or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple offers Samsung patent settlement deal tied to anti-cloning provision
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple offers Samsung patent settlement deal tied to anti-cloning provision

post #1 of 109
Thread Starter 
Apple is requiring that any patent settlement negotiations with Samsung include a provision that blocks the South Korean conglomerate from cloning its designs, a provision that was also key to the deal Apple forged with HTC in November 2012.



Apple and Samsung are gearing up for a second U.S. patent lawsuit slated to begin March 31, but were requested by the court to at least attempt to reach a settlement before that date.

According to a report by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, a primary barrier to reaching a deal may be Apple's stipulation that it include an anti-cloning provision.

Mueller wrote that "Samsung may hate the notion of an anti-cloning provision," adding "it's definitely at odds with the strategy that enabled Samsung to become the global market leader in smartphones."

Apple adamant about anti-cloning



Last week, Apple's Chief Intellectual Property Counsel B.J. Watrous stated in a sworn declaration to the United States District Court of the Northern District of California that Apple's "discussions with Samsung have consistently included limits to both the scope of any license and a prohibition against cloning Apple products."

The company also wrote that Samsung's contradictory assertion to the court in a opposition filing was not true, stating, "Samsung incorrectly claims that Apple made recent offers to Samsung without anti-cloning provisions. Every offer Apple made to Samsung has included limits to both the scope of any license and a prohibition against cloning Apple products."

At stake in the matter is not just whether Samsung will face an embarrassing stipulation that it must stop "slavishly" copying Apple. More importantly, Apple's efforts to clarify that it has no interest in granting Samsung a full, unrestricted license to use any and all of its technologies factors into the iPhone maker's prospects of winning injunctive relief against Samsung.

Even after winning its first patent case against Samsung, Apple was denied a permanent sales injunction against Samsung's infringing products by Judge Lucy Koh in December 2012. Her decision was appealed by Apple to the Federal Circuit, which indicated that Koh's decision overreached in support of Samsung. Apple has been awaiting resolution of its request for a permanent injunction for nearly a year and a half following the jury's infringement verdict

The filing Mueller published today noted, "Apple has been awaiting resolution of its request for a permanent injunction for nearly a year and a half following the jury's infringement verdict." It also complained that Samsung is seeking to stall any legal progress.

"Samsung persists in its strategy of delay-seeking to extend the briefing schedule for Apple's renewed motion, belatedly moving for discovery relating to Apple's negotiations with Samsung, requesting an evidentiary hearing even though the record is already fully developed, and asking the Court to stay enforcement of any injunction with respect to the '915 patent," Apple's filing stated.

"Samsung also filed more than a thousand pages of documents, including 17 declarations, in response to Apple's 10-page renewed motion. Samsung's voluminous filings are an attempt to avoid the Court's page limitations and contain expert opinions that were not timely disclosed. The Court should strike those materials, just as it did before."

It is generally difficult to win permanent injunctions even against infringing products in the U.S., but Apple hopes to push its case for a sales ban of Samsung's products found to infringe its iPhone patents last winter and expand the injunction based on a second volley of patents it is defending in this year's litigation.
post #2 of 109

Samsung refuses to take it, just like every other patent licensing deal they were offered, they go to court again, lose again, 20 billion in damages.

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 #3 of 109

Obviously. Why would a thief sign an agreement to ban him from stealing anything in the future? He's only interested in getting an agreement that you will not sue him and leave the door wide open for him to come and clean the house later. Fucking morons!


Edited by zoffdino - 1/20/14 at 12:15pm
post #4 of 109
If Apple is able to obtain a permanent US injunction against Samsung, they are looking at some massive leverage towards negotiations against samsung. Everyday now is edging closer to Apples payday. Keep em sweating Tim.
post #5 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Samsung refuses to take it, just like every other patent licensing deal they were offered, they go to court again, lose again, 20 billion in damages.

 

Samsung won the 'cloning' lawsuits. Both in Germany and the UK. That was the court case where Apple violated the order and lied about it badly enough to have to carry a message on their homepage for a month.

 

 

Plus, haven't they settled out at a total of under $1B so far for patent infringement?

post #6 of 109
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Samsung won the 'cloning' lawsuits. Both in Germany and the UK.

 

Except not in the US.

 

That was the court case where Apple violated the order…

 

Nope.

 
and lied about it

 

Nope.

