UK court orders Apple to rewrite website statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad - Page 10

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatever71 

 

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.

Bullshit. The Düsseldorf is the German court authorized to make EU-wide community design decisions, exactly as the High Court is the UK's designated court for the same matters. Don't make up facts just because you don't have the facts. That's pathetic. It is also irrelevant to the statement of fact.

How were they playing with the facts? The fact is, a german court found Samsung infringed. Apple stated that a german court found that they infringed. That isn't playing with facts. That is stating facts. Even if the German injunction only applied to Germany or only applied to Düsseldorf itself, it is still a fact that they found Samsung infringed. 

But it isn't relevant and affects the context of the court ordered statement.  It's wilfully clouding the intent.  That's the problem, and that's why they're in trouble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

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. . .

I didn't ask you why. I asked you did a German court find that they infringed. I suppose if you couldn't understand the question, you wouldn't be able to find the answer.

Since you tried so hard and couldn't find the answer, I will help you: yes, in fact a German court found that Samsung did infringe on Apple's design. That is a matter of fact. You may not like that fact. But it is a fact. You don't get to make up your own facts (seems to be something a few of you need to do to make your point, which is sad). Apple included this fact in their notice. 

Originally Posted by Crowley 
But it isn't relevant and affects the context of the court ordered statement.  It's wilfully clouding the intent.  That's the problem, and that's why they're in trouble.

You'd say the same thing if Apple kept a single instance of the word "best" anywhere else on their website. 

Apple obeyed the court. Period. That's all the court is allowed to do. Nothing was said about rewriting any other part of the website, and nothing was said about what Apple could NOT say in addition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowley 

But it isn't relevant and affects the context of the court ordered statement.  It's wilfully clouding the intent.  That's the problem, and that's why they're in trouble.

Maybe that is true. That is not what the court said. If you are correct, then the court should have said that. Did they? No. They instead claimed Apple posted false information, which is not true.  Maybe the judges are just softheaded and didn't realize that making up their own reasons is bad form, even for a UK judge.

Where did the court claim Apple provided false information?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

I didn't ask you why. I asked you did a German court find that they infringed. I suppose if you couldn't understand the question, you wouldn't be able to find the answer.

 

Since you tried so hard and couldn't find the answer, I will help you: yes, in fact a German court found that Samsung did infringe on Apple's design. That is a matter of fact. You may not like that fact. But it is a fact. You don't get to make up your own facts (seems to be something a few of you need to do to make your point, which is sad). Apple included this fact in their notice. 

Very last try: The German court cannot find infringement where a final EU-wide ruling finds there was none. Anything ruling the German Appeals Court might have attempted was after the UK had published a final judgement. So NO there is no finding of infringement by a German court.  Apple's legal counsel understands and is not arguing that there's a finding of infringement by the Germans and thus legitimate to state. If you had legal training I've no doubt you could grasp the distinction as well. Heck, I understand it and didn't need legal training to do so.

...as you guys were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

Bullshit. The Düsseldorf is the German court authorized to make EU-wide community design decisions, exactly as the High Court is the UK's designated court for the same matters. Don't make up facts just because you don't have the facts. That's pathetic. It is also irrelevant to the statement of fact.

 

How were they playing with the facts? The fact is, a german court found Samsung infringed. Apple stated that a german court found that they infringed. That isn't playing with facts. That is stating facts. Even if the German injunction only applied to Germany or only applied to Düsseldorf itself, it is still a fact that they found Samsung infringed. 

man, you don't stop do you?  You need to go back to the reason for this thread.  What you keep going on about is noise - the english court required apple to do something simple - they were to redress the balance after implying that the english decision was wrong.  You are siding with apple making the comments about irrelevant german case & american case which as we all know stands a good chance of being overturned - this clearly shows apple playing with the facts.  I'm getting really bored with this conversation.  You keep asking for responses to your questions but evade ones such as one I asked you earlier - how on earth anyone with the ability to read wouldn't have seen the apple original statement as a finger to the judge & samsung?  You want all to agree that apple were right in their action because technically it met the requirement with the judge not giving the lawyers the exact wording that was required.  Their lawyers must be more informed now & likely suggested that after trying & failing to turn the saga into an apple ad they take down the ad.

Bad grammar & punctuation in here as can't bothered anymore

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

You'd say the same thing if Apple kept a single instance of the word "best" anywhere else on their website. 

 

Apple obeyed the court. Period. That's all the court is allowed to do. Nothing was said about rewriting any other part of the website, and nothing was said about what Apple could NOT say in addition.

