or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's UK site says Samsung devices 'not as cool' in compliance with court ruling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's UK site says Samsung devices 'not as cool' in compliance with court ruling

post #1 of 167
Thread Starter 
As ordered by a U.K. judge, Apple has updated its regional website to state that Samsung did not infringe on its patented iPad design, and also included the judge's determination that Samsung devices are "not as cool."

Judgement


A link to the text-only addition to Apple's website can be found in the footer of its U.K. page. The link is entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgement."

The text is presented on a blank page with no links, logos or other information. It lets visitors know that the High Court of Justice in England and Wales ruled on July 9, 2012, that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe on Apple's design patent No. 0000181607-0001.

It goes on to state that the judge made "several important points" when comparing Apple's own design to that of Samsung's products. In particular, the judge said that the iPad "is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

In contrast, the judge found that Samsung's products are "almost insubstantial members" of the company's product lineup with "unusual details on the back."

"They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicty which is possessed by the Apple design," the judge wrote. "They are not as cool."

The statements came from a ruling by Judge Colin Birss in July, when he found that Samsung's products were distinctive from Apple. Apple attempted to appeal the decision, but lost last week.

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 is 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.

Apple argued unsuccessfully in court that mentioning Samsung on its site would be in effect a free advertisement for its rival.

The full text from Apple's statement is included below:

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.

post #2 of 167
This has become farcical. A blind man could tell that Samsung copied the look of the iPad, the look and function of their accessories, even the adverts are so closely copied from Apple's adverts that even seasoned Apple users have confused the two. With so many other rulings around the world stating the obvious, that Samsung blatantly copied Apple, this UK judge has made himself look like an absolute idiot.
post #3 of 167

Nicely done. LOL

 

Gotta hand it to Apple, for their "creative compliance."   1smoking.gif

post #4 of 167

If anything this works in their favour. Anyone reading it is simply reminded that Apple is cool and Samsung is not, a judge says so so it must be true. 

iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #5 of 167
Looks like Apple failed to follow court order here
post #6 of 167
Very clever, totally the letter of the law, they are free to quote the judge ( in fact that is beyond the call of duty). In doing so they knock Samsung.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #7 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Looks like Apple failed to follow court order here

The court order was to link to the judgement and to say that Samsung did not infringe their patent. Thats the first paragraph. They then went on to quote the judge, and are free to quote other juristrictions, as they wish. The order is complied with in the first paragraph. 

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #8 of 167

AI, which is it, Did or Did not Infringe, please make up you minds here

 

 

Quote:
As ordered by a U.K. judge, Apple has updated its regional website to state that Samsung did infringe on its patented iPad design, and also included the judge's determination that Samsung devices are "not as cool."

 

Quote:
The text is presented on a blank page with no links, logos or other information. It lets visitors know that the High Court of Justice in England and Wales ruled on July 9, 2012, that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe on Apple's design patent No. 0000181607-0001.

 

But you have to give apple credit for using the judges words against Samsung. I bet the judge will hear about giving personal opinions in a case like this again.

post #9 of 167
Not even a fair fight: a legal ruling vs the PR machine of an innovative company like Apple.
post #10 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The court order was to link to the judgement and to say that Samsung did not infringe their patent. Thats the first paragraph. They then went on to quote the judge, and are free to quote other juristrictions, as they wish. The order is complied with in the first paragraph. 

 

Basically it says Samsung was found not guilty by this court, but guilty by these other courts.  By tacking on the commentary they are undermining the intent of the court.

post #11 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Looks like Apple failed to follow court order here

 

Agreed. This has contempt of court written all over it. 

post #12 of 167
I approve 1biggrin.gif

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

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

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

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #13 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

Agreed. This has contempt of court written all over it. 

 

British humor?!

post #14 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

 

Basically it says Samsung was found not guilty by this court, but guilty by these other courts.  By tacking on the commentary they are undermining the intent of the court.


The judge didn't say they couldn't tack on additional commentary. The judge said Apple had to say Sammy didn't infringe and the site does say that.

post #15 of 167

And why is that?  There was nothing in the decree that prevented Apple from adding additional information.  This whole thing is stupid.  

rfrmac
Reply
rfrmac
Reply
post #16 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


The judge didn't say they couldn't tack on additional commentary. The judge said Apple had to say Sammy didn't infringe and the site does say that.

I am quite sure some people in cupertino had their fun posting this link.

post #17 of 167
I love it!

Samsung Products:

Designed for Humans. Uncool ones.
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #18 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Basically it says Samsung was found not guilty by this court, but guilty by these other courts.  By tacking on the commentary they are undermining the intent of the court.

At times like this, it's so nice having a resident legal scholar in our midst.
post #19 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


The judge didn't say they couldn't tack on additional commentary. The judge said Apple had to say Sammy didn't infringe and the site does say that.

 

Sounds good to me....do you really think a UK judge is going to buy that pitch though???

