or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple posts new notice saying Samsung didn't copy iPad on UK website
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple posts new notice saying Samsung didn't copy iPad on UK website - Page 5

post #161 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And get whined after for "hiding" behind a second account like AI's writers do? I don't think so. lol.gif
Then turn on the option to block moderators' posts.
Or set up an account with the same name , or obviously similar name, that doesn't have the moderator tag.
Many of us are tired of your constant drivel.

Iif someone makes a post that is logically sound, BUT doesnt 100% support Apple you invariably disagree...just to disagree. Sorry to tell you this, but Apple ISN'T always correct.
post #162 of 171
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post
Then turn on the option to block moderators' posts.

 

There's not one.

 

Iif someone makes a post that is logically sound, BUT doesnt 100% support Apple you invariably disagree...just to disagree.
 

And some of us are tired of your blatant lies. It evens out.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #163 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

There's not one.

And some of us are tired of your blatant lies. It evens out.

And what "blatant lies" are you referring to? I would really like to see you back that statement up.
post #164 of 171
I total agree with the UK judges or the judges outside US, Apple should NOT own the patent "rectangle with round corners" design. There are a lot touch screen devices that had round corners before Apple applied for the patent, and this design is so basic so it should be a standard design and it should belong to all of us, the users. Only the stupid US patent officers granted Apple this patent!!!
post #165 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by gugutech View Post

I total agree with the UK judges or the judges outside US, Apple should NOT own the patent "rectangle with round corners" design. There are a lot touch screen devices that had round corners before Apple applied for the patent, and this design is so basic so it should be a standard design and it should belong to all of us, the users. Only the stupid US patent officers granted Apple this patent!!!

Check this European Patent:-

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080924&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=EP&NR=1215867B1&KC=B1&ND=4

Maybe Apple should bring this one up in a UK court, so Samsung has to apologise for saying Apple copied the smiley, which they apparently invented. 1smile.gif

I wonder why Europe allowed this stupid SOFTWARE patent.

The smiley should be available for anyone to use, even if Samsung invented it.

1smile.gif
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #166 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


...loopholes and play semantic games....

Welcome to Law 101, where any romantic misperceptions are quickly dispelled.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #167 of 171
As resident of ex-British colony Hong Kong Ive always respected the British legal system and standards - except this case which is just plain ridiculous! Samsung is an expert copycat as shown in their "wine glass" LCD TV a few years ago that was a shameless copy of an B&O design, way before the iPhone and iPad. There was nothing like the iPhone and iPad before Apple, so by definition any similar products are copycats. The Brithish judges seemed to have a big screw loose inside their brains .
post #168 of 171

Talking of blatant lies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

When I quote your posts, it tends to sound a lot like what you say.

 

OK, I'm back because your now providing some funny entertainment.

 

My quote:

 

 

Quote:

Oh, I see, you mean the court mandated text.  So you're conveniently forgetting the extra stuff they added to the original statement which is the WHOLE REASON they had to republish.Oh, I see, you mean the court mandated text.  So you're conveniently forgetting the extra stuff they added to the original statement which is the WHOLE REASON they had to republish.

 

Your response:

 

 

Quote:
Your argument is that since Apple says any words about the iPad anywhere on their website that were not limited to what the court said Apple could say about the iPad, they're in violation of whatever blah de blah of the blah de blah. Nonsense.
 

 

Like I say, smoke and mirrors.  Keep going TS, you're making me smile1smoking.gif

post #169 of 171
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post
And what "blatant lies" are you referring to?

 

It is physically impossible for you to be unable to understand the context of where I said that.


You people have serious issues.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #170 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The funniest part? Apple added javascript to their page that ensures, no matter what screen size or resolution you are using, the link and the text on the main page will be below the bottom of your display. You are forced to scroll if you want to see it. Genuis.

http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/11/03/apple-hides-samsung-apology-on-its-uk-site-so-it-cant-be-seen-without-scrolling/

 

 

At this point, I whole heartedly applaud Apple giving the UK courts the finger, high and proud. For anyone that thinks Apple is being childish, I say they are responding to the court in kind. The order was immature and unreasonable. The response has been ingeniously alike in that regard. I look forward to the courts response. What are they going to do? Order Apple to apologize?

An just as quickly Apple has apparently had a change of heart and removed the java-code that served to hide the announcement? that's the report.

 

There's also a good explanation including court quotes over at Forbes of what the judges said Apple was being dishonest about in their first "clarification" post. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/09/english-court-fines-apple-over-the-samsung-apology/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #171 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy 
There's also a good explanation including court quotes over at Forbes of what the judges said Apple was being dishonest about in their first "clarification" post. 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/09/english-court-fines-apple-over-the-samsung-apology/

The following says it all:

"There is a further false innuendo that the UK court’s decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true."

That simply is true. The UK court went above and beyond what was necessary to dismiss the case. They wanted Apple to make a public apology to clarify that Samsung has not wilfully infringed on Apple's IP. Other courts have found Samsung has wilfully copied them with plenty of evidence and fined them. Those two decisions are directly opposed. While the judgements on a particular element of this whole saga are in agreement, the overall conclusions drawn from each side aren't.

The intent of the UK ruling was declared to be the following:

"to correct the damaging impression the South Korean-based company was copying Apple’s product."

And yet at another point in time was decalred to be:

"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law.

So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products.The registered design is not the same as the design of the iPad. It is quite a lot different. For instance the iPad is a lot thinner, and has noticeably different curves on its sides. There may be other differences - even though I own one, I have not made a detailed comparison. Whether the iPad would fall within the scope of protection of the registered design is completely irrelevant. We are not deciding that one way or the other. This case must be decided as if the iPad never existed."

Seems a bit of a contradiction to me to rule on whether the Galaxy Tab infringes on the patent, ignoring the iPad and then make a ruling to indicate to the public that Samsung hadn't copied Apple's product when all they established was that they didn't infringe on the patent, which looks nothing like it. The court is being disinigenuous by overreaching the intent of the ruling.

Let the UK court see the new design patent they have and Samsung's internal documents detailing every element they intended to copy to improve their own substandard implementation. Let's see if that urges them to reach the same conclusion.

Maybe it will help if Sir Ive pulls out his knighthood:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229781/Scotland-Yard-prosecutors-reconvene-MPs-expenses-unit-look-Denis-MacShanes-19-fake-invoices.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

"In July this year police dropped the case, amid claims evidence was covered by parliamentary privilege and could not be used in court."

The integrity of the UK judicial system in plain view.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple posts new notice saying Samsung didn't copy iPad on UK website