I guess I must be reading the AI article incorrectly when it says, last sentence, para 4: "Apple does have the ability to appeal the judge's decision."
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 would take this a step further: "Courts in Germany, Australia, and the U.S. have ruled Samsung copied the iPad. In spite of this, UK court [insert name here] has instructed us to tell UK (and only UK) buyers the opposite. So here: 'Samsung did not copy the iPad.' But only in the UK did they not do this. Now you know."
I do like the idea of including pictures and dates, to let people decide for themselves whether or not the iPad was copied. Maybe they could do a whole series, with pre-iPhone and post-iPhone Android designs, too, saying how nobody copied the iPhone, either. It would end up sounding pretty sarcastic.
"SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN, THEY ARE COPIERS, THEY STOLE IT, THEY STOLE IT I TELL YOU. HEY EVERYONE, SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN!!!!"
Well, that does very bad damage to Samsung's public image. So when you lose in court and it is found that Samsung did NOT copy your design, well, it seems only fair for you to have to correct the wrong you put into people's minds.
And please, before you start. I speak solely on the court of law in this jurisdiction. It is not a matter of Apple's or our opinion, its what the court decides. In the US, I believe Samsung would be able to sue for stupid damages of a billion dollars, seeing as what you can get for a slip and fall in a grocery store. So maybe in the UK, this is the equivalent.
And of course it didn't help after the decision that Apple put out a statement basically saying "Pssshhh, WHATEVER!! Screw you UK court system, you can all suck it" Matter of fact I remember pointing it out at the time on this forum as a very weird thing for Apple to do.
I do like the idea of including pictures and dates, to let people decide for themselves whether or not the iPad was copied. Maybe they could do a whole series, with pre-iPhone and post-iPhone Android designs, too, saying how nobody copied the iPhone, either. It would end up sounding pretty sarcastic.
Yeah, and maybe they should show the LG Prada, and the drop down notification bar, and multi-tasking, and show that the iphone is totally original technology with a design that resembles nothing before it and features that never existed.
If I was them, I would move their retail operations also. This just shows that the country has a terribly biased and non-functional legal system. Why do business at all with a country like that?
That's one of the more insane comments so far. You know how much Apple make in the UK?
Also, I would take the UK judicial system over the US any day of the week.
This kind of ruling enters under the WTF category.
If I were Apple however, I would not appeal. I would just show both devices with slow camera pans, and the 101 things that are similar to all and have the voiceover say; "We have been ordered by the court to mention that Samsung did not copy the iPad." And after showing 10X more apps, more stability, and the industry leading performance, battery life and compatibility you end with "and it wasn't for lack of trying..." or "because they couldn't."
Anyway, I've never heard of a judgement forcing someone to advertise for a competitor - but it's a pretty uncreative ruling with some judge of limited imagination on how a marketing department could use this as cannon fire.
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.
I wonder what side of the Mac - PC hate aisle this guy sits?
Comments
Is this judge for real??
LMAO
Apple's appeal on this will go through like a hot knife through butter.
Apparently, idiotic statements from the judiciary happen everywhere:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18882756
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
How humiliating for Apple.
Do you actually think Apple or anyone else will take this seriously?
The consumer will NEVER see such wording in any of Apple's ads.
Use your head, already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I guess I must be reading the AI article incorrectly when it says, last sentence, para 4: "Apple does have the ability to appeal the judge's decision."
I think they updated that. Or I misread it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealestmc
I am glad the judge ruled that way. The idea the square is invented by Apple is absolutely absurd.
Invented the square?
You are incredibly ignorant of the suit and the issues at hand (as was the judge, apparently.)
Samsung clearly violated the Apple's **Design Patent** (which does not at all entail either "invention" or "squares.")
This ruling will never stand if Apple chooses to appeal it and keeps their argument focused on violation of the design patent.
