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 2

post #41 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

They could put it in the real estate section. 

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

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.

Sorry.

Just couldn't help myself.

Had to reply to this.

(>_<)
Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
post #42 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.

Agreed and they should be punished for this act. It is irritating when adults cannot simply follow the rule of law. In this case, Apple lost and needs to follow through with the judge's decision in good faith. This post is nothing more than playing a complicated game of semantics. If Apple had followed through, in an honest manner, I would have simply thought, "Okay, Apple did as instructed. Life moves on.". But, now, after reading their post, all I can think about is how Apple choose to act in a childish manner. I am neither an Apple fan or an "other" fan, but this really makes me think less of Apple. Just another example that people won't take responsibility. And yes, Samsung will also have to take responsibility as well.

 

People make jokes about Apple getting around the court's decision, and don't think twice that it is wrong to do so. I guess that is no different than finding any loophole to avoid paying a person's fair share of taxes. More of the self-entitlement mentality...or better yet, the sandbox "Me!!! Me!!! ME!!!" mentality.

 

Grow up people.

post #43 of 167
Contempt of court??????
They complied with the exact rulings and even quoted the judge's comments.

How fair can they get. Of course if you just hate Apple, anything except closing the doors and giving the money back to the shareholders (are you listening Dell) is not acceptable.

Just a thought.
Thanks to asdasd for a well focused comment.

en
post #44 of 167

LMAO at everyone butthurt about Apple's cleverness. 

 

They followed the ruling, and their legal dept. cleared the wording.   *shrugs*

 

If Samsung doesn't like it they can apply to the courts. 

 

Meanwhile, Apple is selling iPads well into the double digits, and over 100 million in total so far. 

post #45 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Agreed and they should be punished for this act. It is irritating when adults cannot simply follow the rule of law. In this case, Apple lost and needs to follow through with the judge's decision in good faith. This post is nothing more than playing a complicated game of semantics. If Apple had followed through, in an honest manner, I would have simply thought, "Okay, Apple did as instructed. Life moves on.". But, now, after reading their post, all I can think about is how Apple choose to act in a childish manner. I am neither an Apple fan or an "other" fan, but this really makes me think less of Apple. Just another example that people won't take responsibility. And yes, Samsung will also have to take responsibility as well.

 

People make jokes about Apple getting around the court's decision, and don't think twice that it is wrong to do so. I guess that is no different than finding any loophole to avoid paying a person's fair share of taxes. More of the self-entitlement mentality...or better yet, the sandbox "Me!!! Me!!! ME!!!" mentality.

 

Grow up people.

In your taxes comparison, it would actually be more like someone getting away with paying exactly what they are legally required to pay. 

 

I really don't see why people are getting bent about Apple following the order. Did you expect them to get down on the knees and wail an apology? They were order to publish a notice with specific requirements. They did so. Wanting anything more is simply being childish.

"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 #46 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.

 

... but they declare Samsung DID infringe.  Twice even.

post #47 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

In your taxes comparison, it would actually be more like someone getting away with paying exactly what they are legally required to pay. 

 

I really don't see why people are getting bent about Apple following the order. Did you expect them to get down on the knees and wail an apology? They were order to publish a notice with specific requirements. They did so. Wanting anything more is simply being childish.

Sigh. No, I don't want the to "wail". I never said anything such as that. I expected them to state that they were wrong in their statement. If they wanted to add something along the lines of "pursuant to court order number xxxxxx we were wrong in our statement regarding Samsung...."

 

Adding the extra nonsense about the other cases bypasses the actual point of the court's order and they should be held in contempt for the act. 

 

What more did "I want"? Nothing. Never said I did. Reread my post.

post #48 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

In your taxes comparison, it would actually be more like someone getting away with paying exactly what they are legally required to pay. 

 

I really don't see why people are getting bent about Apple following the order. Did you expect them to get down on the knees and wail an apology? They were order to publish a notice with specific requirements. They did so. Wanting anything more is simply being childish.

 

Here's the deal, Apple's post is childish.  If you are/were a parent, would you accept this as a proper apology for bullying another kid?  "Sorry for calling you a liar Tommy... but John and Jane's parents say you are!"

post #49 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

 

... but they declare Samsung DID infringe.  Twice even.

Providing more libel...something they should be punished for. If Samsung can be held up by their short and curlies, so should Apple (if and when they make an error...as they did here).

post #50 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Providing more libel...something they should be punished for. If Samsung can be held up by their short and curlies, so should Apple (if and when they make an error...as they did here).

It's not libel if it is 100% true and provable. They mentioned that other courts have decided differently. 100% factual. Therefore not libelous. 

"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 #51 of 167

Priceless lol.gif

post #52 of 167
Apple. basically mocked the orders of the UK judge and made a fool of him.

