I don't agree with the outcome but if the UK says Samsung didn't steal from Apple in the case details presented then by all relevant measure they have not stolen from Apple in the UK per this case. Perhaps Apple's lawyers in the UK weren't good enough or perhaps it would have turned out differently with a different judge but that's par for the course.
I will say that I love the penalty. Not because it's against Apple as I've already stated I disagree with the results, but the type of punishment as I think embarrassing a multi-billion dollar company is more effective than simply having them pay a fine.
I'd go with a tongue-in-cheek side-by-side comparison saying "we are instructed to inform you that Samsung's Galaxy tab ( bottom) released on 21st December 2010 did not copy the look and feel of the iPad (top) released 27th Jan 2010." Everyone will then see that Samsung is not as 'cool' as Apple because they copied Apple's design. Turn a negative into a positive!
I'd go with a tongue-in-cheek side-by-side comparison saying "we are instructed to inform you that Samsung's Galaxy tab ( bottom) released on 21st December 2010 did not copy the look and feel of the iPad (top) released 27th Jan 2010." Everyone will then see that Samsung is not as 'cool' as Apple because they copied Apple's design. Turn a negative into a positive!
Maybe Apple should pull everything out of the UK, sack everyone there and run everything from a shelf company in the Channel Islands.
Maybe Apple should pull everything out of the UK, sack everyone there and run everything from a shelf company in the Channel Islands.
Then use contractors to run their stores.
Great idea! Apple should make it plain they're bigger and more important to the world than anyone. Show 'em who really runs things. No one pulls Apple's strings, and certainly not some little judge in a foreign country. With more money and potential power than even the UK government it's time to start teaching some lessons. No one can mess with Apple without getting the horns. $120B in cash makes them the business world bad-ass and everyone better take note of that.
EDIT: For those not paying attention, the UK ruling applies across Europe, including Germany. It's likely the end of Apple design patent claims on the issue in any EU member country.
Might as well stop complaining about it...The verdict was made and upheld by three (3) other judges. Move on with your lives. If Apple doesn't want to comply...then they shouldn't be allowed to sell in the UK. Simple. Move on.
Maybe Apple should pull everything out of the UK, sack everyone there and run everything from a shelf company in the Channel Islands.
Then use contractors to run their stores.
Look at the Apple Computers v. Apple Corp trials on Wikipedia. Apple Computer succeeded in the end but they started off losing. This was just a single skirmish, not a battle and certainly not the entire war. Apple makes plenty of money in Europe and pulling out or getting 3rd-parties to sell their gear just added unneeded expense and reduces the customer service experience if they were to shut down company stores to do it. The only solution is to keep going.
Remember, the goal is profits and moving forward is the only way to maintain your profits. If you want to hurt your opponent then prevent them from making money, don't make it even easer.
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:
"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."
"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.[/quote]
I figured they'd word it that way. They only had to admit that Samsung didn't infringe the patent but there's nothing preventing them saying other courts have ruled that Samsung has infringed on their designs. Take that Birss.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
That Birss guy is an idiot, an absolute fool, an ass in the first degree.
I'm sure you know more about English patent law than judge who has been a QC for six years.
These comments....hilarious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
What precedent? Civil and criminal law are different, you have been told that before, maybe you should look it up yourself.
If you are not guilty, what does it matter what type of law it is?
A judgement of not guilty makes the law irrelevant.
All that remains are libellous claims, as per this judgement.
I will say that I love the penalty. Not because it's against Apple as I've already stated I disagree with the results, but the type of punishment as I think embarrassing a multi-billion dollar company is more effective than simply having them pay a fine.
You carry on believing that...
You may want to do a tiny bit of research before carrying on
Quote:
Originally Posted by john_l_uk
I'd go with a tongue-in-cheek side-by-side comparison saying "we are instructed to inform you that Samsung's Galaxy tab ( bottom) released on 21st December 2010 did not copy the look and feel of the iPad (top) released 27th Jan 2010." Everyone will then see that Samsung is not as 'cool' as Apple because they copied Apple's design. Turn a negative into a positive!
Maybe Apple should pull everything out of the UK, sack everyone there and run everything from a shelf company in the Channel Islands.
Then use contractors to run their stores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Maybe Apple should pull everything out of the UK, sack everyone there and run everything from a shelf company in the Channel Islands.
Then use contractors to run their stores.
Great idea! Apple should make it plain they're bigger and more important to the world than anyone. Show 'em who really runs things. No one pulls Apple's strings, and certainly not some little judge in a foreign country. With more money and potential power than even the UK government it's time to start teaching some lessons. No one can mess with Apple without getting the horns. $120B in cash makes them the business world bad-ass and everyone better take note of that.
EDIT: For those not paying attention, the UK ruling applies across Europe, including Germany. It's likely the end of Apple design patent claims on the issue in any EU member country.
"Metal Impacts is a leading Manufacturers & Suppliers of Mobile Compactor, Mobile Compactors Racks, Heavy Duty Pallet Racks, Heavy Duty Rack and Compactors Racks in Bangalore, India."
for more details
http://www.metalimpacts.in
"Metal Impacts is a leading Manufacturers & Suppliers of Mobile Compactor, Mobile Compactors Racks, Heavy Duty Pallet Racks, Heavy Duty Rack and Compactors Racks in Bangalore, India."
for more details
http://www.metalimpacts.in
"Metal Impacts is a leading Manufacturers & Suppliers of Mobile Compactor, Mobile Compactors Racks, Heavy Duty Pallet Racks, Heavy Duty Rack and Compactors Racks in Bangalore, India."
for more details
http://www.metalimpacts.in
"Metal Impacts is a leading Manufacturers & Suppliers of Mobile Compactor, Mobile Compactors Racks, Heavy Duty Pallet Racks, Heavy Duty Rack and Compactors Racks in Bangalore, India."
for more details
http://www.metalimpacts.in
Might as well stop complaining about it...The verdict was made and upheld by three (3) other judges. Move on with your lives. If Apple doesn't want to comply...then they shouldn't be allowed to sell in the UK. Simple. Move on.
Look at the Apple Computers v. Apple Corp trials on Wikipedia. Apple Computer succeeded in the end but they started off losing. This was just a single skirmish, not a battle and certainly not the entire war. Apple makes plenty of money in Europe and pulling out or getting 3rd-parties to sell their gear just added unneeded expense and reduces the customer service experience if they were to shut down company stores to do it. The only solution is to keep going.
Remember, the goal is profits and moving forward is the only way to maintain your profits. If you want to hurt your opponent then prevent them from making money, don't make it even easer.
http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/
[quote]Samsung / Apple UK judgment
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:
"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."
"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.[/quote]
I figured they'd word it that way. They only had to admit that Samsung didn't infringe the patent but there's nothing preventing them saying other courts have ruled that Samsung has infringed on their designs. Take that Birss.