It has different details on the back! So if Ford were to accidentally copy the look of a Ferrari to where people can't tell the difference from more than a few feet away, it would actually be find because what's under the hood would still look different? Could this judge tell the difference when NOT looking at the back of the Tab?
I've said repeatedly that this would all end in tears.
No point blaming the British judge - this case was also dismissed in Australia and Germany, and will probably fail in the US to. If you play hardball and go to court there's always the chance it will come back and bite you in the ass.
It's quite common in British law for companies to be made to issue public apologies if they've been found to have defamed or libelled someone. The newspapers have to do it all the time, so this case is not without precedent.
Going to be interesting what we can learn about the judge Colin Birss. For one thing, there was a highly suspect judgment by him earlier this year, when he ruled there was an infringement of copyright over a photograph of a bus on Westminster Bridge... (read about it here: http://www.techfruit.com/2012/01/26/violating-copyright-by-recreating-photographs/ )
He essentially ruled that you could copyright an idea, not just an image... Now in the Apple case we see him going in the opposite direction.
Then again, there is nothing new in this, for we already knew.. "the law is an ass'.
While it is obvious that a lot of people think this decision should be met by Apple complying with the order in an infantile and dismissive way, I doubt they will. At this point I doubt Apple would be relishing the likely consequences of being found in contempt of a court order.
Going to be interesting what we can learn about the judge Colin Birss. For one thing, there was a highly suspect judgment by him earlier this year, when he ruled there was an infringement of copyright over a photograph of a bus on Westminster Bridge... (read about it here: http://www.techfruit.com/2012/01/26/violating-copyright-by-recreating-photographs/ )
He essentially ruled that you could copyright an idea, not just an image... Now in the Apple case we see him going in the opposite direction.
Then again, there is nothing new in this, for we already knew.. "the law is an ass'.
uhhh, you DO know that copyright law and patent law are two TOTALLY diff things right?
I mean, surely you wouldn't post something like that being serious? Maybe you are just being sarcastic then. Cause i mean, who would be stupid enough to confuse copyright law with patent law, what kind of ifiot would do that?
I wonder what side of the Mac - PC hate aisle this guy sits?
I'm a patent holder. And I've fought for the rights of my patents. Regardless of "what side of the Mac - PC hate aisle" I sit on, I support the right to fight for your rights granted under international patent laws. Do you know how patents work? Do you know that if you don't fight for your rights, you are likely to loose said rights? Also, if you've ever worked with or for a company that is both a component manufacturer and a finished product manufacturer, you'd know that the often touted "fence" that separates the two business units without fail has a giant gate that swings both ways. Even with the tightest of NDA's, chances are anything shared with one unit will find its way to the other. It's human nature.
Apparently they cant appeal - Apple should move all its infrastructure in the UK to Ireland. Not that it has much.
Yea, it's not like a country with a legal system that ruled you can't libel a dead person is going to do anything about a company effectively doing that to a competitor.
"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.
Are you sure? AppleThink says otherwise. You seem to Think Different.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
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've said repeatedly that this would all end in tears.
No point blaming the British judge - this case was also dismissed in Australia and Germany, and will probably fail in the US to. If you play hardball and go to court there's always the chance it will come back and bite you in the ass.
It's quite common in British law for companies to be made to issue public apologies if they've been found to have defamed or libelled someone. The newspapers have to do it all the time, so this case is not without precedent. I wonder if that is the end of the matter or if Samsung will now sue for defamation and loss of sales.
The issue is - Apple has not publicly defamed or libelled Samsung. Apple fought for their rights or supposed rights granted by international patent law. It was Apple's duty to protect their patents. What the judge is requiring does not fall within the realm of being a reasonable directive based upon the case. If you can show me where Apple has publicly defamed Samsung, I'll humbly stand corrected, but the last I saw, it was Samsung advertising that poked fun at Apple, not the other way around. Apple doesn't need to, nor has, advertised against someone else's product.
No appeal needed. Give it a few days . The supervising judges will issue a statement similar to:
'In the matter of Apple vs Samsung, we reviewed the elements of the case, & set aside the original decision as being in error, as it did not reflect the totality of the facts presented. We hereby reverse that decision, & find in favor of Apple. Samsung will not have to advertise or in any way, publish the decision or an apology to Apple.'
Wait a couple days more, and you will see an article indicating, "Apparently, the UK judge that issued the original court decision in 'Apple vs Samsung,' was apparently found to, ' not be cool enough to be judge' anymore. It would appear that, based on a review of his peers, the judge's logic & reasoning for the decision was so faulty, that his peers had no confidence in his ability to render fair & equitable findings in future cases.
Apparently, the judge has been offered a job resolving disputes in a herd of sheep, as to who would lead. That should keep him busy & him mind sharp & active for years to come.
You obviously didn't read the article. The Judge has not granted Apple leave to appeal to a higher court. His decision is final and binding. If Apple fails to comply they will be fined and/or someone will go to prison.
