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 - Page 4

post #121 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post


Apple did exactly the right thing, by following the rule by the letter.
I am more concerned about people like you, I still don't get it, why you are wasting your time in this forum. You hate Apple that is completely fine with me, but to make yourself ridiculous with such nonsensical statements on an forum hosted and frequented manly by Apple favorable people is beyond my understanding.
Have some fun and try something constructive and creative. It helps! Believe me.

 

Dont hate the player, hate the game. 

"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 #122 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

 

Factual statements, including on-record statements made by the court are contempt of court? Judges don't take kindly to having their on-record statements posted on web pages related to the trial? Okay, whatever you say.

 

Hey, I'm on your side. The ruling was stupid. Samsung CLEARLY copied Apple.

 

But by selectively quoting the comments, by referring to other rulings and basically saying 'Yeah, yeah, whatever!' it just sounds petulant.

 

Just sayin'

post #123 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy10 View Post

 

Which other courts were those? In the US case it cited, the Galaxy tab was one of the few found not to infringe Apple's products. That leaves only the German court decision (which was invalid as the UK court had already ruled it non-infringing, and their decision should have been valid throughout the EC - the German local court shouldn't have contradicted it, the decision could only be overturned by a superior court.
 

I had forgotten that Samsung swan't found to infringe Apple's "iPad design patent" in the US either. So in truth no other court in the US or Europe finds that Samsung infringes on that Apple patent.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #124 of 167

It seems as though Apple just did the exact same thing that got them into this mess in the first place. In the words of the UK judge, this order was issued because of the following:

 

" In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, 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."

 

I haven't been thrilled about the 15% drop in AAPL the last 5 weeks, but now starting a pissing match with a UK high court?!? Ridiculous...

post #125 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy10 View Post

 

Which other courts were those? In the US case it cited, the Galaxy tab was one of the few found not to infringe Apple's products. That leaves only the German court decision (which was invalid as the UK court had already ruled it non-infringing, and their decision should have been valid throughout the EC - the German local court shouldn't have contradicted it, the decision could only be overturned by a superior court.
 

I had forgotten that Samsung swan't found to infringe Apple's "iPad design patent" in the US either. So in truth no other court in the US or Europe finds that Samsung infringes on that Apple patent.

 

The recent ITC preliminary ruling included the Galaxy tab.

post #126 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

I haven't been thrilled about the 15% drop in AAPL the last 5 weeks, but now starting a pissing match with a UK high court?!? Ridiculous...

 

Screw the UK high court. Apple complied and did what they had to do.

post #127 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

A fact of German...

 

...law is of no relevance to a UK court-ruled...

 

Ever heard of the EU?

 

The UK judges in the appeal, specifically mentioned that the UK ruling applies to the entire EU.

 

Time to dump the £ and embrace the €.

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 #128 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

The recent ITC preliminary ruling included the Galaxy tab.

On the design patent? I overlooked that I guess. Thanks for the mention. Note that the ITC is a bit different than typical courts and the finding so far was in the "investigation" phase if that design patent was included.

 

http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/documents/337_796_ID.pdf


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/26/12 at 2:40pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #129 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Dont hate the player, hate the game. 

Perhaps you didn't see his last sentence because you were too busy trying to think of a glib reply to hide behind.

You ARE wasting your time here, Galbi.

Attention-getting on forums will do nothing long-term to provide the confidence that you appear to seek.

Find something you enjoy in life and devote the amount that you devote here and you'll be surprised what it does for you.
post #130 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Ever heard of the EU?

 

The UK judges in the appeal, specifically mentioned that the UK ruling applies to the entire EU.

In which case the German ruling is not only irrelevant in the UK, it's invalid in Germany.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #131 of 167

This is a very interesting point, and actually contradicts you and the other Apple haters. He's saying that "infringing" is not the same as "copying" - someone can "copy" a design without meeting the strict legal definition of "infringing". The judge ruled Samsung didn't infringe - he did NOT rule that Samsung didn't copy. In fact, what he's doing here is criticizing Apple by saying Apple tried to use an argument that Samsung "copied" the design as proof that Samsung "ingfringed", which are two separate things.