Not agreeing with his ruling is one thing, but to bring in other European courts decisions is going too far.
This is contempt of court.

"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 #53 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

 

Here's the deal, Apple's post is childish.  If you are/were a parent, would you accept this as a proper apology for bullying another kid?  "Sorry for calling you a liar Tommy... but John and Jane's parents say you are!"

I am a parent. Do you think the courts can somehow impose sincerity? The bully could say say "I am soooo sorry Tommy for calling you a liar. You aren't a liar at all. I mean it". Would that be more sincere?

 

First of all, has anyone read the order itself? Did it order a warm, heartfelt and sincere apology, maybe with gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes? Or did it order that Apple post a notice of the UK court decision that Samsung didn't copy? If the latter, then job done. If the former, then the UK courts are dumber than I thought.

 

The deal is that Apple's post is not childish. It appears to obey the order, as I understood it. There was no editorializing, but it did include related facts. I see no problem with it unless someone can produce the order itself and show me where it had to be an apology that sounded sincere.

"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 #54 of 167

looks still wrong in the first sentence

 

...regional website to state that Samsung did infringe on its ...

 

should it not say .....Samsung did NOT infringe on its ..

 

 

post #55 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

It's not libel if it is 100% true and provable. They mentioned that other courts have decided differently. 100% factual. Therefore not libelous. 

Well. .kinda.

 

I don't believe the mention of the German court is telling the whole story and therefor still a bit misleading. I think I'm correct in remembering that a higher German court overruled the flawed finding of the lower one that found Samsung to infringe. AFAIK only the recent US jury trial finds Samsung to be infringing on that particular design patent, either the US or EU version.  The German, Dutch and UK courts all found they did not.

 

EDIT: I'll take a few minutes to check for certain later, but the German ruling Apple refers to may be the preliminary one where they suggested ways that Samsung could avoid Apple's design claims on the original Tab. Samsung listened and made minimal changes, and the German court then agreed Samsung was not infringing. In any case I think Apple is only mentioning half the story. The German courts found Samsung in the clear rather than guilty IIRC. 


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/26/12 at 8:00am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #56 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

... but they declare Samsung DID infringe.  Twice even.

Which is accurate as they were found guilty in other courts of law and Apple states that clearly. Apple isn't lying about anything.

The UK court could have ruled that the page should only state that Samsung didn't infringe on their products but they didn't do that. Apple's lawyers know what they are doing.

This court was clearly trying to use their ruling to influence other courts by making a global statement - a UK website is not limited to UK residents. If other courts find Samsung guilty, that's their decision to make.
post #57 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

 

... but they declare Samsung DID infringe.  Twice even.

 

Was that a lie? The judge order did not say Apple cannot mention the outcome of other lawsuits.

post #58 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

This court was clearly trying to use their ruling to influence other courts by making a global statement - a UK website is not limited to UK residents. If other courts find Samsung guilty, that's their decision to make.

This ruling of non-infringement applies to the entire EU, not just the UK.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #59 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Apple. basically mocked the orders of the UK judge and made a fool of him.
Not agreeing with his ruling is one thing, but to bring in other European courts decisions is going too far.
This is contempt of court.

The judge made a fool of himself by writing such a petty, childish order. He needed no help from Apple.

"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 #60 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Looks like Apple failed to follow court order here

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.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #61 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Apple. basically mocked the orders of the UK judge and made a fool of him.
Not agreeing with his ruling is one thing, but to bring in other European courts decisions is going too far.
This is contempt of court.

 

So when there is no contempt of court finding will you and all the others of your ilk posting on this thread come and admit that you were wrong?  You're welcome to post a link to a page where it says "the UK court did not find Apple in contempt but Fandroids throughout the world think Tim Cook and his lawyers deserve to rot in jail for their childishness."

post #62 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Apple. basically mocked the orders of the UK judge and made a fool of him.
Not agreeing with his ruling is one thing, but to bring in other European courts decisions is going too far.
This is contempt of court.

 

It is not contempt of court and the judge made a fool of himself. 

 

He did not order an apology. He said that Apple must post a statement saying Samsung did not infringe and a link to the verdict. Apple has complied. He said that Apple did not have to make it into an advert for Samsung products, Apple has not.

 

He cannot ask Apple to remove his comments (he did say that the iPad was cool and the Samsung tab was 'thin' and 'insubstantial) because then he would be ordering censorship of records that are already public.

 

He can ask Apple to remove the final paragraph since the outcomes in non-EU countries are not relevant.

 

 

Apple has not offered an opinion, it has simply presented the facts. The judge said it, the judge has to deal with it.

post #63 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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.


