Being denied sale of the tablet really gnaws at Samsung

Nov 25, 2011 10:27 GMT  ·  By

Since Samsung is making its appeal in Australia, to get the Galaxy tab 10.1 unbanned, reports are coming in about how things appear to be swinging in its favor, among other things.

Those 'other things' are Samsung's words in regards to the original decision to ban the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet from Australia.

As expected, the company is in no way thrilled about that decision, and was not afraid to say it was “grossly unjust.”

The lawyer said that the judge, Justice Bennett, didn't conduct the proper tests in order to determine whether Apple could effectively win the case in the patent fight.

“In summary it is our submission that a review of the judgment, the whole judgment, shows that her honour misunderstood the concept of prima facie case. In our submission this court will need to re-exercise the power to determine whether to grant or not grant an interlocutory injunction given the errors that were committed by the primary judge,” Samsung's lawyer argued.

“We contend that the primary judge made a series of fundamental errors in her disposition of the interlocutory application. They were all errors of principle. Her honor misunderstood and misapplied the basic requirements concerning interlocutory injunctions as laid down in [previous cases]."

The appeal court, at this time, is formed of Justice Dowsett, Justice Foster and Justice Yates.

One of them said that “if you have a fast moving product which if taken off the market, destroys the opportunities available to the newcomer and preserves the monopoly of the incumbent then you'd have to have a very close look at the strength of the case.”

In other words, they are more or less leaning in Samsung's favor on this one, even though Apple had previously claimed that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 would have inflicted considerable damage on the company if it had been allowed to launch.

After all, one has to wonder how big were the chances that “the whole of Apple's going to come tumbling down” if the product had been allowed to proceed.