 

The result is that Apple can keep asserting that Samsung "copied" without crossing the judge, who only ruled that Samsung didn't "infringe". Apple says the German court ruled that Samsung "copied", not "infringed", so that even if the ruling carries over to the rest of Europe, Apple is spot on.

 

Maybe Samsung should have sued for an order that says it didn't "copy" Apple - that would be fun to see. Apple only mentions "infringing" as regards the U.S. court, which is a totally different jurisdiction. There is no contempt here in any way.

 

Thanks for posting the ruling language, and bringing clarity to how wrong you are.


Edited by elroth - 10/26/12 at 3:44pm
post #132 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

It seems as though Apple just did the exact same thing that got them into this mess in the first place. In the words of the UK judge, this order was issued because of the following:

 

" In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, 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."

 

I haven't been thrilled about the 15% drop in AAPL the last 5 weeks, but now starting a pissing match with a UK high court?!? Ridiculous...

I don't think you understand what you just read. Read my post just above that explains this paragraph to you.

post #133 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

The intent of the Court is contained in the Order. Namely, for Apple to post on its website that a UK court found Samsung's tablet to not infringe Apple's design patent. Apple has fully complied. If the Court wanted something different, it should have provided Apple with the exact language.

Anybody reading the link will know 1) the UK court found Samsung not guilty of infringing the at issue patent, 2) the reason being that the UK judge doesn't think Samsung's products are as cool as Apple's, and 3) other courts in other parts of the world disagree with the UK judge. 

...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davewrite View Post

LOL! (when I heard the judge's order earlier I thought that THIS was exacty what they should do but I doubted Apple without Jobs would have dared to do it. Good for you Cook!)

and the judge had ordered Apple to print the ad in LARGE type as well...

it's time for Apple to run "Samsung UNCOOL" ads in U.K.
samsung can't say anything about it as the judge had determined that fact...
lol.

If the UK judge was wrong about Samsung copying, Samsung could say that the judge was also wrong about Samsung products not being cool.1wink.gif
post #134 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

This is a very interesting point, and actually contradicts you and the other Apple haters. He's saying that "infringing" is not the same as "copying" - someone can "copy" a design without meeting the strict legal definition of "infringing". The judge ruled Samsung didn't infringe - he did NOT rule that Samsung didn't copy. In fact, what he's doing here is criticizing Apple by saying Apple tried to use an argument that Samsung "copied" the design as proof that Samsung "ingfringed", which are two separate things.

 

The result is that Apple can keep asserting that Samsung "copied" without crossing the judge, who only ruled that Samsung didn't "infringe". Apple says the German court ruled that Samsung "copied", not "infringed", so that even if the ruling carries over to the rest of Europe, Apple is spot on.

 

Maybe Samsung should have sued for an order that says it didn't "copy" Apple - that would be fun to see. Apple only mentions "infringing" as regards the U.S. court, which is a totally different jurisdiction. There is no contempt here in any way.

 

Thanks for posting the ruling language, and bringing clarity to how wrong you are.

That's an interesting twist you tried to apply to that. Well done!

 

You might re-read the actual ruling tho so you get a better sense of what the judge said, the context, and what it meant.

"In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that (innuendo that Samsung is infringing).


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/26/12 at 6:06pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #135 of 167
Contempt of the court, playing it the very childish way... I guess that the UK judge will find that funny.

Apple lawyers will get to learn what is a judiciary publication coming from a court ruling, most Americans here seem to fail to grasp its meaning : this is not an 'ad for a competitor' but rather a detailed text with the court ruling published in order to undo the bad publicity and reputation damage done to a person or company coming from claims or allegations made in the press -here from Apple spoke-persons/lawyers- which were then considered false and thus slanderous by a court. Basically you try to clean the name as much as it was dirtied, and have the offender to foot the bill. Judiciary publications are mostly used against bogus stories coming from the tabloids trash, against libel, etc.
post #136 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

In which case the German ruling is not only irrelevant in the UK, it's invalid in Germany.

