Yes, we saw today that Apple had succeeded in its bid to enjoin the release of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 after claiming in the Federal Court that the device infringed multiple Apple patents, including the “look and feel” and touchscreen technology of the iPad. Justice Bennett agreed with the Applecants, ordering that unless Apple grants Samsung a licence, it shall not:
until the determination of this proceeding…import, promote, offer to supply, supply, offer for sale or sell in Australia the Galaxy Tab 10.1…
Ouch. Looks like we’re all stuck on the iPad and iTunes for a while longer. G+T staffers must be furious. We’re not happy either, which got us thinking: “who represented Samsung, and more importantly the interests of its consumers, in this application?”
Blake Dawson. Not the porn star – the law firm.
Partner Peter Chalk had carriage of defending the claims on behalf of Samsung (assisted by counsel, of course). Check the Comm Courts webportal here. We were mystified to learn that he and his team were chosen – Blake Dawson was exposed in a recent FS post as allegedly having:
- a technology legal practice “found wanting”;
- internal computer systems “found wanting:
- computer screens that are “fuzzy”; and
- secretarial computers that “sometimes sound like a hairdryer”
The decision has apparently left Samsung scrambling to reconfigure its Australian version of the tablet. However, Justice Bennett’s decision requires any modified version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to be sent to Apple’s solicitors one week ahead of any sale. Who are the solicitors who’ll get the first opportunity to road-test Samsung’s groundbreaking revisions, you ask?
Look no further than Freehills. The firm’s Sydney-based partner Sue Gilchrist is running the matter for Apple.
The matter returns before Justice Bennett for a call over on 29 August 2011.
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
Stupid article. Are you seriously suggesting that Blakes wasn’t able to act adequately for Samsung because the firm’s technology hasn’t been updated for a while?
Cl’Utz must be feeling a bit left out?
According to Samsung, the US model that the ban was against was never intended for release in Australia. The only effect of the order on the Australian model is Apple’s lawyers get to play with it for 7 days before anybody else.
There’s no emergency rejigging going on here either – there are many technical reasons why a device may need to be different for Australia (or anywhere else in the world) to the US, including different radio spectrum usage and regulations, different TV standards (if this device has TV out – haven’t checked that), and even, depending on the location of the power transformer used for charging (that is, internal versus external), different mains voltages.