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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
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'
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy10
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.
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy10
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
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 €.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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."
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
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.
If the UK judge was wrong about Samsung copying, Samsung could say that the judge was also wrong about Samsung products not being cool.;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
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).
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.
Tell it to the Germans.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.