Tulkas, are you being serious here? Can you take off your blinkers just for a few minutes & think about this? Which bit of a statement on the apple site along the lines of.. and samsung willfully copied our far more popular ipad.. isn't giving the finger to samsung & the judges? I'll even say please take of your blinkers if that helps. I doubt that samsung had to convince anyone; the apple site & press coverage it got would have done that perfectly well. The lack of common sense you're showing is astounding.
If the court felt they were being disrespected (and perhaps they were) then they should have said so and explained how and why. Instead, all they said was that Apple was in breach because they posted false information (untrue and incorrect actually). I will throw it back to you, use some common sense and explain what part of their notice was factually untrue and incorrect. Because if it wasn't then the court used bad reasoning to reach their conclusion for clarification. If it was disrespect then say so, don't make up reasons. I would have the same problems with their ruling if they had said "Apple in in breach because their notice included statements calling the Queen a bitch". That wouldn't be true either. They aren't supposed to just make up reasons.
If the court felt they were being disrespected (and perhaps they were) then they should have said so and explained how and why. Instead, all they said was that Apple was in breach because they posted false information (untrue and incorrect actually). I will throw it back to you, use some common sense and explain what part of their notice was factually untrue and incorrect. Because if it wasn't then the court used bad reasoning to reach their conclusion for clarification. If it was disrespect then say so, don't make up reasons. I would have the same problems with their ruling if they had said "Apple in in breach because their notice included statements calling the Queen a bitch". That wouldn't be true either. They aren't supposed to just make up reasons.
What about the fact the German case they mentioned hasn't reached trial yet but they implied the German court had made a final decision?
Or bringing the US case into it where the Tab was actually found to not have infringed?
Apple's original statement implied that the UK decision was contrary to both of those decisons when it fact it wasn't.
"Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:"
do you not understand?
If Apple wanted to add more to the statement, they should have submitted a request to the judge. They didn't. Therefore they got slapped down.
The fact that Apple have printed a statement in today's papers in full compliance with the court goes to show they knew exactly what needed to be done. They tried to push it as far as they could.
"propose" != "order". The original order included what should be posted, which differed slightly from what Judge Jacob proposed. Biriss' order stated "The following notice shall be posted" and detailed what the notice would contain. The appeal ruling order the notice to be posted but only made a proposal as to what it should include (which added the details that it was upheld on appeal and was Europe wide). It was not ordered to contain exactly that information.
In either case, that is not what they were slapped with on the clarification motion. The appeal court did NOT say the statement included too much info or reprimand them for including more than was proposed. If that was the issue, then I expect they would have said it. So, arguing over whether Apple should or shouldn't have included the additional info is an interesting intellectual debate, but sort of irrelevant in the face of what the court actually said. What they did say was that it was in breach for including untrue and incorrect statements. Did it?
Apple was never required to state that the product 'does not copy' and was never required to apologise. Apple was told to display the judgement on its website; it was never told to pretend to agree with it.
They are entitled to include the judge's comments because his comments were the reason for the judgement. Including the judgements from the other countries? That's probably playing a little fast and loose.
The judge's order was to publish on their website and print that the Galaxy Tab does not infringe on the design "patent" of the iPad. (aka "does not copy")
Tulkas, the problem arose when Apple continued to press for a preliminary injunction on the Tab 7.7 in Germany during and even after the UK judgement that applied to the entire European Union, Germany included, making any finding by that German Appeals Court overruled and dismissed anyway. The UK court felt Apple was attempting to muddy the waters and inject question marks via "innuendo" on whether Samsung was found to be infringing on Apple's "iPad" Community Design, which Samsung is not. There is no standing German court judgement that finds Samsung to be infringing on Apple's design patent, even tho Apple tries to imply there is in their original "compliance" website post. (Nor for that matter is there any US, Australian, Netherlands or other final judgement of Apple design patent infringement by Samsung tablet products). That should explain the UK Appeals Court reference to Apple not being completely truthful about the German Court findings.
