or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad - Page 9

post #321 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

You state "nothing more nothing less", care to point out the precise point at which the judgement and original appeal ruling states this?

Reporting true statements of fact is not whining.

The whining from Samsung and these Judges is enough to drown out Heathrow.

There's no need. The judge proposed the wording of the statement. It's indented in the judgment. Where from that do you ever draw the conclusion that it is within Apples license to embellish it? Particularly when the very next paragraph in the judgment asks either counsel for written submissions if they do not like it?

Use the mush between your ears, man. Apples hubris got the better of them.
post #322 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by incidntcoordntr View Post

Am I getting the facts correct ? 

 

Apple has been asked to write the original 'apology' letter because they tried to sue over design patents but lost ? it that it ? the fact that they lost is the whole reason they were being asked to do this ? 

 

No Samsung sued Apple saying they weren't infringing their design patents, copying yes, infringing no so Apple reported this on their website as they were ordered to.

 

Samsung went whining to the Judges who went nuts over this and are now sort of like this:-

 

 

700

 

..except with a more British accent.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #323 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

So they are Lord justices, not Lords, oh well I was never much for all these fancy titles.

 

Time for Apple to hit up the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to sort this mess out if that fails then off to Europe.

Blimey, just ended up on wiki looking at lords.  Seems you can be hereditary or given the title due to the Life Peerages act.  That's how Seb Coe became one.  Generally though it does look like a hereditary & inbred thing!

post #324 of 446

I think probably the majority of the British public that cares about such things would agree that the House Of Lords needs reform, but the right wing Conservative end of the current administration disagrees.

 

Nevertheless the House is a long way away from being a general "hereditary & inbred thing".  As previously mentioned, only 12% of the current House have hereditary peerages, which is only going to reduce from now on.  The majority of the current House are appointed Lords from business, industry, finance, sport and the arts, where incest is hardly a mainstream issue.

 

Outside of the House, there are other Lords in the judiciary branch and other areas of public service, but by and large they're just titles that goes with the job, so of no concern to anyone.  And there are some other hereditary titles that don't sit in the House or in public service, but no one much cares about them, they're just dusty old relics.

 

But none of this is relevant to Apple or British law, and is just more xenophobia to fuel the Apple apologist engine.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #325 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71 View Post

Blimey, just ended up on wiki looking at lords.  Seems you can be hereditary or given the title due to the Life Peerages act.  That's how Seb Coe became one.  Generally though it does look like a hereditary & inbred thing!

 

They should cure their economic problems the way James I did—make up some new title (in his case, baronet) and sell a bunch of them.

post #326 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by incidntcoordntr View Post

Am I getting the facts correct ? 

 

Apple has been asked to write the original 'apology' letter because they tried to sue over design patents but lost ? it that it ? the fact that they lost is the whole reason they were being asked to do this ? 

Nope. Apple didn't sue Samsung in the UK. Samsung sued Apple and Apple countersued. But during the trial Samsung got pissy about Apple's comments about Samsung copying them. So Judge Biriss ordered the notice be published. 

 

What is interesting is that the appeals court judges said that they would not have allowed the order to force Apple to post the notice to stand, except that when Biriss made his original ruling he made a comment about Samsung not be cool. This comment generated a lot of press. Because of that comment and the attention it received the appeals court said they felt they had to let the order stand, otherwise the wouldn't have (one assumes because it was a retarded ruling to begin with).

 

Then after Apple follows exactly what was ordered, Samsung whined to the appeals court and convinced them Apple was giving them the finger and disrespecting them. The judges were convinced but couldn't even say this in court. Instead they made up reasons. They said Apple made untrue and incorrect statements, which is not true at all. They know their decision is so weak that they have actually taken to publicly making their own false statements to support their decision.

 

Nice court system over there.

"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 #327 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post


Your point being?
Apple got the order to put this EXACT quote (and link) on its webpages - nothing more nothing less:

“On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design 000181607-0001.
A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink].”

How hard it is to follow this?
If they did EXACTLY that without WHINING about German and US courts everything would have been fine.
But Apple being Apple ...


 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post


You should learn by now when to withdraw.
But OK:

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

Paragraph 4.

... The following notice shall be posted and displayed upon the Defendant's Websites currently at ...

... The defendant shall arrange for the following notice to be published in The Financial Times; the Daily Mail; The Guardian; Mobile Magazine; and T3 magazine:...
 

