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.
Because it suggests that UK verdict is not in sync with the verdict at other places they quoted and indirectly hints that this verdict is incorrect, which is degrading UK's judicial system.
On another note, if Apple's intent was to really stop misguiding people who read their statement, it should post results at all other countries, including the negative verdicts it received at Holland, Japan, and S Korea.
Apple was instructed to put "the notice" (that particular statement) "on the Apple homepage." Apple argued that it would clutter things up, and asked if they could just link to it. The appeals court, said "yeah that's reasonable; provide a link to the notice."
One could argue that the expectation was that the link would go to a page with nothing but the 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."
Clearly the court was sensitive to word choice and context. A link to "the statement" shouldn't be a link to "the statement plus some other stuff that Apple feels like adding."
No big deal, Apple just needs to delete the other stuff.
One could argue that the expectation was that the statement would contain only the text specified by the court, but one would have to argue that without any actual facts supporting that. Maybe I missed it (very possible) but I can find nothing in the ruling that supports the idea that Apple was not allowed to write the notice themselves and expect only to paste the suggested text.
There is no right to bear arms in the UK. Also, the people bringing guns to school and killing people are fucked in the head. It isn't the norm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
Oh, and you could probably learn a thing or two about patents, prior art & why patent trolls such as Apple will ultimately lose in their quest to litigate competition out of the market.
Patent trolls own patents and produce nothing, then sue people. Apple produces products with their patents. use the term patent troll corerctly. It just makes you sound like a jackass when you don't.
So where are all the blowhards who were saying this couldn't possibly happen because Apple were completely, demonstrably in the right?
Good decision, Apple need to be slapped down when they act out.
Are you kidding me? What about the judge acting out by ordering the statement in the first place. Fine Apple lost, do they need to walk around with a banner saying our stuff is cooler than Samsungs? Hell no!
I'm all for Apple putting the apology or whatever it is on the front page of their UK website. I would then of course make a DNS change to route all apple.co.uk requests to their US website until after the order time has expired. A bad ruling lead to a bad order and bad compliance of said order. Legal compliance to moronic orders is easy to side step. Of course they will be pissed, but maybe they will write a better order next time.
The UK is a joke when it comes to free speech and what you can and can not say on the internet.
If you write something on the internet that is "out of step with public opinion", you can end up in jail, as several people already have.
And don't the judges all wear these idiotic wigs? You can't take people seriously who play dress up and wear idiotic wigs. Forcing Apple to post that statement was childish to begin with.
If I were in charge of Apple, I'd pull out of the UK for at least 6 months or so, and not sell a single product there. Money isn't everything, and some things are more important than money.
The EU has 27 member states with at least 27 different legal systems. I say at least, because one member state, the UK, has three, the legal systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Yes, the EU has recommendations (Directives) for principles to be legally implemented by every member nation, but these principles are subject to how they're interpreted and implemented within each member state's laws, hence the need for the European Court of Justice to resolve the inevitable arguments and debates.
This was decided in a Community Court - the decision applies EU-wide.
"Judge Birss's order (which at that point was assumed to be correct, we had not yet decided the appeal) applied throughout the EU because he was sitting as a Community Court. So eventually, but only in Lord Grabiner's reply speech, Apple accepted that the German injunction should be discharged altogether and undertook to this court forthwith to apply to the German court for it to be discharged."
'Tim Cook....Tim Cook. Please report to the principals office.'
I guess if Apple's response isn't acceptable the 2nd time then Apple will have to post a video on the front page of their website of Tim writing on a blackboard 100 times 'Samsung didn't copy Apple?' Come on. Lets move on.
Are you kidding me? What about the judge acting out by ordering the statement in the first place. Fine Apple lost, do they need to walk around with a banner saying our stuff is cooler than Samsungs? Hell no!
Of course not, that wasn't the judgement. Not that Apple would be, or have been, particularly hurt by being forced to publicly state that their products have been officially judged to be cooler than Samsung's. Which makes this whole charade all the more stupid, Apple have dug themselves into a hole when they could have been soaring on the back of a lost court case that declared them to be cooler. If that's a lost court case then who needs to win?
But no, they had to be "the rebel", had to bite the hand that was feeding them just because they don't like to lose. Like Apple, hate Apple's legal machine.
