Samsung should also be ordered from the U.S. judge to post a notice on their U.S. facing website that they are sorry for copying Apple's iPad and iPhone designs.
Hopefully then, the U.K. judge will see how stupid of a judgement that is.
someone tries to use due process to protect their IP and whether they were right or wrong, they get punished for it?
That judge should be forcibly retired. Way to discourage people from due process.
Doesn't matter, Apple wins. Their original statement was big news. This one nobody cares about. They got far more gain from the original than any harm from THE "corrected" one.
To Gatorguy: Those appeals you listed above, which of those were for the actual ruling about the Galaxy Tab not infringing and which were strictly about Apple having to put up the notices? Losing an appeal regarding the publication order is not the same.
Samsung should also be ordered from the U.S. judge to post a notice on their U.S. facing website that they are sorry for copying Apple's iPad and iPhone designs.
Actually Apple did NOT win the design argument in the big US trial regarding the iPad either. It's the one sole area they did 'lose'.
Actually Apple did NOT win the design argument in the big US trial regarding the iPad either. It's the one sole area they did 'lose'.
Which I still don't understand, by the way… So lack of patent infringement means anyone can make anything that looks just like something else and get away with it? It's certainly one thing not to infringe, which Apple has acknowledged, but Apple will NEVER in good faith say they didn't copy.
To Gatorguy: Those appeals you listed above, which of those were for the actual ruling about the Galaxy Tab not infringing and which were strictly about Apple having to put up the notices? Losing an appeal regarding the publication order is not the same.
The original ruling back in July (I think) concerned non-infringement. That same judge (Birss) then added the stipulation that Apple publish notice of non-infringement due at last in part to their on-going efforts to get a ruling of infringement in German preliminary hearing even tho it wouldn't actually be legitimized (The German Appeals Court had no stand to rule for likely infringement when the EU-wide final decision was already made for non-infringement).
The first appeal a few weeks later upheld the original order to publish, with minor modifications as explained in the judgement I've linked several times recently. The second hearing that included yet another judge alongside the three previous was held yesterday morning. It was simply to advise Apple they were not in compliance with the Appeals Court order, and clarifying the court's expectations and requirements.
Once when Samsung copied them, a second time when the legal system failed to recognise that, and the third with this ridiculous attempt to embarrass them for attempting to protect their intellectual property.
In another news, Apple is down bellow 590$. It sinks like a rock! Today will be the sixth week down in a row. I don't see another six weeks down streak in the past. That must be bad news for shareholders... and good news for customers!
Once when Samsung copied them, a second time when the legal system failed to recognise that, and the third with this ridiculous attempt to embarrass them for attempting to protect their intellectual property.
The legal system over there is a joke.
I wonder why Apple tried to make use of the legal system "over there" then.
If the legal system "over there" had made the decision you wanted, you'd think it was fine.
The truth is, this was clearly a case in the gray. If it was clear-cut that Apple would win, Samsung wouldn't have let it goto court - they would have settled out of court. Thats the exact time you need a third party to decide one way or another. Just because you like Apple more than you like Samsung doesn't mean Apple are always right.
In another news, Apple is down bellow 590$. It sinks like a rock! Today will be the sixth week down in a row. I don't see another six weeks down streak in the past. That must be bad news for shareholders... and good news for customers!
How do customers benefit from a declining stock price?
Well, at this point, the public is much more aware that the trial judge declared Samsung's tablets as not as cool copies, and that will remain the take home message here, even if they are technically "non-infringing" copies.
But, frankly, the judges come away looking more like Judge Judy than venerable jurists. I know that every time I hear of some judge in this country ordering a defendant to do some stupid thing like this, my immediate reaction is, "what a petty ass." My next reaction is that the judge doesn't belong on the bench. Perhaps the public in the UK is more tolerant of judicial farces, I don't know, but the whole episode doesn't reflect favorably on their courts, in my opinion, from a foreigner's perspective. The judges involved deserved to have their noses tweaked in this instance, and Apple still got the best of them.
