or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple loses appeal of UK ruling in patent case against Samsung
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple loses appeal of UK ruling in patent case against Samsung

post #1 of 110
Thread Starter 
Apple on Thursday lost an appeal of a previous UK ruling that said Samsung did not copy the look and feel of the iPad.

Galaxy Tab 10.1


When the High Court in London originally handed down the ruling, Judge Colin Birss said consumers were unlikely to mistake the iPad with Samsung's Galaxy Tab as the Korean company's product wasn't as "cool," reports the BBC.

"(Samsung's tablets) do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design," the judge said in his July ruling. "They are not as cool."

Judge Birss ordered Apple to run advertisements on its UK website as well as in British magazines and newspapers, declaring Samsung did not copy the iPad. The Web notice was to remain active at least six months, while other ads would be taken out in various print publications as a consolation for the "damaging impression" Samsung suffered a result of the suit. An Apple attorney argued that mentioning Samsung on its site would be in effect a free advertisement for its rival.

Thursday's appeal loss comes just hours after California Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's request to keep financial documents sealed as part of ongoing post-trial motions for the landmark Apple v. Samsung jury trial.
post #2 of 110
Apple will just have to be content with being cool.

And so the trend is set for most markets outside the US, I suspect.
post #3 of 110

ITT: People calling for Apple to pull out of the UK.

post #4 of 110

In a patent war only one group can ever win - the lawyers.

post #5 of 110

I can't imagine Apple ever complying with that ridiculous order. Who do they think they are in the UK?!

post #6 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVerb View Post

I can't imagine Apple ever complying with that ridiculous order. Who do they think they are in the UK?!

 

Apple don't have a choice, they lost the appeal. If Apple want to continue to operate in the UK and avoid financial penalties they must adhere to the law.

I am interested to see how they are going to word this.

post #7 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVerb View Post

I can't imagine Apple ever complying with that ridiculous order. Who do they think they are in the UK?!

Who are they? Well for a start they are only Apples biggest customer outside of the states, not to mention one of the few markets where the iPhone has a larger share than Android handsets etc.

But you're right, they're only a small Island that has no effect on anyone or anything.....
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #8 of 110

Taken from BBC: 

 

 

One of the judges - who noted he owned an iPad himself - explained why Apple had lost the appeal in his ruling.

"Because this case (and parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about," wrote Sir Robin Jacob.

"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law."

"So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products."

post #9 of 110
Interesting how most rulings outside of Apples home turf seem to go against apple. Personally I feel that at the start Apple was right, their ideas were ripped off. Sadly the newer Samsung devices are not nearly as much a copy and so the rulings on past wrongs are going to be harder & harder to fight.

Don't agree with the advertising ruling in this case, but had the same ruling gone in Apples favour most people here would be celebrating it.
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #10 of 110
I believe Apple was right, but still I find absolutely ridiculous how people like urbanverb react.
Chinese, Korean, German, English courts are all wrong and only the American court that found the American company Apple right against the non-American company Samsung would hold the Truth?

Come on. It scares me that people might be so closed-minded.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #11 of 110

I'm in the UK and think the advertising ruling is disgustingly wrong. I think Apple should ignore that ruling and pay whatever fine is thrown at them for doing so. The sooner Apple don't have to rely on Samsung for anything the better.

post #12 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

ITT: People calling for Apple to pull out of the UK.

 

Haha

Quote:
Originally Posted by aderutter View Post

I'm in the UK and think the advertising ruling is disgustingly wrong. I think Apple should ignore that ruling and pay whatever fine is thrown at them for doing so. The sooner Apple don't have to rely on Samsung for anything the better.

That 'fine' could be being suspended from operating in the UK.

post #13 of 110

On another forum someone said that in the England, if you cannot prove your case and lose, you have to pay for wasting everybody's time (well, that is just putting it succinctly). In this respect, since Apple lost, they have to say Samsung didn't copy.

I thought that was a ludicrous judgement, but I guess that is in accordance with English law. I just don't agree with it.

post #14 of 110

I'm not saying that it applies to this case, but the English judiciary used to have a reputation for being rather out of touch with modern technology...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VgwxKW0J6I

(BBC 'Not the Nine O'Clock News' clip, circa 1980)

 

lol.gif

post #15 of 110

From Wiki on Judge Colin Birss...

 

"In 2012 he ruled on Temple Island v New English Teas, a case where a photograph of a Routemaster London bus crossing Westminster Bridge was found sufficiently similar to another photograph of the subject to constitute copyright infringement."