Tell it to the Germans.
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 #137 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Contempt of the court, playing it the very childish way... I guess that the UK judge will find that funny.

The idiot judge can find it however he wants, your sentence conjures a visual image of a bewigged judge rocking back and forth in a corner giggling manically to himself...

...meanwhile Apple has complied concisely and precisely with the judgement handed down from a higher court.

The word's Birss used in his ruling are a double edged sword, Apple has every right, nay duty to use them, in complying with the High Court's ruling.
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 #138 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

A fact of German or US law is of no relevance to a UK court-ruled clarification posted on Apple's UK website.  Those facts should not be there, they serve only to undermine the UK judgement.  So no, actually they shouldn't talk about them.

 

It should also be noted that freedom of expression in the UK is not the same as freedom of speech in the US.  See the following about scandalising of judges: http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp207_Scandalising_the_Court_for_web.pdf

 

 

Yes, but you keep failing to address one point: the judge could have wrote the notice himself and have Apple post it. He choose not to do so. He let Apple write it. Apple complied with the Order, provided for the public the judge's reasoning (e.g. Apple's products are cooler), and pointed out that the Judge's decision only applies in the UK and that in other places Courts have found the opposite. That is important because it is highly likely people living outside the UK visit Apple's UK site. 

 

Moreover, you'd be a fool if you thought Apple didn't run the notice before its UK counsel first. It probably even had them write it. 

 

You agreed earlier that you disagreed with the Judge's ruling, as such, perhaps you should spend more energy on that.

post #139 of 167
I bet apple got their lawyers to help write this up, I seriously doubt they can get in trouble for this
post #140 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That's an interesting twist you tried to apply to that. Well done!

 

You might re-read the actual ruling tho so you get a better sense of what the judge said, the context, and what it meant.

"In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that (innuendo that Samsung is infringing).

 

I'm not sure how you can fail to understand this: "In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, 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."

 

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.

post #141 of 167

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/23/13 at 6:05am
post #142 of 167

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/23/13 at 6:07am
post #143 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

...except, ironically, in their home court where the CA jury ruled that the Samsung Galaxy Tab did not infringe.

 

Gosh, wonder why Apple forgot to include that one.

 

...umm, because it's their website.

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 #144 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

...except, ironically, in their home court where the CA jury ruled that the Samsung Galaxy Tab did not infringe.

 

Gosh, wonder why Apple forgot to include that one.

It's ironic that you take comfort in the one count Samsung wasn't found guilty on, and ignore the dozens of convictions and the billion dollar fine. I guess that's how losers live with themselves.

post #145 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

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.

Truthful? I did a search for "apple samsung germany galaxy" and I found a link to a story saying that Apple lost in a germany court case.

 

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/21/german-court-rules-that-motorola-samsung-dont-violate-apple-patent/

post #146 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


Not at all. They were ordered to post the statement by the court. They did.
It had to be on the front page, in a common font and no less than 14 pt type. With a link to the ruling. It is.
Yes they took the order by letter of the law, not intent. But that's not contemptible. The Judge likely expected it or he would have been more careful with wording the order. Especially in not prohibiting additional comments from the court record.


Apple used 14px font, not 14pt font, two separate things. "px" is pixels and is smaller than a "pt". This is another sneaky way to make the text smaller (weasel/lawyer talk).

 

http://images.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/styles/legal-judgement.css

post #147 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

Yes, but you keep failing to address one point: the judge could have wrote the notice himself and have Apple post it. He choose not to do so. He let Apple write it. Apple complied with the Order, provided for the public the judge's reasoning (e.g. Apple's products are cooler), and pointed out that the Judge's decision only applies in the UK and that in other places Courts have found the opposite. That is important because it is highly likely people living outside the UK visit Apple's UK site. 

 

Moreover, you'd be a fool if you thought Apple didn't run the notice before its UK counsel first. It probably even had them write it. 

 

You agreed earlier that you disagreed with the Judge's ruling, as such, perhaps you should spend more energy on that.