Trading standards would possibly have something to say about apple & any other company using the word best to describe their products :)

Oh,english humour (note, not humor) in use there before anyone goes off & comes back with websites advertising their products as the best.  

Originally Posted by whatever71 
Trading standards would possibly have something to say about apple & any other company using the word best to describe their products :)

They've been doing it for years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatever71 

man, you don't stop do you?  You need to go back to the reason for this thread.  What you keep going on about is noise - the english court required apple to do something simple - they were to redress the balance after implying that the english decision was wrong.  You are siding with apple making the comments about irrelevant german case & american case which as we all know stands a good chance of being overturned - this clearly shows apple playing with the facts.  I'm getting really bored with this conversation.  You keep asking for responses to your questions but evade ones such as one I asked you earlier - how on earth anyone with the ability to read wouldn't have seen the apple original statement as a finger to the judge & samsung?  You want all to agree that apple were right in their action because technically it met the requirement with the judge not giving the lawyers the exact wording that was required.  Their lawyers must be more informed now & likely suggested that after trying & failing to turn the saga into an apple ad they take down the ad.

Bad grammar & punctuation in here as can't bothered anymore

I ask simple questions which you guys don't seem to be able to answer, at least not with resorting to making up facts.

I'll answer your question: did Apple intend their notice to be a middle finger to the UK courts? maybe. And if the UK courts were convinced that it was, then say that and do something about it. It is unbecoming for them to instead make up reasons, like Apple making false statements, and then using that to claim breach. If they have to resort to make believe, then that shows they probably couldn't find an actual reason to find them in breach.

Apple lawyers are complying now because it has been demonstrated that the UK courts are out of step and out of line. They realize they are going to continue to be the nail with the UK courts hammer, so bend over and take it once and for all. They are punishing Apple for a disagreement they have with the German courts. Apple had every right to continue their legal activities in Germany. But since the German courts were showing up the UK courts to be a bunch a buffoons, they punish Apple for that. Further, the punishment that Apple make the notice was observed by the UK appeal court to be wrong, but retained only because of statements made by the buffoon judge in the original proceedings getting so much press. The German and US cases were not irrelevant, they were very much related to to the case at hand. They added context to the UK decision. They might have pissed off they UK judges, but they still need to base their decisions on fact, not make believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

They've been doing it for years.

No they haven't.  Trading Standards don't interfere with subjective superlatives, only factual claims, and even then it'll more likely be the Advertising Standards Authority.  Stop spreading this nonsense please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

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.

you are right, "Editorial" was a bad chooice of words.  But it doesn't change the fact that Apple took 4 paragraphs to say what an average person would take 2 sentences to say.   Come on, this is Apple, masters of simplicity and communicating.  It shouldn't take them 4 paragraphs to say that the courts found that Samsung did not infringe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Very last try: The German court cannot find infringement where a final EU-wide ruling finds there was none. So NO there is no finding of infringement by a German court.  Apple's legal counsel understands and is not arguing that there's a finding of infringement by the Germans and thus legitimate to state. If you had legal training I've no doubt you could grasp the distinction as well. Heck, I understand it and didn't need legal training to do so.

 

...as you guys were.

They absolutely can find that there was infringement in that case. They cannot enforce their judgement in this instance but they can and did find infringement. The UK decision might legally override the German injunction, but that doesn't go back in time and change history such that the German court didn't decide what they did decide. The UK ruling make the German decision obsolete. It doesn't erase it from having happened. Unless the UK courts are using time traveling tech now. because if they are, you could be right. And that would be super cool. Super cool.

So yes, there was a finding of infringement. Apple stated this fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

I ask simple questions which you guys don't seem to be able to answer...

 

It is unbecoming for them to instead make up reasons, like Apple making false statements, and then using that to claim breach. 

For the third time, can you back up this claim that the court has said Apple have made a false statement?  I have only seen them describe it as non-compliant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowley 

For the third time, can you back up this claim that the court has said Apple have made a false statement?  I have only seen them describe it as non-compliant.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html

That is an unsatisfactory reference; it's not clear who is saying that, or what it refers to.  Hardly just cause for criticising the entire legal process and integrity of the judges.

Better luck next time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

I ask simple questions which you guys don't seem to be able to answer, at least not with resorting to making up facts.

