Samsung's contesting the rule of law down under, arguing that the judge who cast its Galaxy Tab 10.1 into the void at Apple's behest didn't really understand what she was doing.
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."
.jpg){kind=icon}
Within Humanity, judging is about others whereas those who’d already judged themselves are not judging anymore, they are merely carring out their own sentence. A real human judge therefore is the one who has successfully judged himself and not those who have have successfully slithered their way into officialdom using their Cruelty & Cunning. Judgement is therefore about relating the relative to the absolute - but not when the absoluteness is Korruption and when it comes to corrupting, it could be any combination of the 5 senses which control/is-abandoned-to the conditional, the material and the intellectual.
This is where Humanity/Relativity is and has always been at - floating on a sea of relativities and in the case of “judges”, their absoluteness changes from case to case. Afterall, within every freak is a nutter and vice-versa. Without one single exception. Shed no tear for Samsung because they are latently an Apple, all being Infinitisers on their way to their Immortality no matter who or what they’d stepped or trampled on in order to achieve their infinity. Like all aggression/bodyless-chicken, they lacked conscience but when they revert to being depression/headless-chicken, they then miraculously/superficially developed a malignant conscience. A case of the democraticos vs the sympatheticos. The reality then is, which side are/were you on. A real judge would have said, “None because they are merely the different clowns stuck inside the same straight-jacket”. As such, should anyone be stupid or dumb enough to favour the different heads, The Bookie just got paid for His Disagreement, the payment being either of the stupidity or of the dumbness to add to the mountain He has accumulated thus far. This is what the Chinese colloquially observes as “Having too much to eat”.