How do customers benefit from a declining stock price?
Or do you mean "customers" of a stock broker?
Simple. If the stock is going down, then something is wrong fundamentally at Apple. Nexus 4, which is almost as good as iPhone 5 costs 299$ unlocked while the iPhone 5 is between 700$ and 1000$ unlocked! Come on, this is unbelievable greedy! Yes, stock going down will be good for customers in the long run.
Forcing Apple to print this nonsense proves nothing and is absolutely ridiculous given the facts and rulings in similar cases in other countries. To say Samsung's design did not copy or was not heavily influenced by Apple's first to the market design is a total abomination of reality, period. I am so tired of the spin cycle. I wish the tech world would get an original idea and stop jumping on to Apple%u2019s designs, trademarks, swagga, etc. in order to make a quick buck. And all of the apologists out there need to face reality. Apple in on a roll and you need to go back to the drawing board and step up your game.
The problem with the ruling is that it goes beyond what was at issue. There's no question that Samsung copied Apple. That they did is clear for anyone to see. The legal issue of whether Apple could demonstrate that Samsung infringed on its intellectual property is separate. Legal decisions don't dictate reality. Asking Apple to apologise is ridiculous. Samsung copied Apple. End of story. Google copied Apple. The products would not and could not exist if the iPhone and iPad did not exist. This isn't even remotely at issue. No iPhone, no Galaxy phones. No iPad, no Galaxy Tab. No iOS, no Android. If you believe otherwise, you're irrational. Apple seeking damages for what Samsung did in no way causes confusion because there is no confusion. You have to be literally insane to believe that Samsung's products are not copies. The judge basically asked Apple to apologise for implying that the sky is blue.
Comments
Samsung should also be ordered from the U.S. judge to post a notice on their U.S. facing website that they are sorry for copying Apple's iPad and iPhone designs.
Hopefully then, the U.K. judge will see how stupid of a judgement that is.
someone tries to use due process to protect their IP and whether they were right or wrong, they get punished for it?
That judge should be forcibly retired. Way to discourage people from due process.
The part I'd appreciate explanation of, is how the edict of an English court has precedence throughout the EU?
And at least in one part of it - Germany - Samsung were found to have infringed, weren't they?
So how is it that this ruling supersedes that one?
Not arguing, just curious...
Doesn't matter, Apple wins. Their original statement was big news. This one nobody cares about. They got far more gain from the original than any harm from THE "corrected" one.
To Gatorguy: Those appeals you listed above, which of those were for the actual ruling about the Galaxy Tab not infringing and which were strictly about Apple having to put up the notices? Losing an appeal regarding the publication order is not the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko
Samsung should also be ordered from the U.S. judge to post a notice on their U.S. facing website that they are sorry for copying Apple's iPad and iPhone designs.
Actually Apple did NOT win the design argument in the big US trial regarding the iPad either. It's the one sole area they did 'lose'.
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Actually Apple did NOT win the design argument in the big US trial regarding the iPad either. It's the one sole area they did 'lose'.
Which I still don't understand, by the way… So lack of patent infringement means anyone can make anything that looks just like something else and get away with it? It's certainly one thing not to infringe, which Apple has acknowledged, but Apple will NEVER in good faith say they didn't copy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
To Gatorguy: Those appeals you listed above, which of those were for the actual ruling about the Galaxy Tab not infringing and which were strictly about Apple having to put up the notices? Losing an appeal regarding the publication order is not the same.
The original ruling back in July (I think) concerned non-infringement. That same judge (Birss) then added the stipulation that Apple publish notice of non-infringement due at last in part to their on-going efforts to get a ruling of infringement in German preliminary hearing even tho it wouldn't actually be legitimized (The German Appeals Court had no stand to rule for likely infringement when the EU-wide final decision was already made for non-infringement).
The first appeal a few weeks later upheld the original order to publish, with minor modifications as explained in the judgement I've linked several times recently. The second hearing that included yet another judge alongside the three previous was held yesterday morning. It was simply to advise Apple they were not in compliance with the Appeals Court order, and clarifying the court's expectations and requirements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
It doesn't say Samsung did not copy. It says Samsung did not infringe.
