Apple is terrified of Samsung -

Fruity cargo cult Apple has admitted that its patent trolling antics are because the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 is better than anything it could come up with.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Apple lawyers told an Aussie court that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 will launch on to the market "with the velocity of a fire hose" and "take away iPad 2 sales so quickly" that customers may be permanently "seduced" away from Apple's iOS platform.

That is a slightly different argument from the main Jobs' Mob claim that .Samsung for patent infringement arguing the firm "slavishly" copied its iPad. After all if something is the same it would not wipe out the Apple market over night, besides they are roughly the same price.

What this does show is that Apple is incredibly insecure about competition in the keyboardless netbook market.

The interlocutory hearing, which is considering whether Samsung's competing tablet should be banned from the Australian market, certainly shows how serious a threat Apple regards Samsung.

Samsung has been forced not to market nor sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia until Justice Annabelle Bennett makes a decision.

Justice Bennett asked Apple laywers why it was singling out Samsung for special treatment as there are other Android-based tablets on the market. Apple's lawyers said it saw the Galaxy Tab 10.1 as the main competitor to the iPad 2.

This was news to Samsung, which has requested sales data showing the effect Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales have had on iPad 2 sales in other countries. Apple, of course, said no and Justice Bennett has sided with Apple.

Apple's comments appear to be bordering on paranoia. Almost every analyst out there thinks that it will take ages for other tablets to make an impact on Apple's global share. What we think more likely is that Apple is targeting Samsung, which was its old business partner, for defecting and creating its own tablet.

Samsung points out that its tablet is competing with other Android-based models and that consumers would be deciding whether they wanted Apple's iOS or Android, rather than deciding by comparing the Galaxy Tab 10.1 with the iPad 2.

Apple insists that the Galaxy Tab will only get market share by taking share away from Apple and that other Android competitors from brands such as Motorola and Acer were irrelevant.

Justice Bennett has taken the more logical view that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 will compete with both.

Apple seems to believe that every Galaxy Tab sold will damage its it future app sales as the users would become "Android people". Apple's iTunes App Store dominance would be challenged if customers were "seduced" or "sapped away by the Galaxy Tab and its infringements".

Again this is weak argument. If the two products were the same, then why would anyone be sapped away to the other. If you are faced with two identical products, you will pick one at random. A user would not pick one at random and then sell their soul to it.

However Apple seems to regard the whole thing in the same way that the Roman Catholic Church acted against Cathars. In other words it is a rival religion which needs to be dealt with by setting fire to its adherents. Its very existence implies heresy against the orthodox cargo cult.

"They'll then be Android people and the investment in the apps that they make to purchase on their Galaxy Tab will be something they can't use on an Apple product," Apple's lawyer said. Of course but it you could equally have said if you buy an iPad you can't run Android apps on it. This argument highlights the difference between the two tablets rather than their similarities.

To make matters worse, Apple has insisted that the case is heard soon. The reason is that Apple is worried that Samsung will use the time to come out with new Tablets and its team will also have to deal with these in court.

The whole case in Australia shows that Apple is using the legal system to lock its competition out of the market because it is worried that it has a better product. Hopefully the court will take a very dim view of that sort of legal game.