 

 

In other words you completely made up the part about the ruling saying nothing more and nothing less. They were instructed what the notice had to included. These instructions said nothing about that having to be the entirety of the posting. One can assume the judge meant nothing more, but that would be an assumption.

"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 #328 of 446

You haven't even got the judge's name right there, let alone that final summation of what's happened.  Can you provide evidence that a judge called Apple's statement untrue and/or incorrect, and the context of why they said that?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #329 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Nope. Apple didn't sue Samsung in the UK. Samsung sued Apple and Apple countersued. But during the trial Samsung got pissy about Apple's comments about Samsung copying them. So Judge Biriss ordered the notice be published. 

 

What is interesting is that the appeals court judges said that they would not have allowed the order to force Apple to post the notice to stand, except that when Biriss made his original ruling he made a comment about Samsung not be cool. This comment generated a lot of press. Because of that comment and the attention it received the appeals court said they felt they had to let the order stand, otherwise the wouldn't have (one assumes because it was a retarded ruling to begin with).

 

Then after Apple follows exactly what was ordered, Samsung whined to the appeals court and convinced them Apple was giving them the finger and disrespecting them. The judges were convinced but couldn't even say this in court. Instead they made up reasons. They said Apple made untrue and incorrect statements, which is not true at all. They know their decision is so weak that they have actually taken to publicly making their own false statements to support their decision.

 

Nice court system over there.

Tulkas, are you being serious here?  Can you take off your blinkers just for a few minutes & think about this?  Which bit of a statement on the apple site along the lines of.. and samsung willfully copied our far more popular ipad.. isn't giving the finger to samsung & the judges?  I'll even say please take of your blinkers if that helps.  I doubt that samsung had to convince anyone; the apple site & press coverage it got would have done that perfectly well.  The lack of common sense you're showing is astounding.


Edited by whatever71 - 11/2/12 at 5:33am
post #330 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

 

 

 

In other words you completely made up the part about the ruling saying nothing more and nothing less. They were instructed what the notice had to included. These instructions said nothing about that having to be the entirety of the posting. One can assume the judge meant nothing more, but that would be an assumption.

The ruling doesn't say anything more and it doesn't say anything less.  He is logically correct.  You are reading it wrong.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #331 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Nope. Apple didn't sue Samsung in the UK. Samsung sued Apple and Apple countersued. But during the trial Samsung got pissy about Apple's comments about Samsung copying them. So Judge Biriss ordered the notice be published. 

 

What is interesting is that the appeals court judges said that they would not have allowed the order to force Apple to post the notice to stand, except that when Biriss made his original ruling he made a comment about Samsung not be cool. This comment generated a lot of press. Because of that comment and the attention it received the appeals court said they felt they had to let the order stand, otherwise the wouldn't have (one assumes because it was a retarded ruling to begin with).

 

Then after Apple follows exactly what was ordered, Samsung whined to the appeals court and convinced them Apple was giving them the finger and disrespecting them. The judges were convinced but couldn't even say this in court. Instead they made up reasons. They said Apple made untrue and incorrect statements, which is not true at all. They know their decision is so weak that they have actually taken to publicly making their own false statements to support their decision.

 

Nice court system over there.

 

&@hill60. 

thanks, 

understand a little better now. what a joke - because of the press created by themselves, the court is ordering a publicity campaign paid for by apple to counter this. 

post #332 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

So they are Lord justices, not Lords, oh well I was never much for all these fancy titles.

 

Time for Apple to hit up the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to sort this mess out if that fails then off to Europe.

Do you chew tobacco? 

post #333 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

 

 

 

In other words you completely made up the part about the ruling saying nothing more and nothing less. They were instructed what the notice had to included. These instructions said nothing about that having to be the entirety of the posting. One can assume the judge meant nothing more, but that would be an assumption.

 

Judge's comment:

 

Quote:

Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:

 

On 9

th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, 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 [link given].

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

 

 

Which part of:

 

"Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:"

 

do you not understand?

 

If Apple wanted to add more to the statement, they should have submitted a request to the judge.  They didn't. Therefore they got slapped down.

 

The fact that Apple have printed a statement in today's papers in full compliance with the court goes to show they knew exactly what needed to be done.  They tried to push it as far as they could.

post #334 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71 View Post

Tulkas, are you being serious here?  Can you take off your blinkers just for a few minutes & think about this?  Which bit of a statement on the apple site along the lines of.. and samsung willfully copied our far more popular ipad.. isn't giving the finger to samsung & the judges?  I'll even say please take of your blinkers if that helps.  I doubt that samsung had to convince anyone; the apple site & press coverage it got would have done that perfectly well.  The lack of common sense you're showing is astounding.