 

I'll answer your question: did Apple intend their notice to be a middle finger to the UK courts? maybe. And if the UK courts were convinced that it was, then say that and do something about it. It is unbecoming for them to instead make up reasons, like Apple making false statements, and then using that to claim breach. If they have to resort to make believe, then that shows they probably couldn't find an actual reason to find them in breach.

 

Apple lawyers are complying now because it has been demonstrated that the UK courts are out of step and out of line. They realize they are going to continue to be the nail with the UK courts hammer, so bend over and take it once and for all. They are punishing Apple for a disagreement they have with the German courts. Apple had every right to continue their legal activities in Germany. But since the German courts were showing up the UK courts to be a bunch a buffoons, they punish Apple for that. Further, the punishment that Apple make the notice was observed by the UK appeal court to be wrong, but retained only because of statements made by the buffoon judge in the original proceedings getting so much press. The German and US cases were not irrelevant, they were very much related to to the case at hand. They added context to the UK decision. They might have pissed off they UK judges, but they still need to base their decisions on fact, not make believe.

And what about the many worldwide cases that haven't gone in apple's favour?  Surely they too would add context to the uk decision rather than putting comments which imply the england verdict is the odd one out?  And are the English judges baffoons because they ruled against apple or is there something I don't know that you do?  Agreed though that Apple should have bent over & took it once & for all which they may have finally done.

Another question for you that is off topic - do you believe that this legal case & the other worldwide ones are helping apple or harming their reputation?  I sure think they're repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot with so much publicity over aggressive patent litigation.  I know they're not the only ones at it & won't be the last but to get to the stage where some commentators class them as a patent troll isn't good is it?

Can't remember who called me a jackass for referring to apple as patent trolls but to be a patent troll doesn't just mean you buy up as many patents as possible to glean cash from others

Have to answer your question along the lines of how you answered mine:)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowley 

That is an unsatisfactory reference; it's not clear who is saying that.  Hardly just cause for criticising the entire legal process and integrity of the judges.

 

 

Better luck next time.

Are all references you don't agree with unsatisfactory? They clearly state, in the very first paragraph that they are referring to the UK judges. The quotation marks designates quotes from the subject, being the courts.

You mention you saw described as "non-compliant". I will guess you took that from the Guardian or a site that took from them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement

Note the basically identical use of quotations in the first sentence. Even though they don't hold your hand and explicitly clarify who exactly said those words, the sentence is structures to ensure you know it is a quote from the court. You picked up on that, as you mention you saw it described as such. But you apply a different standard to a quote you don't like. Double standard much?

I wish you luck with the rest of your endeavours if that is the best you can do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

Note the basically identical use of quotations in the first sentence. Even though they don't hold your hand and explicitly clarify who exactly said those words, the sentence is structures to ensure you know it is a quote from the court. You picked up on that, as you mention you saw it described as such. But you apply a different standard to a quote you don't like. Double standard much?

 

I wish you luck with the rest of your endeavours if that is the best you can do.

Except for the fact that the non-compliance is detailed further on in the article, as described by Sir Robin Jacob, and Darren Smyth of EIP Partners.  Nice try for misdirection there, but it's hogwash, and there's no double standard.

I think this shows who made the comment ref untrue info.  Admittedly this was off the dailymail so in no way can i guarantee this isn't made up!  Looks like it was the Samsung lawyer who made the comment, not one of the judges that gave the slap

The ruling came after a lawyer representing Samsung today told Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob that Apple had published a notice on its website on October 26 - in 'purported compliance' with a Court of Appeal order.

But Henry Carr QC said Apple had added an account of court proceedings in Germany and the United States which was 'inaccurate and misleading'.

'This has received enormous publicity and has perpetuated confusion as to Samsung's entitlement to market the Galaxy tablet computers in issue,' he said, in a written statement given to judges.

'It has created the impression that the UK court is out of step with other courts.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2226214/Apple-reprimanded-Samsung-apology--claims-WEEKS-replacement-web-site.html#ixzz2B56Jw4Co 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

Are all references you don't agree with unsatisfactory? They clearly state, in the very first paragraph that they are referring to the UK judges. The quotation marks designates quotes from the subject, being the courts.

Until there's a name against it then it's unclear of the source of the "untrue" and "inaccurate" claim.  Samsung claimed that, but I've not seen anything that definitively attributes it to a judge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatever71 

And what about the many worldwide cases that haven't gone in apple's favour?  Surely they too would add context to the uk decision rather than putting comments which imply the england verdict is the odd one out?  And are the English judges baffoons because they ruled against apple or is there something I don't know that you do?  Agreed though that Apple should have bent over & took it once & for all which they may have finally done.

