I am not sure what to think about all this. While I understand that the judges were upset with the original notice, it seems that this has become personal for them with their statements about Apple's 'integrity'.
Reading UK papers which reflect widespread anti-Apple sentiment, one would wonder how the UK could remain a prime market for Apple. Perhaps we are seeing the more sensationalist views.
[QUOTE name="Slang4Art" url="/t/154226/apple-ordered-to-pay-samsung-legal-fees-for-misleading-uk-notice/40#post_2231058"] If anyone wants this buffoon's email, here it is:[/QUOTE] If you're going to be so boneheaded you could at least post your own email as well?!
This case is over. There is no point in trying to dress the loss in the final instance as a victory for apple.
The case was never about anything other than whether samsung infringed an EU Community Registered Design. Apple lost in the first instance, appealed and lost again.
What got the court annoyed was that apple didn't comply with the court order and attempted to pervert the intent and purpose of the order by playing funny games.
In the final order, the judge goes into the reasons for the Judgement sentence by sentence, in plain english without using any long words or complicated legal terminology (so that even the most intellectually compromised reader can understand it) and shows in detail where Apple lied, both directly and by omission, in the statement on their Web Site, and lied in court to the judges by making the patently absurd argument that they needed 14 Days to make a simple change to the text on a web site. This insulted the intelligence of the court and pissed off the judges so that they made some statements regarding the lack of integrity of apple, the absurdity of their claims and punished them for their childish behaviour.
What some people don't seem to understand is that the EU courts will not tolerate this kind of behaviour and will sanction it if it occurs. In the US it seems that a lawyer can get away with childish nonsense. That is not the case elsewhere.
For those familiar with the UK system, the judges written decision was actually rather amusing. In particular the way that Robin Jacob made it clear to apple that the court does indeed have sufficient power to deal with this kind of impertinence. (He cited a standard textbook on "Implicit Power" of the judiciary, written by his dad a generation ago).
Even though you, and a number of intellectually disadvantaged forum contributors may not understand what went on in the court, the lawyers do understand it, Apple did understand it, and the matter is closed.
Apple lost. They got their butt kicked and called out for lying. It was entirely due to their own bad behaviour.
Forget it, LEARN FROM IT, and get on with something useful.
It's a rare pleasure to read comments on this site which aren't utterly biased by Apple blinkered posters. What a breath of fresh air this is. And do the people that genuinely believe Apple can do no wrong read this and take note of the legal reasons behind apples failure in the initial case & subsequent failure to comply with court order? Well hell no, of course not. After all, Apple can do no wrong, the UK legal system is in the wrong & of course Samsung copied apple regardless of how many courts around the world say they didn't!
Oops, did I forget to add that the US legal system is also wrong after all, they dared to throw out apples frand case against motorola..
One day some of you posters might actually grow up & realise that you look like fools for blindly following apple.
...
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">I hated Bill Gates and then Steve Balmer to an irrational level, technically I just hated using Windows, but Microsoft seemed to be a big brutish bully. You know the sort, someone who thinks they know everything & are willing to shout other people down until they loose the will to live & stop talking.</p>
...
And now you have an irrational hatred for Apple, see a pattern?...
thus Exactly how did you Lose respect for Apple ?.
Apple keeps surprising me that they are continually state-of-the-art... at the start they were SOTA in the design of their products... and then with their products proper using a: mouse, icon desktop, usb, firewire.
then products ...harddrives in a Portable player, Flash memory in a portable player, The smallest music player, The first touchscreen music player, The first truly useful touchscreen phone, The first Affordable tablet computer,
The first retina display iPhone, iPad, and iPod... and The list goes on if you want to get into the specific instances.
Cheap. The legal fees they pay will be worth it for drawing attention to such a ridiculous ruling.
Likely Apple's thoughts as well.
