Apple loses appeal of UK ruling in patent case against Samsung - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnocbui 

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Hallas 

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnocbui 

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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

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.

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

It's running Chrome OS, of all things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnocbui 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traisoon 

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

...or tickets for Chelsea FC games:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

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.

yup.

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,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traisoon 

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

And the three other judges also?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns 

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

I guess sarcasm is a bit beyond your understanding! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton 

 

More specific please. Which English law?

Read the ruling for yourself:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

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.

These comments....hilarious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfanning 


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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_l_uk 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

 

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.

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.