Love it! Maybe add that a court has ruled that it is not cool enough to be an iPad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
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 would take this a step further: "Courts in Germany, Australia, and the U.S. have ruled Samsung copied the iPad. In spite of this, UK court [insert name here] has instructed us to tell UK (and only UK) buyers the opposite. So here: 'Samsung did not copy the iPad.' But only in the UK did they not do this. Now you know."
I do like the idea of including pictures and dates, to let people decide for themselves whether or not the iPad was copied. Maybe they could do a whole series, with pre-iPhone and post-iPhone Android designs, too, saying how nobody copied the iPhone, either. It would end up sounding pretty sarcastic.
Who paid the Judge off? I have never heard of such a bizarre and might I say juvenile ruling....extraordinary.
Well when you go all about the place saying
"SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN, THEY ARE COPIERS, THEY STOLE IT, THEY STOLE IT I TELL YOU. HEY EVERYONE, SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN!!!!"
Well, that does very bad damage to Samsung's public image. So when you lose in court and it is found that Samsung did NOT copy your design, well, it seems only fair for you to have to correct the wrong you put into people's minds.
And please, before you start. I speak solely on the court of law in this jurisdiction. It is not a matter of Apple's or our opinion, its what the court decides. In the US, I believe Samsung would be able to sue for stupid damages of a billion dollars, seeing as what you can get for a slip and fall in a grocery store. So maybe in the UK, this is the equivalent.
And of course it didn't help after the decision that Apple put out a statement basically saying "Pssshhh, WHATEVER!! Screw you UK court system, you can all suck it" Matter of fact I remember pointing it out at the time on this forum as a very weird thing for Apple to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al
This is completely stupid. Time for the Queen to use some of her theoretical reserve powers and intervene!
She does use an iPad, doesn't she?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Rogoff
Who paid the Judge off? I have never heard of such a bizarre and might I say juvenile ruling....extraordinary.
No one, the judge used common sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrogusto
I do like the idea of including pictures and dates, to let people decide for themselves whether or not the iPad was copied. Maybe they could do a whole series, with pre-iPhone and post-iPhone Android designs, too, saying how nobody copied the iPhone, either. It would end up sounding pretty sarcastic.
Yeah, and maybe they should show the LG Prada, and the drop down notification bar, and multi-tasking, and show that the iphone is totally original technology with a design that resembles nothing before it and features that never existed.
Would be interesting
Haha! This is just too funny!
Go UK!
Maybe this will teach arrogant Apple that they must not abuse the court system for their silly "war" against their competitors!
South Korea fighting!
Samsung fighting!
This is hilarious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
Well when you go all about the place saying
"SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN, THEY ARE COPIERS, THEY STOLE IT, THEY STOLE IT I TELL YOU. HEY EVERYONE, SAMSUNG STOLE OUR DESIGN!!!!"
Apple never, ever, anywhere, advertised this. Not on their website, not in their TV or print ads. Nowhere.
If news outlets love to report on Apple's litigation and repeat Apple's claims, that's neither Apple's nor Samsung's problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
If I was them, I would move their retail operations also. This just shows that the country has a terribly biased and non-functional legal system. Why do business at all with a country like that?
That's one of the more insane comments so far. You know how much Apple make in the UK?
Also, I would take the UK judicial system over the US any day of the week.
This kind of ruling enters under the WTF category.
If I were Apple however, I would not appeal. I would just show both devices with slow camera pans, and the 101 things that are similar to all and have the voiceover say; "We have been ordered by the court to mention that Samsung did not copy the iPad." And after showing 10X more apps, more stability, and the industry leading performance, battery life and compatibility you end with "and it wasn't for lack of trying..." or "because they couldn't."
Anyway, I've never heard of a judgement forcing someone to advertise for a competitor - but it's a pretty uncreative ruling with some judge of limited imagination on how a marketing department could use this as cannon fire.
>> I predict this backfires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89
That's one of the more insane comments so far. You know how much Apple make in the UK?
Also, I would take the UK judicial system over the US any day of the week.
I'm sure leaving a market to your competitors is an economic strategy in SOME dimension - just not this one.
I wonder what side of the Mac - PC hate aisle this guy sits?