This 'punishment' really does not fit the crime. It is not libel or slander to file a lawsuit which is the only time that Apple ever said that Samsung (by name and product mention) was copying. And unless the court orders that a case is sealed and mouths are to be kept shut its not a crime to talk about suits in progress.
This apology punishment is no fitting to actual libel/slander and never should have been ordered in the first place. It reeks of the court (ie this judge) having a bias of some kind or another against Apple. That the judge was stupid and didn't prohibit adding additional text etc is not Apple's issue either. They were given the opening and they took it, to show how dumb the whole ruling was. They aren't likely to fight this fees thing because its a small price to have gotten the word out about what was said, in full.
The ruling is absurd and the judge is an imbecile. Anyone with functional eyes knows that Samsung stole the designs.
And the US case showed that Samsung's public claims they weren't paying attention to the 'other boys' when creating their designs was false. But was it 'legal' thief of a protectable design or just 'heavy inspiration'. The UK court seems to be saying the latter. The design doesn't fit with what can be legally protected. So, even if they did clone the iPhone, iPad etc, too damn bad for Apple. But hey the name is on the back so folks will know what they are getting right? Maybe. Given folks like my grandfather who thinks 'iPad' is the name for all tablet shaped computer things, he would probably think the Galaxy is just Samsung's iPad same as Dell and HP both have their Windows computers
This apology punishment is no fitting to actual libel/slander and never should have been ordered in the first place. It reeks of the court (ie this judge) having a bias of some kind or another against Apple. That the judge was stupid and didn't prohibit adding additional text etc is not Apple's issue either. They were given the opening and they took it, to show how dumb the whole ruling was. They aren't likely to fight this fees thing because its a small price to have gotten the word out about what was said, in full.
Charlituna, take 3 or 4 minutes and read the last ruling. It may help clear up what appears to be some misconceptions you have about the order, which by the way wasn't the order of a single judge. There were five judge's involved over the course of the rulings.
It is not libel or slander to file a lawsuit which is the only time that Apple ever said that Samsung (by name and product mention) was copying.
Wrong on two counts.
First, Apple didn't file the lawsuit, Samsung filed for clarification on whether they infringed on Apple's registered design.
Second, the whole reason Apple had to post the statement on their website is because they made the following statement after Samsung were ruled to have not infringed:
Quote:
"It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging," it said.
"This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas."
Too many people here don't understand what they are talking about, which is amazing considering how much this has been debated on these and other forums.
Originally Posted by charlitunaBut hey the name is on the back so folks will know what they are getting right? Maybe. Given folks like my grandfather who thinks 'iPad' is the name for all tablet shaped computer things, he would probably think the Galaxy is just Samsung's iPad same as Dell and HP both have their Windows computers
Tell me, Galbi, if you've failed to learn the lesson so many times, why would a multi-billion dollar company?
Your need to hate Apple and see wrong in all they do is most amusing.
No lesson to learn from people like yourself.
I dont have hate for Apple. I own Apple shares. I'm a part owner of the company.
My contribution to this site and others is the instigate Apple to be better company by exposing or discussing its faults so that they will become a better one in the future. Anything wrong with that? Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions before knowing the full picture, hm?
Why don't you attribute your quote to the proper source?
I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Colin Birss.
Correct. That quote came from one of the appeals judges, Justice Robin Jacob. I've no idea if Judge Birss, the original trial judge, also commented that he owned Apple products too. Quite possible.
I dont have hate for Apple. I own Apple shares. I'm a part owner of the company.
My contribution to this site and others is the instigate Apple to be better company by exposing or discussing its faults so that they will become a better one in the future. Anything wrong with that? Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions before knowing the full picture, hm?
Galbi, I have it on good authority that you, in fact, are not a part-owner.
I quote YOU yesterday at 1:12PM:
"Dont worry. Apple's share price will dip into the $400 sooner than expected. I've already sold mine. "
Comments
iDevices are world wide and are really best served by not being marginalised.