Another question for you that is off topic - do you believe that this legal case & the other worldwide ones are helping apple or harming their reputation?  I sure think they're repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot with so much publicity over aggressive patent litigation.  I know they're not the only ones at it & won't be the last but to get to the stage where some commentators class them as a patent troll isn't good is it?

Can't remember who called me a jackass for referring to apple as patent trolls but to be a patent troll doesn't just mean you buy up as many patents as possible to glean cash from others

I think the UK judges are buffoons because:

1) The order for the notice was ridiculous to begin with. Even the appeal court recognized that.

2) The order was punitive against Apple for having the gall to exercise their legal rights in Germany

3) because they subsequently supported the notice, even acknowledging it is flawed, because of the notoriety of a single comment from original buffoon.

4) because the supported the order for he notice, stating it was not intended to be informative and not punitive, yet it is clearly punitive

5) because they made false claims in their reasoning of Apple being in breach, likely because they felt personally slighted.

Your other question:

No, I actually do not think these cases are helping Apple's reputation. What is their alternative? Sit back and let the lawsuits come to them? Nokia sued them before they ever sued a mobile competitor. The Motorola lawsuits were initiated by Motorola. Prior to the "smartphone wars" Apple was one of the least litigious tech companies in the world, in terms of initiating lawsuits. They quickly learned the wireless industry is litigation obsessed and they couldn't just sit back and take it in the ass and do nothing. Should they continue to work and try to be innovative while Samsung uses them for their R&D lab? Samsung was blatant. They were not shy about it. How would it benefit Apple to sit back and release products that would simply be copy catted?

So no, I don't think these lawsuits are doing Apple any good from a PR perspective and is hurting them. I'll ask you, what was their alternative? Exit the mobile business?

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatever71 

I think this shows who made the comment ref untrue info.  Admittedly this was off the dailymail so in no way can i guarantee this isn't made up!  Not a clue who the QC is but doesn't appear to be one of the judges that gave the slap

 

 

The ruling came after a lawyer representing Samsung today told Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob that Apple had published a notice on its website on October 26 - in 'purported compliance' with a Court of Appeal order.

But Henry Carr QC said Apple had added an account of court proceedings in Germany and the United States which was 'inaccurate and misleading'.

'This has received enormous publicity and has perpetuated confusion as to Samsung's entitlement to market the Galaxy tablet computers in issue,' he said, in a written statement given to judges.

'It has created the impression that the UK court is out of step with other courts.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2226214/Apple-reprimanded-Samsung-apology--claims-WEEKS-replacement-web-site.html#ixzz2B56Jw4Co 
 

 

So that was the Samsung counsel making the remark ref untrue?

Henry Carr is one of Samsung's attorneys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowley 

 

Until there's a name against it then it's unclear of the source of the "untrue" and "inaccurate" claim.  Samsung claimed that, but I've not seen anything that definitively attributes it to a judge.

How can you know understand it is attributed to the court?

"Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges for posting a notice on its website about a lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”"

Otherwise they could have saved themselves the effort and just left off the quotes. There is only one subject in the sentence to which those quotes could be attributed.

But I guess it has come down to parsing and semantics. Always a sure sign you've got nothing. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatever71 

I think this shows who made the comment ref untrue info.  Admittedly this was off the dailymail so in no way can i guarantee this isn't made up!  Looks like it was the Samsung lawyer who made the comment, not one of the judges that gave the slap

 

 

The ruling came after a lawyer representing Samsung today told Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob that Apple had published a notice on its website on October 26 - in 'purported compliance' with a Court of Appeal order.

But Henry Carr QC said Apple had added an account of court proceedings in Germany and the United States which was 'inaccurate and misleading'.

'This has received enormous publicity and has perpetuated confusion as to Samsung's entitlement to market the Galaxy tablet computers in issue,' he said, in a written statement given to judges.

'It has created the impression that the UK court is out of step with other courts.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2226214/Apple-reprimanded-Samsung-apology--claims-WEEKS-replacement-web-site.html#ixzz2B56Jw4Co 
 

While related in meaning, "inaccurate" and "misleading" are not the same words as "untrue" and "incorrect". A quote is meant to be exact. Otherwise it is paraphrasing. No doubt those are Carr's words. But the Bloomberg article quotes the court.

Find me a proper attributed quote and we can argue the point.  Until then, it's just a couple of words in a sentence.