 

Originally Posted by Blackberry4Eva View Post
Apple need to realise its not 2008 any more and that they don't own a patent on rounded rectangles.  Did Sammy take design queues from apple back in 2008? of course but come on apply it's time to put your time and money into producing NEW products, you've done nothing but iterate and procrastinate for 4 years.

 

You've already reported this item. Thanks for helping to make our community 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 #7 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackberry4Eva View Post
 

Apple need to realise its not 2008 any more and that they don't own a patent on rounded rectangles.  Did Sammy take design queues from apple back in 2008? of course but come on apply it's time to put your time and money into producing NEW products, you've done nothing but iterate and procrastinate for 4 years.

You sign up just to post that? Have you nothing better to do?

post #8 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Except not in the US.

 

Nope.

 

Nope.

 

I'm not aware of any cloning lawsuit in the US but I'll defer to you there. They very much did violate the UK order and did indeed carry the resulting statement on their homepage that Samsung had not copied their design: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18895384

post #9 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackberry4Eva View Post
 

Apple need to realise its not 2008 any more and that they don't own a patent on rounded rectangles.  Did Sammy take design queues from apple back in 2008? of course but come on apply it's time to put your time and money into producing NEW products, you've done nothing but iterate and procrastinate for 4 years.

Your ID makes me wonder about how objective your comment is.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #10 of 109
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

They very much did violate the UK order

 

Nope, explicitly conformed to it. The judge illegally changed the order post facto.

 
…and did indeed carry the resulting statement…

 

Never said otherwise.

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 #11 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

Samsung won the 'cloning' lawsuits. Both in Germany and the UK. That was the court case where Apple violated the order and lied about it badly enough to have to carry a message on their homepage for a month.

 

 

Plus, haven't they settled out at a total of under $1B so far for patent infringement?

I believe Samsung lost in court but is still appealing the decision and hasn't paid Apple a dime.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #12 of 109
When you buy your next device, make a statement about what you believe in.

Support corruption, dishonesty, theft, and everything wrong with greedy, single family-owned, companies today.

Buy Samsung.
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
post #13 of 109

This was always the end game. Apple offered Samsung the same terms it gave Microsoft and settled on with HTC and they refused, preferring to simply violate Apple's IP, and that was why Apple sued. The media picked up on the "thermonuclear war" quote from the Isaacson book, probably with Samsung and Google's encouragement, and pushed the narrative that Apple wanted to "destroy" Android. This despite the fact that in the book, Jobs works out his differences with Larry Page, choosing to mentor him, after making the statement (one of the major flaws of the book is that it's very bad at dating statements ascribed to Jobs). Yes, Jobs was likely angry (at some unknown time), but I suspect that anger resulted in the anti-cloning clause itself and not directly in the lawsuit against Samsung.

post #14 of 109

Anyone knows how Apple and HTC enforce their anti-cloning agreement? Please only answer if you know, and resist making up stuff. Thank you.

post #15 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post
 

Your ID makes me wonder about how objective your comment is.

Damn you got me, my real name is 'Dave Samsung', I apologies for airing an opinion that has not been approved by Apple in California.

 

That said I feel my point is valid and I should not be censored, this war against Samsung begun with Jobs some 8-9 years ago and I bet there are many on both sides who have no idea why they're fighting.  It's gone on for too long both sides need back down and get back making products that people want to buy.  Apple kick started the Tablet generation, the smart phone (to a lesser degree) and the digital music revolution I want to see more but we wont when Apples attention is focused on something that has no relevants today and the average consumer couldn't give too hoots to this spat.

post #16 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Nope, explicitly conformed to it. The judge illegally changed the order post facto.

 

You don't cite any source for this statement, and it's hard to believe that you have superior judicial knowledge about UK law compared to a practising judge. It's easy to claim something is illegal but I think you're confused. Apple made claims in public that were incorrect, they ostensibly lied about the judgements. This is the claim I was making and what resulted in them putting the notice on their website. This has been widely reported upon and it's not like I am making any exceptional claims here. You can find reference to this from basically any online news source. Could you please cite something showing this order was illegal?

post #17 of 109
Samsung's goal is to go out of Court with close to zero loss on money they will never agree to deal like this because it would ruin their company build on lies, corupcy, shameles copiing, advertising that is aggressive to non-smaung users, arrogancy ("We are on top of the world and nothing is better than us.") They even practise "rumor picking" on Apple (We made the smartwatch first !) They overprice their products (Apple price with nowhere near the Apple Quality)
They want to control everything (even though compared to google theirs software is crap) sell everything, profit on anything and never let other companies to profit.