It doesn't say that Samsung didn't infringe. It says that the court ruled that Samsung didn't infringe.
Originally Posted by AppleJeff
It doesn't say that Samsung didn't infringe. It says that the court ruled that Samsung didn't infringe.
Ooh, I like that better.
Apple has copped it thrice here.
Once when Samsung copied them, a second time when the legal system failed to recognise that, and the third with this ridiculous attempt to embarrass them for attempting to protect their intellectual property.
The legal system over there is a joke.
In another news, Apple is down bellow 590$. It sinks like a rock! Today will be the sixth week down in a row. I don't see another six weeks down streak in the past. That must be bad news for shareholders... and good news for customers!
Ads are meant to pop out and attract people's attention. That ad is exactly the opposite of that.
I doubt that many people are going to even notice it. And that's a good thing!
Screw Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
That judge should be removed.
Apple has copped it thrice here.
Once when Samsung copied them, a second time when the legal system failed to recognise that, and the third with this ridiculous attempt to embarrass them for attempting to protect their intellectual property.
The legal system over there is a joke.
I wonder why Apple tried to make use of the legal system "over there" then.
If the legal system "over there" had made the decision you wanted, you'd think it was fine.
The truth is, this was clearly a case in the gray. If it was clear-cut that Apple would win, Samsung wouldn't have let it goto court - they would have settled out of court. Thats the exact time you need a third party to decide one way or another. Just because you like Apple more than you like Samsung doesn't mean Apple are always right.
Well what with the lack of "cool" according to the judges ruling that's obvious.
Or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Yes, at you. I never knew you were a judge or had legal precedence. Interesting.
You don't need to be a judge to recognize absurdity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX
In another news, Apple is down bellow 590$. It sinks like a rock! Today will be the sixth week down in a row. I don't see another six weeks down streak in the past. That must be bad news for shareholders... and good news for customers!
How do customers benefit from a declining stock price?
Or do you mean "customers" of a stock broker?
Well, at this point, the public is much more aware that the trial judge declared Samsung's tablets as not as cool copies, and that will remain the take home message here, even if they are technically "non-infringing" copies.
But, frankly, the judges come away looking more like Judge Judy than venerable jurists. I know that every time I hear of some judge in this country ordering a defendant to do some stupid thing like this, my immediate reaction is, "what a petty ass." My next reaction is that the judge doesn't belong on the bench. Perhaps the public in the UK is more tolerant of judicial farces, I don't know, but the whole episode doesn't reflect favorably on their courts, in my opinion, from a foreigner's perspective. The judges involved deserved to have their noses tweaked in this instance, and Apple still got the best of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138
How do customers benefit from a declining stock price?
Never try to make sense of irrational comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138
How do customers benefit from a declining stock price?
Or do you mean "customers" of a stock broker?
Simple. If the stock is going down, then something is wrong fundamentally at Apple. Nexus 4, which is almost as good as iPhone 5 costs 299$ unlocked while the iPhone 5 is between 700$ and 1000$ unlocked! Come on, this is unbelievable greedy! Yes, stock going down will be good for customers in the long run.
The problem with the ruling is that it goes beyond what was at issue. There's no question that Samsung copied Apple. That they did is clear for anyone to see. The legal issue of whether Apple could demonstrate that Samsung infringed on its intellectual property is separate. Legal decisions don't dictate reality. Asking Apple to apologise is ridiculous. Samsung copied Apple. End of story. Google copied Apple. The products would not and could not exist if the iPhone and iPad did not exist. This isn't even remotely at issue. No iPhone, no Galaxy phones. No iPad, no Galaxy Tab. No iOS, no Android. If you believe otherwise, you're irrational. Apple seeking damages for what Samsung did in no way causes confusion because there is no confusion. You have to be literally insane to believe that Samsung's products are not copies. The judge basically asked Apple to apologise for implying that the sky is blue.