If the court felt they were being disrespected (and perhaps they were) then they should have said so and explained how and why. Instead, all they said was that Apple was in breach because they posted false information (untrue and incorrect actually). I will throw it back to you, use some common sense and explain what part of their notice was factually untrue and incorrect. Because if it wasn't then the court used bad reasoning to reach their conclusion for clarification. If it was disrespect then say so, don't make up reasons. I would have the same problems with their ruling if they had said "Apple in in breach because their notice included statements calling the Queen a bitch". That wouldn't be true either. They aren't supposed to just make up reasons.

"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 #335 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

If the court felt they were being disrespected (and perhaps they were) then they should have said so and explained how and why. Instead, all they said was that Apple was in breach because they posted false information (untrue and incorrect actually). I will throw it back to you, use some common sense and explain what part of their notice was factually untrue and incorrect. Because if it wasn't then the court used bad reasoning to reach their conclusion for clarification. If it was disrespect then say so, don't make up reasons. I would have the same problems with their ruling if they had said "Apple in in breach because their notice included statements calling the Queen a bitch". That wouldn't be true either. They aren't supposed to just make up reasons.

 

What about the fact the German case they mentioned hasn't reached trial yet but they implied the German court had made a final decision? 

 

Or bringing the US case into it where the Tab was actually found to not have infringed?

 

Apple's original statement implied that the UK decision was contrary to both of those decisons when it fact it wasn't.

post #336 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid View Post

 

Judge's comment:

 

 

 

Which part of:

 

"Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:"

 

do you not understand?

 

If Apple wanted to add more to the statement, they should have submitted a request to the judge.  They didn't. Therefore they got slapped down.

 

The fact that Apple have printed a statement in today's papers in full compliance with the court goes to show they knew exactly what needed to be done.  They tried to push it as far as they could.

"propose" != "order". The original order included what should be posted, which differed slightly from what Judge Jacob proposed.  Biriss' order stated "The following notice shall be posted" and detailed what the notice would contain. The appeal ruling order the notice to be posted but only made a proposal as to what it should include (which added the details that it was upheld on appeal and was Europe wide). It was not ordered to contain exactly that information.

 

In either case, that is not what they were slapped with on the clarification motion. The appeal court did NOT say the statement included too much info or reprimand them for including more than was proposed. If that was the issue, then I expect they would have said it. So, arguing over whether Apple should or shouldn't have included the additional info is an interesting intellectual debate, but sort of irrelevant in the face of what the court actually said. What they did say was that it was in breach for including untrue and incorrect statements. Did it?

"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 #337 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz View Post

 

Apple was never required to state that the product 'does not copy' and was never required to apologise. Apple was told to display the judgement on its website; it was never told to pretend to agree with it.

 

They are entitled to include the judge's comments because his comments were the reason for the judgement.  Including the judgements from the other countries? That's probably playing a little fast and loose.

 

The judge's order was to publish on their website and print that the Galaxy Tab does not infringe on the design "patent" of the iPad. (aka "does not copy")

"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 #338 of 446
Tulkas, the problem arose when Apple continued to press for a preliminary injunction on the Tab 7.7 in Germany during and even after the UK judgement that applied to the entire European Union, Germany included, making any finding by that German Appeals Court overruled and dismissed anyway. The UK court felt Apple was attempting to muddy the waters and inject question marks via "innuendo" on whether Samsung was found to be infringing on Apple's "iPad" Community Design, which Samsung is not. There is no standing German court judgement that finds Samsung to be infringing on Apple's design patent, even tho Apple tries to imply there is in their original "compliance" website post. (Nor for that matter is there any US, Australian, Netherlands or other final judgement of Apple design patent infringement by Samsung tablet products). That should explain the UK Appeals Court reference to Apple not being completely truthful about the German Court findings.
 
To be completely clear I'm not saying the order to publish was a necessary order by the court. Much smarter Apple and Samsung counsels argued those points already before several educated and experienced judges who made their decision based on those smart attorney arguments and the law. Instead I'm just attempting to explain in part how it got to where it is now.

Edited by Gatorguy - 11/2/12 at 7:19am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #339 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamC View Post

Time to give it a rest.

 

Everyone thinks he or she is right.

 

Online life isn't real life, get a life and go out and smell the roses and enjoy the sunshine, yes tell your mum you love her.