Yes that is why their are so sucessfull, their are like a arogant guy in a classroom that fights others to dead and when a meaningful competition appears it blatantly mimicks it. A cheater is always higher than others in any game... I would maybe consider the Evil as the only way to big sucess if there wasn't companies like Apple to prove the opposite.
post #18 of 109

As far as I know that was patent infringement rather than copying the design. Perhaps a minor point but the patents in context are significantly less important than the 'overall design' claims that seem to be used quite often.

 

 

Not sure if they're still in the appeal phase or if they're just refusing to pay out. It would be pretty stupid of Samsung to go against a US court on this but they don't really strike me as the most coherent and clear thinking of companies.

 

 

edit: This was a response to 'Realistic' above. I assumed hitting the 'reply' would quote them in context. I'm still getting used to this forum software!

post #19 of 109
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

You dont cite any source for this statement

 

Order handed down. Apple complied fully. Judge said, “No, do it again.” Apple protested, rightly, having already done it. Judge threatened fines for complying fully with the ruling. Apple forced to change.

 

Every report on the lawsuit says this.

 
It's easy to claim something is illegal but I think you're confused.

 

Am I confused that once a ruling is decided upon it cannot magically be changed at a whim, much less after it has already been carried out? I doubt it.

 
Apple made claims in public that were incorrect

 

Not a single claim made was incorrect.

 
…they ostensibly lied about the judgements.

 

Prove it. This didn’t happen, by the way. They explicitly said they lost the British case.

 
This is the claim I was making and what resulted in them putting the notice on their website.

 

No… the notice was part of the ruling.

 
This has been widely reported…

 

Which is why it’s so confusing that you would get it THIS wrong.

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 #20 of 109
@ Blackberry4ever,
"Apple need to realise its not 2008 any more and that they don't own a patent on rounded rectangles. "

Hate Apple much. I hear they pay well for trolling.

Comments that do not deal with facts and only cheer for their team, or against others totally lack in worthwhile focus.

Just saying.

PS, to the comment about Apple losing in the UK and was forced twice to apologize. They did totally what they were told the first time, the judge got pissed and vindictive, then retired and worked for Samsung. Trolling for cash anyone.
Just saying.
post #21 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

Anyone knows how Apple and HTC enforce their anti-cloning agreement? Please only answer if you know, and resist making up stuff. Thank you.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/115711499?access_key=key-2i5scgb8dky4lmgnomxq&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll
Begin about page 13.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #22 of 109
Originally Posted by Blackberry4Eva View Post

That said I feel my point is valid and I should not be censored…

 

Good for you. Your point is NOT valid.

 
…this war against Samsung begun with Jobs some 8-9 years ago…

 

Learn anything before saying anything. That seems to be the reason you say incorrect things.

 
…and I bet there are many on both sides who have no idea why they’re fighting.

 

Your refusal to comprehend why something happens does not mean the people actually making something happen don’t comprehend it.

 
It’s gone on for too long…

 

That’s not for you to say.

 
…both sides need back down…

 

That’s not for you to say.

 
…and get back making products that people want to buy.

 

Rule #2. Come off it.

 
…the smart phone (to a lesser degree)…

 

:lol: Let me guess, you think that some other company actually made a modern smartphone first.

 
…Apples attention is focused on something that has no relevance today…

 

YEAH. I’m sure that the protection of intellectual property has “no relevance” today.

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 #23 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Order handed down. Apple complied fully. 

 

 

I've bolded the sections below which show clearly that Apple was NOT in full compliance with the court order. Not that complicated really.

 

Apple v. Samsung – Consequences of breaching a Court Order in the UK

On 30 January 2013, a US Federal Court ruled that Samsung Electronics Co Ltd had not willfully infringed some of Apple Inc (Apple’s) patents. This is of relevance to the proceedings between Apple and Samsung in the UK Courts where Apple failed to comply with a specific Court Order made initially by the High Court then later varied and endorsed by the Court of Appeal.  

Apple’s breach of a Court Order and the subsequent penalty imposed by the UK Courts highlights the seriousness of non-compliance with a Court Order.