To be completely clear I'm not saying the order to publish was a necessary order by the court. Much smarter Apple and Samsung counsels argued those points already before several educated and experienced judges who made their decision based on those smart attorney arguments and the law. Instead I'm just attempting to explain in part how it got to where it is now.
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.
And that makes your position better because....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Nope, the judges made quite clear that non-infringement of a design patent has nothing whatsoever to do with "copying", they even ordered Apple to post a link to the judgement containing the exact ruling where they made these statements, which Apple duly complied with.
Again, substance vs form. Non-infringe essential means not copying. You people are applying the same logic as Apple;arguing that their first statement followed the order to the tee yet the real substance says something completely different.
What about the fact the German case they mentioned hasn't reached trial yet but they implied the German court had made a final decision?
Or bringing the US case into it where the Tab was actually found to not have infringed?
Apple's original statement implied that the UK decision was contrary to both of those decisons when it fact it wasn't.
Actually the German case they mentioned has reached trial and Samsung was found to have infringed on Apple's design in 2011. It was upheld by their higher court in Sept 2012.
The cases you are referring to are patent case for some touchscreen patents. They are ongoing. When they mentioned the US case, they didn't claim Samsung was found to have infringed on their tablets, but that they were found to have infringed on their design. Which is 100% true.
Very good, but you missed "insult the judge, insult the country of origin of the judge, and at all stages insult anyone who offers any dissenting opinion."
No, I didn't miss it. I intentionally left out those matters of opinion. I'm not going to try to argue people out of their opinions. I'm just pointing out the things that are solid facts. People keep predicting how the various stages of the case will be decided, and they keep getting it wrong. Over and over. They can keep arguing that the ref made a bad call (well, four different refs, in this case), and another bad call and then a third bad call. Their prerogative.
Actually the German case they mentioned has reached trial and Samsung was found to have infringed on Apple's design in 2011. It was upheld by their higher court in Sept 2012.
The cases you are referring to are patent case for some touchscreen patents. They are ongoing. When they mentioned the US case, they didn't claim Samsung was found to have infringed on their tablets, but that they were found to have infringed on their design. Which is 100% true.
Have more?
I think you'll find that the telegraph link is irrelevant as the english court decision hadn't overruled that when the article was published on 24th July. Note the key comment on the english ruling - community court & the ruling was binding throughout europe. So yes, apple were using false information. But yet again you'll simply ignore the obvious.
Just a week after the UK court originally said Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7 didn't infringe on the iPad, the German court issued a ban on it saying that it did [2]. Jacob pointed out that the UK court counts as a Community court and its earlier ruling should have been accepted in Dusseldorf.
"Judge Birss was sitting as a Community design court… So his declaration of non-infringement was binding throughout the Community. It was not for a national court… to interfere with this Community wide jurisdiction and declaration," he said in the ruling.
"If courts around Europe simply say they do not agree with each other and give inconsistent decisions, Europe will be the poorer," he admonished.
Given the wide publicity of the German court, which appeared to overrule the UK court, Jacob said public notices from Apple were necessary.
Ok, I could be wrong on the dates here but the telegraph one is dated 2nd Nov with an article reposted from 24th July. TBH there are that many apple cases going on its hard to keep track of what's what.
Tulkas, the problem arose when Apple continued to press for a preliminary injunction on the Tab 7.7 in Germany during and even after the UK judgement that applied to the entire European Union, Germany included, making any finding by that German Appeals Court overruled and dismissed anyway. The UK court felt Apple was attempting to muddy the waters and inject question marks via "innuendo" on whether Samsung was found to be infringing on Apple's "iPad" Community Design, which they are not. There is no standing German court judgement that finds Samsung to be infringing on Apple's design patent, even tho Apple tried to imply there was in their original "compliance" website post. That should explain the UK Appeals Court reference to Apple not being completely truthful about the German Court findings.
The Duesseldorf Higher Court upheld an earlier ruling and disagreed with the High Court by finding that the device unlawfully copied the design of the iPad.
