Apple's UK site says Samsung devices 'not as cool' in compliance with court ruling

1235789

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 167


    There it is.


     


    LOL, and the true Apple haters in these forums come out to roost. You know who you are. You aren't complaining because Apple didn't comply with the court order. You're complaining because Apple won't give you mea culpa to feed your schadenfreude. Pathetic.

  • Reply 82 of 167
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member


    Bad form Apple.


     


    Like Apple, and many here, I think the court decision was the wrong one, but acting like a petulant child and trying to worm your way into turning a court mandated statement into good PR is ridiculous.  They should have just sucked it, no one would have cared about the statement, but this move makes them look like jokers.  I don't know anything about the law in this department and whether they could be found in contempt of court, or in a dubious legal position, but I (a shareholder) hope they are.

  • Reply 83 of 167


    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

    I don't know anything about the law in this department…


     


    So, really, why are you saying anything at all about this?






    …whether they could be found in contempt of court, or in a dubious legal position, but I (a shareholder) hope they are.



     


    Hey, it's today's most contradictory and ignorant statement! 


     


    They did what the law said. They cannot be held in contempt. Reading this thread would show you that.

  • Reply 84 of 167

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


    LOL.


     


    You know Apple has done something big when so many idiots are getting pissed. BTW, I'm having some legal issues and need a good lawyer to help me out. It seems I've got several to choose from.



     


     


    Apple, in typical fashion, once again gets the last laugh, flouting watered-down social conventions as they go. 


     


    Those in this thread who represent the comfortable, low-risk, milquetoast round pegs in round holes, will naturally be driven batshit crazy by this. 

  • Reply 85 of 167
    Again I must say that I think there is a typo at the beginning of this Article.

    This article says apple wrote that... Samsung did infringe on Patents....


    But thats not the outcome of the court case. Samsung did NOT infringe... because not cool.

    if You check

    http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

    it clearly says :

    Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited%u2019s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple%u2019s registered design No. 0000181607-0001.

    So a lot of the comments here are simply misled by this typo!!!
    Can anybody wake up Sam Oliver please
  • Reply 86 of 167
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I thought it a bit silly myself when it was first ordered. But now with Apple's latest response to the judge's order it does seem to serve a purpose. Apple continues to assert that Samsung is infringing on this design patent even after the EU wide legal judgement that they do not, and apparently the UK judge may have anticipated Apple's continued claims contrary to the ruling.



     


    I do not see anywhere in the statement that Apple assert infringement by Samsung. I see factually correct statements that other courts have found that Samsung infringed, and quotes from the UK ruling.

  • Reply 87 of 167
    It's very funny and very clever but I fear it will be viewed as contempt. Judges don't take kindly to people taking the piss.
  • Reply 88 of 167
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member


    Muppetry, they can't get much closer than "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."


     


    BTW, my guess as to the Judge Birss' reasons for making such an order in the first place is apparently dead on correct. See points 44 and 45 from the judges order.


    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html


     


    As an aside, I'm guessing Apple already confirmed they don't have any other cases arriving in that UK court in the foreseeable future.  Any Apple penalties or admonitions in other UK proceedings might consider how Apple complied with this one. With the billions that Apple has they can certainly afford to be a bit arrogant if they wish, and absolutely have the means to back it up. In my opinion tho it wasn't the best way to go about this one, even if may meet the letter of the law and the judge's order. . . . but of course my opinion isn't the one that counts anyway.


     


    EDIT: If you read item 51 in the judge's ruling on Apple's appeal, it speaks to the very same issue that Apple is again repeating in their court-ordered notice.


    "In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, but to many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing."


     


    ...Which is why the order to publish was upheld on appeal. Yet Apple again makes the same claims that led to the order in the first place. When this thread first started this morning I disagreed that Apple was in any danger of any further court sansctions on the matter. Now, after reading the reasons behind the order in the first place, I'm not as certain.


     


    For those wondering why the order was made to begin with, but lacking the patience to read the entire document to know why, just read items 43 thru 58. It will take less than three minutes.

  • Reply 89 of 167
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Muppetry, they can't get much closer than "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."


     


    BTW, my guess as to the Judge Birss' reasons for making such an order in the first place is apparently dead on correct. See points 44 and 45 from the judges order.


    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html


     


    As an aside, I'm guessing Apple already confirmed they don't have any other cases arriving in that UK court in the foreseeable future.  Any Apple penalties or admonitions in other UK proceedings might consider how Apple complied with this one. With the billions that Apple has they can certainly afford to be a bit arrogant if they wish, and absolutely have the means to back it up. In my opinion tho it wasn't the best way to go about this one, even if may meet the letter of the law and the judge's order. . . . but of course my opinion isn't the one that counts anyway.



     


    Disagree - they are reporting the findings of other courts, not their own assertions. If you want to argue the technical aspect of compliance with the court order then you have to consider what they wrote, not what you think they might have been trying to imply.

  • Reply 90 of 167

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post


    Bad form Apple.