Facts of the case

First Judgment in the High Court (July 2012) – Making of the Court Order

Samsung Electronics UK Ltd (Samsung) sought a declaration that 3 of its Galaxy tablet computers did not infringe Apple’s EU Community registered design. Apple subsequently counterclaimed for infringement.

In the High Court Judgment on 18 July 2012, HHJ Birss QC made a Judgment dealing with the remedies to be awarded to Samsung following Apple’s unsuccessful claim.

As part of the remedies, Samsung had sought an Injunction requiring Apple to place statements on its websites and certain UK newspapers to the effect that Samsung’s Galaxy tablet had been found not to infringe Apple’s EU Community registered design. The Judge agreed to the placement of the statement in the newspapers but noted that Apple were pursuing proceedings in Courts outside the UK, and had some success with its claims in the US and Germany. The Judge therefore decided that the statements were to be limited to the UK websites on Samsung’s list. He also reduced the length of time for placing the statements from the requested 12 months to 6 months stating the fast-moving nature of the electronics industry increased the risk of prejudice to Apple. A Publicity Order was therefore granted by the Court for the non-infringer (Samsung).

Apple appealed and the case subsequently went to the Court of Appeal.

Second Judgment in the Court of Appeal (October 2012) – Reinforcing the Court Order

In the Court of Appeal Judgement dated 18 October 2012, the Court dismissed Apple’s appeal against the High Court ruling. Sir Robin Jacob ruled that the Trial Judge, HHJ Birss QC, had made no material error in his assessment of the overall impression created by the designs. He considered that if Apple’s design registration had a scope as wide as Apple contended, it would foreclose much of the market for tablet computers.

However the Court of Appeal varied the Order requiring Apple to give publicity to the Court’s decision on its UK homepage and through advertisements in newspapers and magazines. The Court was satisfied by Apple’s request for the notice to be provided via a link from the main webpage and for the placement period to be reduced to one month. The notice was also ordered to include a hyperlink to the full Judgment. Any further variation was to be allowed through written submissions from both parties for settlement.

Up to this point, costs were not dealt with in the main Judgments.

Third Judgment in the Court of Appeal (November 2012) – Breach of the Court Order

On 9 November 2012, the Court of Appeal issued a further Judgment following complaints by Samsung of non-compliance by Apple to the Publicity Order which was made on 18 October 2012.

Firstly, the Court noted that the Order required posting of the notices on the Apple webpage within 7 days of the date of the Order and for the publishing of the notice in all newspapers at the earliest available issue. The cost of doing so was to be at Apple’s own expense. Apple did not post the notices in all the newspapers until 16 November 2012. 

The Court found this action as a ‘self evident non-compliance with the newspaper/magazine aspect of the Publicity Order’.

Secondly, the Court found that rather than simply publishing the text of the notice as ordered, Apple had broken it up, interspersing it with text of its own devising. The material it had added was false and misleading and, as a result, the notice would have been understood differently. In particular the concluding paragraph was of particular concern as it effectively undermined the UK Court Judgements.

 

The paragraph of the contested notice read as follows:

‘However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the Court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A US jury also found Samsung  guilty of infringing on Apple’s design and utility patents, awarding over one billion US dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the UK Court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other Courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung wilfully copied Apple’s far more popular iPad.’

Sir Robin Jacob highlighted in the Judgment that the reality was that wherever Apple has sued in relation to its registered designs, they have ultimately failed. The Court subsequently ordered for the contested notice be removed and a new notice be published, making it clear that the previous notice on its homepage was inaccurate. It Ordered that the notice remain on Apple’s website until 15 December 2012.

This time the Court chose to deal with costs of the case and concluded that they should be awarded against Apple on an indemnity basis. The decision for the higher than normal award was made as a mark of the Court’s disapproval of Apple’s conduct. Emphasis was made to the non-compliance of the Publicity Order.

The Court was very disturbed that Apple had requested 14 days to comply for ‘technical reasons’. The Court duly ordered compliance within 48 hours which they found to be more than sufficient and generous time.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Apple were found by the Court of Appeal to have breached a Publicity Order and were subsequently punished by the Court ordering costs on an indemnity basis which effectively required Apple to pay for all costs Samsung incurred during the course of the legal proceedings in the UK. It is unusual for the Court of Appeal to specifically deal with costs in this manner and it is clear that they did so as punishment for Apple’s actions.