Samsung said it was “disappointed with the court's ruling” on the Galaxy Tab 7.7, a 7-inch tablet which sells in the UK for £379.
"We will continue to take all available measures, including legal action, to protect our intellectual property rights and defend against Apple's claims to ensure our products remain available to consumers throughout the European Union," a spokesman said.
The German decision came despite the recent, contradictory judgment of the High Court. Judge Colin Birss QC found that none of Samsung's Galaxy Tab range copied the iPad, saying they were "not as cool". He ordered Apple to take out national newspaper adverts admitting as much.
The German preliminary injunction was granted against Samsung's Korean parent company, however, so it would apply to the whole of the EU if enforced.
So, we are at a point where the UK made an EU wide decision and subsequently the German courts made a contradictory EU wide decision followed by a UK appellate court decision that was also binding EU wide. While the final decision by the UK appellate court might override the latest German decision, that does not change the fact that a German court found that Samsung did infringe. The German higher court upheld this. This was never overturned by a German court. So to claim that a German court found Samsung to have infringed is 100% true and correct.
Yes, quite sure. You'e making the mistake of mixing a preliminary finding that even if valid would apply to only a single country (Germany) with a final ruling from the UK action acting as an EU patent court that applies to the European Union as a whole, which last time I checked includes Germany.
I think you'll find that the telegraph link is irrelevant as the english court decision hadn't overruled that when the article was published on 24th July. Note the key comment on the english ruling - community court & the ruling was binding throughout europe. So yes, apple were using false information. But yet again you'll simply ignore the obvious.
Just a week after the UK court originally said Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7 didn't infringe on the iPad, the German court issued a ban on it saying that it did [2]. Jacob pointed out that the UK court counts as a Community court and its earlier ruling should have been accepted in Dusseldorf.
"Judge Birss was sitting as a Community design court… So his declaration of non-infringement was binding throughout the Community. It was not for a national court… to interfere with this Community wide jurisdiction and declaration," he said in the ruling.
"If courts around Europe simply say they do not agree with each other and give inconsistent decisions, Europe will be the poorer," he admonished.
Given the wide publicity of the German court, which appeared to overrule the UK court, Jacob said public notices from Apple were necessary.
Did the german courts find that Samsung infringed? Did their higher court uphold that decision? Is this exactly what Apple stated? It is a factually correct statement to say "a German court found that Samsung infringed upon Apple's design". 100% factual.
Did the german courts find that Samsung infringed? Did their higher court uphold that decision? Is this exactly what Apple stated? It is a factually correct statement to say "a German court found that Samsung infringed upon Apple's design". 100% factual.
Argue all you want. There is no valid finding of infringement of Apple's Community Design by any German Court. Period.
Apple counsel themselves aren't even arguing any German finding is valid, much less overruling a final judgement from the UK court. The original compliance statement was simply a PR effort on Apple's part. Kudos to them for giving it a try. They certainly can afford to. Unfortunately the pendulum swung against them. In their wisdom Apple has agreed to modify their statement, and I believe have already done so.
Yes, quite sure. You'e making the mistake of mixing a preliminary finding that even if valid would apply to only a single country (Germany) with a final ruling from the UK action acting as an EU patent court that applies to the European Union as a whole, which last time I checked includes Germany.
Actually, I clearly stated that the UK decision was a final decision. The German decision contradicts the UK decision, but the UK was a final.
Not to the best of my knowledge it was not. It only concerned a preliminary sales ban within the German borders while awaiting the actual trial concerning possible Community Design infringement. That of course is no longer in play anyway.
Not to the best of my knowledge it was not. It only concerned a preliminary sales ban within the German borders with any actual ruling of infringement coming at a later trial on the case itself. That of course is no longer in play anyway.
The Duesseldorf Higher Court upheld an earlier ruling and disagreed with the High Court by finding that the device unlawfully copied the design of the iPad.
