Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales ban lifted in the US

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales ban lifted in the US(bbc.co.uk)

115 points by coldskull 13 years ago | 27 comments

josteink 13 years ago |

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 Will their existing, similarly baseless claims be re-investigated and maybe denied or withdrawn?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?

nachteilig 13 years ago | |

Let's not only criticize Apple for this. Samsung is attempting to do the same thing even now with the iPhone 5.

ubernostrum 13 years ago | |

So, out of curiosity, are you for or against the existence of anti-trust law?

josteink 13 years ago | | |

I assume you are asking due to my comment about "most punishable of all offenses". I'll be honest and say it was a wee bit tongue-in-check. That said, I'm for anti-trust laws in principle.

For me to support them in practice, execution needs to be delicate. As for in so many other fields, this is the hard part.

killahpriest 13 years ago | |

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.

RyanMcGreal 13 years ago | | |

If it's not competitive, then let it lose in an open market instead of hobbling it with an unjustified sales ban.

maskedinvader 13 years ago | | |

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)

jacquesm 13 years ago |

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

fredley 13 years ago | |

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 13 years ago | | |

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).

sigzero 13 years ago | | |

"The Galaxy Tab 10.1 has been destroyed by this temporary ban."

I will stop reading there. The GT sucks, sales ban or not.

mtgx 13 years ago | |

I know in US the losing party doesn't usually pay for the winning party's expenses or losses, but couldn't Samsung at least sue Apple for it and automatically win?

ajross 13 years ago | | |

It's common for situations like this for the plaintiff to post a bond to cover losses from a preliminary injunction, actually. No idea if that was done here or not.

perlpimp 13 years ago |

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 13 years ago | |

  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 13 years ago | | |

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 13 years ago |

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 13 years ago | |

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_ 13 years ago | | |

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.

jacquesm 13 years ago | |

What if that bond does not cover the loss?

EricBurnett 13 years ago | | |

IANAL, but my understanding is the bond is posted against the losses the injunction could cause as a means to ensure payment, but the plaintiff - Apple - is actually on the hook for the real losses in the end (whether more or less). As such, if the bond is insufficient they would have to cough up the rest as well.

cube13 13 years ago |

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... ), 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 13 years ago |

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

Evbn 13 years ago | |

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

rohshall 13 years ago |

Go, Samsung, go!