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 - Page 3

post #81 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I think one of the reasons for the Judge ordering the advertisements is because of the way Apple's legal council blatantly accused Samsung of copying the the iPad.  Since the court proceedings and what was said in them were publicly quoted, the accusations by Apple's legal team were seen as a public accusation, which was found to be wrong, hence the need for Apple to publicly retract it's comments.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9409959/Apple-website-must-admit-Samsung-didnt-copy.html

 

Had Apple's legal teem been more circumspect in their language and conduct, the advertisements likely would not have been ordered.

 

Apple can't just put the advertisements on their website, they have to take them out in several major national newspapers as well.

 

So if the Police charge someone in the UK with an offence and they are later found not guilty, then the police have to publish an apology in the major national newspapers and on their websites?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #82 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Hallas View Post

Quite right. Me too.

 

I've seen a few people trying to pretend that Apple invented the ARM (not least John Sculley), but of course the ARM was developed by Acorn in the early- to mid-1980s (micro-architecture by Steve Furber, instruction set by Sophie Wilson). ARM1 first saw the light of day in 1986, in Acorn's ARM Evaluation System, a 'cheese-wedge' add-on for the BBC Micro. Then, of course, the first ARM-based Archimedes arrived in late 1987. ARM Ltd was formed in partnership with Apple three years later, in 1990, and my understanding is that for quite a while it was dominated by ex-Acorn people rather than Apple people. Hardly surprising, since the Acorn people had designed the product.

 

That's not to detract from Apple in any way; it's just giving credit where it's due. Apple will undoubtedly have had quite a lot of input into ARM development, starting with the ARM600 series which was destined for the Newton, but the basic ARM technology had nothing to do with Apple whatsoever.

 

The company known as "ARM" was cofounded by Apple and Acorn, this is incontrovertible fact, quit with the bullshit and stop trying to put words in people's mouths, where did anyone say "Apple invented the ARM processor"?

 

Prior to 1990, ARM, the company did not exist.

 

http://www.arm.com/about/company-profile/milestones.php

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #83 of 110
I would suggest the following ad:
 
 
After being sued by Samsung and in accordance with the court ruling, Apple hereby states that Samsung did not copy Apple's iconic iPad.

 

Clearly Samsung developed their tablet with no inspiration from Apple's design.

 

We would like to close this statement with additional comments from the court with which we wholeheartedly agree.
 
"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."
-and everyone uses there tablets backwards?
"They are not as cool."
-agreed

"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 #84 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

So if the Police charge someone in the UK with an offence and they are later found not guilty, then the police have to publish an apology in the major national newspapers and on their websites?


No, because that would be criminal law while the shootout under discussion is commercial/civil law.

post #85 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


No, because that would be criminal law while the shootout under discussion is commercial/civil law.

 

Except you are found not guilty of breaking a criminal law and the police have been "libellous" by accusing you of such.

 

Innocence is innocence, no matter what type of law, the law becomes irrelevant, the public accusation remains and that is what the judge is seeking to remedy with his absurd ruling.

 

I can see lawyers having fun with the precedent.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #86 of 110

For anyone that things the court order makes any sense at all, think of it this way. let's say you have something that is protected, whether it is patent, copyright, trademark, etc. You hold protection on it. Someone else that wants to have a product very, very similar to your decides to sue to have your protection invalidated. Note that you have not accused them of anything publicly in this jurisdiction at this point, they sue to have your protection invalidated. During the course of the trial, since you believe your protection is valid, you are asked and acknowledge that you believe their product does copy yours. The accuser  wins the lawsuit, the protection you had is invalidated. Now the court also says that although you were sued and were attempting to maintain the protection you had, you made an accusation during the trial and must therefore be publicly flawed for statements made in court.

 

 

Nice legal system. A company gets dragged into court and publicly flogged for defending themselves. What's the lesson? Don't defend yourself in UK courts?

