Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Originally Posted by elroth
1. Apple implied that Samsung infringed by giving evidence that Samsung copied. That's the innuendo - Apple said that Samsung copied, hoping to use that as evidence of infringing. The judge says no. ("The reference [by Apple] to copying is exactly that [innuendo that Samsung infringed].")
2. The judge clearly states (last sentence), that copying and infringing are not the same thing ("copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement"), although non-lawyers think that if someone copies your design they are automatically infringing ("but to many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing."). It's totally clear that he is separating the act of copying a design from the act of infringing, and the suit is about the legal requirements to prove infringing, which Apple didn't meet.
Again, I'm not sure how you can fail to understand this. The judge did not rule on, or even consider, whether Samsung copied Apple (only whether Samsung infringed). It's there in black and white. Think of it like this: you can copy something, but do such a bad job that it wouldn't get confused with the original, and therefore you didn't violate any patents.
Elroth, this ruling has to do with public comments Apple made after the court had already ruled Samsung was not infringing on Apple's design patent. According to the court explanation Apple continued using "innuendo" to paint Samsung as infringing anyway (and still does after claiming in the appeal not to be doing so any longer), something the judge took issue with and leading to the Apple publishing requirement appeal failing.
The judge's comments in the published appeal had to do with why or why not Apple should be required to publish the notice. The comment you're misunderstanding is part of the judge's thoughts on why Apple did need to post a clear statement that Samsung does not infringe on Apple's "iPad" design patent, since Apple was implying otherwise in statements. It had nothing to do with comments about copying compared to infringing during the trial, nor were the trial results themselves under appeal. That's probably where your misunderstanding is coming from.
Take the time to read the ruling itself, or at least from paragraph 40 on. It should only take a couple of minutes. You're pulling a couple of sentences out-of-context and causing yourself confusion on the judges intent which is clear when read in whole.
Those observations notwithstanding, you are still misrepresenting why the judge required the announcement and what he wanted it to say, and, by extension, what Apple could or could not include in the announcement. Samsung sought two things:
(1) an injunction against Apple (or any of its agents) from suggesting that the Samsung products infringe on the registered community design in question, and
(2) an order for dissemination of the decision by Apple.
Apple resisted the first, arguing that it restricted freedom of speech and represented a sinister attempt to restrain public discussion of verdicts, and resisted the second, saying that they were no longer asserting infringement so it was not necessary.
The judge denied (1), primarily because he agreed with Apple and found that it would interfere with free speech and unfairly restrain the right to disagree with a judgement. With a number of reservations, including the observation that similar claims were being heard elsewhere with varying outcomes, he found for Samsung on the order because he felt that Apple, by innuendo, were continuing to imply infringement.
Note that he was explicitly not suggesting that Apple did not have the right to disagree with the decision or make those comments, but that in view of their apparent continued disagreement he felt that the order to disseminate was reasonable. Now, considering the order itself, the requirement was, in both intent and wording, simply to disseminate that this particular court had found that Samsung had not infringed, not to state absolutely that Samsung had not infringed - a distinction clearly made by his comments on other jurisdictions.
Apple's announcement contained the following elements:
(1) a clear statement of this court's decision, exactly as required by the judge;
(2) some of the judge's comments in support of his ruling;
(3) the observation, also noted by the judge in his decision, that other courts had arrived at different conclusions.
The announcement did not include a statement that Apple disagreed with the ruling, even though the judge had made it clear in his decision that they were entitled to do so, and that he had denied Samsung's requested injunction in support of precisely that right.
In view of which, it would seem most unlikely that the judge would even be troubled by the way that Apple complied with his order, let alone view it as failing to comply. It is not surprising to read uninformed drivel from multiple posters about contempt of court, Apple's childish behavior etc. that inevitably drowns these kind of discussions, but you would do us a service if you did not try to legitimize their misconceptions.