Apple wins stay on posting 'Samsung did not copy iPad' UK notice

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Apple on Thursday won a reprieve on a court order requiring the company to post notices on all its EU websites as well as a number of print publications proclaiming Samsung's Galaxy Tab does not infringe on iPad design patents.

A London court granted Apple's request to postpone any postings until the company has the opportunity to appeal the previous ruling in October, reports All Things D.

In a ruling last week, U.K. Judge Colin Birss ordered Apple to post a statement on its website and "several newspapers and magazines to correct the damaging impression" that Samsung copied the iPad.

According to the stipulations provided by Judge Birss, Apple would have been required to provide a link to the judge's order on the front page of its EU websites for one year and publish similar notices in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 ?in a font size no small than Arial 14 on a page earlier than page 6.?

An Apple attorney argued that the notices would amount to Apple-sponsored advertisement of a competitor's device as the company needs to purchase ad space in the above publications.

Galaxy Tab 10.1


Earlier in July, Judge Birss noted that Samsung's tablet was not "cool" enough to be mistaken for an iPad but also said Apple's patent infringement allegations could potentially tarnish Samsung's image.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 57
    jcallowsjcallows Posts: 142member


    i'm sorry but wasn't jony ive just knighted?  the judge should just ask him if he thinks samsung copied his designs.

  • Reply 2 of 57
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,743member


    Apple will not only win a stay, but you'll never see this ruling stick. 


     


    All anyone needs to know about the "damaging impression" about Samsung:


     


     


    image


     


     


     


    image

  • Reply 3 of 57
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,510member


    That ruling was one of the stupidest I've ever heard of.

  • Reply 4 of 57
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    We'll see where it goes, but sometimes when 'a child' (or in this case, a company) behaves badly (causing undue harm to others) their misdeeds should be made public via a written apology.

    ..and as for 'certain people' trying to rewrite history, here's the truth:

    http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg32/scaled.php?server=32&filename=screenshot20111201at114.png&res=landing
  • Reply 5 of 57
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,328member
    daharder wrote: »
    We'll see where it goes, but sometimes when 'children' behave badly (causing undue harm to others) their misdeeds should be made public via a written apology.

    So you are suggesting that the judge should issue a public apology? That's a great idea.
  • Reply 6 of 57
    DaekwanDaekwan Posts: 174member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post



    We'll see where it goes, but sometimes when 'children' behave badly (causing undue harm to others) their misdeeds should be made public via a written apology.


     


    This whole ordeal is about one company legally trying to stop another company from blatantly copying their hardware designs, software features, accessories, boxing and even storefront.


     


    How you came to such an immature conclusion, I have no idea.  But this isnt the first time you posted something, looking for extra attention.  Colour me unsurprised.

  • Reply 7 of 57
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member
    Whether a judge passes a judgement or not, i think Samsung copied Apple, and that's my judgement.
  • Reply 8 of 57
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    EU websites?

    Including countries where Samsung has been found to have copied Apple's designs, sounds like this Judge is inciting Apple to commit contempt in jurisdictions outside his ruling.
  • Reply 9 of 57
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    This is getting stupid. What next? Tim Cook to make a personal video saying how he loves Samsung... in his boxers?
  • Reply 10 of 57
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    daharder wrote: »
    We'll see where it goes, but sometimes when 'a child' (or in this case, a company) behaves badly (causing undue harm to others) their misdeeds should be made public via a written apology.

    Indeed. Samsung should post it in 20pt text at the top of all their websites and on every Samsung smartphone and tablet box:

    We, Samsung, acting as patsies for our overlords Google, shamelessly ripped off a ton of stuff from Apple, and we are not sorry, because we are scumbag ripoff merchants with no ethics or respect for the rule of law.

    We also contemptuously flooded as many legal systems around the world with as much nonsense as we can and destroyed key evidence... because we have no regard whatsoever for any standards expected of us as a major international corporation.

  • Reply 11 of 57
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    daharder wrote: »
    ..and as for 'certain people' trying to rewrite history, here's the truth:
    http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg32/scaled.php?server=32&filename=screenshot20111201at114.png&res=landing

    LOL. That is ridiculous. Those are square boxy plastic crappy "tablets" running Windows. In which case what is the iPad supposed to violate?
  • Reply 12 of 57

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Apple will not only win a stay, but you'll never see this ruling stick.