Reading UK papers which reflect widespread anti-Apple sentiment, one would wonder how the UK could remain a prime market for Apple. Perhaps we are seeing the more sensationalist views.
If anyone wants this buffoon's email, here it is:[/QUOTE]
If you're going to be so boneheaded you could at least post your own email as well?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art
If anyone wants this buffoon's email, here it is:
delete!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
**Sigh**
This case is over. There is no point in trying to dress the loss in the final instance as a victory for apple.
The case was never about anything other than whether samsung infringed an EU Community Registered Design. Apple lost in the first instance, appealed and lost again.
What got the court annoyed was that apple didn't comply with the court order and attempted to pervert the intent and purpose of the order by playing funny games.
In the final order, the judge goes into the reasons for the Judgement sentence by sentence, in plain english without using any long words or complicated legal terminology (so that even the most intellectually compromised reader can understand it) and shows in detail where Apple lied, both directly and by omission, in the statement on their Web Site, and lied in court to the judges by making the patently absurd argument that they needed 14 Days to make a simple change to the text on a web site. This insulted the intelligence of the court and pissed off the judges so that they made some statements regarding the lack of integrity of apple, the absurdity of their claims and punished them for their childish behaviour.
What some people don't seem to understand is that the EU courts will not tolerate this kind of behaviour and will sanction it if it occurs. In the US it seems that a lawyer can get away with childish nonsense. That is not the case elsewhere.
For those familiar with the UK system, the judges written decision was actually rather amusing. In particular the way that Robin Jacob made it clear to apple that the court does indeed have sufficient power to deal with this kind of impertinence. (He cited a standard textbook on "Implicit Power" of the judiciary, written by his dad a generation ago).
Even though you, and a number of intellectually disadvantaged forum contributors may not understand what went on in the court, the lawyers do understand it, Apple did understand it, and the matter is closed.
Apple lost. They got their butt kicked and called out for lying. It was entirely due to their own bad behaviour.
Forget it, LEARN FROM IT, and get on with something useful.
It's a rare pleasure to read comments on this site which aren't utterly biased by Apple blinkered posters. What a breath of fresh air this is. And do the people that genuinely believe Apple can do no wrong read this and take note of the legal reasons behind apples failure in the initial case & subsequent failure to comply with court order? Well hell no, of course not. After all, Apple can do no wrong, the UK legal system is in the wrong & of course Samsung copied apple regardless of how many courts around the world say they didn't!
Oops, did I forget to add that the US legal system is also wrong after all, they dared to throw out apples frand case against motorola..
One day some of you posters might actually grow up & realise that you look like fools for blindly following apple.
And now you have an irrational hatred for Apple, see a pattern?...
thus Exactly how did you Lose respect for Apple ?.
Apple keeps surprising me that they are continually state-of-the-art... at the start they were SOTA in the design of their products... and then with their products proper using a: mouse, icon desktop, usb, firewire.
then products ...harddrives in a Portable player, Flash memory in a portable player, The smallest music player, The first touchscreen music player, The first truly useful touchscreen phone, The first Affordable tablet computer,
The first retina display iPhone, iPad, and iPod... and The list goes on if you want to get into the specific instances.
Likely Apple's thoughts as well.
This 'punishment' really does not fit the crime. It is not libel or slander to file a lawsuit which is the only time that Apple ever said that Samsung (by name and product mention) was copying. And unless the court orders that a case is sealed and mouths are to be kept shut its not a crime to talk about suits in progress.
This apology punishment is no fitting to actual libel/slander and never should have been ordered in the first place. It reeks of the court (ie this judge) having a bias of some kind or another against Apple. That the judge was stupid and didn't prohibit adding additional text etc is not Apple's issue either. They were given the opening and they took it, to show how dumb the whole ruling was. They aren't likely to fight this fees thing because its a small price to have gotten the word out about what was said, in full.