I find that stupid too, but it's not your place to say what that order 'deserves'. Apple is not above the law, that's a primordial rule. If they don't want to play by the rules, they'll end up like MS in the 90's in EU, and they won't be able to say that's not their fault.

post #64 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

 

So when there is no contempt of court finding will you and all the others of your ilk posting on this thread come and admit that you were wrong?  You're welcome to post a link to a page where it says "the UK court did not find Apple in contempt but Fandroids throughout the world think Tim Cook and his lawyers deserve to rot in jail for their childishness."

 

In the US case, Judge Koh told Samsung that documents they filed late were not admissible as evidence. Samsung's response was to release them to the public. I don't remember the Android fans complaining too loudly about that.

post #65 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.

The above is so full of crap I can smell it way over here in the Midwest. 1rolleyes.gif
post #66 of 167

The big mistake here was made by Samsung. They brought the case to begin with, so as soon as the judge said that iPad was cool and the Samsung tab was thin and insubstantial, they should have called a halt to it and requested a new judge (bias?). They were so focussed on the winning that they failed to see how it could easily turn into a marketing loss.

post #67 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz View Post

 

In the US case, Judge Koh told Samsung that documents they filed late were not admissible as evidence. Samsung's response was to release them to the public. I don't remember the Android fans complaining too loudly about that.

 

Of course not, because in that case the judge really was being so unreasonable that Samsung couldn't rationally abide by her decision... /s

post #68 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.

 

The judge never said Apple had to apologise (Why should they? They didn't bring the case). He simply said Apple needed to state that Samsung did not infringe on its trademark. Apple put that right at the top of the page, along with a link to the judgement. 

 

The judge can tell Apple to remove the last paragraph (it's irrelevant to the UK judgement) , but will he risk making a fool of himself by telling Apple to censor the reasons behind his decision?

 

"Samsung's products do not infringe on Apple's trademark because Apple's iPad is cool, and the Samsung product is thin and insubstantial."

 

That's what the judge said and Apple is well within its rights to quote him as it's the reason they lost the case.


Edited by Rayz - 10/26/12 at 8:33am
post #69 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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.

 

This is my major takeaway also.  The real problem is the ridiculous order and I'm not sure why any sane judicial body wouldn't have vacated it when Apple appealed, although the UK courts are overly fond of this kind of parental nonsense.  

 

Remedies and penalties should take standard forms that are established by the legal system as a whole.  A judge isn't (or shouldn't be) God.  They shouldn't have the right to just make up whatever punishment they feel good about.  I mean what if he said that every Apple employee had to wash every Samsung employees car for a year or something equally stupid?  The UK legal system, is clearly a f*cking joke.  

post #70 of 167
Quote:

Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

 

... Grow up people.

 

I don't know how you can say this in reference to what is a childish, ridiculous judgement in the first place.  The judge was acting immaturely, and the UK legal system is insane to support such nonsense. 

post #71 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Sigh. No, I don't want the to "wail". I never said anything such as that. I expected them to state that they were wrong in their statement. If they wanted to add something along the lines of "pursuant to court order number xxxxxx we were wrong in our statement regarding Samsung...."

 

Adding the extra nonsense about the other cases bypasses the actual point of the court's order and they should be held in contempt for the act. 

 

What more did "I want"? Nothing. Never said I did. Reread my post.

Did the order say they had to say they were wrong?

 

If all the order said was they had to post the court decision, they have done so. Beyond that, what else do you want? You say nothing, but only because you assume more was asked. Maybe that is the case. Show me. Otherwise, my question stands, beyond what they did, anything else you would like is 'more'.

 

Apple has a lot of lawyers on their payroll. I am pretty sure them ensured the met every part of the order. So, anything you want over and above, is over and above. If you want them to say they were wrong, that is over and above (unless you can show me otherwise).

"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 #72 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

This is my major takeaway also.  The real problem is the ridiculous order and I'm not sure why any sane judicial body wouldn't have vacated it when Apple appealed, although the UK courts are overly fond of this kind of parental nonsense.  

 

Remedies and penalties should take standard forms that are established by the legal system as a whole.  A judge isn't (or shouldn't be) God.  They shouldn't have the right to just make up whatever punishment they feel good about.  I mean what if he said that every Apple employee had to wash every Samsung employees car for a year or something equally stupid?  The UK legal system, is clearly a f*cking joke.  

Nice generalisation.  You're basically writing off one of the world's leading legal systems (that many other countries base their legal systems on, including the U.S.) because you disagree with one judge's decision on one case.  Nice.

 

Out of curiosity, do you have any legal background at all , or are you just spouting uninformed rubbish?

post #73 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

I don't know how you can say this in reference to what is a childish, ridiculous judgement in the first place.  The judge was acting immaturely, and the UK legal system is insane to support such nonsense. 