 

There must be at least a million images of a "Routemaster London bus crossing Westminster Bridge"... it's one of those cliché images of London many tourists, and stock photographers, love to take.

post #16 of 110
I am going to stop buying UK technology... if I can find any.
post #17 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVerb View Post

I can't imagine Apple ever complying with that ridiculous order. Who do they think they are in the UK?!

 

Keep in mind the Galaxy Tab was the one (and only really) area Apple lost in the US case as well. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #18 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post

I am going to stop buying UK technology... if I can find any.

 

So, that'll include anything with an ARM chip in it then? Good luck with that. 

post #19 of 110

Note in upcoming UK Apple Advertisement:

 

*Judge Birss declared Samsung did not copy the iPad, that the Samsung's Galaxy Tab "... are not as cool."

It is not our fault if your Parents buy you the wrong tablet.

post #20 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post

 

So, that'll include anything with an ARM chip in it then? Good luck with that. 


ARM is HQ'd in Cambridge. ARM chips are made throughout the world. Apple is one of its co-founders. Yes I think I can still buy iPhones.

I am not serious BTW. Just a brief burst of outrage.

The UK ruling against infringement may be based on UK law. I get it. However the forced advertising of an apology or potential UK expulsion is the invention of a UK judge who likes controversy. Wiki him.

It will seen as outrageous by many, and will be defended by Samsung fans and many in the UK.

post #21 of 110
I'm amused by all the anti-UK sentiment on here—especially never buying anything with British technology in it. As has been said, good luck with that, given that the ARM processor is fundamentally a 100% British design.

Let me just say, as a British Apple fan myself, there's no difference in outrage here between British Apple users and American ones. I thought this judgement was utterly outrageous and moronic when I first read it, and I can't believe that Apple has lost the appeal. It seems to be a totally indefensible judgement, and I hope Apple can find some way out of it. Also, I don't see how any judge can use the word “cool” in an objective judgement and be taken seriously.

But it's AT LEAST as stupid to blame every member of the UK population for the idiotic decision of one moronic judge who's an embarrassment to our legal system. We're as annoyed about this as you are.

All this boils bown to is the usual conclusion: “The law is an ass.”
post #22 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Hallas View Post

I'm amused by all the anti-UK sentiment on here—especially never buying anything with British technology in it. As has been said, good luck with that, given that the ARM processor is fundamentally a 100% British design.
Let me just say, as a British Apple fan myself, there's no difference in outrage here between British Apple users and American ones. I thought this judgement was utterly outrageous and moronic when I first read it, and I can't believe that Apple has lost the appeal. It seems to be a totally indefensible judgement, and I hope Apple can find some way out of it. Also, I don't see how any judge can use the word “cool” in an objective judgement and be taken seriously.
But it's AT LEAST as stupid to blame every member of the UK population for the idiotic decision of one moronic judge who's an embarrassment to our legal system. We're as annoyed about this as you are.
All this boils bown to is the usual conclusion: “The law is an ass.”


As I said that a brief burst of outrage on my part, and of course was not serious. However the appeals judge (Jacob) did not strike the ruling nor public apology down.  While Jacob stated that granting of such an order was not to punish the party concerned for its behaviour or  "to make it grovel – simply to lose face", in essence it does exactly that.

post #23 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post


ARM is HQ'd in Cambridge. ARM chips are made throughout the world. Apple is one of its co-founders. Yes I think I can still buy iPhones.

I am not serious BTW. Just a brief burst of outrage.

The UK ruling against infringement may be based on UK law. I get it. However the forced advertising of an apology or potential UK expulsion is the invention of a UK judge who likes controversy. Wiki him.

It will seen as outrageous by many, and will be defended by Samsung fans and many in the UK.

 

Apple's public allegations of copying by Samsung have been ruled to be unwarranted. Apple must now publicly retract those allegations.

 

The original judge's ruling has now been upheld by three other judges, at least one of whom is an iPad owner. Are you saying that they too are just trying to court controversy?

post #24 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by aderutter View Post

I'm in the UK and think the advertising ruling is disgustingly wrong. I think Apple should ignore that ruling and pay whatever fine is thrown at them for doing so. The sooner Apple don't have to rely on Samsung for anything the better.

 

I disagree with the ruling, but Apple should abide by it. If they don't abide by the rule of law in the UK then why should Samsung abide by the rule of law in the US?

post #25 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post

 

Apple's public allegations of copying by Samsung have been ruled to be unwarranted. Apple must now publicly retract those allegations.

 

The original judge's ruling has now been upheld by three other judges, at least one of whom is an iPad owner. Are you saying that they too are just trying to court controversy?