Love it. Some global moderator disagrees with points made so that automatically makes me & anyone else from the UK daring to agree with the legal slap a liar. Should I guess from the level of stupidity shown that Tallest Skill is possibly from the perfect USA?
Now, now, there is no need to bring the "perfect USA" into this. I do think TS shouldn't be calling people on the board liers, but I also think this judge should be locked up in a padded room for ordering Apple to post ANYTHING at their expense. Period.
All these new single post signups… all from the UK… and all lying…
Humor.
(Oh, sorry, "humour".)
Oh dear - first time posters must be liars, fantastic logic. Any chance of moderating my 4th post? Kind of Stalinist of you to hold back posts which you disagree with isn't it?
Of course not, that wasn't the judgement. Not that Apple would be, or have been, particularly hurt by being forced to publicly state that their products have been officially judged to be cooler than Samsung's. Which makes this whole charade all the more stupid, Apple have dug themselves into a hole when they could have been soaring on the back of a lost court case that declared them to be cooler. If that's a lost court case then who needs to win?
But no, they had to be "the rebel", had to bite the hand that was feeding them just because they don't like to lose. Like Apple, hate Apple's legal machine.
Making Apple post on their home web site at their expense that Samsung didn't copy them (when we all know they did), was exactly the judgement. And having to do it across the whole EU is flaming idiotic. Apple didn't dig themselves in a hole, they just did as the judge did. Acted like a school yard bully. They don't put anything legal on the front page, they link to it. That's what they did here. Their not rebels, they did exactly what they do. You can't give them crap for being Apple.
I'm your dad. I don't like pickles, which you're fully aware of. You've misbehaved, and as part of making it up to me, I tell you to go make me a ham sandwich, which you do, but knowingly put a couple of pickles in it.
Doesn't matter how much you whine "I did what I was told to", you're getting grounded.
That's the dumbest analogy I have ever seen. It actually proves Tallest Skil's point. Dad gave instructions that were vague and ambiguous--subject to interpretation because he didn't include his dislike of pickles by reference. And now child is being grounded because child failed to look up dad's ass and read his mind?
That's the dumbest analogy I have ever seen. It actually proves Tallest Skil's point. Dad gave instructions that were vague and ambiguous--subject to interpretation because he didn't include his dislike of pickles by reference. And now child is being grounded because child failed to look up dad's ass and read his mind?
But atleast the kid has the satisfaction of knowing the dad won't ever ask for a sandwich from him again, right?
That said, the judge has failed to be precise in his punishment which allowed for a great deal of interpretation as we're seeing now. Apple followed it exactly but he was too lazy, stupid, or merely didn't think it through and now he says it's not good enough with an implication of that isn't what he meant.
Yep. And now he's going to look really dumb. Not only for ordering a punishment that is appropriate for libel/slander cases which this was not but also for a poorly performed order and now crying foul because 'that's not what I meant'.
Making Apple post on their home web site at their expense that Samsung didn't copy them (when we all know they did), was exactly the judgement. And having to do it across the whole EU is flaming idiotic. Apple didn't dig themselves in a hole, they just did as the judge did. Acted like a school yard bully. They don't put anything legal on the front page, they link to it. That's what they did here. Their not rebels, they did exactly what they do. You can't give them crap for being Apple.
It's not across the whole EU, just the UK.
If it did apply to all websites across the EU and the EU were fully legally integrated then it wouldn't be idiotic, it would be a judgement applying to a jurisdiction, the size of which is irrelevant.
Apple did dig themselves into a hole, this reaction was very predictable, and has caused a lot of negative publicity, Apple coming across less as a rich and powerful multinational and more of a legal worm.
The judge didn't bully them get real, a notice on their website that hardly anyone will read anyway is nothing. Apple need to learn to take punches.
That final paragraph was clearly indolent, and born of a rebellious streak against the spirit of the court judgement. Doesn't matter if the wording is true and accurate, it's there for one purpose alone, to derail the message and undermine the statement. Anyone who denies it is deluded.
Comments
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.
Because it suggests that UK verdict is not in sync with the verdict at other places they quoted and indirectly hints that this verdict is incorrect, which is degrading UK's judicial system.