Really? Really? Are you freaking trying to be serious, or are you just looking to pick a fight. Apple NEVER advertised or "go all about the place saying" Samsung did anything. They rightfully took Samsung to court to support their own patented designs. It's not only their right to do so, it's their duty to fight for their rights. Apple wasn't slandering Samsung and Samsung can't counter sue for damages.
Please either go away and peddle your drivel elsewhere or actually read up on what you are talking about before spouting off like this.
check your facts, apple, via it's official spokesman, did make explicit public accusations about samsung, so you are the one spouting drivel
as this thread seems to be rapidly turning into yet another fact-free stream of childish nonsense, let's be clear
on july 9th apple lost it's case in the high court, follwing which an apple spokesman is quoted in the uk press as saying...
Quote:
“It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” a spokesman said.
“This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”
a rather childish fit of pique from apple, so it's no surprise that the judge took exception to this blatant act of contempt, and as a result decided that...
Quote:
Comments made by Apple after that ruling unfairly implied that Samsung had copied designs, Samsung’s lawyer Kathryn Pickard said at the hearing. That “caused real commercial harm.”
As well as Apple’s website, the company must pay for notices in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, Guardian Mobile magazine, and T3, according to a draft copy of the order provided by Samsung’s lawyers.
Apple’s lawyer said the company would appeal the July 9 decision and Judge Birss granted the company permission to take its case to the court of appeal.
The case is Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited & Anr v. Apple Inc., High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, HC11C03050.
the law may sometimes be an ass, but in the uk you don't **** around with judges, they bite
maybe they'll be stupid enough to try it again, next time they could end up in prison
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengregg
Love it! Maybe add that a court has ruled that it is not cool enough to be an iPad!
What most Americans don't get is that this judge was being sarcastic when he used the term "cool".
A: "You are not on Facebook?!"
B : "No."
A : "Why not?"
B : "Well... I guess I am not cool enough."
THIS is how this judge used the term "cool".
LOL
****************************
"Samsung did not copy the iPad"
****************************
Consumer: "Ok, so I WANT an iPad now."
It has different details on the back! So if Ford were to accidentally copy the look of a Ferrari to where people can't tell the difference from more than a few feet away, it would actually be find because what's under the hood would still look different? Could this judge tell the difference when NOT looking at the back of the Tab?
Ugh, what a crock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138
Yeah because a single British judge (wearing a whig no doubt) made a ruling?
Sure, we can go with that.
Or not.
Not because his ruling will get press in and of itself.
But instead, due to the advertising Apple is being ordered to run. Combined with the buzz about the ruling.
I've said repeatedly that this would all end in tears.
No point blaming the British judge - this case was also dismissed in Australia and Germany, and will probably fail in the US to. If you play hardball and go to court there's always the chance it will come back and bite you in the ass.
It's quite common in British law for companies to be made to issue public apologies if they've been found to have defamed or libelled someone. The newspapers have to do it all the time, so this case is not without precedent.
Going to be interesting what we can learn about the judge Colin Birss. For one thing, there was a highly suspect judgment by him earlier this year, when he ruled there was an infringement of copyright over a photograph of a bus on Westminster Bridge... (read about it here: http://www.techfruit.com/2012/01/26/violating-copyright-by-recreating-photographs/ )
He essentially ruled that you could copyright an idea, not just an image... Now in the Apple case we see him going in the opposite direction.
Then again, there is nothing new in this, for we already knew.. "the law is an ass'.
And then again, the patents Apple has been awarded today will probably make Samsung shit themselves.. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/18/apple-granted-the-mother-of-all-smartphone-software-patents/
While it is obvious that a lot of people think this decision should be met by Apple complying with the order in an infantile and dismissive way, I doubt they will. At this point I doubt Apple would be relishing the likely consequences of being found in contempt of a court order.
Today's Woot Shirt seems to encompass this news perfectly.
http://shirt.woot.com/offers/alas-haters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon T
Going to be interesting what we can learn about the judge Colin Birss. For one thing, there was a highly suspect judgment by him earlier this year, when he ruled there was an infringement of copyright over a photograph of a bus on Westminster Bridge... (read about it here: http://www.techfruit.com/2012/01/26/violating-copyright-by-recreating-photographs/ )
He essentially ruled that you could copyright an idea, not just an image... Now in the Apple case we see him going in the opposite direction.
Then again, there is nothing new in this, for we already knew.. "the law is an ass'.
And then again, the patents Apple has been awarded today will probably make Samsung shit themselves.. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/18/apple-granted-the-mother-of-all-smartphone-software-patents/
uhhh, you DO know that copyright law and patent law are two TOTALLY diff things right?
I mean, surely you wouldn't post something like that being serious? Maybe you are just being sarcastic then. Cause i mean, who would be stupid enough to confuse copyright law with patent law, what kind of ifiot would do that?
Good one guy, almost got me, lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I wonder what side of the Mac - PC hate aisle this guy sits?
