An Australian judge has rejected Apple's attempt to have Samsung forced to give the Cupertino company advance notice of new product launches, as well as have limitations placed on tablets other than the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Speaking of yesterday's preliminary sales injunction ruling, Justice Annabelle Bennett told Apple that "it doesn't apply to any other player in the marketplace," WSJ reports, dismissing requests to extend the decision to future models Samsung might release.
Apple, SMH reports, argued that Samsung was more than likely to whip up a new version of the contentious tablet, and demanded that the same limitations as applied to the Galaxy Tab 10.1 should be extended to protect its IP from future potential infractions. "Samsung says Galaxy Tab 10.1, we say any tablet device. We know what may well come is another version of the tablet" the Apple legal team argued.
"It's up to our friends as to how they name it, whether they call it the Galaxy Tab 10.1 or 10.2 or 10.1s or whatever it happens to be ... Our submission is that direction which would provide us a copy of the version proposed to be launched 10 days in advance" Apple counsel
Samsung, meanwhile, argued that Apple's demand for early access was, in effect, a rolling injunction, and exceeded the terms of the initial ruling. "Why should Samsung be put in a different position to any other trader in the marketplace," the Korean company's counsel countered, "which is to give advanced warning so as to confer some process of effective pre-approval in the hands of its competitor."
Justice Bennett agreed, in part at least, and deemed that while Samsung would not be able to launch any version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 until the final ruling of the trial expected to take place next year, the company's regular pre-announcements of upcoming products would give sufficient time for Apple to file any injunction requests it feels are warranted.
As for warnings that Apple's legal success so far could have broad-reaching implications to the Android tablet market in Australia in general, the judge's refusal to extend it against future Samsung slates would seem to defuse that somewhat. Apple would need to individually challenge each and every rival model, rather than working on blanket bans.