It is also important to note that the UK Courts have extensive powers to penalise parties who fail to comply with a Court Order. Such powers include awarding costs on an indemnity basis and in more severe circumstances, holding relevant parties in civil contempt of Court which is punishable by monetary fines and/or imprisonment.

post #24 of 109
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

I've bolded the sections below which show clearly that Apple was NOT in full compliance with the court order. Not that complicated really.

 

We’re talking about the website, thanks.

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 #25 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackberry4Eva View Post

Samsung need to realise its not 2008 any more and that customers need to be offered more than cheap and nasty plastic, knock-off phones if they wish to be industry leaders. Did Sammy take design queues from apple back in 2008? of course but come on Apply it's time not to seek justice and expected to be financially compensated for your efforts and not use the money that Samsung generated by displaying an utter lack of innovation in almost every aspect of phone design and use that to create NEW products like Samsung did when they went from the Galaxy SIII to the mind-blowingly different S4.

Apart from totally revamping your regularly updated and not-left-to-stagnate mobile software, constantly pushing the envelope for all of your highest-quality hardware, improving on the already best desktop operating system in the world, crushing the competition and become the de facto standard in the tablet industry, taking majority profits in all of these areas, generating and retaining customers at an incredible rate, and improving nearly every aspect of how you do business, Apple, you've done nothing but iterate and procrastinate for 4 years unlike the incredibly innovative and creative stuff that we've seen from Samsung (like their sales figures).

You had a couple of spelling errors.

I fixed them for you.

No charge, of course. I know you Android supporters don't have a lot of money to throw around when it comes to these things.
Edited by GTR - 1/20/14 at 1:13pm
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
post #26 of 109
Originally Posted by Blackberry4Eva View Post
No wonder Apple user are seen as elitist jerks.

 

Just stop lying. It’s not that difficult a concept. Stop posting statements that are not true. Stop posting statements that are false. Do not present information that is not correct. Other synonymic sentences. If demanding people not lie makes someone an “elitist jerk”, then I’m the elitistiest jerkiest elitist jerk ever. I couldn’t care less.

 
Either way apple need to stop crying over split milk and get on with what they're good at cus' they ain't very good at suing people that much is clear.  

 

Explains why they’ve won, huh.

 
Now how about people discuss this topic

 

Here’s the topic. Apple made phone. Samsung copied phone. Apple sued Samsung. Apple won lawsuit. Samsung lost lawsuit. Samsung pays Apple.

 

That simple enough for you to comprehend?

 
xxxx 

 

Don’t kiss me.

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 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post


You had a couple of spelling errors.

I fixed them for you.

No charge, of course. I know you Android supporters don't have a lot of money to throw around when it comes to these things.

I see what you did there.

post #28 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Order handed down. Apple complied fully. Judge said, “No, do it again.” Apple protested, rightly, having already done it. Judge threatened fines for complying fully with the ruling. Apple forced to change.

 

Every report on the lawsuit says this.

 

Does it? Here's what I was able to find for the progression of events:

 

Apple's breeches are clearly listed throughout these cases but I will quote explicitly so there can be no confusion

Quote:

iii) Following Judge Birss's "not as cool" judgment, which did receive massive publicity, Apple obtained the Oberlandesgericht order banning SEC from selling the 7.7 throughout Europe. That order received massive publicity in the press too.

iv) Apple took steps to enforce that injunction. Its German lawyers wrote a letter to SEC's lawyers on 14th August complaining that the 7.7 was being advertised on Samsung's websites throughout Europe. The complaint extended to the UK. It threatened German proceedings to punish Samsung for breaching the Oberlandesgericht order. It took the position that SEC was responsible for the actions of its subsidiaries. That was in clear conflict with Judge Birss's declaration.

 

Quote:
 Given our finding that the Contested Notice did not comply with our order and did not achieve what was intended there was no dispute but that we should order it be removed. There was dispute as to what should go up in its place. Apple contended that no more was needed on its home page. We thought otherwise. The Contested Notice had had over a million hits. It was necessary that the fact it was misleading be brought home.

 

Quote:
costs...can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple's conduct warranted such an order.

 

 

You'll find in the last link they also discuss the legal framework by which they make make such an order. I need not add any more commentary. This is now the second thread you've taken particular issue with my statements on. Is this a regular 'hazing' process? From your post history you seem to be this aggressive with everyone but particularly new posters. I don't really 'get it' myself.

