or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple publishes statement in UK paper saying Samsung didn't copy iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple publishes statement in UK paper saying Samsung didn't copy iPad

post #1 of 72
Thread Starter 
In compliance with a court ruling, Apple has published a statement in a U.K. newspaper advertising that Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad.

Notice
Apple's advertisement in The Guardian on Friday. Credit: Tim Acheson.


A picture of the text-only advertisement found in Friday's edition of The Guardian was published by The Next Web. It says that Samsung's Galaxy tablets, specifically the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9, and Tab 7.7, do not infringe Apple's patents.

The advertisement provides readers with links where they can read the full judgement, as well as the appeal filed and lost by Apple. It notes that there is no injunction against Samsung's tablets being enforced anywhere in Europe.

Apple was ordered by Judge Birss to run advertisements on its UK website as well as in British magazines and newspapers, declaring Samsung did not copy the iPad. The Web notice is to remain active at least six months, while other ads would be taken out in various print publications as a consolation for the "damaging impression" Samsung suffered a result of the suit.

Apple did have a statement on its website regarding the court's decision, but it was removed Friday after the U.K. court ordered the company to rewrite the copy. The revised statement, with a larger font size, is expected to soon appear on the front page of Apple's website in its entirety.

Originally the statement was tucked away in the form of a link at the bottom of the page. But Judge Robin Jacob said that Apple's advertisement on its own website was "a plan breach of the order."
post #2 of 72
This looks much better than what Apple posted on their UK website. I hope it's OK this time.
post #3 of 72

Apple complied with the order in full. 

 

Judge got antsy when he found that Apple was more clever than initially suspected.

 

LOL is all that can be said. 

post #4 of 72
This is unbelievable. People still read newspapers?
post #5 of 72
great idea... Coach the apology insomuch legalese nobody understands it..
The other way was a bit snarky this way is absolutely perfect insofar that Apple gets their point across and the judge understands legalese and that's what you are aiming for...
so they that should do that on the webpage ...totally legalistic...

But I do like the idea of putting the apology in contract Phraseology that nobody can understand but a judge/tlawyer.

Also I don't think the judge stated that the apology has to be in layman's terms...

TL;DR... Baffle 'um with Lawyer Speak.
post #6 of 72
It doesn't say Samsung did not copy. It says Samsung did not infringe.
post #7 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

great idea... Coach the apology insomuch legalese nobody understands it..
The other way was a bit snarky this way is absolutely perfect insofar that Apple gets their point across and the judge understands legalese and that's what you are aiming for...
so they that should do that on the webpage ...totally legalistic...
But I do like the idea of putting the apology in contract Phraseology that nobody can understand but a judge/tlawyer.
Also I don't think the judge stated that the apology has to be in layman's terms...
TL;DR... Baffle 'um with Lawyer Speak.

So if Apple posts the info in pure legalese, they're bad. If they interpret it for the readers, they're bad.
1rolleyes.gif
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #8 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

LOL is all that can be said. 

 

Yes, at you. I never knew you were a judge or had legal precedence. Interesting.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

great idea... Coach the apology insomuch legalese nobody understands it..
 

Um, this isn't an apology, and Apple was NEVER required to issue an apology. Apple simply had to state that the Court found Apple's allegation to not be true which is exactly what they did here. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #9 of 72
Could it be made more boring and nondescript? Looks 'good' to me ;/
post #10 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

great idea... Coach the apology insomuch legalese nobody understands it....
But I do like the idea of putting the apology in contract Phraseology that nobody can understand but a judge/tlawyer.
Also I don't think the judge stated that the apology has to be in layman's terms

It's not intended as an apology, nor is it. The court only wanted a clear statement from Apple (who better?) that there was no infringement in any EU country. Simply clarification and not punishment. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #11 of 72
This is a silly course of (punitive?) action. But it also highlights the silly extent to which this patent war has reached. Samsung was indeed egregious in its *slavish* copying. But trying to use legal means to stop them is proving hard. Negotiations appear to be the only way out of this mess.
post #12 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger View Post

This is a silly course of (punitive?) action. But it also highlights the silly extent to which this patent war has reached. Samsung was indeed egregious in its *slavish* copying. But trying to use legal means to stop them is proving hard. Negotiations appear to be the only way out of this mess.

The problem is that Samsung didn't want to negotiate.
post #13 of 72

There was no reason for this. Samsung HAS blatantly copied Apple's designs and this ruling should never have been handed down.

post #14 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It's not intended as an apology, nor is it. The court only wanted a clear statement from Apple (who better?) that there was no infringement in any EU country. Simply clarification and not punishment. 

