Samsung: We’re Really Delaying Australia Galaxy Tab Launch

| News

Following a report that Samsung won’t be selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Australia, and its insistence that it will, the company is now saying it won’t — at least for now.

In a statement to Gizmodo on Wednesday, Samsung said:

In light of the current legal proceedings by Apple Inc. against Samsung Electronics Australia, Samsung regrets to announce it will be postponing its media launch event, scheduled for 11th August 2011, for the Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1.

Samsung will announce a new date for the GALAXY Tab 10.1 media launch event as soon as practicable.

Apple and Samsung have been locked in a legal battle over patent infringement claims for several months. Both companies have alleged that the other’s mobile devices use patented technologies without proper licensing, have filed lawsuits against each other in the U.S. and other countries.

Samsung not selling the Galaxy Tab in AustraliaNow Samsung says it isn’t selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia

Word that Apple and Samsung had reached an agreement that would keep the Galaxy Tab 10.1 from shipping in Australia surfaced on Monday. The deal didn’t involve any court orders, although it was part of the patent lawsuit battle the two are fighting in the country.

As part of the deal, Samsung was said to have agreed to withhold advertising, too. In exchange, Apple agreed to pay Samsung an unspecified amount should it lose its court case, or if Samsung wins a court order allowing it to start selling the tablet in the country.

Samsung followed up on Tuesday by saying that it never had any plans to sell the specific Galaxy Tab model Apple referenced in Australia. In other words, Samsung agreed to not sell a product it never intended to sell.

Today, Samsung seems to be back in step with Monday’s report, and won’t be selling any version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia for the foreseeable future. With two more days in the week, however, there’s still plenty of time for the company to change its mind again.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

10 Comments Leave Your Own

Nemo

“In other words, Samsung agreed to not sell a product it never intended to sell.”

Samsung is going to have to get its act together.  Many Asian companies have not have to take legal matters in general and IP matters in particularly as seriously as their European and American counterparts.  That may, in part be, because IP laws are more lax in their domestic markets and because, until lately, they have often been contract manufacturers or OEMs who build using others’ licensed IP. 

But now that they are selling their own products in American and European markets, Samsung et al. must honor effective IP laws and have a senior legal offices, a general counsel, who is a c-suite officer with full authority to control anything in the firm that impacts its legal affairs, including public statements, which should be cleared with the general counsel, even statements of the CEO, before they are publish.

That this sort of thing keeps happening at Samsung shows me that Samsung’s legal management isn’t yet ready for the big leagues.

daemon

But now that they are selling their own products in American

That has to be one of your more ignorant statements Nemo. Samsung has been selling their own branded products in the American and European markets since the 1960’s.

Nemo

Dear dameon:  Yes Samsung has offered its products for a while, as I indicated, supra, but, like many Asian manufacturers, it usually licensed the core technology of its cell phones and computers, the OS and the CPU and GPU chips, from others.  Now, Samsung is not only selling its own brand, it is also including more of its own technology in its products, or if you ask Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle Samsung is including more of their respective technologies in its own products without the requisite licenses.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

See my comment from yesterday. This is consistent with setting up the damages side of things if, okay when, the court refuses to side with Apple. Now there is a specific announced date and Apple is on the clock for interfering with their launch.

Seriously Apple, if your products are so [censored] magical, just shut up and compete in the marketplace. Copy things like notification that Android does well. Side-loading too. Please copy that. Android people are flattered. Be flattered when a few of the things you do well are remixed as well. Focus on delivering a great product, because that’s what will matter once the legal circle jerk is concluded.

Nemo

Bosco:  It is not fair competition to compete by infringing on another’s IP, if that is what the courts find the Android OEMs have done.  It is not fair now and has never been.  And it has always been fair and within the ambit of fair and vigorous competition to enforce one’s IP rights.  In fact, the law requires a holder of IP rights to police them by enforcing them, lest those rights deemed be barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver and/or laches.

So Apple, by engaging in good faith—that is, the honest belief that others are infringing its IP rights—enforcement of its IP rights, is engaged in vigorous and fair competition.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Nemo, the US Air Force apparently needs a replacement for “Jesus Loves Nukes”, and I can’t think of anyone better qualified to offer something up. To justify the big picture, you simply ignore it out of what seems to be tactical, professional interest.

