or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › UK judge rules Apple must advertise Samsung did not copy the iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

UK judge rules Apple must advertise Samsung did not copy the iPad - Page 2

post #41 of 301

All the more reason for swift, substantive patent/copyright reform........ 

post #42 of 301

Is this judge for real?? 

 

LMAO

 

Apple's appeal on this will go through like a hot knife through butter.

 

Apparently, idiotic statements from the judiciary happen everywhere:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18882756

post #43 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

How  humiliating for Apple.

 

 

 

Do you actually think Apple or anyone else will take this seriously?

 

The consumer will NEVER see such wording in any of Apple's ads. 

 

Use your head, already.

post #44 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

 

I guess I must be reading the AI article incorrectly when it says, last sentence, para 4: "Apple does have the ability to appeal the judge's decision."

I think they updated that. Or I misread it.

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #45 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealestmc View Post

I am glad the judge ruled that way. The idea the square is invented by Apple is absolutely absurd. 

Invented the square?

You are incredibly ignorant of the suit and the issues at hand (as was the judge, apparently.)

Samsung clearly violated the Apple's **Design Patent** (which does not at all entail either "invention" or "squares.")

This ruling will never stand if Apple chooses to appeal it and keeps their argument focused on violation of the design patent.

post #46 of 301

Love it!   Maybe add that a court has ruled that it is not cool enough to be an iPad!
 

post #47 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

Can you imagine how SJ would have reacted to this?

 

If I were Apple I would include in the "statement" a picture of the two devices side by side along with the date they were introduced.  "According to the [insert name of the court here] the Samsung device shown here that came out a year after the iPad is not a copy of the iPad.  They've instructed us to tell you that.  Have a nice day."

I would take this a step further:  "Courts in Germany, Australia, and the U.S. have ruled Samsung copied the iPad. In spite of this, UK court [insert name here] has instructed us to tell UK (and only UK) buyers the opposite. So here: 'Samsung did not copy the iPad.' But only in the UK did they not do this. Now you know."

post #48 of 301

I do like the idea of including pictures and dates, to let people decide for themselves whether or not the iPad was copied. Maybe they could do a whole series, with pre-iPhone and post-iPhone Android designs, too, saying how nobody copied the iPhone, either. It would end up sounding pretty sarcastic.

post #49 of 301

Who paid the Judge off? I have never heard of such a bizarre and might I say juvenile ruling....extraordinary.

post #50 of 301

Well when you go all about the place saying

 

"SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN, THEY ARE COPIERS, THEY STOLE IT, THEY STOLE IT I TELL YOU. HEY EVERYONE, SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN!!!!"

 

Well, that does very bad damage to Samsung's public image. So when you lose in court and it is found that Samsung did NOT copy your design, well, it seems only fair for you to have to correct the wrong you put into people's minds. 

 

And please, before you start. I speak solely on the court of law in this jurisdiction. It is not a matter of Apple's or our opinion, its what the court decides. In the US, I believe Samsung would be able to sue for stupid damages of a billion dollars, seeing as what you can get for a slip and fall in a grocery store. So maybe in the UK, this is the equivalent. 

 

And of course it didn't help after the decision that Apple put out a statement basically saying "Pssshhh, WHATEVER!! Screw you UK court system, you can all suck it" Matter of fact I remember pointing it out at the time on this forum as a very weird thing for Apple to do. 

post #51 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post

This is completely stupid. Time for the Queen to use some of her theoretical reserve powers and intervene!

She does use an iPad, doesn't she?

post #52 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Rogoff View Post

Who paid the Judge off? I have never heard of such a bizarre and might I say juvenile ruling....extraordinary.

No one, the judge used common sense.

post #53 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrogusto View Post

I do like the idea of including pictures and dates, to let people decide for themselves whether or not the iPad was copied. Maybe they could do a whole series, with pre-iPhone and post-iPhone Android designs, too, saying how nobody copied the iPhone, either. It would end up sounding pretty sarcastic.

Yeah, and maybe they should show the LG Prada, and the drop down notification bar, and multi-tasking, and show that the iphone is totally original technology with a design that resembles nothing before it and features that never existed. 

 

Would be interesting lol.gif

post #54 of 301

This is hilarious.

post #55 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

Well when you go all about the place saying

 

"SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN, THEY ARE COPIERS, THEY STOLE IT, THEY STOLE IT I TELL YOU. HEY EVERYONE, SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN!!!!"

 

 

 

Apple never, ever, anywhere, advertised this. Not on their website, not in their TV or print ads. Nowhere. 

 

If news outlets love to report on Apple's litigation and repeat Apple's claims, that's neither Apple's nor Samsung's problem. 

post #56 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

If I was them, I would move their retail operations also.  This just shows that the country has a terribly biased and non-functional legal system.  Why do business at all with a country like that?

 

That's one of the more insane comments so far. You know how much Apple make in the UK?

 

Also, I would take the UK judicial system over the US any day of the week.

post #57 of 301

This kind of ruling enters under the WTF category.