Samsung said it was “disappointed with the court's ruling” on the Galaxy Tab 7.7, a 7-inch tablet which sells in the UK for £379.
"We will continue to take all available measures, including legal action, to protect our intellectual property rights and defend against Apple's claims to ensure our products remain available to consumers throughout the European Union," a spokesman said.
The German decision came despite the recent, contradictory judgment of the High Court. Judge Colin Birss QC found that none of Samsung's Galaxy Tab range copied the iPad, saying they were "not as cool". He ordered Apple to take out national newspaper adverts admitting as much.
The German preliminary injunction was granted against Samsung's Korean parent company, however, so it would apply to the whole of the EU if enforced.
Found to infringe (twice), preliminary injunction, EU wide.
A german court found they infringed. Apple stated this. Completely correct and completely true.
Not to the best of my knowledge it was not. It only concerned a preliminary sales ban within the German borders while awaiting the actual trial concerning possible Community Design infringement. That of course is no longer in play anyway.
Give up Gatorguy, we just have to accept that some apple fans simply won't see other side of arguments & think that one of the fairest & most respected legal systems in the world is wrong. The apple marketing machine has to be given credit for the ability to completely taint people's views. Who needs legal judgements when at the end of the day apple are always right; they have to be don't they as they invented everything anyone ever wished for (or is yet to wish for) in a smart phone.
Found to infringe (twice), preliminary injunction, EU wide.
A german court found they infringed. Apple stated this. Completely correct and completely true.
Then if there's a valid EU-wide judgement from the German courts Apple should enforce it. . . Oh, wait....
With that said thanksfor the mention that the preliminary injunction Apple was arguing for could have applied cross-border if legitimate. I had thought it would have been applicable to Germany alone. In essence Samsung outflanked Apple by not getting bogged down in preliminary sales ban efforts and going straight for a ruling that there was no infringement in the first place.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
Tulkas, are you being serious here? Can you take off your blinkers just for a few minutes & think about this? Which bit of a statement on the apple site along the lines of.. and samsung willfully copied our far more popular ipad.. isn't giving the finger to samsung & the judges? I'll even say please take of your blinkers if that helps. I doubt that samsung had to convince anyone; the apple site & press coverage it got would have done that perfectly well. The lack of common sense you're showing is astounding.
If the court felt they were being disrespected (and perhaps they were) then they should have said so and explained how and why. Instead, all they said was that Apple was in breach because they posted false information (untrue and incorrect actually). I will throw it back to you, use some common sense and explain what part of their notice was factually untrue and incorrect. Because if it wasn't then the court used bad reasoning to reach their conclusion for clarification. If it was disrespect then say so, don't make up reasons. I would have the same problems with their ruling if they had said "Apple in in breach because their notice included statements calling the Queen a bitch". That wouldn't be true either. They aren't supposed to just make up reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
If the court felt they were being disrespected (and perhaps they were) then they should have said so and explained how and why. Instead, all they said was that Apple was in breach because they posted false information (untrue and incorrect actually). I will throw it back to you, use some common sense and explain what part of their notice was factually untrue and incorrect. Because if it wasn't then the court used bad reasoning to reach their conclusion for clarification. If it was disrespect then say so, don't make up reasons. I would have the same problems with their ruling if they had said "Apple in in breach because their notice included statements calling the Queen a bitch". That wouldn't be true either. They aren't supposed to just make up reasons.
What about the fact the German case they mentioned hasn't reached trial yet but they implied the German court had made a final decision?
Or bringing the US case into it where the Tab was actually found to not have infringed?
Apple's original statement implied that the UK decision was contrary to both of those decisons when it fact it wasn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid
Judge's comment:
Which part of:
"Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:"
do you not understand?
If Apple wanted to add more to the statement, they should have submitted a request to the judge. They didn't. Therefore they got slapped down.
The fact that Apple have printed a statement in today's papers in full compliance with the court goes to show they knew exactly what needed to be done. They tried to push it as far as they could.