I'm a patent holder. And I've fought for the rights of my patents. Regardless of "what side of the Mac - PC hate aisle" I sit on, I support the right to fight for your rights granted under international patent laws. Do you know how patents work? Do you know that if you don't fight for your rights, you are likely to loose said rights? Also, if you've ever worked with or for a company that is both a component manufacturer and a finished product manufacturer, you'd know that the often touted "fence" that separates the two business units without fail has a giant gate that swings both ways. Even with the tightest of NDA's, chances are anything shared with one unit will find its way to the other. It's human nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Apparently they cant appeal - Apple should move all its infrastructure in the UK to Ireland. Not that it has much.
Yea, it's not like a country with a legal system that ruled you can't libel a dead person is going to do anything about a company effectively doing that to a competitor.
Beg pardon?
Do manga carts and the bill of rights not ring a bell? We have the right of free speech in the uk, just like the USA.
Thanks for playing though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
In for what will be an epic thread
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!!!!"
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.
Are you sure? AppleThink says otherwise. You seem to Think Different.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Is this judge for real??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
I've said repeatedly that this would all end in tears.
No point blaming the British judge - this case was also dismissed in Australia and Germany, and will probably fail in the US to. If you play hardball and go to court there's always the chance it will come back and bite you in the ass.
It's quite common in British law for companies to be made to issue public apologies if they've been found to have defamed or libelled someone. The newspapers have to do it all the time, so this case is not without precedent. I wonder if that is the end of the matter or if Samsung will now sue for defamation and loss of sales.
The issue is - Apple has not publicly defamed or libelled Samsung. Apple fought for their rights or supposed rights granted by international patent law. It was Apple's duty to protect their patents. What the judge is requiring does not fall within the realm of being a reasonable directive based upon the case. If you can show me where Apple has publicly defamed Samsung, I'll humbly stand corrected, but the last I saw, it was Samsung advertising that poked fun at Apple, not the other way around. Apple doesn't need to, nor has, advertised against someone else's product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellya74u
No appeal needed. Give it a few days . The supervising judges will issue a statement similar to:
'In the matter of Apple vs Samsung, we reviewed the elements of the case, & set aside the original decision as being in error, as it did not reflect the totality of the facts presented. We hereby reverse that decision, & find in favor of Apple. Samsung will not have to advertise or in any way, publish the decision or an apology to Apple.'
Wait a couple days more, and you will see an article indicating, "Apparently, the UK judge that issued the original court decision in 'Apple vs Samsung,' was apparently found to, ' not be cool enough to be judge' anymore. It would appear that, based on a review of his peers, the judge's logic & reasoning for the decision was so faulty, that his peers had no confidence in his ability to render fair & equitable findings in future cases.
Apparently, the judge has been offered a job resolving disputes in a herd of sheep, as to who would lead. That should keep him busy & him mind sharp & active for years to come.
You obviously didn't read the article. The Judge has not granted Apple leave to appeal to a higher court. His decision is final and binding. If Apple fails to comply they will be fined and/or someone will go to prison.
I simply wouldn't do it. It's not like the people in the UK won't simply scalp for the devices anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1
Really? Really? Are you freaking trying to be serious, or are you just looking to pick a fight. Apple NEVER advertised or "go all about the place saying" Samsung did anything. They rightfully took Samsung to court to support their own patented designs. It's not only their right to do so, it's their duty to fight for their rights. Apple wasn't slandering Samsung and Samsung can't counter sue for damages.
Please either go away and peddle your drivel elsewhere or actually read up on what you are talking about before spouting off like this.
check your facts, apple, via it's official spokesman, did make explicit public accusations about samsung, so you are the one spouting drivel
as this thread seems to be rapidly turning into yet another fact-free stream of childish nonsense, let's be clear
on july 9th apple lost it's case in the high court, follwing which an apple spokesman is quoted in the uk press as saying...
Quote:
“It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” a spokesman said.
“This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”
a rather childish fit of pique from apple, so it's no surprise that the judge took exception to this blatant act of contempt, and as a result decided that...
Quote:
Comments made by Apple after that ruling unfairly implied that Samsung had copied designs, Samsung’s lawyer Kathryn Pickard said at the hearing. That “caused real commercial harm.”
As well as Apple’s website, the company must pay for notices in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, Guardian Mobile magazine, and T3, according to a draft copy of the order provided by Samsung’s lawyers.
Apple’s lawyer said the company would appeal the July 9 decision and Judge Birss granted the company permission to take its case to the court of appeal.
The case is Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited & Anr v. Apple Inc., High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, HC11C03050.
the law may sometimes be an ass, but in the uk you don't **** around with judges, they bite
maybe they'll be stupid enough to try it again, next time they could end up in prison
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat
According to the article "Apple does not have the ability to appeal the ruling"
Not the article I read -- perhaps it has been revised. The Article currently says Apple does have the right to appeal.