Well, it still wouldn't make any sense, there'd just be a semi-legal explanation for doing it.
IF they had taken out ads etc then the ruling would make total sense. An eye for an eye kind of thing. Although this judge might still be deemed out of his authority since the issue of Apple's ads and their libel wasn't a claim in the suit. So Apple could claim this detail and force Samsung to file a separate libel suit etc.
But they didn't take out any such ads so they are being accused of libel they didn't commit. Samsung started the suit demanding a ruling that they did not infringe, the correct course of action for Apple was to then counter that yes they did. Otherwise, they can't make any defense.
I think one of the reasons for the Judge ordering the advertisements is because of the way Apple's legal council blatantly accused Samsung of copying the the iPad. Since the court proceedings and what was said in them were publicly quoted, the accusations by Apple's legal team were seen as a public accusation, which was found to be wrong, hence the need for Apple to publicly retract it's comments.
Quote:
Apple lost its case, at the High Court in London, in which it had claimed that the Galaxy Tab "slavishly copies" the design of the iPad.
If Apple had either made advertisements of "don't buy Samsung, it's a ripoff of our products" or featured the argument on their website, advertising to cure might be justified to correct what Apple did in that media.
But they never did. Instead, they just sued, and it was covered by the media. So the "cure" to this media coverage is ads and posts on their website? Stupid. Particularly when the judge refused to ban Apple executives from stating that Samsung ripped them off - which is the only thing Apple did to "promote" this concept.
If Apple had either made advertisements of "don't buy Samsung, it's a ripoff of our products" or featured the argument on their website, advertising to cure might be justified to correct what Apple did in that media.
But they never did. Instead, they just sued, and it was covered by the media. So the "cure" to this media coverage is ads and posts on their website? Stupid. Particularly when the judge refused to ban Apple executives from stating that Samsung ripped them off - which is the only thing Apple did to "promote" this concept.
And one more thing - if the decision had gone the other way, the judge had found infringement on the part of Samsung and had said "oh, and Samsung must publish ads and post on their website 'we copied Apple'" I'd be almost as opposed. (Since I do believe Samsung copied, at least that post would be truthful, but still inappropriate to require it.)
I've seen a few people trying to pretend that Apple invented the ARM (not least John Sculley), but of course the ARM was developed by Acorn in the early- to mid-1980s (micro-architecture by Steve Furber, instruction set by Sophie Wilson). ARM1 first saw the light of day in 1986, in Acorn's ARM Evaluation System, a 'cheese-wedge' add-on for the BBC Micro. Then, of course, the first ARM-based Archimedes arrived in late 1987. ARM Ltd was formed in partnership with Apple three years later, in 1990, and my understanding is that for quite a while it was dominated by ex-Acorn people rather than Apple people. Hardly surprising, since the Acorn people had designed the product.
That's not to detract from Apple in any way; it's just giving credit where it's due. Apple will undoubtedly have had quite a lot of input into ARM development, starting with the ARM600 series which was destined for the Newton, but the basic ARM technology had nothing to do with Apple whatsoever.
I think this ruling is brilliant and wish judges would/could do this in the US as well!
The notion that someone can go around suing everyone for everything, with the only risk to them being the loss of money spent in litigation is ridiculous. Rulings like this make sure that the accuser has some "skin in the game", and would go a long way from preventing frivolous lawsuits like "we own the rounded corner rectangle". Otherwise, we are simply left in the same scenario we are in now, where companies with superfluous cash end up being massive litigation abusers in hopes of a fringe windfall case....
I can only hope that you forgot the "sarcasm" indentifier because otherwise your last sentence makes no sense at all. To do as you suggest would be like someone using a million dollar inheritance to buy lottery tickets, hoping for a "fringe windfall". Really? You actually believe that?
I've seen a few people trying to pretend that Apple invented the ARM (not least John Sculley), but of course the ARM was developed by Acorn in the early- to mid-1980s (micro-architecture by Steve Furber, instruction set by Sophie Wilson). ARM1 first saw the light of day in 1986, in Acorn's ARM Evaluation System, a 'cheese-wedge' add-on for the BBC Micro. Then, of course, the first ARM-based Archimedes arrived in late 1987. ARM Ltd was formed in partnership with Apple three years later, in 1990, and my understanding is that for quite a while it was dominated by ex-Acorn people rather than Apple people. Hardly surprising, since the Acorn people had designed the product.
That's not to detract from Apple in any way; it's just giving credit where it's due. Apple will undoubtedly have had quite a lot of input into ARM development, starting with the ARM600 series which was destined for the Newton, but the basic ARM technology had nothing to do with Apple whatsoever.
I own 2 working Newton 2100's with StrongARMs. Quite remarkable devices for the time and ARM never got the accolades it deserved back then. ARM processors for Newton were manufactured in the late 1990s by DEC but implemented the ARM architecture developed by Acorn. Many 'parents' and a critical UK link, but too many people dismiss Apple's contributions to ARM Holdings and its success in the UK. But we digress...