     


    All anyone needs to know about the "damaging impression" about Samsung:


     


     


    image


     


     


     


    image



     


     


     


     


     


    These pictures are misleading.  The only reason you don't have pictures of Apple phones in the old style is because Apple wasn't in the phone business when feature phones were popular.  Samsung has been making phones a lot longer than Apple so of course you'll have pictures of old technology Samsung feature phones.  These pictures don't prove a thing.

  • Reply 13 of 57
    just_mejust_me Posts: 590member
    sr2012 wrote: »
    LOL. That is ridiculous. Those are square boxy plastic crappy "tablets" running Windows. In which case what is the iPad supposed to violate?

    Rectangles duh!
  • Reply 14 of 57
    just_mejust_me Posts: 590member
    allenadams wrote: »
    These pictures are misleading.  The only reason you don't have pictures of Apple phones in the old style is because Apple wasn't in the phone business when feature phones were popular.  Samsung has been making phones a lot longer than Apple so of course you'll have pictures of old technology Samsung feature phones.  These pictures don't prove a thing.

    Of course they are
  • Reply 15 of 57
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,720member


    I hate judges that to try to play off like they're Solomon...

  • Reply 16 of 57
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    clemynx wrote: »
    That ruling was one of the stupidest I've ever heard of.
    john.b wrote: »
    I hate judges that to try to play off like they're Solomon...

    I don't agree with the ruling but I love the penalty. Slapping a company with a fine means little to them. That's why Samsung has taken all these risks by copying Apple in the first place. The most that's going to happen to them is they get what is effectively a slap on the wrist to the bottom line. But for a company to have to make an embarrassing statement seems very effective, it's just too bad that the judge is wrong.

    I hope the quoted statement "'Samsung did not copy iPad' is just something AI writers made up because that wasn't the ruling in this court case. It was focused on a specific Samsung tablet, not all tablets from Samsung and not all types of copying that could be done by Samsung.


    PS: it's great how DaHarder talks about damage by other companies and yet doesn't see how Samsung harmed the market.
  • Reply 17 of 57

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post



    This is getting stupid. What next? Tim Cook to make a personal video saying how he loves Samsung... in his boxers?


    Wait, is that supposed to be "Tim Cook to make a personal video - saying how he loves Samsung - in his boxers"?


     


    Or, is it supposed to be "Tim Cook to make a personal video saying how he 'loves Samsung in his boxers'"?


     


    I find both possibilities disturbing...

  • Reply 18 of 57
    Its clear that this judge is still using his blackberry.
  • Reply 19 of 57
    povilaspovilas Posts: 473member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by allenadams View Post


     


     


     


     


     


    These pictures are misleading.  The only reason you don't have pictures of Apple phones in the old style is because Apple wasn't in the phone business when feature phones were popular.  Samsung has been making phones a lot longer than Apple so of course you'll have pictures of old technology Samsung feature phones.  These pictures don't prove a thing.



    Of course they do. It just so happened that after the Iphone allmost all smartphones look like iPhone (more or less with some very straightforward copies).

  • Reply 20 of 57
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    allenadams wrote: »
    These pictures are misleading.  The only reason you don't have pictures of Apple phones in the old style is because Apple wasn't in the phone business when feature phones were popular.  Samsung has been making phones a lot longer than Apple so of course you'll have pictures of old technology Samsung feature phones.  These pictures don't prove a thing.

    LOL. That is a fellatious... oops I mean fallacious argument. If Nordstrom made a very unique car tomorrow, and then Ford copied it, you can't say, oh, not counted, because Nordstrom never made cars. That would be illogical.

    The issue is the thing being copied. In the case of a Nordstrom car, it's easy because if the car is unique then clearly they didn't copy anyone. If Ford copied it it's simply all the more obvious because it shows they have had a track record of making stuff but now just couldn't be bothered innovating (in this hypothetical scenario).

    Obviously, replace Nordstrom above with Apple and Ford with Samsung.

    So not only has Samsung been making phones for a long time, in this case it's just blatantly, blindingly obvious they couldn't be bothered innovating and just copied Apple.

    The fact that Apple came out of the gates with stunning, innovative designs clearly shows the originality of their invention, but it does not let Samsung off the hook in any way.
Sign In or Register to comment.