 

I fear this will end very badly for Apple. They were already given a reprieve during the appeal to only include a PROMINENT link on the homepage instead of the actual apology. However, a link in the last section of a page scanned in the English language (lower right), in the smallest font used on the page, is the exact opposite of prominent. And good luck convincing any judge that this "apology", taken in its entirety (which is how a court will evaluate it), meets the criteria of this court ruling.

post #20 of 167
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post
Looks like Apple failed to follow court order here

 

Looks like you don't understand law at all. 

 

What, you don't like the use of legal loopholes when they're NOT being used to let a psychotic, pathetic company worm their way out of being publicly humiliated and dishonored for their crimes?

 

Bolded so all the trolls can see it. 

 

This paragraph on the Apple page should have been larger than the rest and in bold. lol.gif


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.
post #21 of 167

Contempt of court. Slap Apple with a multi- £billion fine.

 

Should give the UK balance of payments a welcome boost...

post #22 of 167
Called it when it was announced Apple lost the appeal.

Although I went further and suggested they list the US verdict as well, but that doesn't relate much to the Galaxy.
post #23 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

Sounds good to me....do you really think a UK judge is going to buy that pitch though???

I fear this will end very badly for Apple. They were already given a reprieve during the appeal to only include a PROMINENT link on the homepage instead of the actual apology. However, a link in the last section of a page scanned in the English language (lower right), in the smallest font used on the page, is the exact opposite of prominent. And good luck convincing any judge that this "apology", taken in its entirety (which is how a court will evaluate it), meets the criteria of this court ruling.

Do you have any evidence that this sort of judgement has unstated rules and previous cases where the judge forced the plaintiffs to rewrite an apology letter despite having followed the judgement to the letter of the law? If the Judge wanted it to be more precise and not to include any additional info then he should have specified.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #24 of 167

I wonder how the print ads are going to turn out. The small tiny link on the front page of the website was the obvious thing to do and I'm sure lots of people expected the same. It is the print ads that I am curious about.

 

And why the f aren't these trolls happy that Apple has put this in? They have complied right? Why these calls of contempt of court and multi-billion pound fines?

post #25 of 167

I thought the statement would be alot worse than what it actually is. Its not that bad, seemed more like a pitch for the iPad than 'we did not copy them'. 

post #26 of 167
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post
I wonder how the print ads are going to turn out. The small tiny link on the front page of the website was the obvious thing to do and I'm sure lots of people expected the same. It is the print ads that I am curious about.

 

They could put it in the real estate section. 

 

"Samsung, ssry. No cp iPa, iPo, iPh. 2 bd. 3 bh. View of city. Uncool."


And why the f aren't these trolls happy that Apple has put this in? They have complied right? Why these calls of contempt of court and multi-billion pound fines?

 

You're joking, right? If Apple had replaced their entire home page with

 

"WE'RE SO SORRY, SAMSUNG. WE COPIED YOU, YOU DIDN'T COPY US. WE SUCK AND YOU HAVE CREATED EVERYTHING IN THE INDUSTRY." 

 

they still would have complained the font was too small. You can't hope to understand the mental processes of someone stupid enough to support the innovation equivalent of a serial murderer, caught red handed dozens of times.

post #27 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post

I wonder how the print ads are going to turn out. The small tiny link on the front page of the website was the obvious thing to do and I'm sure lots of people expected the same. It is the print ads that I am curious about.

 

And why the f aren't these trolls happy that Apple has put this in? They have complied right? Why these calls of contempt of court and multi-billion pound fines?

 

And these same people are equally concerned that Samsung should comply with their US court case, right? Oh wait, they're not. They're saying the case should be thrown out and Samsung shouldn't pay a dime, even though they lost and the judgement was passed down. Fucking hypocrites. 

post #28 of 167
No doubt Apple's leagal team reviewed every single word of this before it was posted. I doubt they would allow Apple to post something that would get them in contempt of court.
post #29 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

Sounds good to me....do you really think a UK judge is going to buy that pitch though???

 

I fear this will end very badly for Apple. They were already given a reprieve during the appeal to only include a PROMINENT link on the homepage instead of the actual apology. However, a link in the last section of a page scanned in the English language (lower right), in the smallest font used on the page, is the exact opposite of prominent. And good luck convincing any judge that this "apology", taken in its entirety (which is how a court will evaluate it), meets the criteria of this court ruling.

If the judge didn't want additional "commentary", he should have stated that explicitly. Apple is allowed to put up any commentary they want on their website as long as it's truthful and it is.

post #30 of 167

Nice how they repeatedly embedded the words "copied" and "infringed" in their post.

 

 

I would like this for the print ads:

 

 

"While many have have accused Samsung of copying their products over the years, according to the UK courts, they have not copied us. We are so sorry for thinking they did. How could we have been so confused? Not sure what we were thinking"

"Not copied at all"

Again, so sorry Samsung for thinking you copied. Obviously we were wrong. No copying."

"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 #31 of 167
The Apple statement says quite clearly that Samsung did NOT infringe (as stipulated by the court order) and it is the AppleInsider headline/subhead that is wrong. Neat move to quote the judge's other statements though.
post #32 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

Agreed. This has contempt of court written all over it. 