"propose" != "order". The original order included what should be posted, which differed slightly from what Judge Jacob proposed. Biriss' order stated "The following notice shall be posted" and detailed what the notice would contain. The appeal ruling order the notice to be posted but only made a proposal as to what it should include (which added the details that it was upheld on appeal and was Europe wide). It was not ordered to contain exactly that information.
In either case, that is not what they were slapped with on the clarification motion. The appeal court did NOT say the statement included too much info or reprimand them for including more than was proposed. If that was the issue, then I expect they would have said it. So, arguing over whether Apple should or shouldn't have included the additional info is an interesting intellectual debate, but sort of irrelevant in the face of what the court actually said. What they did say was that it was in breach for including untrue and incorrect statements. Did it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
Apple was never required to state that the product 'does not copy' and was never required to apologise. Apple was told to display the judgement on its website; it was never told to pretend to agree with it.
They are entitled to include the judge's comments because his comments were the reason for the judgement. Including the judgements from the other countries? That's probably playing a little fast and loose.
The judge's order was to publish on their website and print that the Galaxy Tab does not infringe on the design "patent" of the iPad. (aka "does not copy")
Tulkas, the problem arose when Apple continued to press for a preliminary injunction on the Tab 7.7 in Germany during and even after the UK judgement that applied to the entire European Union, Germany included, making any finding by that German Appeals Court overruled and dismissed anyway. The UK court felt Apple was attempting to muddy the waters and inject question marks via "innuendo" on whether Samsung was found to be infringing on Apple's "iPad" Community Design, which Samsung is not. There is no standing German court judgement that finds Samsung to be infringing on Apple's design patent, even tho Apple tries to imply there is in their original "compliance" website post. (Nor for that matter is there any US, Australian, Netherlands or other final judgement of Apple design patent infringement by Samsung tablet products). That should explain the UK Appeals Court reference to Apple not being completely truthful about the German Court findings.
To be completely clear I'm not saying the order to publish was a necessary order by the court. Much smarter Apple and Samsung counsels argued those points already before several educated and experienced judges who made their decision based on those smart attorney arguments and the law. Instead I'm just attempting to explain in part how it got to where it is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamC
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.
And that makes your position better because....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Nope, the judges made quite clear that non-infringement of a design patent has nothing whatsoever to do with "copying", they even ordered Apple to post a link to the judgement containing the exact ruling where they made these statements, which Apple duly complied with.
Again, substance vs form. Non-infringe essential means not copying. You people are applying the same logic as Apple;arguing that their first statement followed the order to the tee yet the real substance says something completely different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid
What about the fact the German case they mentioned hasn't reached trial yet but they implied the German court had made a final decision?
Or bringing the US case into it where the Tab was actually found to not have infringed?
Apple's original statement implied that the UK decision was contrary to both of those decisons when it fact it wasn't.
Actually the German case they mentioned has reached trial and Samsung was found to have infringed on Apple's design in 2011. It was upheld by their higher court in Sept 2012.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-21/apple-loses-german-court-ruling-against-samsung-in-patent-suit.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html
The cases you are referring to are patent case for some touchscreen patents. They are ongoing. When they mentioned the US case, they didn't claim Samsung was found to have infringed on their tablets, but that they were found to have infringed on their design. Which is 100% true.
Have more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Very good, but you missed "insult the judge, insult the country of origin of the judge, and at all stages insult anyone who offers any dissenting opinion."
No, I didn't miss it. I intentionally left out those matters of opinion. I'm not going to try to argue people out of their opinions. I'm just pointing out the things that are solid facts. People keep predicting how the various stages of the case will be decided, and they keep getting it wrong. Over and over. They can keep arguing that the ref made a bad call (well, four different refs, in this case), and another bad call and then a third bad call. Their prerogative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Actually the German case they mentioned has reached trial and Samsung was found to have infringed on Apple's design in 2011. It was upheld by their higher court in Sept 2012.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-21/apple-loses-german-court-ruling-against-samsung-in-patent-suit.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html
The cases you are referring to are patent case for some touchscreen patents. They are ongoing. When they mentioned the US case, they didn't claim Samsung was found to have infringed on their tablets, but that they were found to have infringed on their design. Which is 100% true.
