The Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 "This is vastly the one that is going to be targeting the iPad 2," Apple's counsel said. "This is going to be launched on the market with the velocity of a fire hose and [the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is] going to just come in and take away iPad 2 sales so quickly that by the time we get to final hearing the full impact of the patent infringement will be [felt] to the detriment of Apple and to the benefit of [Samsung]." Samsung has requested sales data showing the effect Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales have had on iPad 2 sales in other countries. Apple has refused and Justice Bennett has sided with Apple. Analyst firm Gartner and other analysts have recently said that the iPad 2 would take the lion's share of tablet sales globally for some time to come despite the presence of other tablets such as Samsung's.

The comments by Apple in court come as research firm IDC today said that tablet shipments to Australia and New Zealand doubled in Q2 from the previous quarter, with 420,000 units shipped. Australia contributed 87.5 per cent of the total shipments, while the rest went to New Zealand. IDC said the doubling was driven by multiple launches of Android-based devices similar to Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1. Samsung argues that its tablet will be largely 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. "People will choose either to stick to Apple because you like Apple and you like the operating system and you like the link to iTunes and so on. Or you want a completely different system and you'll move in the direction of Android," Samsung's lawyer said. Apple disputes this, arguing 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 said the Galaxy Tab 10.1 would compete with both iPad 2 and Android. "It must be that the initial competitor will be Apple and then there will also be competition within the Android system between the Android players," she said.

Apple also raised concerns that every Galaxy Tab sold would cost 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". "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. The case has now been narrowed to concern two Apple patents. Samsung has filed a separate cross-claim accusing Apple of infringing several of its own patents. Samsung's lawyers have criticised the fact that Apple did not seek injunctions against previous Samsung products that would by their logic also infringe its patents. Apple's response to this was that, because Samsung is a significant supplier to Apple, it "engaged in negotiations in the first instance". "We're not the first Android on the market and other people are getting in fast. It's critical that we're a first mover not dribble in behind everybody else. It's blossoming at the moment," Samsung's lawyer said.

Similar Apple v Samsung cases are running all over the world. In other jurisdictions Samsung has raised the Stanley Kubrick film 2001: A Space Odyssey as an example of "prior art", since an iPad-like tablet device appears in the film. Today in court Samsung clarified that the film is "not relied on as prior art because look and feel is not an issue [in this case] - it would be relevant to a design case". Apple is seeking to expedite the case and have a full hearing in November, fearful that any temporary injunction will expire and Samsung will be allowed to launch its tablet in competition with the iPad 2. Apple sent Samsung a letter seeking its agreement on several matters including the early hearing in exchange for it reducing the number of patents in its case. But Samsung called it "opportunistic and wildly untenable". Samsung's lawyers said they needed more time to prepare their case challenging the validity of Apple's patents and completely rejected Apple's requests for permanent injunctions on several patents which would mean other future Samsung products may be blocked from entering the market.

Samsung said it would need until next year to firm up its case but Apple's lawyers bristled at this suggestion, arguing they were "just met with a brick wall which is to [Samsung's] immediate advantage, not ours". Apple is worried that Samsung will have released future product revisions before this case is resolved. Justice Bennett made it clear that she would only be making a decision on the Australian version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, no other products. She is not expected to make a final decision on whether to grant a temporary injunction until at least next week. The full hearing is likely to be later in the year. Loading The hearing continues this afternoon. This reporter is on Twitter: @ashermoses