From reading Jacob's public statements following the appeals ruling that attempt to clarify this, I think he understands that this will be viewed by many as controversial. Not the infringement ruling. The public apology ruling.

post #26 of 110
Quote:
"Judge Birss ordered Apple to run advertisements on its UK website as well as in British magazines and newspapers, declaring Samsung did not copy the iPad. The Web notice was to remain active at least six months, while other ads would be taken out in various print publications as a consolation for the "damaging impression" Samsung suffered a result of the suit."

 

 

Given that it was Samsung that sued Apple, this doesn't make any sense. Samsung sued in order to obtain a ruling, pre-emptively, that they did not copy Apple's designs. Any negative impressions they suffered as a result of the suit were at their own request. 

 

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/samsung-apple.pdf

(notice who the claimant is and who the defendant is)

 

 

Are all UK judges retarded? There must be a reason that both Samsung and both took their cases to the UK, a jurisdiction in which Apple had not sued either of them. Is the UK High Court generally seen as being easily manipulated as the East Texas courts?


Edited by Tulkas - 10/18/12 at 6:05am

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #27 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Apple will just have to be content with being cool.
And so the trend is set for most markets outside the US, I suspect.

Yes, I expect the judge's words are going to feature quite prominently in the ad.

 

Still, if the point of this exercise was to let the likes of Samsung know that they face a long, drawn-out court battle if they attempt to sell Apple's designs as their own, then surely Cupertino has made its point.

 

Stacking up loss after loss from now on  will just reverse any gains they've made in the US.

post #28 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post


ARM is HQ'd in Cambridge. ARM chips are made throughout the world. Apple is one of its co-founders. Yes I think I can still buy iPhones.

I am not serious BTW. Just a brief burst of outrage.

The UK ruling against infringement may be based on UK law. I get it. However the forced advertising of an apology or potential UK expulsion is the invention of a UK judge who likes controversy. Wiki him.

It will seen as outrageous by many, and will be defended by Samsung fans and many in the UK.

Apple is not one of ARM's co-founders. They were around a few decards before doing any work with Apple.

post #29 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVerb View Post

I can't imagine Apple ever complying with that ridiculous order. Who do they think they are in the UK?!
Initiate a trial over frivolous design 'patents', make slanderous allegations in the press against a competitor, then cockily whine with nationalist tremolos about the consequences of your actions once your claims are debunked in court: that's pathetic.
post #30 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

 

 

Given that it was Samsung that sued Apple, this doesn't make any sense. Samsung sued in order to obtain a ruling, pre-emptively, that they did not copy Apple's designs. Any negative impressions they suffered as a result of the suit were at their own request. 

 

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/samsung-apple.pdf

(notice who the claimant is and who the defendant is)

Thanks for the link. I was surprised at how plainly worded the ruling was.

 

Reading thru it offers a detailed reasoning behind the Judge's finding, which appears to me to be proper as far as the community design claims go. As an aside, even Apple concedes their design patent may not be practiced by any of their iPads (see point 8 in the link), so it's not as tho Samsung was being accused by Apple of copying that product.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #31 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Apple is not one of ARM's co-founders. They were around a few decards before doing any work with Apple.

No. ACORN was around before, but ARM (the company) was founded with Apple. The ARM architecture predates the ARM Holdings company we know today but it took off only once it was spun off to ARM Holdings, founded as a partnership between Apple and ACORN.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #32 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Initiate a trial over frivolous design 'patents', make slanderous allegations in the press against a competitor, then cockily whine with nationalist tremolos about the consequences of your actions once your claims are debunked in court: that's pathetic.

You know that it was Samsung that initiated the frivolous lawsuit over design 'patents' right?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #33 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post

On another forum someone said that in the England, if you cannot prove your case and lose, you have to pay for wasting everybody's time (well, that is just putting it succinctly). In this respect, since Apple lost, they have to say Samsung didn't copy.

I thought that was a ludicrous judgement, but I guess that is in accordance with English law. I just don't agree with it.

I think this ruling is brilliant and wish judges would/could do this in the US as well!

 

The notion that someone can go around suing everyone for everything, with the only risk to them being the loss of money spent in litigation is ridiculous. Rulings like this make sure that the accuser has some "skin in the game", and would go a long way from preventing frivolous lawsuits like "we own the rounded corner rectangle". Otherwise, we are simply left in the same scenario we are in now, where companies with superfluous cash end up being massive litigation abusers in hopes of a fringe windfall case....

post #34 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Thanks for the link. I was surprised at how plainly worded the ruling was.

