For everyone saying Apple somehow disobeyed the court, broke rules, or included untrue statements, please at least read the ruling first. Don't make statements based in ignorance.
They did disobey the court. Apple included extra statements beyond what was proposed. They could have left it at that and this whole thing would have blown over. Those additional statement colour the intent of the notice which is to inform the reader that the design in dispute was not infringed by Samsung.
The extra statements try and conflate the iPad and the registered design: "the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung *products*"
What the iPad looks like was never at issue. Nor how the iPad compared to the Samsung product. It was comparison of the Samsung products against the Registered Design - the reasoning as to why those products did not infringe is made clear in the ruling.
It's not that complicated, and it doesn't surprise me that Apple were ordered to rewrite the document.
The whole thing strikes me as a little petty on Apple's part but at the same time I'm surprised they were ordered to make such a statement in the first place. They just have just done the bare minimum to comply and not try to score points by chucking in their own two bob on the matter.
I notice that several people state that there are no "untruth" in the Apple statement. As it pertains to the UK information, it is correct and accurate. The "Untruth" was in the last paragraph where Apple states:"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.".
According to the Bloomberg article " The court’s initial order to post a notice was designed to correct the impression that the South Korean company was copying Apple’s product. Apple’s post, criticized by judges today, inserted four paragraphs including excerpts of the original“cool” ruling and details of similar German lawsuits that the court today said weren’t true."
So someone at Apple wrote the extra paragraph at the end to basically tell the U.K. judges that they are wrong and everyone should disregard what was decided.
I don't understand why the judge should be upset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Wrong.
Under UK law "infringement of a design patent" and "copying" are not the same thing.
"Samsung blatantly copied Apple yet did not infringe Apple's design patent" is a perfectly valid statement.
I agree that the statement:
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.
is WRONG. After all, that statement was in the final paragraph of the APPLE posting and it was completely wrong of them to post anything that had nothing to do directly with the U.K. case.
I am so glad that you agree with the wrongness of the Apple statement.
BTW, the statement says US court claims infringement, the UK court does not.
UK judge rules that Apple has to post a certain notice on their website.
Posters say that the rogue judge's ruling will never be upheld on appeal.
Judgment upheld on appeal by three other judges.
Posters say Apple should add extra snark to water down the judge's ordered notice.
Apple posts notice with added commentary.
Posters say that it's totally compliant with the judge's order and there's nothing the court can do about it.
Same three judges say it's not compliant and order Apple to fix it.
Posters make new predictions.
Honestly, I'm not sure why any of the previous posters has any faith in their predictions. Sure, there were some posters who said "In my opinion, it should be A, but that's probably not which way the court will go." No issue with those folks. But if you go back and look at those older threads and these, it's chocked full of people making bold predictions that they have been utterly wrong about. I'm not talking about opinion, I'm talking about prediction of what will actually happen.
And yet those posters keep putting their predictions out there like they're fact. I guess they're hoping they'll eventually get to their "stopped clock" point...
They did disobey the court. Apple included extra statements beyond what was proposed. They could have left it at that and this whole thing would have blown over. Those additional statement colour the intent of the notice which is to inform the reader that the design in dispute was not infringed by Samsung.
The extra statements try and conflate the iPad and the registered design: "the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung *products*"
What the iPad looks like was never at issue. Nor how the iPad compared to the Samsung product. It was comparison of the Samsung products against the Registered Design - the reasoning as to why those products did not infringe is made clear in the ruling.
It's not that complicated, and it doesn't surprise me that Apple were ordered to rewrite the document.
The whole thing strikes me as a little petty on Apple's part but at the same time I'm surprised they were ordered to make such a statement in the first place. They just have just done the bare minimum to comply and not try to score points by chucking in their own two bob on the matter.
Apple followed the letter of the law, as the ruling required.
This idiot judge has now created the precedent that ignorance is a defence for not knowing the law, with his statement that the legal definitions of "copying" and "infringing of a design patent" are incomprehensible to the general public.
Online life isn't real life, get a life and go out and smell the roses and enjoy the sunshine, yes tell your mum you love her.
But then there will always be people who think they can suck an egg better than others so don't get upset with such people, they are there to make life interesting.