According to you, Apple doesn’t engage in fair competiton either, because it has been repeatedly shown to violate others’ IP. Any software you write today, north of “Hello World”, will probably violate some patent. That’s not too much of an exaggeration. A pragmatic approach to dealing with this problem, which is effectively the policy of many software producers large and small, is just let your designers design and your programmers program, ask them to keep periodic snapshopts that can reconstruct the evolution of their work, ask them to disclose things that materially influenced them, and clean up IP issues later should they arise. That may not meet your definition of “fair competition”, but it’s pretty-much standard practice, directed of course, by lawyers like yourself acting as self-anointed guardians of “fair competition”.

Back to Jesus Loves Nukes… It may be within Apple’s rights to try to open cans of legal whoop-ass on its market opponents. But it’s also in those opponents’ rights to retaliate, and probably both a moral and survival imperative should they ever be in the position, to retaliate with such overwhelming force that they need never worry about Apple legal belligerence again. About the only thing preventing that right now is a coordination problem. Apple may be fairly innovative on its own little island, as measured by patent count. If several of the other islands get together to put down a known threat, Apple isn’t so darned innovative by comparison.

Nemo

Bosco:  This going to be my last post, because duty calls.  But what repeated violations of others’ IP are your referring to.  For a firm that does as much innovative work as Apple and that is sued as often as Apple is sued, it has not only the cleanest record of respecting others’ IP that I know of; it has only handful of judgments against it.  I can only think of three or four, and of that number, at least two were by NPEs against an entire range of companies in the industry.  So whether by relative or absolute standards, Apple has an exemplary record of observing the IP laws.


And even those with IP rights that are adverse to Apple’s business interests acknowledge that Apple plays fair with respect to their IP.  Take the content companies (record labels, movie studios, television networks); while they may take issue with Apple, Apple has never—unlike Google, which many think has—taken their IP without license or knowingly provided a facility for consumers to take their rights. 

Apple is scrupulous in either getting a license for third-party tech that it uses or innovates around it, which is why Apple isn’t facing the existentially threatening IP infringement lawsuits that Google and its Android OEMs are facing.  While Apple’s record isn’t perfect, for no firm, like Apple, that is constantly innovating, can have a perfect record on not violating IP, Apple, unlike Google et al., has never faced either IP lawsuits or judgments that are significant, much less ones that could destroy important lines of business.

Apple has such a clean record, because it has the policies and personnel (engineers, lawyers, etc.) in place to police its innovation so that in so far as due diligence can ensure, it products and services don’t infringe on others’ IP.  Of Apple’s practices that Google and its Android OEMs are alleged to have copied, it is most unfortunate that they appear not to have copied that.

Bosco, let me give you a word of advice.  If you are ever in the position of running a large firm that use and/or creates IP, don’t tell your designers and engineers to just go at it, without any control from lawyers, engineers, and executives who are trained and experience in IP auditing and compliance.  The results of doing so are likely to be at least not worth the consequences.

mhikl

Of course the courts should side with Apple. Like, was it ever in question? Da!

Samsung has a death wish and won’t be missed. Apple surely will be distancing itself from this maniacal company. Imagine, stealing from your best, richest and most reliable customer? What were they thinking*?

*I think they were thinking they were smarter than Apple.

mhikl

So we can make things up here, eh?

Well, then the facts are that Apple has never infringed on anything and Android has infringed on 77,392 patents.

That is 0 to 77, 392 for those who are counting.

(kind of important NB. - paying for the rights to another’s patent is not an infringement.)

Off-toipic but interesting side note: Apple has the cash to sue and fight suits. Apple has so much money it could play dirty and really harass the ass off the competition, but Jobs is a saint (not the one with an e but not an s in his name) and all the petty pokes some small people make are beneath Steve’s notice. He doesn’t care. (He told me so.)

mhikl

Bosco:? It is not fair competition to compete by infringing on another?s IP, if that is what the courts find the Android OEMs have done.? It is not fair now and has never been.? And it has always been fair and within the ambit of fair and vigorous competition to enforce one?s IP rights.? In fact, the law requires a holder of IP rights to police them by enforcing them, lest those rights deemed be barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver and/or laches.

So Apple, by engaging in good faith?that is, the honest belief that others are infringing its IP rights?enforcement of its IP rights, is engaged in vigorous and fair competition.

Nemo, I am late getting this out but this is one of your most poignant and precise pieces and I am keeping it on my dt for reference.

To such clear and definite understanding, Bosco has no choice but to resort to innuendo, bafflegab, insult and, at times, violence when he knows he hasn’t an honest argument to stand on. Reminds me of a cornered William F. Buckley, Jr. when caught by superior thinkers; i.e. Chomsky and Vidal come to mind, but there are probably many others.

Log-in to comment