 

But then there will always be people who think they can suck an egg better than others so don't get upset with such people, they are there to make life interesting.

 

And that makes your position better because....

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Nope, the judges made quite clear that non-infringement of a design patent has nothing whatsoever to do with "copying", they even ordered Apple to post a link to the judgement containing the exact ruling where they made these statements, which Apple duly complied with.

 

Again, substance vs form.  Non-infringe essential means not copying. You people are applying the same logic as Apple;arguing that their first statement followed the order to the tee yet the real substance says something completely different.

"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 #340 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid View Post

 

What about the fact the German case they mentioned hasn't reached trial yet but they implied the German court had made a final decision? 

 

Or bringing the US case into it where the Tab was actually found to not have infringed?

 

Apple's original statement implied that the UK decision was contrary to both of those decisons when it fact it wasn't.

Actually the German case they mentioned has reached trial and Samsung was found to have infringed on Apple's design in 2011. It was upheld by their higher court in Sept 2012.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-21/apple-loses-german-court-ruling-against-samsung-in-patent-suit.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html

 

The cases you are referring to are patent case for some touchscreen patents. They are ongoing. When they mentioned the US case, they didn't claim Samsung was found to have infringed on their tablets, but that they were found to have infringed on their design. Which is 100% true.

 

Have more?

"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 #341 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Very good, but you missed "insult the judge, insult the country of origin of the judge, and at all stages insult anyone who offers any dissenting opinion."


No, I didn't miss it.  I intentionally left out those matters of opinion.  I'm not going to try to argue people out of their opinions.  I'm just pointing out the things that are solid facts.  People keep predicting how the various stages of the case will be decided, and they keep getting it wrong.  Over and over.  They can keep arguing that the ref made a bad call (well, four different refs, in this case), and another bad call and then a third bad call.  Their prerogative.

post #342 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Actually the German case they mentioned has reached trial and Samsung was found to have infringed on Apple's design in 2011. It was upheld by their higher court in Sept 2012.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-21/apple-loses-german-court-ruling-against-samsung-in-patent-suit.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html

 

The cases you are referring to are patent case for some touchscreen patents. They are ongoing. When they mentioned the US case, they didn't claim Samsung was found to have infringed on their tablets, but that they were found to have infringed on their design. Which is 100% true.

 

Have more?

 

I think you'll find that the telegraph link is irrelevant as the english court decision hadn't overruled that when the article was published on 24th July.  Note the key comment on the english ruling - community court & the ruling was binding throughout europe.  So yes, apple were using false information.  But yet again you'll simply ignore the obvious.

 

 

Just a week after the UK court originally said Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7 didn't infringe on the iPad, the German court issued a ban on it saying that it did [2]. Jacob pointed out that the UK court counts as a Community court and its earlier ruling should have been accepted in Dusseldorf.

"Judge Birss was sitting as a Community design court… So his declaration of non-infringement was binding throughout the Community. It was not for a national court… to interfere with this Community wide jurisdiction and declaration," he said in the ruling.

"If courts around Europe simply say they do not agree with each other and give inconsistent decisions, Europe will be the poorer," he admonished.

Given the wide publicity of the German court, which appeared to overrule the UK court, Jacob said public notices from Apple were necessary.

 

Ok, I could be wrong on the dates here but the telegraph one is dated 2nd Nov with an article reposted from 24th July.  TBH there are that many apple cases going on its hard to keep track of what's what.


Edited by whatever71 - 11/2/12 at 7:24am
post #343 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Tulkas, the problem arose when Apple continued to press for a preliminary injunction on the Tab 7.7 in Germany during and even after the UK judgement that applied to the entire European Union, Germany included, making any finding by that German Appeals Court overruled and dismissed anyway. The UK court felt Apple was attempting to muddy the waters and inject question marks via "innuendo" on whether Samsung was found to be infringing on Apple's "iPad" Community Design, which they are not. There is no standing German court judgement that finds Samsung to be infringing on Apple's design patent, even tho Apple tried to imply there was in their original "compliance" website post. That should explain the UK Appeals Court reference to Apple not being completely truthful about the German Court findings.

Sure about that?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html

 

 

 

Quote:

The Duesseldorf Higher Court upheld an earlier ruling and disagreed with the High Court by finding that the device unlawfully copied the design of the iPad.

Samsung said it was “disappointed with the court's ruling” on the Galaxy Tab 7.7, a 7-inch tablet which sells in the UK for £379.

