In an appeal to the Aussie courts, Samsung claims the blanket ban on its alleged Apple-alike was decided by someone who "misunderstood and misapplied" the law. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the appeals bench, though it hasn't made a decision yet, is leaning towards agreeing with some of Samsung's points.
Samsung claims that the judge in charge of banning its iPad contender made a "series of fundamental errors" and that they were "all errors of principle". The lawyers say the judge "misunderstood and misapplied the basic requirements concering interlocutory injunctions as laid down in previous cases."
In fact, Samsung put to the courts that the judge took Apple's word for it. Samsung believes she didn't bother to run the proper tests before deciding to take the Tab off the market. An appeals judge thought it's a question of monopoly. The SMH reports one as saying: "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."
Lucky for Samsung, the usually tired and inaccurate cliche of "there's no such thing as bad publicity" rang true, and Australians have been buying the device in droves from offshore sellers. The logic is, if Apple wants it off the market, it must be quite good.
Regardless, Samsung is arguing that taking the product off the market before a final hearing - as per Apple's demands - just isn't on. Its lawyer said the Korean company is "punished by her honour because it was unwilling to agree to an unfair hearing." Another appeals judge suggested
Apple's whinging about the Tab sending the iPad, and Apple to Mount Doom could be nonsense. He asked Apple's lawyer if "the whole of Apple's going to come tumbling down" had Samsung brought the device to market.
Apple's legal team is gnashing its teeth. It rubbished the remarks, declaring the initial ruling judge hadn't made any errors and she must have known how much the Tab would damage Apple. A lawyer for Cupertino, reports the SMH, said: "it was not a case of her honour ticking boxes but rather engaging in a careful and detailed review."