Apple don't have a choice, they lost the appeal. If Apple want to continue to operate in the UK and avoid financial penalties they must adhere to the law.
Maybe Americans are more easily fooled than us Brits? :-)
This case was not about software or design process or copying of multitouch or swipe... but mainly that if in a shop with 2 tablets in front of you can you tell them apart, apple said the customer is too thick but the judges say you'd be a fool if you couldnt recognise them - one clearly has an apple on the back and the other has the word samsung on the front (not to mention shape, feel, colours, buttons etc.) The judge says design ethos is different, the apple is cool, samsung messy.
Samsung's trial lawyers in the U.S. couldn't tell the tablets apart.
The rest of your post is just a rehash of the "rounded cornerz" straw man arguments that have been posted time and again on these forums.
I would agree that Samsung's products don't infringe on the design patent Apple originally used but the ruling to force them to advertise that Samsung didn't copy the iPad doesn't make sense. Samsung has been found guilty of infringement on other things so this is a purely vindictive ruling to try and persuade the public that there hasn't been a wilful attempt at ripping off Apple's designs, which there clearly has and this has been proven with substantial evidence in a US court.
Furthermore, while Samsung doesn't infringe on the original design patent, Apple just got another one granted:
If Apple was accusing them of copying the patent and that failed, the content of the ad should be that it doesn't infringe on the patent and nothing more. Then they should file another case using the new design patent.
Advanced RISC Machines (ARM) spins out of Acorn and Apple Computer's collaboration efforts with a charter to create a new microprocessor standard. VLSI Technology becomes an investor and the first licensee
Try and spin it however you want but you can't change history.
I think one of the reasons for the Judge ordering the advertisements is because of the way Apple's legal council blatantly accused Samsung of copying the the iPad. Since the court proceedings and what was said in them were publicly quoted, the accusations by Apple's legal team were seen as a public accusation, which was found to be wrong, hence the need for Apple to publicly retract it's comments.
Had Apple's legal teem been more circumspect in their language and conduct, the advertisements likely would not have been ordered.
Apple can't just put the advertisements on their website, they have to take them out in several major national newspapers as well.
So if the Police charge someone in the UK with an offence and they are later found not guilty, then the police have to publish an apology in the major national newspapers and on their websites?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Code:
What next, the death penalty for jaywalking?
Blimey, don't you already have that in the US?
IF they had taken out ads etc then the ruling would make total sense. An eye for an eye kind of thing. Although this judge might still be deemed out of his authority since the issue of Apple's ads and their libel wasn't a claim in the suit. So Apple could claim this detail and force Samsung to file a separate libel suit etc.
But they didn't take out any such ads so they are being accused of libel they didn't commit. Samsung started the suit demanding a ruling that they did not infringe, the correct course of action for Apple was to then counter that yes they did. Otherwise, they can't make any defense.
I think one of the reasons for the Judge ordering the advertisements is because of the way Apple's legal council blatantly accused Samsung of copying the the iPad. Since the court proceedings and what was said in them were publicly quoted, the accusations by Apple's legal team were seen as a public accusation, which was found to be wrong, hence the need for Apple to publicly retract it's comments.
Quote:
Apple lost its case, at the High Court in London, in which it had claimed that the Galaxy Tab "slavishly copies" the design of the iPad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9409959/Apple-website-must-admit-Samsung-didnt-copy.html
Had Apple's legal teem been more circumspect in their language and conduct, the advertisements likely would not have been ordered.
Apple can't just put the advertisements on their website, they have to take them out in several major national newspapers as well.
But they never did. Instead, they just sued, and it was covered by the media. So the "cure" to this media coverage is ads and posts on their website? Stupid. Particularly when the judge refused to ban Apple executives from stating that Samsung ripped them off - which is the only thing Apple did to "promote" this concept.
But they never did. Instead, they just sued, and it was covered by the media. So the "cure" to this media coverage is ads and posts on their website? Stupid. Particularly when the judge refused to ban Apple executives from stating that Samsung ripped them off - which is the only thing Apple did to "promote" this concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012
Thank you. You beat me to it.
Quite right. Me too.
I've seen a few people trying to pretend that Apple invented the ARM (not least John Sculley), but of course the ARM was developed by Acorn in the early- to mid-1980s (micro-architecture by Steve Furber, instruction set by Sophie Wilson). ARM1 first saw the light of day in 1986, in Acorn's ARM Evaluation System, a 'cheese-wedge' add-on for the BBC Micro. Then, of course, the first ARM-based Archimedes arrived in late 1987. ARM Ltd was formed in partnership with Apple three years later, in 1990, and my understanding is that for quite a while it was dominated by ex-Acorn people rather than Apple people. Hardly surprising, since the Acorn people had designed the product.