 

That will be the day when a judge cites a plaintiff with contempt of court for quoting verbatim from the judge's own verdict.  The judge might as well cite himself for contempt.   I'm not clear if the judge actually ordered Apple to actually apologize for accusing Samsung of patent violation or just to publicly admit that Samsung did not violate their patents.  If it's the latter, I don't see why explaining why the judge declared that the patents were not violated would be in contempt of the judge's order.

 

If English law is the same as U.S. law in that judicial verdicts are case law and part of the law of the land, then the judge has just established as a legal finding that Samsung's product is not as "cool" as Apple's.  Ridiculous.  

 

But I'm no lawyer, just pretending (poorly) to sound like one, so what do I know?

post #33 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

 

Basically it says Samsung was found not guilty by this court, but guilty by these other courts.  By tacking on the commentary they are undermining the intent of the court.

 

The intent of the court was for Apple to be forced to say "Samsung did not copy us" which is clearly a lie, and that very court, and anyone who looks at this case, knows it.

 

Its a disgusting and pathetic attempt from a judge who in his own words acknowledges the copying, however doesn't consider it enough to award judgement to them.

 

I'm pretty sure Apple will just pay any fine out rather than lie and bag themselves out, but I'd be quite certain Apple's lawyers went over every word of the judge's demands to ensure that Apple followed the letter.

 

If the court doesn't like it, the court should have been clearer what bullshit they wanted Apple to publish.

post #34 of 167
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

If English law is the same as U.S. law in that judicial verdicts are case law and part of the law of the land, then the judge has just established as a legal truth that Samsung is not as cool as Apple.  Ridiculous.

 

If English law were the same as US law, they'd have come to the right conclusion in the first place… 

post #35 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

No doubt Apple's leagal team reviewed every single word of this before it was posted. I doubt they would allow Apple to post something that would get them in contempt of court.

 

Is this the same legal team that carefully reviewed Apple's previous comments that were found guilty of libel???

post #36 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

 

That will be the day when a judge cites a plaintiff with contempt of court for quoting verbatim from the judge's own verdict.  The judge might as well cite himself for contempt.   I'm not clear if the judge actually ordered Apple to actually apologize for accusing Samsung of patent violation or just to publicly admit that Samsung did not violate their patents.  If it's the latter, I don't see why explaining why the judge declared that the patents were not violated would be in contempt of the judge's order.

 

If English law is the same as U.S. law in that judicial verdicts are case law and part of the law of the land, then the judge has just established as a legal finding that Samsung's product is not as "cool" as Apple's.  Ridiculous.  

 

But I'm no lawyer, just pretending (poorly) to sound like one, so what do I know?

 

It is not the aspect of quoting the judge's own verdict which is the contempt of court. It is the fact that they were found guilty of libel by saying that "Samsung was a slavish copycat", but then in the very same apology that was ordered to rectify the defamation, they repeat the exact same violation. At the end of the apology, they suggest the very same libelous statement with their remarks on a German case that was dropped on appeal, and a US case where the Galaxy Tab was in fact found to not infringe...

 

While myself and others here may appreciate the humor in this, this is really going to piss off some UK judges....

post #37 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

Is this the same legal team that carefully reviewed Apple's previous comments that were found guilty of libel???


what case is that? I'm not familiar with any libel case against Apple.

post #38 of 167

That's pretty childish coming from Apple. Why not write :

"this is what the UK court forces us to write, but we strongly disagree

TEXT

remember that we only publish this because we have to"

 

It doesn't work like that. I had imagined that they would do something like this, but never thought they'd actually do it. It's funny, but will turn against them.

post #39 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

It is not the aspect of quoting the judge's own verdict which is the contempt of court. It is the fact that they were found guilty of libel by saying that "Samsung was a slavish copycat", but then in the very same apology that was ordered to rectify the defamation, they repeat the exact same violation. At the end of the apology, they suggest the very same libelous statement with their remarks on a German case that was dropped on appeal, and a US case where the Galaxy Tab was in fact found to not infringe...

 

While myself and others here may appreciate the humor in this, this is really going to piss off some UK judges....

There is a reason the Samsung and HTC chose the UK to sue Apple. Their judges seem to be clowns. In what other country could Samsung sue Apple, win and then demand an apology from Apple for Samsung suing them?

 

 

Does anyone have a copy of the court order? I've read the decision but have not found the order online. I would be interested in exactly what was ordered. Was it an order to apologize or an order to publish a notice of the court ruling? 

"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 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

That's pretty childish coming from Apple. Why not write :

"this is what the UK court forces us to write, but we strongly disagree

TEXT

remember that we only publish this because we have to"

 

It doesn't work like that. I had imagined that they would do something like this, but never thought they'd actually do it. It's funny, but will turn against them.

No more childish than a petty requirement for them to post the notices to begin with. It was a petty order and it deserves a petty implementation.

"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's UK site says Samsung devices 'not as cool' in compliance with court ruling