 

Here's a conspiracy theory:

 

Samsung brought the case. Not Apple

Samsung wanted to get a judgement in the UK stating that it did not infringe and it would like a public statement from Apple, if the case went its way.

The judge decided that under UK law, Apple did not infringe, but also thought that such a statement would be tantamount to forcing Apple to advertise Samsung products.

So, during the case, he throws Apple a massive bone....

 

Either that, or the judge got dazzled by being in the spotlight and shot himself in the foot while trying to appear hip.

post #74 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

This is my major takeaway also.  The real problem is the ridiculous order and I'm not sure why any sane judicial body wouldn't have vacated it when Apple appealed, although the UK courts are overly fond of this kind of parental nonsense.  

 

Remedies and penalties should take standard forms that are established by the legal system as a whole.  A judge isn't (or shouldn't be) God.  They shouldn't have the right to just make up whatever punishment they feel good about.  I mean what if he said that every Apple employee had to wash every Samsung employees car for a year or something equally stupid?  The UK legal system, is clearly a f*cking joke.  

I've read people that justify the public shaming aspect of the order with "well, Apple sued, they lost, so they should have to acknowledge that". Except Apple didn't sue. In this case, it was Samsung that initiate the lawsuit. They won. Good for them. It then just becomes petty for the judge to require a public shaming. His decision might be valid (debatable) but his order is just nonsensical. 

"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 #75 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

This is my major takeaway also.  The real problem is the ridiculous order and I'm not sure why any sane judicial body wouldn't have vacated it when Apple appealed, although the UK courts are overly fond of this kind of parental nonsense.  

 

Remedies and penalties should take standard forms that are established by the legal system as a whole.  A judge isn't (or shouldn't be) God.  They shouldn't have the right to just make up whatever punishment they feel good about.  I mean what if he said that every Apple employee had to wash every Samsung employees car for a year or something equally stupid?  The UK legal system, is clearly a f*cking joke.  

I thought it a bit silly myself when it was first ordered. But now with Apple's latest response to the judge's order it does seem to serve a purpose. Apple continues to assert that Samsung is infringing on this design patent even after the EU wide legal judgement that they do not, and apparently the UK judge may have anticipated Apple's continued claims contrary to the ruling.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #76 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Looks like Apple failed to follow court order here

Looks like you failed comprehension in school...

post #77 of 167

From good old Wikipedia:

 

A person found in contempt of court is called a "contemnor." To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt:

  • Existence of a lawful order
  • The potential contemnor's knowledge of the order
  • The potential contemnor's ability to comply
  • The potential contemnor's failure to comply

 

The other "direct" form of contempt is disrepect in the presence of the judge or disruption of the actual legal procedings, which clearly doesn't apply here.

 

Apple was ordered to do something; they did it.  Ergo no "contempt" in a legal sense. 

 

If I was ordered to give you $1000 as compensation, I could include a note saying "I think this is totally unfair and the judge made 1000 errors during the trial, but I am required to give you a $1000, so here you go." and that would not be contempt either.  Fortunately we live in nations of laws and not ones run my judicial god-emperors.

post #78 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Sigh. No, I don't want the to "wail". I never said anything such as that. I expected them to state that they were wrong in their statement. If they wanted to add something along the lines of "pursuant to court order number xxxxxx we were wrong in our statement regarding Samsung...."

 

Adding the extra nonsense about the other cases bypasses the actual point of the court's order and they should be held in contempt for the act. 

 

What more did "I want"? Nothing. Never said I did. Reread my post.

 

In the UK, a judge may order you to apologise, but they will not ask you to say you were wrong. I don't know why that is but I think it's because under UK law, it is your right to disagree, even if the judgement goes against you. In this country, even when someone has been acquitted of murder, we've had senior police officers telling the press that they are not looking for anyone else in connection with the crime. In short, they are disagreeing with the verdict.

 

Forcing you to say you're wrong would be infringing on that right. If I can refer back to my favourite court-ordered apology, the Sun newspaper vs Elton John.

 

The paper had to put up a front page spread that apologised for stating Elton John was gay. The paper complied, but it never said that Elton John wasn't gay; it only apologised for saying it. The difference is not even subtle.

 

In any case, how can Apple be forced to apologise and say they were wrong when they didn't bring the case in the first place?

 

If you could be forced to say you were wrong or you were forced to say you were guilty, then how could you ever appeal?

post #79 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

 

... but they declare Samsung DID infringe.  Twice even.


yes and they did. They just didn't infringe in the UK.

post #80 of 167
Perfect way to put that statement IMO. The end was the best. Good job Apple.

Since you are a huge corporation and can't say it, I will: Vuck You Samsang
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