 

If I were Apple however, I would not appeal. I would just show both devices with slow camera pans, and the 101 things that are similar to all and have the voiceover say; "We have been ordered by the court to mention that Samsung did not copy the iPad." And after showing 10X more apps, more stability, and the industry leading performance, battery life and compatibility you end with "and it wasn't for lack of trying..." or "because they couldn't."

 

Anyway, I've never heard of a judgement forcing someone to advertise for a competitor - but it's a pretty uncreative ruling with some judge of limited imagination on how a marketing department could use this as cannon fire.

 

>> I predict this backfires.

post #58 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 View Post

 

That's one of the more insane comments so far. You know how much Apple make in the UK?

 

Also, I would take the UK judicial system over the US any day of the week.

 

I'm sure leaving a market to your competitors is an economic strategy in SOME dimension - just not this one.

post #59 of 301
The haters just ejaculated in their diapers.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #60 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post

Complete rubbish.  Apple fought the patent battle in court.  Asking them to advertise for Samsung is unreasonable and akin to public humiliation.  This judge needs to be removed from the bench.  Frankly, to think that Samsung didn't share Apple's ideas with their other business units is wholly impossible and unreasonable to think.  Of course they copied Apple, making just enough changes to not have an outright mirror image of the iPad.

I wonder what side of the Mac - PC hate aisle this guy sits?
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #61 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

I would take this a step further:  "Courts in Germany, Australia, and the U.S. have ruled Samsung copied the iPad. In spite of this, UK court [insert name here] has instructed us to tell UK (and only UK) buyers the opposite. So here: 'Samsung did not copy the iPad.' But only in the UK did they not do this. Now you know."

Have courts anywhere else ruled definitively that Samsung's Tab copied Apple's iPad? In the US Apple is asserting a design patent that may or may not be the design actually used for the iPad, and  it's still only a preliminary ruling issued so far rather than definitive. In Australia it was also in conjunction with a preliminary ruling too IIRC, and the High Court there overturned the "slavish copy" injunction claim anyway. In Germany it was again a community design being asserted, not a ruling on the Tab looking too much like the iPad.

 

If you have something different where a court has ruled a Samsung Tab is a copy of an Apple iPad perhaps you could link it? I'm not aware of one but that's not proof it hasn't happened.


Edited by Gatorguy - 7/18/12 at 11:49am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #62 of 301

Apple should just write on their website "Samsung's Galaxy Tab did not copy the design of the iPad" but then make the "not" so small that it can only be read with a retina display.

post #63 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJunior View Post

South Korea fighting!

Samsung fighting!

Grow up, Jr.

post #64 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therbo View Post

No one, the judge used common sense.

Today is a great day for adding trolls to the ignore list, you are all out in the open.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #65 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpnorton82 View Post

Is there precedence for a ruling like this?

 

Only from imbeciles like Judge Posner.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #66 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBFan85 View Post

All the more reason for swift, substantive patent/copyright reform........ 

 

No it is not. Absurd rulings have no relation to any perceived need for "reform".

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #67 of 301

If those are the only two stipulations the British Judge issued with no further guidance, well, Apple should have a little fun poking Samsung and the Judge this way, for web have image of iPad came first, give date, have it dissolve into image of Samsung tablet, give date, then have it dissolve and then text comes up saying, "Samsung didn't copy Apple's iPad. Huh? You be the Judge!" Something similar for papers.

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #68 of 301

Just curious, did this judge rule that Apple committed libel?  If not I don't understand why they would be required to mention anything on their website or in print.  I don't remember Apple ever referencing Samsung on their website, or any executive from Apple specifically referencing this lawsuit in public.
 

post #69 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

Well when you go all about the place saying

 

"SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN, THEY ARE COPIERS, THEY STOLE IT, THEY STOLE IT I TELL YOU. HEY EVERYONE, SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN!!!!"

 

Well, that does very bad damage to Samsung's public image. So when you lose in court and it is found that Samsung did NOT copy your design, well, it seems only fair for you to have to correct the wrong you put into people's minds. 

 

And please, before you start. I speak solely on the court of law in this jurisdiction. It is not a matter of Apple's or our opinion, its what the court decides. In the US, I believe Samsung would be able to sue for stupid damages of a billion dollars, seeing as what you can get for a slip and fall in a grocery store. So maybe in the UK, this is the equivalent. 

 

And of course it didn't help after the decision that Apple put out a statement basically saying "Pssshhh, WHATEVER!! Screw you UK court system, you can all suck it" Matter of fact I remember pointing it out at the time on this forum as a very weird thing for Apple to do. 

Really?  Really?  Are you freaking trying to be serious, or are you just looking to pick a fight.  Apple NEVER advertised or "go all about the place saying" Samsung did anything.  They rightfully took Samsung to court to support their own patented designs.  It's not only their right to do so, it's their duty to fight for their rights.  Apple wasn't slandering Samsung and Samsung can't counter sue for damages.

 

Please either go away and peddle your drivel elsewhere or actually read up on what you are talking about before spouting off like this.

post #70 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Grow up, Jr.