 

Still, there is direct, cited evidence of Apple's non compliance and misleading public statements, as well as the remedies put into effect as a result. I'm not sure how you'll claim I'm incorrect or misleading here but I look forward to reading it.

 

To comment on the real topic of the thread, I think anti-cloning provisions are pretty reasonable depending on their scope. Prohibiting Samsung from making a slim, rectangular, full touch-screen device would be excessive and these existed before the iPhone. Prohibiting them from copying the general look and feel though is likely to be a good thing. Design flexibility often leads to innovations and perhaps Samsung need to be pushed if they won't jump for themselves.

post #29 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonyBetamax4Eva View Post

I see what you did there.

I'm genuinely surprised that you did.
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
post #30 of 109
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Does it?

 

Yep.

 

Original order:

 
…the Defendant shall, at its own expense, (a) post in a font size no small than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on the home pages of its EU websites (“the Defendant's Websites"), as specified in Schedule 1 to this order, together with a hyperlink to the judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 09 July 2012

 

Content of Schedule 1:

 
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].

 

Content posted on Apple’s website:

 
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computer, 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 [2012] EWCA Civ 1339.

 

RULING: COMPLIED. LAWSUIT: OVER.

 

Then the judge magically decided he had the right (didn’t) to dictate what else Apple had on its website (doesn’t). 

 

Because of his actions and the precedent set, any future lawsuit that Apple wins in the UK (in all of the EU? Not quite sure how interconnected they’re allowed to be) allows Apple to legally force the other party to remove ANY AND ALL other content that party has from its website.

 

Samsung, for example, in a future lost lawsuit, could be forced to BLANK OUT its entire European website and only post the content decided upon. They could also be forced to change that content at any time, even after the ruling has been carried out.

 

And you’re fine with this.

 

Still, there is direct, cited evidence of Apples non compliance

 

So prove it, since your own links say otherwise.

 
…and misleading public statements…

 

So prove it.

 

This is now the second thread you've taken particular issue with my statements on. Is this a regular 'hazing' process?

 

Sounds more like your comments have issues.

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 #31 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Nope, explicitly conformed to it. The judge illegally changed the order post facto.

 

You don't cite any source for this statement, and it's hard to believe that you have superior judicial knowledge about UK law compared to a practising judge. It's easy to claim something is illegal but I think you're confused. Apple made claims in public that were incorrect, they ostensibly lied about the judgements. This is the claim I was making and what resulted in them putting the notice on their website. This has been widely reported upon and it's not like I am making any exceptional claims here. You can find reference to this from basically any online news source. Could you please cite something showing this order was illegal?

 

The UK case is cut and dried and hung out for all to see. There was no appeal, so it's finished. If TS doesn't like it ... too bad, does anybody other than TS care about his uninformed and wilfully ignorant opinion?

post #32 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Yep.

 

Original order:

 

Content of Schedule 1:

 

Content posted on Apple’s website:

 

RULING: COMPLIED. LAWSUIT: OVER.

Ok you're certainly just confused here. If you click the last link in my post you will find this in the contents:

Quote:
The Contested Notice is a mixture of the notice we ordered along with material added by Apple. There are two kinds of addition
The first is how Apple published the notice we did order (Annex 1 quoted above). Instead of simply publishing the text as ordered, Apple broke it up, interspersing it with text of its own devising. The first and fifth paragraphs constitute the notice as ordered. The middle three paragraphs were interspersed by Apple.

(the rest omitted for brevity)

 

Thus it was ruled that Apple did not comply fully with the order as they had added their own text and misled people as a result. News articles are cited in the link I provided.

 

Quote:

Then the judge magically decided he had the right (didn’t) to dictate what else Apple had on its website (doesn’t).

"the judge"? You did read the links right? The very first bolded and centred bit of the article is this:

Quote:
LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN
and
SIR ROBIN JACOB

 

None of these people are the original Judge, and both the original Judge and they fully lay out the legal framework which allows them to make an order against Apple.

 

You claim I haven't proven misleading statements, but I have quoted the very parts of the judgement that condemned Apple for their misleading notices and actions violating court orders. How much more can I do than quite the actual judgement? If you can suggest a way that I can prove this to you then I will as the truth is really very clearly evident.

post #33 of 109
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post
I don't think TS is confused at all, just a complete idiot. The UK case is cut and dried and hung out for all to see. There was no appeal, so it's finished. If TS doesn't like it ... too bad, does anybody other than TS care about his uninformed and wilfully ignorant opinion ?