"We will continue to take all available measures, including legal action, to protect our intellectual property rights and defend against Apple's claims to ensure our products remain available to consumers throughout the European Union," a spokesman said.

The German decision came despite the recent, contradictory judgment of the High Court. Judge Colin Birss QC found that none of Samsung's Galaxy Tab range copied the iPad, saying they were "not as cool". He ordered Apple to take out national newspaper adverts admitting as much.

The German preliminary injunction was granted against Samsung's Korean parent company, however, so it would apply to the whole of the EU if enforced.

 

 

So, we are at a point where the UK made an EU wide decision and subsequently the German courts made a contradictory EU wide decision followed by a UK appellate court decision that was also binding EU wide. While the final decision by the UK appellate court might override the latest German decision, that does not change the fact that a German court found that Samsung did infringe. The German higher court upheld this. This was never overturned by a German court. So to claim that a German court found Samsung to have infringed is 100% true and correct.

"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 #344 of 446

Yes, quite sure. You'e making the mistake of mixing a preliminary finding that even if valid would apply to only a single country (Germany) with a final ruling from the UK action acting as an EU patent court that applies to the European Union as a whole, which last time I checked includes Germany.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #345 of 446
This thread is full of IGNORANCE. I love it.
post #346 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71 View Post

 

I think you'll find that the telegraph link is irrelevant as the english court decision hadn't overruled that when the article was published on 24th July.  Note the key comment on the english ruling - community court & the ruling was binding throughout europe.  So yes, apple were using false information.  But yet again you'll simply ignore the obvious.

 

 

Just a week after the UK court originally said Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7 didn't infringe on the iPad, the German court issued a ban on it saying that it did [2]. Jacob pointed out that the UK court counts as a Community court and its earlier ruling should have been accepted in Dusseldorf.

"Judge Birss was sitting as a Community design court… So his declaration of non-infringement was binding throughout the Community. It was not for a national court… to interfere with this Community wide jurisdiction and declaration," he said in the ruling.

"If courts around Europe simply say they do not agree with each other and give inconsistent decisions, Europe will be the poorer," he admonished.

Given the wide publicity of the German court, which appeared to overrule the UK court, Jacob said public notices from Apple were necessary.

Did the german courts find that Samsung infringed? Did their higher court uphold that decision? Is this exactly what Apple stated? It is a factually correct statement to say "a German court found that Samsung infringed upon Apple's design". 100% factual.

"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 #347 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Did the german courts find that Samsung infringed? Did their higher court uphold that decision? Is this exactly what Apple stated? It is a factually correct statement to say "a German court found that Samsung infringed upon Apple's design". 100% factual.

Argue all you want. There is no valid finding of infringement of Apple's Community Design by any German Court. Period.

 

Apple counsel themselves aren't even arguing any German finding is valid, much less overruling a final judgement from the UK court. The original compliance statement was simply a PR effort on Apple's part. Kudos to them for giving it a try. They certainly can afford to. Unfortunately the pendulum swung against them. In their wisdom Apple has agreed to modify their statement, and I believe have already done so.


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/2/12 at 7:33am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #348 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Argue all you want. There is no valid finding of infringement of Apple's Community Design by any German Court. Period.

Did a german court find that Samsung infringed?

"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 #349 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes, quite sure. You'e making the mistake of mixing a preliminary finding that even if valid would apply to only a single country (Germany) with a final ruling from the UK action acting as an EU patent court that applies to the European Union as a whole, which last time I checked includes Germany.

Actually, I clearly stated that the UK decision was a final decision.  The German decision contradicts the UK decision, but the UK was a final. 

 

But the German decision was EU wide.

"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 #350 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

But the German decision was EU wide.

Not to the best of my knowledge it was not. It only concerned a preliminary sales ban within the German borders while awaiting the actual trial concerning possible Community Design infringement. That of course is no longer in play anyway.


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/2/12 at 7:40am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #351 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Not to the best of my knowledge it was not. It only concerned a preliminary sales ban within the German borders with any actual ruling of infringement coming at a later trial on the case itself. That of course is no longer in play anyway.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html

 

 

Quote:
The Duesseldorf Higher Court upheld an earlier ruling and disagreed with the High Court by finding that the device unlawfully copied the design of the iPad.
Samsung said it was “disappointed with the court's ruling” on the Galaxy Tab 7.7, a 7-inch tablet which sells in the UK for £379.
"We will continue to take all available measures, including legal action, to protect our intellectual property rights and defend against Apple's claims to ensure our products remain available to consumers throughout the European Union," a spokesman said.
The German decision came despite the recent, contradictory judgment of the High Court. Judge Colin Birss QC found that none of Samsung's Galaxy Tab range copied the iPad, saying they were "not as cool". He ordered Apple to take out national newspaper adverts admitting as much.
 