 

Reading thru it offers a detailed reasoning behind the Judge's finding, which appears to me to be proper as far as the community design claims go. As an aside, even Apple concedes their design patent may not be practiced by any of their iPads (see point 8 in the link), so it's not as tho Samsung was being accused by Apple of copying that product.

 

And since Apple didn't win the iPad portion of the ruling in the US, then the UK judges certainly haven't gone against the grain as it were.

 

The mandatory advert thing is also not that unusual in UK libel cases: the Sun newspaper had to print a full front page apology, having claimed that Elton John was gay...

post #35 of 110

post #36 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

I think this ruling is brilliant and wish judges would/could do this in the US as well!

 

The notion that someone can go around suing everyone for everything, with the only risk to them being the loss of money spent in litigation is ridiculous. Rulings like this make sure that the accuser has some "skin in the game", and would go a long way from preventing frivolous lawsuits like "we own the rounded corner rectangle". Otherwise, we are simply left in the same scenario we are in now, where companies with superfluous cash end up being massive litigation abusers in hopes of a fringe windfall case....

Samsung sued in this case, not Apple. So your entire argument, being premised on making the accuser, the one filing frivolous lawsuits, should have some skin in the game, is fundamentally flawed.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #37 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

You know that it was Samsung that initiated the frivolous lawsuit over design 'patents' right?

That is not true. The issue of design patents were filed by Apple in their counter suit to Samsung. It is possible that Samsung's initial claims may be considered frivolous, but they were certainly not 'design patents'...

 

http://www.zdnet.com/apple-sues-samsung-in-the-uk-over-android-4010024342/

 

 

Edit: just saw that you posted above while I was writing this, but it should still apply. In addition, many analysts consider Samsung's suit to be "defensive" and in response to the original Apple lawsuit filed against HTC in 2010.

post #38 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Thanks for the link. I was surprised at how plainly worded the ruling was.

 

Reading thru it offers a detailed reasoning behind the Judge's finding, which appears to me to be proper as far as the community design claims go. As an aside, even Apple concedes their design patent may not be practiced by any of their iPads (see point 8 in the link), so it's not as tho Samsung was being accused by Apple of copying that product.

See when I read it, I think "what was the judge smoking?". First he acknowledges the Samsung was similar to the iPad, to the point of being the same.

 

 

 

Quote:
When I first saw the Samsung products in this case I was struck by how similar they look to the Apple design when they are resting on a table. They look similar because they both have the same front screen. It stands out.

But then he says an informed user would know the difference. He acknowledges that he was not an informed user and that is why the appeared identical. he, a judge ruling on the case, believes users would be more informed than he is on matter of design. He further says they are differentiated by the design on the back of the units, assumably he is referring to the company names stamped in large print on the back. Genius.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #39 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

That is not true. The issue of design patents were filed by Apple in their counter suit to Samsung. It is possible that Samsung's initial claims may be considered frivolous, but they were certainly not 'design patents'...

 

http://www.zdnet.com/apple-sues-samsung-in-the-uk-over-android-4010024342/

It's actually completely true. Apple only made claimed in the counter suit. Samsung sued over the design first, in the UK. Specifically to have the design protection declared invalid.

 

 

From the actual court document:

Quote:
1. This action concerns Community Registered Design No. 000181607-0001. The design belongs to the defendant (Apple). Among the named designers are Sir Jonathan Ive and Steve Jobs. The claimant (Samsung) seeks a declaration that three of its Galaxy tablet computers (the Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7) do not infringe. Apple counterclaims for infringement. One of the matters to be dealt with is whether the counterclaim should be stayed. The validity of the registration is not in issue in this case. Samsung has applied to revoke the registration at OHIM.
 

 

Plain English.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #40 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

It's actually completely true. Apple only made claimed in the counter suit. Samsung sued over the design first, in the UK. Specifically to have the design protection declared invalid.

 

 

From the actual court document:

 

Plain English.

 

It looks like the court document you posted is from after Apple's counterclaim. I will have to review the initial claim by Samsung to see if design patents were referenced, but do not have time at the moment.

 

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume they DID reference design patents. How does one interpret a request to seek a declaration that their devices do not infringe as making that party the "accuser"? How is that request "accusing" anyone of anything? If Samsung did indeed request this in their original filing, it was most certainly in response to the Apple v HTC lawsuit.

 

If your trying to suggest that Apple has not been the clear aggressor in all these global lawsuits, you certainly have an uphill battle against you... 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple loses appeal of UK ruling in patent case against Samsung