As Sgt Joe Friday would say: "Just the facts."

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #15 of 72

Indeed Samsung would have been billions and billions of dollars ahead with a larger market lead had it licensed Apple on the terms discussed in their legal tussle.

post #16 of 72
Right, could someone explain this to me.

This wasn't about the design of the iPad, but some other design that Samsung wanted to prove it didn't infringe.

So why do all the IT rags keep banging on about copying the iPad?
post #17 of 72

I question the motives of the judge. He is obviously biased because of this petty ruling, and he should be investigated and asked to stand down if he went into this case with preconceived opinions.

post #18 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystigo View Post

I question the motives of the judge. He is obviously biased because of this petty ruling, and he should be investigated and asked to stand down if he went into this case with preconceived opinions.

Why is he obviously biased?  Because he didn't find on the side you wanted him to?

 

Had he found in favor of Apple, would it have been OK for someone who likes Samsung products to say he is "obviously biased" and asked to have him stand down?

post #19 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystigo View Post

I question the motives of the judge. He is obviously biased because of this petty ruling, and he should be investigated and asked to stand down if he went into this case with preconceived opinions.

He actually preferred the iPad to the Samsung, going by his comments.
post #20 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystigo View Post

I question the motives of the judge. He is obviously biased because of this petty ruling, and he should be investigated and asked to stand down if he went into this case with preconceived opinions.

Yup. All five of the judges who came to the same general decision: the original judge, three more in the first Apple appeal plus yet another for the later clarification of the Appeals Court order.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #21 of 72
With the embarrassment and the latest debacle in Mexico over the 'iFone', Mr. Cook should start looking for a new General Counsel. Mr Sewell's legal record for Apple is on balance strongly in the negative.
post #22 of 72
To be fair,

Samsung should also be ordered from the U.S. judge to post a notice on their U.S. facing website that they are sorry for copying Apple's iPad and iPhone designs.

Hopefully then, the U.K. judge will see how stupid of a judgement that is.

someone tries to use due process to protect their IP and whether they were right or wrong, they get punished for it?

That judge should be forcibly retired. Way to discourage people from due process.
post #23 of 72

The part I'd appreciate explanation of, is how the edict of an English court has precedence throughout the EU?

And at least in one part of it - Germany - Samsung were found to have infringed, weren't they?

So how is it that this ruling supersedes that one?  

Not arguing, just curious...

post #24 of 72

Doesn't matter, Apple wins. Their original statement was big news. This one nobody cares about. They got far more gain from the original than any harm from THE "corrected" one.

 

To Gatorguy: Those appeals you listed above, which of those were for the actual ruling about the Galaxy Tab not infringing and which were strictly about Apple having to put up the notices? Losing an appeal regarding the publication order is not the same.

post #25 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post


Samsung should also be ordered from the U.S. judge to post a notice on their U.S. facing website that they are sorry for copying Apple's iPad and iPhone designs.

Actually Apple did NOT win the design argument in the big US trial regarding the iPad either. It's the one sole area they did 'lose'. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #26 of 72
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post
Actually Apple did NOT win the design argument in the big US trial regarding the iPad either. It's the one sole area they did 'lose'. 

 

Which I still don't understand, by the way… So lack of patent infringement means anyone can make anything that looks just like something else and get away with it? It's certainly one thing not to infringe, which Apple has acknowledged, but Apple will NEVER in good faith say they didn't copy.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #27 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

To Gatorguy: Those appeals you listed above, which of those were for the actual ruling about the Galaxy Tab not infringing and which were strictly about Apple having to put up the notices? Losing an appeal regarding the publication order is not the same.

The original ruling back in July (I think) concerned non-infringement. That same judge (Birss) then added the stipulation that Apple publish notice of non-infringement due at last in part to their on-going efforts to get a ruling of infringement in German preliminary hearing even tho it wouldn't actually be legitimized (The German Appeals Court had no stand to rule for likely infringement when the EU-wide final decision was already made for non-infringement).

 

The first appeal a few weeks later upheld the original order to publish, with minor modifications as explained in the judgement I've linked several times recently. The second hearing that included yet another judge alongside the three previous was held yesterday morning. It was simply to advise Apple they were not in compliance with the Appeals Court order, and clarifying the court's expectations and requirements.