Apple followed the letter of the law, as the ruling required.
This idiot judge has now created the precedent that ignorance is a defence for not knowing the law, with his statement that the legal definitions of "copying" and "infringing of a design patent" are incomprehensible to the general public.
Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, 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 [link given].
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
The order did not say, "also include any additional commentary that you see fit."
Colin Birss made the "coolness" statement, quoted by Apple and forming part of the ruling Apple was ordered to provide a link to.
Your point being?
Apple got the order to put this EXACT quote (and link) on its webpages - nothing more nothing less:
“On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design 000181607-0001.
A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink].”
How hard it is to follow this?
If they did EXACTLY that without WHINING about German and US courts everything would have been fine.
Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, 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 [link given].
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
The order did not say, "also include any additional commentary that you see fit."
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apple is the defendant in this case, Samsung is the plaintiff.
So what you are saying is Samsung should be punished for initiating this legal action?
My understanding is that it was Apple who initiated the legal case against Samsung saying that it copied iPad, not the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apple is the defendant in this case, Samsung is the plaintiff.
So what you are saying is Samsung should be punished for initiating this legal action?
My understanding is that it was Apple who initiated the legal case against Samsung saying that it copied iPad, not the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apple is the defendant in this case, Samsung is the plaintiff.
So what you are saying is Samsung should be punished for initiating this legal action?
My understanding is that it was Apple who initiated the legal case against Samsung saying that it copied iPad, not the other way around.
Originally Posted by period
My understanding is that it was Apple who initiated the legal case against Samsung saying that it copied iPad, not the other way around.
Everything I've read says that's not the case.
Oh.
Did you guys really thought that this Apple escapade will fly?
Saw this coming from a week ago.
The only mistake Judge did was to assume that Apple is a grown up and mature company which takes court orders seriously.
But how Apple represent itself with the initial statement feels more like a behavior of irresponsible snarky juvenile.
Originally Posted by Nathillien
Did you guys really thought that this Apple escapade will fly?
Yeah, we figured doing exactly what the court said would work. How silly of us to not expect a judge to renege on, you know, law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, we figured doing exactly what the court said would work. How silly of us to not expect a judge to renege on, you know, law.
Yes I saw what you mean by "figuring":
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/153785/apples-uk-site-says-samsung-devices-not-as-cool-in-compliance-with-court-ruling
There is a saying "thinking (figuring) and knowing are two (similar but ultimately) different things".
You can figure what ever and how ever you please but even you knew what will happen.
Originally Posted by Nathillien
You can figure what ever and how ever you please but even you knew what will happen.
Yes, again, I'm sure we all apologize for thinking the judge would obey the law, particularly when Apple had.
I'm sure we won't make that mistake again—about the UK, at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
For everyone saying Apple somehow disobeyed the court, broke rules, or included untrue statements, please at least read the ruling first. Don't make statements based in ignorance.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
They did disobey the court. Apple included extra statements beyond what was proposed. They could have left it at that and this whole thing would have blown over. Those additional statement colour the intent of the notice which is to inform the reader that the design in dispute was not infringed by Samsung.
The extra statements try and conflate the iPad and the registered design: "the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung *products*"
What the iPad looks like was never at issue. Nor how the iPad compared to the Samsung product. It was comparison of the Samsung products against the Registered Design - the reasoning as to why those products did not infringe is made clear in the ruling.
It's not that complicated, and it doesn't surprise me that Apple were ordered to rewrite the document.
The whole thing strikes me as a little petty on Apple's part but at the same time I'm surprised they were ordered to make such a statement in the first place. They just have just done the bare minimum to comply and not try to score points by chucking in their own two bob on the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrystalClear
I notice that several people state that there are no "untruth" in the Apple statement. As it pertains to the UK information, it is correct and accurate. The "Untruth" was in the last paragraph where Apple states:"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.".
According to the Bloomberg article " The court’s initial order to post a notice was designed to correct the impression that the South Korean company was copying Apple’s product. Apple’s post, criticized by judges today, inserted four paragraphs including excerpts of the original“cool” ruling and details of similar German lawsuits that the court today said weren’t true."
So someone at Apple wrote the extra paragraph at the end to basically tell the U.K. judges that they are wrong and everyone should disregard what was decided.
