In this week's Law and Apple, Samsung makes an offer that Apple can't refuse (but does), and T-Mobile decides to join forces with Verizon and support Samsung. Hey, what do they care? it's not like they have the iPhone, right?
And finally, we'll recap the thrilling conclusion of the Clone Wars. It's like the Star Wars Clone Wars but with fewer fanboys and no Ewan McGregor.
Reuters reports that Apple rejected an offer from Samsung to withdraw two of the three disputed features from the Galaxy 10.1. Apple rejected the offer, telling the Federal Court in Sydney that Samsung's offer provided no basis for a settlement. If the company would have accepted, it would have brought a quick close to the ongoing Australian lawsuit.
Samsung: "Please, sir?" Cupertino: "No dice."
Samsung is desperate to get the Galaxy on Australian retail shelves, having originally planned on a late August or early September launch. The company claims that if it cannot launch the Galaxy in Australia within the next two weeks, it will miss the holiday shopping window and the product will be "commercially dead" Down Under.
Apple stated that it still wanted the court to rule on its claim that the Samsung Galaxy infringed on Apple patents. The Australian lawsuit seems to favor Cupertino, which will help other lawsuits against Samsung worldwide. We suspect, however, that they would not mind if the Australian court took their time over the next few months.
Last week, we covered Verizon’s filing of a curiae brief in Northern California District Court in support of Samsung. Today, T-Mobile teamed up with opposing forces and filed a similar brief. What's peculiar is that this is just one day after it was announced that it would be Sprint -- and not T-Mobile -- that would be getting the iPhone.
Oh, so you think Sprint is hot? Fine. We'll go with Verizon and Samsung then.
It is rare for two amicus curiae briefs in one intellectual property case, but this kind of move is a prime example of how important this case will be for the industry. There is the potential that the court could place a preliminary injunction banning imports of Samsung products. T-Mobile wrote in the brief that the company "respects intellectual property rights and believes that owners of intellectual property deserve their day in court."
The case, 11-cv-01846-LHK "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al", is scheduled to be heard by Judge Koh on Thursday, Oct. 13, at 1:30 p.m. The day before the iPhone 4S is expected to go on sale.
Last week Apple saw closure to a legal battle it has been fighting for years against Psystar. A unanimous three-judge ruling in California’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that Apple can stop other companies from selling Mac clones.
Psystar had been selling laptops and desktop computers running OS X, including the original OpenMac for $399 and the later Open(Q) for $699. The clones were sold with OS X installed, and Psystar attempted to get around copyright law by including an authorized copy of the software and claiming Apple was refusing to let people use software they purchased validly.
Or, as a Psystar employee summed it up, “What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you only drive it on the roads they said you could?”
Do not underestimate the power of legal precedent.
The court reaffirmed that users of software like OS X do not actually own the software but use it in accordance with a license from Apple. Which was basically how intellectual property protection for software works.
There was no shortage of legal precedent to support the court in reaching this decision.
Adrian writes the weekly Law & Apple column for MacLife.com. You can follow him on Twitter, if you want to.