     


    Like Apple, and many here, I think the court decision was the wrong one, but acting like a petulant child and trying to worm your way into turning a court mandated statement into good PR is ridiculous.  They should have just sucked it, no one would have cared about the statement, but this move makes them look like jokers.  I don't know anything about the law in this department and whether they could be found in contempt of court, or in a dubious legal position, but I (a shareholder) hope they are.



     


    So basically, you want the UK court to order Apple to "act more sorry"? You'd like that, wouldn't you.

  • Reply 91 of 167
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    So, really, why are you saying anything at all about this?


     


    Hey, it's today's most contradictory and ignorant statement! 


     


    They did what the law said. They cannot be held in contempt. Reading this thread would show you that.



     


    Congratulations on winning the prize of biggest jerk.  This thread is an Apple forum, not a court of law.  It shows me nothing for sure about whether Apple can/will be held in contempt for something that literally just happened.


     


    And I'd appreciate if you'd point out where the logical contradiction is in me saying I don't know specifics about UK law in obligation fulfilment and expressing a hope that Apple is punished for a childish action.  Do you know specifics about this law?  I sincerely doubt it, so pipe down with the fanboy outrage.

  • Reply 92 of 167
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


     


    So basically, you want the UK court to order Apple to "act more sorry"? You'd like that, wouldn't you.



    I want Apple to act like a grown up company and respect the law and the intent of the law, not try to circumvent judgements with snide underminings.


     


    I don't know how UK law can or should enforce that, or if they will.  I merely hope they will, in an effective way.

  • Reply 93 of 167

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Big Brother 84 View Post



    It's very funny and very clever but I fear it will be viewed as contempt. Judges don't take kindly to people taking the piss.


     


    Factual statements, including on-record statements made by the court are contempt of court? Judges don't take kindly to having their on-record statements posted on web pages related to the trial? Okay, whatever you say.

  • Reply 94 of 167
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    So, really, why are you saying anything at all about this?


     


    Hey, it's today's most contradictory and ignorant statement! 


     


    They did what the law said. They cannot be held in contempt. Reading this thread would show you that.



     


    Congratulations on winning the prize of biggest jerk.  This thread is an Apple forum, not a court of law.  It shows me nothing for sure about whether Apple can/will be held in contempt for something that literally just happened.


     


    And I'd appreciate if you'd point out where the logical contradiction is in me saying I don't know specifics about UK law in obligation fulfilment and expressing a hope that Apple is punished for a childish action.  Do you know specifics about this law?  I sincerely doubt it, so pipe down with the fanboy outrage.



     


    When in doubt, anthropomorphize and demand retribution.

  • Reply 95 of 167
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


     


    Disagree - they are reporting the findings of other courts, not their own assertions. If you want to argue the technical aspect of compliance with the court order then you have to consider what they wrote, not what you think they might have been trying to imply.



    Check my EDIT comment in post 89 and I think your opinion may change.

  • Reply 96 of 167
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post


     


    Basically it says Samsung was found not guilty by this court, but guilty by these other courts.  By tacking on the commentary they are undermining the intent of the court.



     


    Under the law, insanity such as that shown by Birss in this ruling negates the formation of intent.


     


    Apple has complied with his ruling using true statements.

  • Reply 97 of 167
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    Under the law, insanity such as that shown by Birss in this ruling negates the formation of intent.


     


    Apple has complied with his ruling using true statements.



    You didn't read the reasons for the order did you?

  • Reply 98 of 167


    Apple didn't lose its freedom of speech. It can state its opinion and state facts in addition repeating information required by the court order. The court ruling does not create an alternate universe in the UK where no one is allowed to express opinions different than the judge's or discuss facts that contradict the court's finding.


     


    Similarly, in some states such as South Dakota, doctors are required by law to read to patients non-factual political statements about abortion because anti-abortion-dominated legislatures passed laws requiring that. However, because we have freedom of speech, there is nothing to stop doctors from immediately following the mandatory statement with contradictory opinion and facts.


     


    Government power doesn't extend to redefining reality and forcing people to act like they believe the official belief.

  • Reply 99 of 167
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post


    Apple didn't lose its freedom of speech. It can state its opinion and state facts in addition repeating information required by the court order. The court ruling does not create an alternate universe in the UK where no one is allowed to express opinions different than the judge's or discuss facts that contradict the court's finding.



    See point 48 in the judgment I linked above. It mentions that specifically.

  • Reply 100 of 167
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member


    Haha, this is great!


     


    Apple is merely complying with the court order and citing the judge's own words!image


     


    Take that Fandroids! Your devices are not cool! The Judge says so, and you can't argue with a judge!image


     


    The same few Fandroids who are butthurt over this are probably the same people who think that Samsung's lame commercials are good.


     


    Your devices will never be cool, they're cheap, inferior ripoff products running a crappy ass OS, made for people who do not have very high expectations. Fandroids disgust me.

Sign In or Register to comment.