And the US case showed that Samsung's public claims they weren't paying attention to the 'other boys' when creating their designs was false. But was it 'legal' thief of a protectable design or just 'heavy inspiration'. The UK court seems to be saying the latter. The design doesn't fit with what can be legally protected. So, even if they did clone the iPhone, iPad etc, too damn bad for Apple. But hey the name is on the back so folks will know what they are getting right? Maybe. Given folks like my grandfather who thinks 'iPad' is the name for all tablet shaped computer things, he would probably think the Galaxy is just Samsung's iPad same as Dell and HP both have their Windows computers
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
This apology punishment is no fitting to actual libel/slander and never should have been ordered in the first place. It reeks of the court (ie this judge) having a bias of some kind or another against Apple. That the judge was stupid and didn't prohibit adding additional text etc is not Apple's issue either. They were given the opening and they took it, to show how dumb the whole ruling was. They aren't likely to fight this fees thing because its a small price to have gotten the word out about what was said, in full.
Charlituna, take 3 or 4 minutes and read the last ruling. It may help clear up what appears to be some misconceptions you have about the order, which by the way wasn't the order of a single judge. There were five judge's involved over the course of the rulings.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
It is not libel or slander to file a lawsuit which is the only time that Apple ever said that Samsung (by name and product mention) was copying.
Wrong on two counts.
First, Apple didn't file the lawsuit, Samsung filed for clarification on whether they infringed on Apple's registered design.
Second, the whole reason Apple had to post the statement on their website is because they made the following statement after Samsung were ruled to have not infringed:
Quote:
"It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging," it said.
"This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas."
Too many people here don't understand what they are talking about, which is amazing considering how much this has been debated on these and other forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
We both agree on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leighr
This whole case is startling to smell of a corrupt judge with a Samsung galaxy in his back pocket.
...and a season pass to Chelsea FC home games, in their major sponsor's corporate box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Droid
blah, blah, blah
I feel ashamed because I thought they were meant to be the good guys, but they are no different to the others, manipulative & greedy.
So who are abusing standards essential based patents in an attempt to ban products from sale?
It's good to know that you condone this, it shows the type of person you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
I think Judge Birss said he has an iPad.
...
So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products. The registered design is not the same as the design of the iPad. It is quite a lot different. For instance the iPad is a lot thinner, and has noticeably different curves on its sides. There may be other differences - even though I own one, I have not made a detailed comparison. Whether the iPad would fall within the scope of protection of the registered design is completely irrelevant. We are not deciding that one way or the other. This case must be decided as if the iPad never existed.
...
dunno, maybe he's a gadget junky with multiple androids, iphones..
Why don't you attribute your quote to the proper source?
I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Colin Birss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Tell me, Galbi, if you've failed to learn the lesson so many times, why would a multi-billion dollar company?
Your need to hate Apple and see wrong in all they do is most amusing.
No lesson to learn from people like yourself.
I dont have hate for Apple. I own Apple shares. I'm a part owner of the company.
My contribution to this site and others is the instigate Apple to be better company by exposing or discussing its faults so that they will become a better one in the future. Anything wrong with that? Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions before knowing the full picture, hm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Why don't you attribute your quote to the proper source?
I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Colin Birss.
Correct. That quote came from one of the appeals judges, Justice Robin Jacob. I've no idea if Judge Birss, the original trial judge, also commented that he owned Apple products too. Quite possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
No lesson to learn from people like yourself.
I dont have hate for Apple. I own Apple shares. I'm a part owner of the company.
My contribution to this site and others is the instigate Apple to be better company by exposing or discussing its faults so that they will become a better one in the future. Anything wrong with that? Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions before knowing the full picture, hm?
Galbi, I have it on good authority that you, in fact, are not a part-owner.
I quote YOU yesterday at 1:12PM:
"Dont worry. Apple's share price will dip into the $400 sooner than expected. I've already sold mine.
Here's the link in case you forgot. Post #52.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/154218/apple-and-htc-settle-all-patent-litigation-agree-to-10-year-licensing-deal/40