Have more?
I think you'll find that the telegraph link is irrelevant as the english court decision hadn't overruled that when the article was published on 24th July. Note the key comment on the english ruling - community court & the ruling was binding throughout europe. So yes, apple were using false information. But yet again you'll simply ignore the obvious.
Just a week after the UK court originally said Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7 didn't infringe on the iPad, the German court issued a ban on it saying that it did [2]. Jacob pointed out that the UK court counts as a Community court and its earlier ruling should have been accepted in Dusseldorf.
"Judge Birss was sitting as a Community design court… So his declaration of non-infringement was binding throughout the Community. It was not for a national court… to interfere with this Community wide jurisdiction and declaration," he said in the ruling.
"If courts around Europe simply say they do not agree with each other and give inconsistent decisions, Europe will be the poorer," he admonished.
Given the wide publicity of the German court, which appeared to overrule the UK court, Jacob said public notices from Apple were necessary.
Ok, I could be wrong on the dates here but the telegraph one is dated 2nd Nov with an article reposted from 24th July. TBH there are that many apple cases going on its hard to keep track of what's what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Tulkas, the problem arose when Apple continued to press for a preliminary injunction on the Tab 7.7 in Germany during and even after the UK judgement that applied to the entire European Union, Germany included, making any finding by that German Appeals Court overruled and dismissed anyway. The UK court felt Apple was attempting to muddy the waters and inject question marks via "innuendo" on whether Samsung was found to be infringing on Apple's "iPad" Community Design, which they are not. There is no standing German court judgement that finds Samsung to be infringing on Apple's design patent, even tho Apple tried to imply there was in their original "compliance" website post. That should explain the UK Appeals Court reference to Apple not being completely truthful about the German Court findings.
Sure about that?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html
Quote:
The Duesseldorf Higher Court upheld an earlier ruling and disagreed with the High Court by finding that the device unlawfully copied the design of the iPad.
Samsung said it was “disappointed with the court's ruling” on the Galaxy Tab 7.7, a 7-inch tablet which sells in the UK for £379.
"We will continue to take all available measures, including legal action, to protect our intellectual property rights and defend against Apple's claims to ensure our products remain available to consumers throughout the European Union," a spokesman said.
The German decision came despite the recent, contradictory judgment of the High Court. Judge Colin Birss QC found that none of Samsung's Galaxy Tab range copied the iPad, saying they were "not as cool". He ordered Apple to take out national newspaper adverts admitting as much.
The German preliminary injunction was granted against Samsung's Korean parent company, however, so it would apply to the whole of the EU if enforced.
So, we are at a point where the UK made an EU wide decision and subsequently the German courts made a contradictory EU wide decision followed by a UK appellate court decision that was also binding EU wide. While the final decision by the UK appellate court might override the latest German decision, that does not change the fact that a German court found that Samsung did infringe. The German higher court upheld this. This was never overturned by a German court. So to claim that a German court found Samsung to have infringed is 100% true and correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Sure about that?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html
Yes, quite sure. You'e making the mistake of mixing a preliminary finding that even if valid would apply to only a single country (Germany) with a final ruling from the UK action acting as an EU patent court that applies to the European Union as a whole, which last time I checked includes Germany.
I love it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
I think you'll find that the telegraph link is irrelevant as the english court decision hadn't overruled that when the article was published on 24th July. Note the key comment on the english ruling - community court & the ruling was binding throughout europe. So yes, apple were using false information. But yet again you'll simply ignore the obvious.
Just a week after the UK court originally said Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7 didn't infringe on the iPad, the German court issued a ban on it saying that it did [2]. Jacob pointed out that the UK court counts as a Community court and its earlier ruling should have been accepted in Dusseldorf.