"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 #87 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post

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

ARM is British so you better stop buying Apple gear since they license their CPU architecture from them.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #88 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

For anyone that things the court order makes any sense at all, think of it this way. let's say you have something that is protected, whether it is patent, copyright, trademark, etc. You hold protection on it. Someone else that wants to have a product very, very similar to your decides to sue to have your protection invalidated. Note that you have not accused them of anything publicly in this jurisdiction at this point, they sue to have your protection invalidated. During the course of the trial, since you believe your protection is valid, you are asked and acknowledge that you believe their product does copy yours. The accuser  wins the lawsuit, the protection you had is invalidated. Now the court also says that although you were sued and were attempting to maintain the protection you had, you made an accusation during the trial and must therefore be publicly flawed for statements made in court.

 

 

Nice legal system. A company gets dragged into court and publicly flogged for defending themselves. What's the lesson? Don't defend yourself in UK courts?

 

You could take it further by refusing to answer the courts questions based on this precedent and that you don't want to be exposed to the expense of advertising costs associated with making potentially "libellous" statements.

 

That Birss guy is an idiot, an absolute fool, an ass in the first degree.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #89 of 110

"Samsung does not copy Apple. The Brits said so in court. So there."

 

 

It's running Chrome OS, of all things.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #90 of 110
Maybe Judge Colin Birss's family was under attacked by Korean mafia or probably receive money under table. 1smoking.gif
post #91 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I think one of the reasons for the Judge ordering the advertisements is because of the way Apple's legal council blatantly accused Samsung of copying the the iPad.  Since the court proceedings and what was said in them were publicly quoted, the accusations by Apple's legal team were seen as a public accusation, which was found to be wrong, hence the need for Apple to publicly retract it's comments.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9409959/Apple-website-must-admit-Samsung-didnt-copy.html

 

Had Apple's legal teem been more circumspect in their language and conduct, the advertisements likely would not have been ordered.

 

Apple can't just put the advertisements on their website, they have to take them out in several major national newspapers as well.

IMHO it had more to do with Apple's assertions of infringement on it's designs in other European Courts, and the very public statements and press quotes Apple made in that regard. Personally I think it's a silly requirement to post an apology, but I can see some bit of logic behind it.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #92 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

ARM is British so you better stop buying Apple gear since they license their CPU architecture from them.


I think you should read some of the other posts before you yell that out draped in the Union Jack mate. Good luck.

post #93 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Howard 

You're not serious, are you?

 

Why not?

 

It points out the absurdity of the judges "punishment" and sets the precedent that making unfounded accusations in court is akin to libel and renders whoever makes the statement liable to advertise that they were wrong.

 

Why shouldn't you seek this remedy if found not guilty, given this precedent, backed up by the high court?

 

I'd do it just for laughs.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #94 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traisoon View Post

Maybe Judge Colin Birss's family was under attacked by Korean mafia or probably receive money under table. 1smoking.gif

 

...or tickets for Chelsea FC games:-

 

 

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #95 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Because Samsung was asking for a ruling that their tablets didn't copy Apple's product. The judge admits they are the same, but then says they aren't copied.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Howard 

Did he really say that?  I read the opinion, but I didn't find anything like it in there.  Can you point out what I seem to have missed?

yup.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Birss
"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."

He goes on to explain while the front is the same, they look different from the back. You know, the side you don't use or see day to day. So it isn't copied. Brilliant. As I mentioned, I think he must have meant they were different because from the back you can read "Apple" or "Samsung" and immediately know they are different,

"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 #96 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traisoon View Post

Maybe Judge Colin Birss's family was under attacked by Korean mafia or probably receive money under table. 1smoking.gif

 

And the three other judges also?

post #97 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

You really didn't realize how dumb your post sounded before submitting it? Really???

I guess sarcasm is a bit beyond your understanding! 1hmm.gif

post #98 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

 

More specific please. Which English law?

 

Read the ruling for yourself:

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

post #99 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I can see lawyers having fun with the precedent.

What precedent? Civil and criminal law are different, you have been told that before, maybe you should look it up yourself.
post #100 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

That Birss guy is an idiot, an absolute fool, an ass in the first degree.