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/2/12 at 11:03am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

It doesn't say Samsung did not copy. It says Samsung did not infringe.

 

It doesn't say that Samsung didn't infringe. It says that the court ruled that Samsung didn't infringe.

post #29 of 72
Originally Posted by AppleJeff View Post
It doesn't say that Samsung didn't infringe. It says that the court ruled that Samsung didn't infringe.


Ooh, I like that better.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #30 of 72
That judge should be removed.

Apple has copped it thrice here.

Once when Samsung copied them, a second time when the legal system failed to recognise that, and the third with this ridiculous attempt to embarrass them for attempting to protect their intellectual property.

The legal system over there is a joke.
Apple managed the astonishing feat of getting the equivalent of a personal computer into the hands of everybody from eight to eighty year olds, and did so while providing absolutely no instructions...
Reply
Apple managed the astonishing feat of getting the equivalent of a personal computer into the hands of everybody from eight to eighty year olds, and did so while providing absolutely no instructions...
Reply
post #31 of 72

In another news, Apple is down bellow 590$. It sinks like a rock! Today will be the sixth week down in a row. I don't see another six weeks down streak in the past. That must be bad news for shareholders... and good news for customers!

post #32 of 72

Ads are meant to pop out and attract people's attention. That ad is exactly the opposite of that.

 

I doubt that many people are going to even notice it. And that's a good thing! lol.gif

 

Screw Samsung.1smoking.gif

post #33 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

That judge should be removed.
Apple has copped it thrice here.
Once when Samsung copied them, a second time when the legal system failed to recognise that, and the third with this ridiculous attempt to embarrass them for attempting to protect their intellectual property.
The legal system over there is a joke.

 

I wonder why Apple tried to make use of the legal system "over there" then.

 

If the legal system "over there" had made the decision you wanted, you'd think it was fine.

 

The truth is, this was clearly a case in the gray.  If it was clear-cut that Apple would win, Samsung wouldn't have let it goto court - they would have settled out of court.  Thats the exact time you need a third party to decide one way or another.  Just because you like Apple more than you like Samsung doesn't mean Apple are always right.

post #34 of 72

Well what with the lack of "cool" according to the judges ruling that's obvious.

 

:)

 

 

Or not.

post #35 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

 

Yes, at you. I never knew you were a judge or had legal precedence. Interesting.

 

You don't need to be a judge to recognize absurdity. 

post #36 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX View Post

In another news, Apple is down bellow 590$. It sinks like a rock! Today will be the sixth week down in a row. I don't see another six weeks down streak in the past. That must be bad news for shareholders... and good news for customers!

How do customers benefit from a declining stock price?

 

Or do you mean "customers" of a stock broker?

post #37 of 72

Well, at this point, the public is much more aware that the trial judge declared Samsung's tablets as not as cool copies, and that will remain the take home message here, even if they are technically "non-infringing" copies.

 

But, frankly, the judges come away looking more like Judge Judy than venerable jurists. I know that every time I hear of some judge in this country ordering a defendant to do some stupid thing like this, my immediate reaction is, "what a petty ass." My next reaction is that the judge doesn't belong on the bench. Perhaps the public in the UK is more tolerant of judicial farces, I don't know, but the whole episode doesn't reflect favorably on their courts, in my opinion, from a foreigner's perspective. The judges involved deserved to have their noses tweaked in this instance, and Apple still got the best of them.

post #38 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

How do customers benefit from a declining stock price?

 

Never try to make sense of irrational comments.

post #39 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

How do customers benefit from a declining stock price?

 

Or do you mean "customers" of a stock broker?

Simple. If the stock is going down, then something is wrong fundamentally at Apple. Nexus 4, which is almost as good as iPhone 5 costs 299$ unlocked while the iPhone 5 is between 700$ and 1000$ unlocked! Come on, this is unbelievable greedy! Yes, stock going down will be good for customers in the long run.

post #40 of 72
Forcing Apple to print this nonsense proves nothing and is absolutely ridiculous given the facts and rulings in similar cases in other countries. To say Samsung's design did not copy or was not heavily influenced by Apple's first to the market design is a total abomination of reality, period. I am so tired of the spin cycle. I wish the tech world would get an original idea and stop jumping on to Apple%u2019s designs, trademarks, swagga, etc. in order to make a quick buck. And all of the apologists out there need to face reality. Apple in on a roll and you need to go back to the drawing board and step up your game.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple publishes statement in UK paper saying Samsung didn't copy iPad