I don't understand why the judge should be upset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Wrong.
Under UK law "infringement of a design patent" and "copying" are not the same thing.
"Samsung blatantly copied Apple yet did not infringe Apple's design patent" is a perfectly valid statement.
I agree that the statement:
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.
is WRONG. After all, that statement was in the final paragraph of the APPLE posting and it was completely wrong of them to post anything that had nothing to do directly with the U.K. case.
I am so glad that you agree with the wrongness of the Apple statement.
BTW, the statement says US court claims infringement, the UK court does not.
UK judge rules that Apple has to post a certain notice on their website.
Posters say that the rogue judge's ruling will never be upheld on appeal.
Judgment upheld on appeal by three other judges.
Posters say Apple should add extra snark to water down the judge's ordered notice.
Apple posts notice with added commentary.
Posters say that it's totally compliant with the judge's order and there's nothing the court can do about it.
Same three judges say it's not compliant and order Apple to fix it.
Posters make new predictions.
Honestly, I'm not sure why any of the previous posters has any faith in their predictions. Sure, there were some posters who said "In my opinion, it should be A, but that's probably not which way the court will go." No issue with those folks. But if you go back and look at those older threads and these, it's chocked full of people making bold predictions that they have been utterly wrong about. I'm not talking about opinion, I'm talking about prediction of what will actually happen.
And yet those posters keep putting their predictions out there like they're fact. I guess they're hoping they'll eventually get to their "stopped clock" point...
Quote:
Originally Posted by period
My understanding is that it was Apple who initiated the legal case against Samsung saying that it copied iPad, not the other way around.
Plaintiff initiates the action.
Defendant defends against the action.
Samsung is the plaintiff, Apple is the defendant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien
Yes I saw what you mean by "figuring":
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/153785/apples-uk-site-says-samsung-devices-not-as-cool-in-compliance-with-court-ruling
There is a saying "thinking (figuring) and knowing are two (similar but ultimately) different things".
You can figure what ever and how ever you please but even you knew what will happen.
Colin Birss made the "coolness" statement, quoted by Apple and forming part of the ruling Apple was ordered to provide a link to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
They did disobey the court. Apple included extra statements beyond what was proposed. They could have left it at that and this whole thing would have blown over. Those additional statement colour the intent of the notice which is to inform the reader that the design in dispute was not infringed by Samsung.
The extra statements try and conflate the iPad and the registered design: "the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung *products*"
What the iPad looks like was never at issue. Nor how the iPad compared to the Samsung product. It was comparison of the Samsung products against the Registered Design - the reasoning as to why those products did not infringe is made clear in the ruling.
It's not that complicated, and it doesn't surprise me that Apple were ordered to rewrite the document.
The whole thing strikes me as a little petty on Apple's part but at the same time I'm surprised they were ordered to make such a statement in the first place. They just have just done the bare minimum to comply and not try to score points by chucking in their own two bob on the matter.
Apple followed the letter of the law, as the ruling required.
This idiot judge has now created the precedent that ignorance is a defence for not knowing the law, with his statement that the legal definitions of "copying" and "infringing of a design patent" are incomprehensible to the general public.
Time to give it a rest.
Everyone thinks he or she is right.
Online life isn't real life, get a life and go out and smell the roses and enjoy the sunshine, yes tell your mum you love her.
But then there will always be people who think they can suck an egg better than others so don't get upset with such people, they are there to make life interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apple followed the letter of the law, as the ruling required.
This idiot judge has now created the precedent that ignorance is a defence for not knowing the law, with his statement that the legal definitions of "copying" and "infringing of a design patent" are incomprehensible to the general public.
Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
It also did not say DO NOT "include any additional commentary that you see fit."
Guess what, that's grounds for appeal.
Lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Colin Birss made the "coolness" statement, quoted by Apple and forming part of the ruling Apple was ordered to provide a link to.
Your point being?
Apple got the order to put this EXACT quote (and link) on its webpages - nothing more nothing less:
“On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design 000181607-0001.
A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink].”
How hard it is to follow this?
If they did EXACTLY that without WHINING about German and US courts everything would have been fine.
But Apple being Apple ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
Shjat - you beat me to it LOLOL