I didn't say the order came from an appeal. What I said was as long as Samsung doesn't continue to claim Apple is guilty, other than in an appeal, there wouldn't be any need for "clarification" in the form of a published announcement by Samsung. After the UK trial last summer Apple continued to publicly claim Samsung guilty anyway, and went even further in muddying the water by attempting to continue a German case that no longer mattered, having been settled by the UK ruling. Thus the admittedly unusual Apple publication order to sift the dirt and mud out of the water. making the court's judgement of non-infringement crystal-clear again.
As far as I know Samsung is not continuing to make public claims that Apple is guilty despite what the court ruled. That's the difference. If you're really as aware of the facts as you imply you are you should have already known that.
Umm, but you are indeed claiming that it was because of Apple's actions after the trial. But the ruling for them to publish the notice was during the trial...it was in fact the ruling of the judge in the trial. So your assertion that for Samsung to face similar treatment in this case only of they continue their claims makes no sense. An equitable outcome therefore would be for the ruling in this case itself to include a mandate that Samsung publish a similar notice. But that won't happen because this just is likely not due to be on Apple's payroll.
Apple were initially only required to put a statement via a small link on their website (they claimed would take two weeks to organise) which they did in a few days. However the content of the linked statement was so petulant and did not meet the requirements of the court that they were THEN required to take out the adverts.
No, sorry, you are completely wrong on that. The original ruling included an order for Apple to publish in newspapers. The wording and placement of the website and newspaper notices was ordered changed subsequent to Apple's original postings.
Umm, but you are indeed claiming that it was because of Apple's actions after the trial. But the ruling for them to publish the notice was during the trial...it was in fact the ruling of the judge in the trial. So your assertion that for Samsung to face similar treatment in this case only of they continue their claims makes no sense. An equitable outcome therefore would be for the ruling in this case itself to include a mandate that Samsung publish a similar notice. But that won't happen because this just is likely not due to be on Apple's payroll.
Tulkas, if you check the timeline you'll find the order to publish by the original UK court came some days after the ruling of non-infringement, even tho the same judge made the order.
The finding of non-infringement issued by the court on July 9th. The order requiring Apple to clarify the courts order was made on or about the 18th of July, at least 9 days after the UK court's determination that Samsung did not violate Apple's asserted IP.
Tulkas, if you check the timeline you'll find the order to publish by the original UK court came some days after the ruling of non-infringement, even tho the same judge made the order.
yes, but the order was part of the trial, not after the trial. The trial, initiated by Samsung, was intended to get a ruling. The order may have occurred shortly after the finding of non-infringement, but it was still a part of the ruling. In almost any trial, orders flowing from the ruling often take a few days but they are still a part of the same trial, whether they followed by a few minutes, hours or days. Apple's activity after the trial did not (and logically cannot) have influenced the ruling of the trial itself. It wasn't just that the same judge gave the order. He gave it as the conclusion of the trial itself.
yes, but the order was part of the trial, not after the trial. The trial, initiated by Samsung, was intended to get a ruling. The order may have occurred shortly after the finding of non-infringement, but it was still a part of the ruling. In almost any trial, orders flowing from the ruling often take a few days but they are still a part of the same trial, whether they followed by a few minutes, hours or days. Apple's activity after the trial did not (and logically cannot) have influenced the ruling of the trial itself. It wasn't just that the same judge gave the order. He gave it as the conclusion of the trial itself.
Tulkas, I'll have to assume you're not clear on why the publication order was added well over a week after the court's ruling was made official. I included a Bloomberg link to explain what prompted that. It was not Apple assertions preceeding or during the trial. The trial was over and the court's ruling published and made official on July 9th. It was because of Apple statements and actions after the ruling of non-infringement (which applied EU-wide) that Judge Birss came back to make the additional publish order.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I didn't say the order came from an appeal. What I said was as long as Samsung doesn't continue to claim Apple is guilty, other than in an appeal, there wouldn't be any need for "clarification" in the form of a published announcement by Samsung. After the UK trial last summer Apple continued to publicly claim Samsung guilty anyway, and went even further in muddying the water by attempting to continue a German case that no longer mattered, having been settled by the UK ruling. Thus the admittedly unusual Apple publication order to sift the dirt and mud out of the water. making the court's judgement of non-infringement crystal-clear again.
As far as I know Samsung is not continuing to make public claims that Apple is guilty despite what the court ruled. That's the difference. If you're really as aware of the facts as you imply you are you should have already known that.
Umm, but you are indeed claiming that it was because of Apple's actions after the trial. But the ruling for them to publish the notice was during the trial...it was in fact the ruling of the judge in the trial. So your assertion that for Samsung to face similar treatment in this case only of they continue their claims makes no sense. An equitable outcome therefore would be for the ruling in this case itself to include a mandate that Samsung publish a similar notice. But that won't happen because this just is likely not due to be on Apple's payroll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcomments
Apple were initially only required to put a statement via a small link on their website (they claimed would take two weeks to organise) which they did in a few days. However the content of the linked statement was so petulant and did not meet the requirements of the court that they were THEN required to take out the adverts.
No, sorry, you are completely wrong on that. The original ruling included an order for Apple to publish in newspapers. The wording and placement of the website and newspaper notices was ordered changed subsequent to Apple's original postings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Umm, but you are indeed claiming that it was because of Apple's actions after the trial. But the ruling for them to publish the notice was during the trial...it was in fact the ruling of the judge in the trial. So your assertion that for Samsung to face similar treatment in this case only of they continue their claims makes no sense. An equitable outcome therefore would be for the ruling in this case itself to include a mandate that Samsung publish a similar notice. But that won't happen because this just is likely not due to be on Apple's payroll.
Tulkas, if you check the timeline you'll find the order to publish by the original UK court came some days after the ruling of non-infringement, even tho the same judge made the order.
The finding of non-infringement issued by the court on July 9th. The order requiring Apple to clarify the courts order was made on or about the 18th of July, at least 9 days after the UK court's determination that Samsung did not violate Apple's asserted IP.
My post was 100% correct.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/apple-must-publish-notice-samsung-didn-t-copy-ipad-judge-says.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Tulkas, if you check the timeline you'll find the order to publish by the original UK court came some days after the ruling of non-infringement, even tho the same judge made the order.
yes, but the order was part of the trial, not after the trial. The trial, initiated by Samsung, was intended to get a ruling. The order may have occurred shortly after the finding of non-infringement, but it was still a part of the ruling. In almost any trial, orders flowing from the ruling often take a few days but they are still a part of the same trial, whether they followed by a few minutes, hours or days. Apple's activity after the trial did not (and logically cannot) have influenced the ruling of the trial itself. It wasn't just that the same judge gave the order. He gave it as the conclusion of the trial itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
yes, but the order was part of the trial, not after the trial. The trial, initiated by Samsung, was intended to get a ruling. The order may have occurred shortly after the finding of non-infringement, but it was still a part of the ruling. In almost any trial, orders flowing from the ruling often take a few days but they are still a part of the same trial, whether they followed by a few minutes, hours or days. Apple's activity after the trial did not (and logically cannot) have influenced the ruling of the trial itself. It wasn't just that the same judge gave the order. He gave it as the conclusion of the trial itself.
Tulkas, I'll have to assume you're not clear on why the publication order was added well over a week after the court's ruling was made official. I included a Bloomberg link to explain what prompted that. It was not Apple assertions preceeding or during the trial. The trial was over and the court's ruling published and made official on July 9th. It was because of Apple statements and actions after the ruling of non-infringement (which applied EU-wide) that Judge Birss came back to make the additional publish order.