The German preliminary injunction was granted against Samsung's Korean parent company, however, so it would apply to the whole of the EU if enforced.

Found to infringe (twice), preliminary injunction, EU wide.

 

A german court found they infringed. Apple stated this. Completely correct and completely true.

"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 #352 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html

 

 

Found to infringe (twice), preliminary injunction, EU wide.

 

A german court found they infringed. Apple stated this. Completely correct and completely true.

Then if there's a valid EU-wide judgement from the German courts Apple should enforce it. . .  Oh, wait....

 

With that said thanks1smile.giffor the mention that the preliminary injunction Apple was arguing for could have applied cross-border if legitimate. I had thought it would have been applicable to Germany alone. In essence Samsung outflanked Apple by not getting bogged down in preliminary sales ban efforts and going straight for a ruling that there was no infringement in the first place.


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/2/12 at 7:54am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #353 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Then if there's a valid EU-wide judgement from the German courts Apple should enforce it. . .  Oh, wait....

I never claimed the could enforce it. The UK courts saw to that. Don't try a strawman on me please.

 

Simple question: Did a german court find that Samsung infringed?

"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 #354 of 446

The judge is right.  Apple's Statement is so convoluted and long.  They turned what could have been stated VERY CLEARLY in two sentences into a whole essay that few people would bother to read in its entirety.  With Apple's mastery of simplicity in design, they would obviously know the difference between a Clear and Concise message versus a confusing and Convoluted one.  They clearly made the statement that way intentionally to make the whole point of the statement much less clear to the average person.. 


Edited by arrowspark - 11/2/12 at 8:19am
post #355 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71 View Post

 

Give up Gatorguy, we just have to accept that some apple fans simply won't see other side of arguments & think that one of the fairest & most respected legal systems in the world is wrong.  The apple marketing machine has to be given credit for the ability to completely taint people's views.  Who needs legal judgements when at the end of the day apple are always right; they have to be don't they as they invented everything anyone ever wished for (or is yet to wish for) in a smart phone.

Another useless strawman. I guess if you have nothing of value to say, then attacking the person instead of the argument makes sense.

"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 #356 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

I never claimed the could enforce it. The UK courts saw to that. Don't try a strawman on me please.

 

Simple question: Did a german court find that Samsung infringed?

 

The german court tried to find that samsung infringed but they had no jurisdiction to do so.  So to put a statement on the apple site but not explain that regardless of what the german court believed, it was irrelevant anyway again shows how apple were playing with the so called facts.

post #357 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowspark View Post

The judge is right.  Apple's Statement is so convoluted and long.  They turned what could have been stated VERY CLEARLY in two sentences into a whole editorial that few people would bother to read.

Where did they editorialize? They added 4 paragraphs. Three directly referenced the UK decision and the judge's own words. The forth mentioned two other court decisions. Those are facts not opinion, thus not editorialized.

"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 #358 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Simple question: Did a german court find that Samsung infringed?

 

Doesn't matter if they did, wholly irrelevant to the ruling, to the court-ordered statement, and to the subsequent reprimand.

 

Factual accuracy is not the point of the reprimand, it's the deliberate muddying of the water, against the purpose of the court order.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #359 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Another useless strawman. I guess if you have nothing of value to say, then attacking the person instead of the argument makes sense.

Yes Tulkas, but you're saying that the legal result is wrong & apple were blatantly saying the same.  Get over it, apple lost the appeal fair & square & have now semi-complied with the newspaper ads at least.  Interestingly there's some sites speculating that even that could cause a problem with no easy identification that the ad was from apple!

As for attacking the person, take that up with the global moderator that inspires all on here to do just that.  Aah, I feel the need to type global moderator again as it makes me feel powerful too;)


best add too, that according to the global moderator it doesn't matter what I nor anyone else from england says as we're all liars...

post #360 of 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

 

Simple question: Did a german court find that Samsung infringed?

No sir. I tried as best I could to explain why and can't think of anything more to help you understand something you're obviously struggling with. I'll let you and the handful of others still carrying on to get back to it. Don't let me further interrupt. . .

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 › UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad