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

1234579

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 167
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post





    Apple did exactly the right thing, by following the rule by the letter.

    I am more concerned about people like you, I still don't get it, why you are wasting your time in this forum. You hate Apple that is completely fine with me, but to make yourself ridiculous with such nonsensical statements on an forum hosted and frequented manly by Apple favorable people is beyond my understanding.

    Have some fun and try something constructive and creative. It helps! Believe me.


     


    Dont hate the player, hate the game. 

  • Reply 122 of 167

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


     


    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.



     


    Hey, I'm on your side. The ruling was stupid. Samsung CLEARLY copied Apple.


     


    But by selectively quoting the comments, by referring to other rulings and basically saying 'Yeah, yeah, whatever!' it just sounds petulant.


     


    Just sayin'

  • Reply 123 of 167
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by poppy10 View Post


     


    Which other courts were those? In the US case it cited, the Galaxy tab was one of the few found not to infringe Apple's products. That leaves only the German court decision (which was invalid as the UK court had already ruled it non-infringing, and their decision should have been valid throughout the EC - the German local court shouldn't have contradicted it, the decision could only be overturned by a superior court.

     



    I had forgotten that Samsung swan't found to infringe Apple's "iPad design patent" in the US either. So in truth no other court in the US or Europe finds that Samsung infringes on that Apple patent.

  • Reply 124 of 167


    It seems as though Apple just did the exact same thing that got them into this mess in the first place. In the words of the UK judge, this order was issued because of the following:


     


    " 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."


     


    I haven't been thrilled about the 15% drop in AAPL the last 5 weeks, but now starting a pissing match with a UK high court?!? Ridiculous...

  • Reply 125 of 167
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by poppy10 View Post


     


    Which other courts were those? In the US case it cited, the Galaxy tab was one of the few found not to infringe Apple's products. That leaves only the German court decision (which was invalid as the UK court had already ruled it non-infringing, and their decision should have been valid throughout the EC - the German local court shouldn't have contradicted it, the decision could only be overturned by a superior court.

     



    I had forgotten that Samsung swan't found to infringe Apple's "iPad design patent" in the US either. So in truth no other court in the US or Europe finds that Samsung infringes on that Apple patent.



     


    The recent ITC preliminary ruling included the Galaxy tab.

  • Reply 126 of 167
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post


     


    I haven't been thrilled about the 15% drop in AAPL the last 5 weeks, but now starting a pissing match with a UK high court?!? Ridiculous...



     


    Screw the UK high court. Apple complied and did what they had to do.

  • Reply 127 of 167
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post


    A fact of German...


     


    ...law is of no relevance to a UK court-ruled...



     


    Ever heard of the EU?


     


    The UK judges in the appeal, specifically mentioned that the UK ruling applies to the entire EU.


     


    Time to dump the £ and embrace the €.

  • Reply 128 of 167
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


     


    The recent ITC preliminary ruling included the Galaxy tab.



    On the design patent? I overlooked that I guess. Thanks for the mention. Note that the ITC is a bit different than typical courts and the finding so far was in the "investigation" phase if that design patent was included.


     


    http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/documents/337_796_ID.pdf

  • Reply 129 of 167
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    galbi wrote: »
    Dont hate the player, hate the game. 

    Perhaps you didn't see his last sentence because you were too busy trying to think of a glib reply to hide behind.

    You ARE wasting your time here, Galbi.

    Attention-getting on forums will do nothing long-term to provide the confidence that you appear to seek.

    Find something you enjoy in life and devote the amount that you devote here and you'll be surprised what it does for you.
  • Reply 130 of 167
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    Ever heard of the EU?


     


    The UK judges in the appeal, specifically mentioned that the UK ruling applies to the entire EU.



    In which case the German ruling is not only irrelevant in the UK, it's invalid in Germany.

  • Reply 131 of 167
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member


    This is a very interesting point, and actually contradicts you and the other Apple haters. He's saying that "infringing" is not the same as "copying" - someone can "copy" a design without meeting the strict legal definition of "infringing". The judge ruled Samsung didn't infringe - he did NOT rule that Samsung didn't copy. In fact, what he's doing here is criticizing Apple by saying Apple tried to use an argument that Samsung "copied" the design as proof that Samsung "ingfringed", which are two separate things.


     


    The result is that Apple can keep asserting that Samsung "copied" without crossing the judge, who only ruled that Samsung didn't "infringe". Apple says the German court ruled that Samsung "copied", not "infringed", so that even if the ruling carries over to the rest of Europe, Apple is spot on.


     


    Maybe Samsung should have sued for an order that says it didn't "copy" Apple - that would be fun to see. Apple only mentions "infringing" as regards the U.S. court, which is a totally different jurisdiction. There is no contempt here in any way.


     


    Thanks for posting the ruling language, and bringing clarity to how wrong you are.

  • Reply 132 of 167
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post


    It seems as though Apple just did the exact same thing that got them into this mess in the first place. In the words of the UK judge, this order was issued because of the following:


     


    " 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."


     


    I haven't been thrilled about the 15% drop in AAPL the last 5 weeks, but now starting a pissing match with a UK high court?!? Ridiculous...



    I don't think you understand what you just read. Read my post just above that explains this paragraph to you.

  • Reply 133 of 167
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    tbell wrote: »
    The intent of the Court is contained in the Order. Namely, for Apple to post on its website that a UK court found Samsung's tablet to not infringe Apple's design patent. Apple has fully complied. If the Court wanted something different, it should have provided Apple with the exact language.

    Anybody reading the link will know 1) the UK court found Samsung not guilty of infringing the at issue patent, 2) the reason being that the UK judge doesn't think Samsung's products are as cool as Apple's, and 3) other courts in other parts of the world disagree with the UK judge. 

    ...

    davewrite wrote: »
    LOL! (when I heard the judge's order earlier I thought that THIS was exacty what they should do but I doubted Apple without Jobs would have dared to do it. Good for you Cook!)

    and the judge had ordered Apple to print the ad in LARGE type as well...

    it's time for Apple to run "Samsung UNCOOL" ads in U.K.
    samsung can't say anything about it as the judge had determined that fact...
    lol.

    If the UK judge was wrong about Samsung copying, Samsung could say that the judge was also wrong about Samsung products not being cool.;)
  • Reply 134 of 167
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    This is a very interesting point, and actually contradicts you and the other Apple haters. He's saying that "infringing" is not the same as "copying" - someone can "copy" a design without meeting the strict legal definition of "infringing". The judge ruled Samsung didn't infringe - he did NOT rule that Samsung didn't copy. In fact, what he's doing here is criticizing Apple by saying Apple tried to use an argument that Samsung "copied" the design as proof that Samsung "ingfringed", which are two separate things.


     


    The result is that Apple can keep asserting that Samsung "copied" without crossing the judge, who only ruled that Samsung didn't "infringe". Apple says the German court ruled that Samsung "copied", not "infringed", so that even if the ruling carries over to the rest of Europe, Apple is spot on.


     


    Maybe Samsung should have sued for an order that says it didn't "copy" Apple - that would be fun to see. Apple only mentions "infringing" as regards the U.S. court, which is a totally different jurisdiction. There is no contempt here in any way.


     


    Thanks for posting the ruling language, and bringing clarity to how wrong you are.



    That's an interesting twist you tried to apply to that. Well done!


     


    You might re-read the actual ruling tho so you get a better sense of what the judge said, the context, and what it meant.


    "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 (innuendo that Samsung is infringing).

  • Reply 135 of 167
    sensisensi Posts: 346member
    Contempt of the court, playing it the very childish way... I guess that the UK judge will find that funny.

    Apple lawyers will get to learn what is a judiciary publication coming from a court ruling, most Americans here seem to fail to grasp its meaning : this is not an 'ad for a competitor' but rather a detailed text with the court ruling published in order to undo the bad publicity and reputation damage done to a person or company coming from claims or allegations made in the press -here from Apple spoke-persons/lawyers- which were then considered false and thus slanderous by a court. Basically you try to clean the name as much as it was dirtied, and have the offender to foot the bill. Judiciary publications are mostly used against bogus stories coming from the tabloids trash, against libel, etc.
  • Reply 136 of 167
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    crowley wrote: »
    In which case the German ruling is not only irrelevant in the UK, it's invalid in Germany.

    Tell it to the Germans.
  • Reply 137 of 167
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    sensi wrote: »
    Contempt of the court, playing it the very childish way... I guess that the UK judge will find that funny.

    The idiot judge can find it however he wants, your sentence conjures a visual image of a bewigged judge rocking back and forth in a corner giggling manically to himself...

    ...meanwhile Apple has complied concisely and precisely with the judgement handed down from a higher court.

    The word's Birss used in his ruling are a double edged sword, Apple has every right, nay duty to use them, in complying with the High Court's ruling.
  • Reply 138 of 167
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post


    A fact of German or US law is of no relevance to a UK court-ruled clarification posted on Apple's UK website.  Those facts should not be there, they serve only to undermine the UK judgement.  So no, actually they shouldn't talk about them.


     


    It should also be noted that freedom of expression in the UK is not the same as freedom of speech in the US.  See the following about scandalising of judges: http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp207_Scandalising_the_Court_for_web.pdf



     


     


    Yes, but you keep failing to address one point: the judge could have wrote the notice himself and have Apple post it. He choose not to do so. He let Apple write it. Apple complied with the Order, provided for the public the judge's reasoning (e.g. Apple's products are cooler), and pointed out that the Judge's decision only applies in the UK and that in other places Courts have found the opposite. That is important because it is highly likely people living outside the UK visit Apple's UK site. 


     


    Moreover, you'd be a fool if you thought Apple didn't run the notice before its UK counsel first. It probably even had them write it. 


     


    You agreed earlier that you disagreed with the Judge's ruling, as such, perhaps you should spend more energy on that.

  • Reply 139 of 167
    zozmanzozman Posts: 393member
    I bet apple got their lawyers to help write this up, I seriously doubt they can get in trouble for this
  • Reply 140 of 167
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    That's an interesting twist you tried to apply to that. Well done!


     


    You might re-read the actual ruling tho so you get a better sense of what the judge said, the context, and what it meant.


    "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 (innuendo that Samsung is infringing).



     


    I'm not sure how you can fail to understand this: "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."


     


    1. Apple implied that Samsung infringed by giving evidence that Samsung copied. That's the innuendo - Apple said that Samsung copied, hoping to use that as evidence of infringing. The judge says no. ("The reference [by Apple] to copying is exactly that [innuendo that Samsung infringed].")


     


    2. The judge clearly states (last sentence), that copying and infringing are not the same thing ("copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement"), although non-lawyers think that if someone copies your design they are automatically infringing ("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."). It's totally clear that he is separating the act of copying a design from the act of infringing, and the suit is about the legal requirements to prove infringing, which Apple didn't meet.


     


    Again, I'm not sure how you can fail to understand this. The judge did not rule on, or even consider, whether Samsung copied Apple (only whether Samsung infringed). It's there in black and white. Think of it like this: you can copy something, but do such a bad job that it wouldn't get confused with the original, and therefore you didn't violate any patents.


Sign In or Register to comment.