Besides which, I think it's been quite clearly established that Apple's claim that a German court had found it infringing is not true because the finding was invalid (an invalid finding being no finding at all), and the claim about the US court was at best misleading, because the Galaxy Tab was not included in the judgement, and could reasonably be called incorrect given the context it was displayed in.

So either way, you're wrong.  But I'm sure you'll find a new argument to shift to now, that seems to be the way you operate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

 A quote is meant to be exact.

  Fantastic.  Two words, devoid of any context, in separate quotation marks are entirely valid examples as the unworthiness of the court.  Your standards for "exact" are very low.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

But I guess it has come down to parsing and semantics. Always a sure sign you've got nothing. 

"But what Apple wrote was true" isn't an attempt at a semantic argument?

You were very quick to throw around an accusation of double standards (dropped that one now, right?), trying applying it to yourself.

How about you folks shelve this issue until an actual transcript is posted?  You're just chasing your own tails.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowley 

"But what Apple wrote was true" isn't an attempt at a semantic argument?

 

You were very quick to throw around an accusation of double standards (dropped that one now, right?), trying applying it to yourself.

What Apple wrote was true. In no way was it untrue or incorrect. That's not parsing. It was a statement of fact. No parsing required.

No double standards on my part. I look at facts. They work better than fiction, fantasy, parsing and weaseling. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

While related in meaning, "inaccurate" and "misleading" are not the same words as "untrue" and "incorrect". A quote is meant to be exact. Otherwise it is paraphrasing. No doubt those are Carr's words. But the Bloomberg article quotes the court.

I understand the difference in the words; I also understand that the uk press in particular wouldn't use words like inaccurate & misleading when untrue & incorrect packs more punch.  I don't think we'll know exactly who said what until a full transcript of the session is made available - if it ever will be.

Your comments on baffoons; not bad points there - it is the legal system though so you should expect nonsense to slip through where common sense should prevail.

As to the question of what apple should do, sit there & watch what they see as ip theft; this goes deeper than that - the old chestnut of the USPTO & some of the approved patents / trademarks, the obviousness of the mobile industry in that all players rip each other off at some point; why should apple be excluded from what's gone on in the industry for years?  Apple themselves are definitely not squeaky clean when it comes to innovation & taking ideas from others.  To an extent you could say apple should be grateful for spotting the opportunity to grab as much from the established mobile market place as they did in the early years.  But, to then try to retain that by attempting to close out anyone else from the market is a nonsense; especially when you take into consideration some of the patents issued.  I've never been interested in legal matters in this market so have no comment to make on Nokia litigation etc..  It's only through apple press that I'm now kind of hooked on seeing what's going on to further line the lawyers pockets with gold.  Makes me think through hindsight that a legal degree would have made perfect sense

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowley 

 

  Fantastic.  Two words, devoid of any context, in separate quotation marks are entirely valid examples as the unworthiness of the court.  Your standards for "exact" are very low.

Two exact words are as exact as a full sentence. The full sentence provides context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowley 

Find me a proper attributed quote and we can argue the point.  Until then, it's just a couple of words in a sentence.

 

Besides which, I think it's been quite clearly established that Apple's claim that a German court had found it infringing is not true because the finding was invalid (an invalid finding being no finding at all), and the claim about the US court was at best misleading, because the Galaxy Tab was not included in the judgement, and could reasonably be called incorrect given the context it was displayed in.

 

So either way, you're wrong.  But I'm sure you'll find a new argument to shift to now, that seems to be the way you operate.

It was not found to be invalid. The UK courts decision takes precedence but it did not invalidate the German decision. It made it unenforceable. 

Again, it was a statement of fact. There is no way to weasel out of that. Facts are facts. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatever71 

As to the question of what apple should do, sit there & watch what they see as ip theft; this goes deeper than that - the old chestnut of the USPTO & some of the approved patents / trademarks, the obviousness of the mobile industry in that all players rip each other off at some point; why should apple be excluded from what's gone on in the industry for years?  Apple themselves are definitely not squeaky clean when it comes to innovation & taking ideas from others.  To an extent you could say apple should be grateful for spotting the opportunity to grab as much from the established mobile market place as they did in the early years.  But, to then try to retain that by attempting to close out anyone else from the market is a nonsense; especially when you take into consideration some of the patents issued.  I've never been interested in legal matters in this market so have no comment to make on Nokia litigation etc..  It's only through apple press that I'm now kind of hooked on seeing what's going on to further line the lawyers pockets with gold.  Makes me thing through hindsight that a legal degree would have made perfect sense

Why should apple be excluded? Ok, then why should Apple also be excluded from taking part in the whole mess? That's the point. The mobile industry is lawsuit happy, yet only Apple gets singled out as the bad guy for getting in on the fun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

Why should apple be excluded? Ok, then why should Apple also be excluded from taking part in the whole mess? That's the point. The mobile industry is lawsuit happy, yet only Apple gets singled out as the bad guy for getting in on the fun.