That's not to detract from Apple in any way; it's just giving credit where it's due. Apple will undoubtedly have had quite a lot of input into ARM development, starting with the ARM600 series which was destined for the Newton, but the basic ARM technology had nothing to do with Apple whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
I think this ruling is brilliant and wish judges would/could do this in the US as well!
The notion that someone can go around suing everyone for everything, with the only risk to them being the loss of money spent in litigation is ridiculous. Rulings like this make sure that the accuser has some "skin in the game", and would go a long way from preventing frivolous lawsuits like "we own the rounded corner rectangle". Otherwise, we are simply left in the same scenario we are in now, where companies with superfluous cash end up being massive litigation abusers in hopes of a fringe windfall case....
I can only hope that you forgot the "sarcasm" indentifier because otherwise your last sentence makes no sense at all. To do as you suggest would be like someone using a million dollar inheritance to buy lottery tickets, hoping for a "fringe windfall". Really? You actually believe that?
That's crazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Hallas
Quite right. Me too.
I've seen a few people trying to pretend that Apple invented the ARM (not least John Sculley), but of course the ARM was developed by Acorn in the early- to mid-1980s (micro-architecture by Steve Furber, instruction set by Sophie Wilson). ARM1 first saw the light of day in 1986, in Acorn's ARM Evaluation System, a 'cheese-wedge' add-on for the BBC Micro. Then, of course, the first ARM-based Archimedes arrived in late 1987. ARM Ltd was formed in partnership with Apple three years later, in 1990, and my understanding is that for quite a while it was dominated by ex-Acorn people rather than Apple people. Hardly surprising, since the Acorn people had designed the product.
That's not to detract from Apple in any way; it's just giving credit where it's due. Apple will undoubtedly have had quite a lot of input into ARM development, starting with the ARM600 series which was destined for the Newton, but the basic ARM technology had nothing to do with Apple whatsoever.
I own 2 working Newton 2100's with StrongARMs. Quite remarkable devices for the time and ARM never got the accolades it deserved back then. ARM processors for Newton were manufactured in the late 1990s by DEC but implemented the ARM architecture developed by Acorn. Many 'parents' and a critical UK link, but too many people dismiss Apple's contributions to ARM Holdings and its success in the UK. But we digress...
I don't agree with the Death Penalty. America, you have your legal murders. Just be happy that you can maintain your barbarism and have Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit
Apple don't have a choice, they lost the appeal. If Apple want to continue to operate in the UK and avoid financial penalties they must adhere to the law.
Which law in particular?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Which law in particular?
English law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithJMorrison
Maybe Americans are more easily fooled than us Brits? :-)
This case was not about software or design process or copying of multitouch or swipe... but mainly that if in a shop with 2 tablets in front of you can you tell them apart, apple said the customer is too thick but the judges say you'd be a fool if you couldnt recognise them - one clearly has an apple on the back and the other has the word samsung on the front (not to mention shape, feel, colours, buttons etc.) The judge says design ethos is different, the apple is cool, samsung messy.
Samsung's trial lawyers in the U.S. couldn't tell the tablets apart.
The rest of your post is just a rehash of the "rounded cornerz" straw man arguments that have been posted time and again on these forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit
English law.
More specific please. Which English law?
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
More specific please. Which English law?
Reminds me of this (1:30).
Furthermore, while Samsung doesn't infringe on the original design patent, Apple just got another one granted:
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/14735/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
I suspect there's more to come.
If Apple was accusing them of copying the patent and that failed, the content of the ad should be that it doesn't infringe on the patent and nothing more. Then they should file another case using the new design patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVerb
I can't imagine Apple ever complying with that ridiculous order. Who do they think they are in the UK?!
You really didn't realize how dumb your post sounded before submitting it? Really???
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
Apple is not one of ARM's co-founders. They were around a few decards before doing any work with Apple.
Straight from the source:-
1990
Advanced RISC Machines (ARM) spins out of Acorn and Apple Computer's collaboration efforts with a charter to create a new microprocessor standard. VLSI Technology becomes an investor and the first licensee
Try and spin it however you want but you can't change history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
I think one of the reasons for the Judge ordering the advertisements is because of the way Apple's legal council blatantly accused Samsung of copying the the iPad. Since the court proceedings and what was said in them were publicly quoted, the accusations by Apple's legal team were seen as a public accusation, which was found to be wrong, hence the need for Apple to publicly retract it's comments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9409959/Apple-website-must-admit-Samsung-didnt-copy.html
Had Apple's legal teem been more circumspect in their language and conduct, the advertisements likely would not have been ordered.
Apple can't just put the advertisements on their website, they have to take them out in several major national newspapers as well.
So if the Police charge someone in the UK with an offence and they are later found not guilty, then the police have to publish an apology in the major national newspapers and on their websites?