 

Jr. has been blocked. Oh, what a feeling.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #71 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


Today is a great day for adding trolls to the ignore list, you are all out in the open.


You mean anyone not tearing their hair out and dismissing a respected judge as a "lunatic" or the decision as "beyond bizarre?"

 

Or those who just like a laugh now and again about something that doesn't really affect their lives in any meaningful way unless they choose to make it so?

 

I just think it's bloody funny.

post #72 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 View Post


You mean anyone not tearing their hair out and dismissing a respected judge as a "lunatic" or the decision as "beyond bizarre?"

 

Or those who just like a laugh now and again about something that doesn't really affect their lives in any meaningful way unless they choose to make it so?

 

I just think it's bloody funny.

 

Yes, those trolls.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #73 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

This kind of ruling enters under the WTF category.

 

If I were Apple however, I would not appeal. I would just show both devices with slow camera pans, and the 101 things that are similar to all and have the voiceover say; "We have been ordered by the court to mention that Samsung did not copy the iPad." And after showing 10X more apps, more stability, and the industry leading performance, battery life and compatibility you end with "and it wasn't for lack of trying..." or "because they couldn't."

 

Anyway, I've never heard of a judgement forcing someone to advertise for a competitor - but it's a pretty uncreative ruling with some judge of limited imagination on how a marketing department could use this as cannon fire.

 

>> I predict this backfires.

Well lets see. Lets ignore software and only talk about physical look as seen in a store, since this is about design.

 

Differences:

 

No home button

the camera is placed different

the screen size is diff

its thinner

the OS looks totally diff with all those widgets on the screen

the aspect ratio is diff

diff volume rocker

diff volume rocker placement

diff bezel thickness

it clearly says Samsung on the back

There is a metal strip that comes up on the back that isn't there in the ipad

3.5 mm headphone jack in a diff position

charging port in diff position

silver rim around the edge

 

Similarities:

Rectangular

Rounded Edges

 

Yep, overwhelming evidence that it totally apes the ipad design, or is that its a slate with a screen at the front and that's how slates with screens at the front look?

 

Lets not forget, this will set the precedent when Apple releases their TV. And if all that needs to be similar is rectangular with rounded or sharp edges, Apple is screwed.

post #74 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

If I was them, I would move their retail operations also.  This just shows that the country has a terribly biased and non-functional legal system.  Why do business at all with a country like that?

 

haters-gonna-hate-18.jpg?w=500

post #75 of 301

I agree that Samsung tweaked THIS particular design enough to get away with it. (But didn’t they have an earlier design that WAS a more direct iPad copy?) When Apple “advertises” that, they should also include side-by-sides of all the TRULY blatant copying Samsung has done... http://photos.appleinsider.com/samsungvsapple.081911.jpg

http://dcurt.is/chromebox-samsung

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2011/09/29/apple-samsung-copycat-2/

post #76 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post

...Queen to use some of her theoretical reserve powers and intervene!

 

She can chase the judge around in circles while the Benny Hill music plays.

post #77 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post

Really?  Really?  Are you freaking trying to be serious, or are you just looking to pick a fight.  Apple NEVER advertised or "go all about the place saying" Samsung did anything.  They rightfully took Samsung to court to support their own patented designs.  It's not only their right to do so, it's their duty to fight for their rights.  Apple wasn't slandering Samsung and Samsung can't counter sue for damages.

 

Please either go away and peddle your drivel elsewhere or actually read up on what you are talking about before spouting off like this.

HAHAHAH

 

you mad bro? lol.gif

post #78 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

Can you imagine how SJ would have reacted to this?

 

If I were Apple I would include in the "statement" a picture of the two devices side by side along with the date they were introduced.  "According to the [insert name of the court here] the Samsung device shown here that came out a year after the iPad is not a copy of the iPad.  They've instructed us to tell you that.  Have a nice day."

I would take this a step further:  "Courts in Germany, Australia, and the U.S. have ruled Samsung copied the iPad. In spite of this, UK court [insert name here] has instructed us to tell UK (and only UK) buyers the opposite. So here: 'Samsung did not copy the iPad.' But only in the UK did they not do this. Now you know."

One of the principles of neurolinguistic programming is that the human brain does not store negation.  If you tell a person "there is not a rattlesnake in your mailbox" the brain stores an image of a

rattlesnake in the mailbox.  Additionally, the person to whom you said this will probably recall the image every time they open their mailbox from then on.  Apple advertising that Samsung DOES NOT

copy will implant the association between Samsung and copying, even in the minds of people who knew nothing of the dispute between the two companies.  If I were in Samsung's place, I would not

want this.

post #79 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Yes, those trolls.

 

Mate, your signature is a quote from Margaret Thatcher ffs. You lost all credibility with any rational thinker as soon as you put that on.

post #80 of 301

LOL

 

****************************

"Samsung did not copy the iPad"

****************************

 

Consumer: "Ok, so I WANT an iPad now."

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • UK judge rules Apple must advertise Samsung did not copy the iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › UK judge rules Apple must advertise Samsung did not copy the iPad