On another note, if Apple's intent was to really stop misguiding people who read their statement, it should post results at all other countries, including the negative verdicts it received at Holland, Japan, and S Korea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Apple was instructed to put "the notice" (that particular statement) "on the Apple homepage." Apple argued that it would clutter things up, and asked if they could just link to it. The appeals court, said "yeah that's reasonable; provide a link to the notice."
One could argue that the expectation was that the link would go to a page with nothing but the notice.
To put this in context, look at the original ruling at paragraph 51 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html the judge wrote:
"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."
Clearly the court was sensitive to word choice and context. A link to "the statement" shouldn't be a link to "the statement plus some other stuff that Apple feels like adding."
No big deal, Apple just needs to delete the other stuff.
One could argue that the expectation was that the statement would contain only the text specified by the court, but one would have to argue that without any actual facts supporting that. Maybe I missed it (very possible) but I can find nothing in the ruling that supports the idea that Apple was not allowed to write the notice themselves and expect only to paste the suggested text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89
It looks a shitload better than yours Skil.
We don't have to bring guns to school.
There is no right to bear arms in the UK. Also, the people bringing guns to school and killing people are fucked in the head. It isn't the norm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
Oh, and you could probably learn a thing or two about patents, prior art & why patent trolls such as Apple will ultimately lose in their quest to litigate competition out of the market.
Patent trolls own patents and produce nothing, then sue people. Apple produces products with their patents. use the term patent troll corerctly. It just makes you sound like a jackass when you don't.
Refuse, and fight it.
Pay penalties, if necessary, as long as this doesn't risk a product ban (which would only drive up already skyrocketing demand, anyway.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
So where are all the blowhards who were saying this couldn't possibly happen because Apple were completely, demonstrably in the right?
Good decision, Apple need to be slapped down when they act out.
Are you kidding me? What about the judge acting out by ordering the statement in the first place. Fine Apple lost, do they need to walk around with a banner saying our stuff is cooler than Samsungs? Hell no!
I'm all for Apple putting the apology or whatever it is on the front page of their UK website. I would then of course make a DNS change to route all apple.co.uk requests to their US website until after the order time has expired. A bad ruling lead to a bad order and bad compliance of said order. Legal compliance to moronic orders is easy to side step. Of course they will be pissed, but maybe they will write a better order next time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89
It looks a shitload better than yours Skil.
We don't have to bring guns to school.
Would they be able to figure out how to use them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
All these new single post signups… all from the UK… and all lying…
Humor.
(Oh, sorry, "humour".)
As a moderator, you think this post is ok?
The UK is a joke when it comes to free speech and what you can and can not say on the internet.
If you write something on the internet that is "out of step with public opinion", you can end up in jail, as several people already have.
And don't the judges all wear these idiotic wigs? You can't take people seriously who play dress up and wear idiotic wigs. Forcing Apple to post that statement was childish to begin with.
If I were in charge of Apple, I'd pull out of the UK for at least 6 months or so, and not sell a single product there. Money isn't everything, and some things are more important than money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA
The EU has 27 member states with at least 27 different legal systems. I say at least, because one member state, the UK, has three, the legal systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Yes, the EU has recommendations (Directives) for principles to be legally implemented by every member nation, but these principles are subject to how they're interpreted and implemented within each member state's laws, hence the need for the European Court of Justice to resolve the inevitable arguments and debates.
This was decided in a Community Court - the decision applies EU-wide.
"Judge Birss's order (which at that point was assumed to be correct, we had not yet decided the appeal) applied throughout the EU because he was sitting as a Community Court. So eventually, but only in Lord Grabiner's reply speech, Apple accepted that the German injunction should be discharged altogether and undertook to this court forthwith to apply to the German court for it to be discharged."
The intention, judges said, was not to make Apple "grovel", but to remove "commercial uncertainty" surrounding Samsung's products.
Why on earth is it up to Apple to remove commercial uncertainty when Apple obviously disagrees?
I guess if Apple's response isn't acceptable the 2nd time then Apple will have to post a video on the front page of their website of Tim writing on a blackboard 100 times 'Samsung didn't copy Apple?' Come on. Lets move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by protaginets
Are you kidding me? What about the judge acting out by ordering the statement in the first place. Fine Apple lost, do they need to walk around with a banner saying our stuff is cooler than Samsungs? Hell no!