 

Thanks for the insults. I guess you have a rebuttal to the post I made above, showing quite plainly that Apple explicitly conformed to the ruling handed down?

 

And you have a citation where I said anything whatsoever about an appeal? You’ll want to post that before I report this.

 

Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Thus it was ruled that Apple did not comply fully with the order as they had added their own text and misled people as a result.

 

No one was misled, nothing was misrepresented. I fail to see how explicitly following the instructions given is “not explicitly following the instructions given”. Is the UK really that broken?

 

You claim I haven't proven misleading statements, but I have quoted the very parts of the judgement that condemned Apple for their misleading notices and actions violating court orders.

 

Show me the part of the original court order that disallowed the content Apple posted.

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 #34 of 109
If so, they must have been pretty successful.

Then why aren't you on lgpradainsider?

1wink.gif
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
post #35 of 109
, "Samsung incorrectly claims that Apple made recent offers to Samsung without anti-cloning provisions. Every offer Apple made to Samsung has included limits to both the scope of any license and a prohibition against cloning Apple products."

I love how Samsung blatantly, outright lies about this.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #36 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

No one was misled, nothing was misrepresented. I fail to see how explicitly following the instructions given is “not explicitly following the instructions given”. Is the UK really that broken?

 

Show me the part of the original court order that disallowed the content Apple posted.

The page I linked literally cites a media source and mentions that many others were cited that had a clear misunderstanding about the nature of the court order. Apple can comply exactly with the words of an order but fail to meet its spirit. This is indeed exactly what happened:

 

Quote:
Mr Beloff suggested that we had no jurisdiction to make a further order. But he accepted that the court has power to vary its orders to make their meaning and intention clear. The meaning and intention of the first order was plain: to require Apple to publicise properly that there was no infringement of the registered design. The proposed order now sought does no more than that.

 

Apple were ordered to place a revised notice exactly as a result of adding their material to the original, resulting in the 'meaning and intention' of the original order becoming unclear.

 

You can fight the facts all you like, but you've already abandoned some of your arguments and are now falling back on insulting my country's legal system, a system which literally provides the foundation for yours. Please don't be so ridiculously obtuse. The links I provided give excellent detail on exactly what happened and why.

post #37 of 109
Originally Posted by c473419 View Post

Yes, the LG Prada, you bloody retard.

 

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


You people still believe this!  We have to laugh because otherwise we’d burst into tears.

 

Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
The page I linked literally cites a media source and mentions that many others were cited that had a clear misunderstanding about the nature of the court order. Apple can comply exactly with the words of an order but fail to meet its spirit. This is indeed exactly what happened:

 

Apple. Did. Exactly. What. The. Court. Stated. No one can read what was posted and fail to comprehend that they lost to Samsung in the UK. You cannot possibly state otherwise.

 
Apple were ordered to place a revised notice exactly as a result of adding their material to the original, resulting in the 'meaning and intention' of the original order becoming unclear.

 

They have no jurisdiction over any order but their own. Apple can post whatever it wants about any other order they received. You fail to comprehend this.

 
 …are now falling back on insulting my countrys legal system

 

Sure thing. That’s what’s happening.

 
…a system which literally provides the foundation for yours.

 

Oh boy, here we go.

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 #38 of 109

If Apple wants to get rid of competition they should just release iPhone 4c at 99$..and game over for Samscum (a company that kills people, cheats, lies and makes bad products), 

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #39 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by c473419 View Post
 

 

No LG were not very successful with the Prada (as you very well know), mostly because they lacked a snake-oil-salesman, a la Steve Jobs.

 

Successful or not, this does not change the fact that the LG Prada was the first smart phone.

 

Watch and learn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0

 

The Prada was nowhere near a landmark phone, it's not even an apps phone.  The whole smartphone concept was established way before LG with the Palm Treo, Windows Mobile Phones and Noka-Sony-Ericsson Symbian phones. 

post #40 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by c473419 View Post
 

 

Yes, the LG Prada, you bloody retard.

Seriously stop smoking weed! affects your brain, iPhone was the first smartphone "the whole planet knows that"

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple offers Samsung patent settlement deal tied to anti-cloning provision
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple offers Samsung patent settlement deal tied to anti-cloning provision