the jurisdiction issues were resolved.

Given that the court date was already settled at that point, and it would take
several months to go through the appeals court, this was a pretty stupid move
on Samsung's lawyer's part, because there was pretty much no hope that the
case would be heard, or decided, by the time that the Apple case was done.
Plus, since Samsung released the Tab 2 in May(and the Apple lawsuit did not
cover that device), they were hardly in a position to argue that the decision
was a terrible hardship on them. So it's not like they had much of a reason to
even bother appealing, other than to waste billable hours.

------
makmanalp
I wonder if they can now pitch this as a marketing angle. Something like: "So
good, they tried to ban it" or somesuch.

~~~
Evbn
Then apple would sue for copying their powermac ad campaign: "classified as a
weapon" for its computing power.

------
rohshall
Go, Samsung, go!