  1. I don't see that the judge's decision not to write the notice himself is relevant.  He gave Apple the responsibility of writing the notice themselves, but not complete freedom to publish it on their own terms.  There will be an expectation of following the intent of the court ruling.
  2. People outside the UK visiting the UK site are not the court's concern.
  3. I'm sure Apple's UK counsel are very good.  That doesn't mean they're right, or that the judge will agree with their interpretation of the order and the law.
  4. Apple lost the case and then lost the appeal.  They win so often elsewhere that, even though I'm not convinced they should have lost, they should just let it lie.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #148 of 167
Quote:

Originally Posted by elroth View Post

 

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.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/27/12 at 5:11am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #149 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by elroth View Post

 

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.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html

 

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.

post #150 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

 

People outside the UK visiting the UK site are not the court's concern.

 

Tell that to the EU.

 

The UK judges want their cake and want to eat it too?

 

Didn't they say it is an EU wide ruling?

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 #151 of 167
"Agreed. This has contempt of court written all over it."

Hard to see how stating the truth could be contempt of court.

You have to hand it to Apple's copywriters %u2013 they've managed to turn the Judge's ruling into a powerful condemnation of Samsung. The reader will go away thinking that Samsung offer a crappy, "uncool" derivative product, yet Apple haven't broken any rules.

I've been looking forward to see how Apple would spin this, and they haven't disappointed. What I would give to see the look on Samsung's Publicity Director's face when s/he reads this...
Macs. Then: IIc. IIsi. IIfx. Color Classic. LCII. LCIII. Beige G3 266. G4 450. Now: i7 iMac. 24-inch iMac 2.8GHz. MBP 2GHz. G5 2GHz. iPad 32GB wifi
Tunes: 32GB iPhone 4G. 32GB iPhone 3GS. 32GB...
Reply
Macs. Then: IIc. IIsi. IIfx. Color Classic. LCII. LCIII. Beige G3 266. G4 450. Now: i7 iMac. 24-inch iMac 2.8GHz. MBP 2GHz. G5 2GHz. iPad 32GB wifi
Tunes: 32GB iPhone 4G. 32GB iPhone 3GS. 32GB...
Reply
post #152 of 167

Sorry to be pedantic but this is not a UK judgement. It was made in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. It does not apply in Scotland or any other part of the UK.

 

Remember what the the letters UK stand for, it's NOT one country, and it certainly doesn't have a single legal system.

post #153 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omegazeta View Post

Sorry to be pedantic but this is not a UK judgement. It was made in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. It does not apply in Scotland or any other part of the UK.

 

Remember what the the letters UK stand for, it's NOT one country, and it certainly doesn't have a single legal system.

So Apple could write "The judge is a tosser" in Gaelic an post it if they wanted to?

 

Is é an breitheamh tosser.

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 #154 of 167

I think the correct phrase would be "Is é an breitheamh onórach a tosser"
 

post #155 of 167
Originally Posted by Omegazeta View Post
I think the correct phrase would be "Is é an breitheamh onórach a tosser"

 

I knew teaching myself some Irish would come in handy one day.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #156 of 167
You guys still arguing?

Funny how haters try to make this seem like a big deal, but when Samsung lawyers publicized documents that Judge Koh had dis-allowed the same people were defending them.

Maybe I'm stupid, but IMO releasing documents that could taint a jury is far worse than having a little fun with your "apology".

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #157 of 167
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH BITCHES! **** SAMSUNG

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #158 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post
. . .

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

I don't think there is a law that says "Thou shall not piss off a UK judge". You can't slander one or put words in a judge's mouth. But you sure can quote what a judge says. And if it pisses him off, too bad. Ain't a thing he can do about it. I hope his neighbours know all about it.

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #159 of 167

No idea if this might be connected to how Apple's fulfilled its posting requirements, but there's a hearing scheduled for tomorrow morning with regard to the case.

 

 

Appeals Court Schedule:

COURT 70 
Before LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN and
SIR ROBIN JACOB
Thursday, 1st November, 2012
At 9.15am

APPLICATION
A3/2012/1845(E) Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited -v- Apple INC (a company incorporated under the laws of the State of California, USA). Application of Claimant for direction.


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/31/12 at 3:57pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #160 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

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.

Vindicated.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
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