Samsung says the 4G Galaxy Tab does not compete with the Apple 3G iPad 2

Apple had once again picked up on Samsung for another game in the court rooms. Apple has been successful in reactivating a preliminary injunction against its arch rival, Samsung. And the product in question is the new 4G Galaxy Tab from the South Korean manufacturer. Samsung, on Friday, filed its reply as an opposition to Apple’s FOSS complaint that the 4G Galaxy Tab does not, in any way, compete with the Cupertino tech giant’s 3G iPad 2. The reason given is that the Apple iPad 2 is a 3G version and the Galaxy Tab in question is a 4G version of the tablet which means that there is no direct competition at all, as both are tablets in different classes.

But the arguments provided by Apple, as some reports say, have been very convincing that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab may be 4G, but it is backward compatible. So 3G is possible on the 4G Galaxy Tab and users may even use the table without any data connection at all. This does bring the 4G Galaxy Tab in direct competition with Apple’s 3G iPad 2.

Apple Insider writes:

To succeed, Apple would need to convince the court of four factors: “likelihood of success on the merits; likelihood of irreparable harm; balance of the equities; public interest.” Since the appeals court overturned Koh’s assertion that Apple’s design patent was invalid, Apple is more likely to convince the court of the merits of its case. Meanwhile, both Judge Koh and the federal Court of Appeals are in agreement that the case for irreparable harm has been established.

Author Florian Mueller writes:

Judge O’Malley indicated between the lines that she considers Samsung a reckless infringer whose Galaxy Tab 10.1 should be shut down sooner rather than later, and she clearly wants patent holders to have great access to injunctive relief. And she makes a number of good points.

While Apple continues to believe that the 10.1N still infringes (under EU law), the fact that Samsung made an effort to avoid further infringement calls into question that continued infringement must be allowed by the court for hardship and public interest reasons.

This is really heating up beyond anybody’s expectation. So let us try not to predict what will happen next, rather just wait and see where it goes.