Of course not, that wasn't the judgement. Not that Apple would be, or have been, particularly hurt by being forced to publicly state that their products have been officially judged to be cooler than Samsung's. Which makes this whole charade all the more stupid, Apple have dug themselves into a hole when they could have been soaring on the back of a lost court case that declared them to be cooler. If that's a lost court case then who needs to win?
But no, they had to be "the rebel", had to bite the hand that was feeding them just because they don't like to lose. Like Apple, hate Apple's legal machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
Love it. Some global moderator disagrees with points made so that automatically makes me & anyone else from the UK daring to agree with the legal slap a liar. Should I guess from the level of stupidity shown that Tallest Skill is possibly from the perfect USA?
Now, now, there is no need to bring the "perfect USA" into this. I do think TS shouldn't be calling people on the board liers, but I also think this judge should be locked up in a padded room for ordering Apple to post ANYTHING at their expense. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
All these new single post signups… all from the UK… and all lying…
Humor.
(Oh, sorry, "humour".)
Oh dear - first time posters must be liars, fantastic logic. Any chance of moderating my 4th post? Kind of Stalinist of you to hold back posts which you disagree with isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Of course not, that wasn't the judgement. Not that Apple would be, or have been, particularly hurt by being forced to publicly state that their products have been officially judged to be cooler than Samsung's. Which makes this whole charade all the more stupid, Apple have dug themselves into a hole when they could have been soaring on the back of a lost court case that declared them to be cooler. If that's a lost court case then who needs to win?
But no, they had to be "the rebel", had to bite the hand that was feeding them just because they don't like to lose. Like Apple, hate Apple's legal machine.
Making Apple post on their home web site at their expense that Samsung didn't copy them (when we all know they did), was exactly the judgement. And having to do it across the whole EU is flaming idiotic. Apple didn't dig themselves in a hole, they just did as the judge did. Acted like a school yard bully. They don't put anything legal on the front page, they link to it. That's what they did here. Their not rebels, they did exactly what they do. You can't give them crap for being Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
An analogy.
I'm your dad. I don't like pickles, which you're fully aware of. You've misbehaved, and as part of making it up to me, I tell you to go make me a ham sandwich, which you do, but knowingly put a couple of pickles in it.
Doesn't matter how much you whine "I did what I was told to", you're getting grounded.
That's the dumbest analogy I have ever seen. It actually proves Tallest Skil's point. Dad gave instructions that were vague and ambiguous--subject to interpretation because he didn't include his dislike of pickles by reference. And now child is being grounded because child failed to look up dad's ass and read his mind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff
That's the dumbest analogy I have ever seen. It actually proves Tallest Skil's point. Dad gave instructions that were vague and ambiguous--subject to interpretation because he didn't include his dislike of pickles by reference. And now child is being grounded because child failed to look up dad's ass and read his mind?
But atleast the kid has the satisfaction of knowing the dad won't ever ask for a sandwich from him again, right?
Yep. And now he's going to look really dumb. Not only for ordering a punishment that is appropriate for libel/slander cases which this was not but also for a poorly performed order and now crying foul because 'that's not what I meant'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by protaginets
Making Apple post on their home web site at their expense that Samsung didn't copy them (when we all know they did), was exactly the judgement. And having to do it across the whole EU is flaming idiotic. Apple didn't dig themselves in a hole, they just did as the judge did. Acted like a school yard bully. They don't put anything legal on the front page, they link to it. That's what they did here. Their not rebels, they did exactly what they do. You can't give them crap for being Apple.
It's not across the whole EU, just the UK.
If it did apply to all websites across the EU and the EU were fully legally integrated then it wouldn't be idiotic, it would be a judgement applying to a jurisdiction, the size of which is irrelevant.
Apple did dig themselves into a hole, this reaction was very predictable, and has caused a lot of negative publicity, Apple coming across less as a rich and powerful multinational and more of a legal worm.
The judge didn't bully them
That final paragraph was clearly indolent, and born of a rebellious streak against the spirit of the court judgement. Doesn't matter if the wording is true and accurate, it's there for one purpose alone, to derail the message and undermine the statement. Anyone who denies it is deluded.