UK judge rules Apple must advertise Samsung did not copy the iPad

Posted:
in iPad edited January 2014
Apple has been ordered by a U.K. judge to advertise on its website and in British newspapers that Samsung's Galaxy Tab did not copy the design of the iPad.

The decision from Judge Colin Birss means Apple will have to post the notice on its U.K. website for six months, as well as "several newspapers and magazines to correct the damaging impression" that Samsung copied the iPad, according to Bloomberg. The same judge said in a ruling earlier this month that the Samsung Galaxy Tab is not "cool" enough to be mistaken for an iPad.

An attorney representing Apple argued before the court that mentioning Samsung on Apple's official website would amount to "an advertisement" for its rival.

Birss determined that Samsung's products, including the Galaxy Tab, are distinctive from Apple, as they are thinner and have "unusual details" on the back. Apple does have the ability to appeal the judge's decision.

Galaxy Tab 10.1


While Apple has had a hard time fighting Samsung in court in the U.K., it has had success against the Galaxy Tab in other countries. For example, last month U.S. District Court Judge Lucky Koh found that Samsung infringed on Apple's design patents, and issued a temporary injunction prohibiting sales of the device.

Apple has also successfully argued for temporary injunctions in Australia and Germany. Samsung dodged the German injunction by releasing a slightly-redesigned Galaxy Tab 10.1N. Meanwhile, the Australian ban was overturned last November.
«13456716

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 315


    Hahahaha! Maybe Tim Cook should also have to write "I will not call Samsung names anymore" 100 times on a chalkboard.

  • Reply 2 of 315
    smiles77smiles77 Posts: 668member


    That is completely stupid. Appeal.

  • Reply 3 of 315


    Oh boy. I've got my popcorn ready for this thread.

  • Reply 4 of 315


    That is completely insane.

  • Reply 5 of 315
    Is there precedence for a ruling like this?
  • Reply 6 of 315
    shidellshidell Posts: 187member


    lol.

  • Reply 7 of 315
    rokradrokrad Posts: 143member


    Yeah, what kind of ruling is this? Does not seem professional at all....

  • Reply 8 of 315
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Smiles77 View Post


    That is completely stupid. Appeal.



    Apparently they cant appeal - Apple should move all its infrastructure in the UK to Ireland. Not that it has much. 

  • Reply 9 of 315
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member


    Can you imagine how SJ would have reacted to this?


     


    If I were Apple I would include in the "statement" a picture of the two devices side by side along with the date they were introduced.  "According to the [insert name of the court here] the Samsung device shown here that came out a year after the iPad is not a copy of the iPad.  They've instructed us to tell you that.  Have a nice day."

  • Reply 10 of 315


    Complete rubbish.  Apple fought the patent battle in court.  Asking them to advertise for Samsung is unreasonable and akin to public humiliation.  This judge needs to be removed from the bench.  Frankly, to think that Samsung didn't share Apple's ideas with their other business units is wholly impossible and unreasonable to think.  Of course they copied Apple, making just enough changes to not have an outright mirror image of the iPad.

  • Reply 11 of 315
    oneof52oneof52 Posts: 112member


    Advertisement:


     


    "Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad.


     


    "(Samsung's tablets) do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design," Judge Birss said in his ruling. "They are not as cool."

  • Reply 12 of 315


    It has to start somewhere. I am glad the judge ruled that way. The idea the square is invented by Apple is absolutely absurd. I like Apple products and all, but this one was a stupid suit to begin with. 

  • Reply 13 of 315
    patpatpatpatpatpat Posts: 628member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Smiles77 View Post


    That is completely stupid. Appeal.



    According to the article "Apple does not have the ability to appeal the ruling"

  • Reply 14 of 315
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member


    Does Sammy have to post "Not cool enough to be confused with an iPad" where they sell the Tabs?

     

  • Reply 15 of 315
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Talk about violating free speech by forcing an entity to engage in specific speech.

    Reminds me of a U.S. judge who ordered a man to post an apology to his ex on Facebook every day for several months.

    Judges these days seem to be on a power trip.
  • Reply 16 of 315


    How  humiliating for Apple.


     


    And so much for those who claimed that Apple's legal losses are not damaging its image with consumers.  Even were that true in the past, this would put an absolute end to any notion that consumers are not aware of apple's legal tactics.

  • Reply 17 of 315
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by therealestmc View Post


    It has to start somewhere. I am glad the judge ruled that way. The idea the square is invented by Apple is absolutely absurd. I like Apple products and all, but this one was a stupid suit to begin with. 



     


    Coke didn't invent the bottle yet no one is able to copy the curve design.


     


    It's not about the "square" or "rectangle", it's the fact Sammy mimic'd the iPad in many ways.

  • Reply 18 of 315
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,612member


    In for what will be an epic thread


     


    dyups9.gif

  • Reply 19 of 315
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Smiles77 View Post


    That is completely stupid. Appeal.



     


    Indeed.  There is no way Apple can really do this without looking completely weak and foolish.  


     


    What an absolutely outrageous, one-sided order for the judge to make.  More evidence of how completely ridiculous the UK has become now.  

  • Reply 20 of 315
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by malax View Post


    Can you imagine how SJ would have reacted to this?


     


    If I were Apple I would include in the "statement" a picture of the two devices side by side along with the date they were introduced.  "According to the [insert name of the court here] the Samsung device shown here that came out a year after the iPad is not a copy of the iPad.  They've instructed us to tell you that.  Have a nice day."



    I like this.

Sign In or Register to comment.