 

I'm sure you know more about English patent law than judge who has been a QC for six years.

post #101 of 110

These comments....hilarious. lol.gif

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #102 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


What precedent? Civil and criminal law are different, you have been told that before, maybe you should look it up yourself.

 

If you are not guilty, what does it matter what type of law it is?

 

A judgement of not guilty makes the law irrelevant.

 

All that remains are libellous claims, as per this judgement.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #103 of 110
I don't agree with the outcome but if the UK says Samsung didn't steal from Apple in the case details presented then by all relevant measure they have not stolen from Apple in the UK per this case. Perhaps Apple's lawyers in the UK weren't good enough or perhaps it would have turned out differently with a different judge but that's par for the course.

I will say that I love the penalty. Not because it's against Apple as I've already stated I disagree with the results, but the type of punishment as I think embarrassing a multi-billion dollar company is more effective than simply having them pay a fine.
Edited by SolipsismX - 10/18/12 at 7:12pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #104 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

If you are not guilty, what does it matter what type of law it is?

You carry on believing that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

A judgement of not guilty makes the law irrelevant.

You may want to do a tiny bit of research before carrying on
post #105 of 110
I'd go with a tongue-in-cheek side-by-side comparison saying "we are instructed to inform you that Samsung's Galaxy tab ( bottom) released on 21st December 2010 did not copy the look and feel of the iPad (top) released 27th Jan 2010." Everyone will then see that Samsung is not as 'cool' as Apple because they copied Apple's design. Turn a negative into a positive!
post #106 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by john_l_uk View Post

I'd go with a tongue-in-cheek side-by-side comparison saying "we are instructed to inform you that Samsung's Galaxy tab ( bottom) released on 21st December 2010 did not copy the look and feel of the iPad (top) released 27th Jan 2010." Everyone will then see that Samsung is not as 'cool' as Apple because they copied Apple's design. Turn a negative into a positive!

 

Maybe Apple should pull everything out of the UK, sack everyone there and run everything from a shelf company in the Channel Islands.

 

Then use contractors to run their stores.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #107 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Maybe Apple should pull everything out of the UK, sack everyone there and run everything from a shelf company in the Channel Islands.

 

Then use contractors to run their stores.

Great idea! Apple should make it plain they're bigger and more important to the world than anyone. Show 'em who really runs things. No one pulls Apple's strings, and certainly not some little judge in a foreign country. With more money and potential power than even the UK government it's time to start teaching some lessons. No one can mess with Apple without getting the horns. $120B in cash makes them the business world bad-ass and everyone better take note of that.

 

EDIT: For those not paying attention, the UK ruling applies across Europe, including Germany. It's likely the end of Apple design patent claims on the issue in any EU member country.


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/19/12 at 3:59am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #108 of 110

Might as well stop complaining about it...The verdict was made and upheld by three (3) other judges. Move on with your lives. If Apple doesn't want to comply...then they shouldn't be allowed to sell in the UK. Simple. Move on.

post #109 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Maybe Apple should pull everything out of the UK, sack everyone there and run everything from a shelf company in the Channel Islands.

Then use contractors to run their stores.

Look at the Apple Computers v. Apple Corp trials on Wikipedia. Apple Computer succeeded in the end but they started off losing. This was just a single skirmish, not a battle and certainly not the entire war. Apple makes plenty of money in Europe and pulling out or getting 3rd-parties to sell their gear just added unneeded expense and reduces the customer service experience if they were to shut down company stores to do it. The only solution is to keep going.

Remember, the goal is profits and moving forward is the only way to maintain your profits. If you want to hurt your opponent then prevent them from making money, don't make it even easer.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #110 of 110
Well, here it is:

http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/
Quote:
Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:

"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

I figured they'd word it that way. They only had to admit that Samsung didn't infringe the patent but there's nothing preventing them saying other courts have ruled that Samsung has infringed on their designs. Take that Birss.
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