Does anyone have any figures to show how many mobile cases are ongoing?  I would genuinely be interested to see if apple top that list (as aggressors) or to see if it's actually the press that have singled them out.  Can't really argue with press picking up on some of the apple cases or comments used in cases though; scroll to bounce, shape of phone, trying to trademark app store, claiming people buy other brands thinking they are apple, claiming frand for non frand patents (there are examples out there where apple believe some techs should be frand but which aren't), apple themselves taking steps with ITC ref Samsung payment demands yet wanting samsung to pay huge amounts to cross licence their patents and so on.  Plus with them being the rich boys they will be singled out.  Read an interesting article comparing apple to other massive companies who get to a point where they simply can't keep ahead of the multitude of competition and as a result proceed on aggressive & ultimately unfruitful (no pun intended)  legal cases.  

I don't believe for a second that some of the cases brought by apple should ever get off the fag packet; they look like idiots.  As a matter of interest, what dumb ass cases have samsung instigated against apple?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

It was not found to be invalid. The UK courts decision takes precedence but it did not invalidate the German decision. It made it unenforceable. 

 

Again, it was a statement of fact. There is no way to weasel out of that. Facts are facts. 

Hello semantics my old friend.  Invalid or unenforcable, either makes it irrelevant.  An irrevelant fact is a pretty flimsy springboard to base your objection on, and any weaselling is in the "but it's a fact" position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

Two exact words are as exact as a full sentence. The full sentence provides context.

I'd love to see that full sentence.  Still waiting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

What Apple wrote was

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tulkas 

untrue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowley 

Hello semantics my old friend.  Invalid or unenforcable, either makes it irrelevant.  An irrevelant fact is a pretty flimsy springboard to base your objection on, and any weaselling is in the "but it's a fact" position.

Relevancy, in this case is your opinion. 

meanwhile, sticking to the facts, the ruling happened. It is a matter of documented fact. Nothing changes it from having actually happened. How is claiming a fact as a fact, in anyway, weaseling? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatever71 

 

Does anyone have any figures to show how many mobile cases are ongoing?  I would genuinely be interested to see if apple top that list (as aggressors) or to see if it's actually the press that have singled them out.  Can't really argue with press picking up on some of the apple cases or comments used in cases though; scroll to bounce, shape of phone, trying to trademark app store, claiming people buy other brands thinking they are apple, claiming frand for non frand patents (there are examples out there where apple believe some techs should be frand but which aren't), apple themselves taking steps with ITC ref Samsung payment demands yet wanting samsung to pay huge amounts to cross licence their patents and so on.  Plus with them being the rich boys they will be singled out.  Read an interesting article comparing apple to other massive companies who get to a point where they simply can't keep ahead of the multitude of competition and as a result proceed on aggressive & ultimately unfruitful (no pun intended)  legal cases.  

 

I don't believe for a second that some of the cases brought by apple should ever get off the fag packet; they look like idiots.  As a matter of interest, what dumb ass cases have samsung instigated against apple?

Any and all cases they have brought using FRAND patents are dumb ass. They can't and won't win those, nor should they. 

Whether the patents are FRAND or not is not a matter of opinion. The fact is that for them to be considered fact, the owners must make declarations to multiple bodies that they will license them under FRAND terms. They would not allowed into the various standards if they did not. I would be very interested in seeing these where Apple is saying a patent is FRAND when it is not. On the other hand, google has gone on record as saying that Apple's patents should made available to all, even though Apple did not make them FRAND licensable, because they have become common through other parties using them to the point of being defacto standards.

You mention Apple demanding higher royalties when discussing cross licensing with Samsung. And so they should. Their patents are private, nonFRAND. They have no obligation to sell them cheaply. Samsungs are FRAND. They have legal obligations to not discriminate against Apple by seeking unreasonably high rates. So blaming Apple for seeking to benefit from their patents, which they never agreed to make FRAND licensable, is odd.

MS is a big company too. As are Moto/Google and Samsung. When was the last time you saw major, daily, continuous coverage of their multitude of lawsuits that don't involve Apple?