"Judge Birss was sitting as a Community design court… So his declaration of non-infringement was binding throughout the Community. It was not for a national court… to interfere with this Community wide jurisdiction and declaration," he said in the ruling.
"If courts around Europe simply say they do not agree with each other and give inconsistent decisions, Europe will be the poorer," he admonished.
Given the wide publicity of the German court, which appeared to overrule the UK court, Jacob said public notices from Apple were necessary.
Did the german courts find that Samsung infringed? Did their higher court uphold that decision? Is this exactly what Apple stated? It is a factually correct statement to say "a German court found that Samsung infringed upon Apple's design". 100% factual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Did the german courts find that Samsung infringed? Did their higher court uphold that decision? Is this exactly what Apple stated? It is a factually correct statement to say "a German court found that Samsung infringed upon Apple's design". 100% factual.
Argue all you want. There is no valid finding of infringement of Apple's Community Design by any German Court. Period.
Apple counsel themselves aren't even arguing any German finding is valid, much less overruling a final judgement from the UK court. The original compliance statement was simply a PR effort on Apple's part. Kudos to them for giving it a try. They certainly can afford to. Unfortunately the pendulum swung against them. In their wisdom Apple has agreed to modify their statement, and I believe have already done so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Argue all you want. There is no valid finding of infringement of Apple's Community Design by any German Court. Period.
Did a german court find that Samsung infringed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Yes, quite sure. You'e making the mistake of mixing a preliminary finding that even if valid would apply to only a single country (Germany) with a final ruling from the UK action acting as an EU patent court that applies to the European Union as a whole, which last time I checked includes Germany.
Actually, I clearly stated that the UK decision was a final decision. The German decision contradicts the UK decision, but the UK was a final.
But the German decision was EU wide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
But the German decision was EU wide.
Not to the best of my knowledge it was not. It only concerned a preliminary sales ban within the German borders while awaiting the actual trial concerning possible Community Design infringement. That of course is no longer in play anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Not to the best of my knowledge it was not. It only concerned a preliminary sales ban within the German borders with any actual ruling of infringement coming at a later trial on the case itself. That of course is no longer in play anyway.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html
Quote:
The Duesseldorf Higher Court upheld an earlier ruling and disagreed with the High Court by finding that the device unlawfully copied the design of the iPad.
Samsung said it was “disappointed with the court's ruling” on the Galaxy Tab 7.7, a 7-inch tablet which sells in the UK for £379.
"We will continue to take all available measures, including legal action, to protect our intellectual property rights and defend against Apple's claims to ensure our products remain available to consumers throughout the European Union," a spokesman said.
The German decision came despite the recent, contradictory judgment of the High Court. Judge Colin Birss QC found that none of Samsung's Galaxy Tab range copied the iPad, saying they were "not as cool". He ordered Apple to take out national newspaper adverts admitting as much.
The German preliminary injunction was granted against Samsung's Korean parent company, however, so it would apply to the whole of the EU if enforced.
Found to infringe (twice), preliminary injunction, EU wide.
A german court found they infringed. Apple stated this. Completely correct and completely true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Not to the best of my knowledge it was not. It only concerned a preliminary sales ban within the German borders while awaiting the actual trial concerning possible Community Design infringement. That of course is no longer in play anyway.
Give up Gatorguy, we just have to accept that some apple fans simply won't see other side of arguments & think that one of the fairest & most respected legal systems in the world is wrong. The apple marketing machine has to be given credit for the ability to completely taint people's views. Who needs legal judgements when at the end of the day apple are always right; they have to be don't they as they invented everything anyone ever wished for (or is yet to wish for) in a smart phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9423424/German-courts-grant-Apple-ban-on-Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-despite-High-Court-cool-ruling.html
Found to infringe (twice), preliminary injunction, EU wide.
A german court found they infringed. Apple stated this. Completely correct and completely true.
Then if there's a valid EU-wide judgement from the German courts Apple should enforce it. . . Oh, wait....
With that said thanks