" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> Let me guess, you think that some other company actually made a modern smartphone first.
…Apples attention is focused on something that has no relevance today…
YEAH. I’m sure that the protection of intellectual property has “no relevance” today.
I've bolded the sections below which show clearly that Apple was NOT in full compliance with the court order. Not that complicated really.
Apple v. Samsung – Consequences of breaching a Court Order in the UK
On 30 January 2013, a US Federal Court ruled that Samsung Electronics Co Ltd had not willfully infringed some of Apple Inc (Apple’s) patents. This is of relevance to the proceedings between Apple and Samsung in the UK Courts where Apple failed to comply with a specific Court Order made initially by the High Court then later varied and endorsed by the Court of Appeal.
Apple’s breach of a Court Order and the subsequent penalty imposed by the UK Courts highlights the seriousness of non-compliance with a Court Order.
Facts of the case
First Judgment in the High Court (July 2012) – Making of the Court Order
Samsung Electronics UK Ltd (Samsung) sought a declaration that 3 of its Galaxy tablet computers did not infringe Apple’s EU Community registered design. Apple subsequently counterclaimed for infringement.
In the High Court Judgment on 18 July 2012, HHJ Birss QC made a Judgment dealing with the remedies to be awarded to Samsung following Apple’s unsuccessful claim.
As part of the remedies, Samsung had sought an Injunction requiring Apple to place statements on its websites and certain UK newspapers to the effect that Samsung’s Galaxy tablet had been found not to infringe Apple’s EU Community registered design. The Judge agreed to the placement of the statement in the newspapers but noted that Apple were pursuing proceedings in Courts outside the UK, and had some success with its claims in the US and Germany. The Judge therefore decided that the statements were to be limited to the UK websites on Samsung’s list. He also reduced the length of time for placing the statements from the requested 12 months to 6 months stating the fast-moving nature of the electronics industry increased the risk of prejudice to Apple. A Publicity Order was therefore granted by the Court for the non-infringer (Samsung).
Apple appealed and the case subsequently went to the Court of Appeal.
Second Judgment in the Court of Appeal (October 2012) – Reinforcing the Court Order
In the Court of Appeal Judgement dated 18 October 2012, the Court dismissed Apple’s appeal against the High Court ruling. Sir Robin Jacob ruled that the Trial Judge, HHJ Birss QC, had made no material error in his assessment of the overall impression created by the designs. He considered that if Apple’s design registration had a scope as wide as Apple contended, it would foreclose much of the market for tablet computers.
However the Court of Appeal varied the Order requiring Apple to give publicity to the Court’s decision on its UK homepage and through advertisements in newspapers and magazines. The Court was satisfied by Apple’s request for the notice to be provided via a link from the main webpage and for the placement period to be reduced to one month. The notice was also ordered to include a hyperlink to the full Judgment. Any further variation was to be allowed through written submissions from both parties for settlement.
Up to this point, costs were not dealt with in the main Judgments.
Third Judgment in the Court of Appeal (November 2012) – Breach of the Court Order
On 9 November 2012, the Court of Appeal issued a further Judgment following complaints by Samsung of non-compliance by Apple to the Publicity Order which was made on 18 October 2012.
Firstly, the Court noted that the Order required posting of the notices on the Apple webpage within 7 days of the date of the Order and for the publishing of the notice in all newspapers at the earliest available issue. The cost of doing so was to be at Apple’s own expense. Apple did not post the notices in all the newspapers until 16 November 2012.
The Court found this action as a ‘self evident non-compliance with the newspaper/magazine aspect of the Publicity Order’.
Secondly, the Court found that rather than simply publishing the text of the notice as ordered, Apple had broken it up, interspersing it with text of its own devising. The material it had added was false and misleading and, as a result, the notice would have been understood differently. In particular the concluding paragraph was of particular concern as it effectively undermined the UK Court Judgements.
The paragraph of the contested notice read as follows:
‘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 US jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple’s design and utility patents, awarding over one billion US dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the UK Court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other Courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung wilfully copied Apple’s far more popular iPad.’
Sir Robin Jacob highlighted in the Judgment that the reality was that wherever Apple has sued in relation to its registered designs, they have ultimately failed. The Court subsequently ordered for the contested notice be removed and a new notice be published, making it clear that the previous notice on its homepage was inaccurate. It Ordered that the notice remain on Apple’s website until 15 December 2012.
This time the Court chose to deal with costs of the case and concluded that they should be awarded against Apple on an indemnity basis. The decision for the higher than normal award was made as a mark of the Court’s disapproval of Apple’s conduct. Emphasis was made to the non-compliance of the Publicity Order.
The Court was very disturbed that Apple had requested 14 days to comply for ‘technical reasons’. The Court duly ordered compliance within 48 hours which they found to be more than sufficient and generous time.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Apple were found by the Court of Appeal to have breached a Publicity Order and were subsequently punished by the Court ordering costs on an indemnity basis which effectively required Apple to pay for all costs Samsung incurred during the course of the legal proceedings in the UK. It is unusual for the Court of Appeal to specifically deal with costs in this manner and it is clear that they did so as punishment for Apple’s actions.
It is also important to note that the UK Courts have extensive powers to penalise parties who fail to comply with a Court Order. Such powers include awarding costs on an indemnity basis and in more severe circumstances, holding relevant parties in civil contempt of Court which is punishable by monetary fines and/or imprisonment.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> Let me guess, you think that some other company actually made a modern smartphone first.
YEAH. I’m sure that the protection of intellectual property has “no relevance” today.
No wonder Apple user are seen as elitist jerks. Either way apple need to stop crying over split milk and get on with what they're good at cus' they ain't very good at suing people that much is clear.
Now how about people discuss this topic rather then act like children attacking me for having an opinion some don't like. If you would rather attack me than stay on topic then so be it but you're not doing yourselves any favors.
Samsung need to realise its not 2008 any more and that customers need to be offered more than cheap and nasty plastic, knock-off phones if they wish to be industry leaders. Did Sammy take design queues from apple back in 2008? of course but come on Apply it's time not to seek justice and expected to be financially compensated for your efforts and not use the money that Samsung generated by displaying an utter lack of innovation in almost every aspect of phone design and use that to create NEW products like Samsung did when they went from the Galaxy SIII to the mind-blowingly different S4.
Apart from totally revamping your regularly updated and not-left-to-stagnate mobile software, constantly pushing the envelope for all of your highest-quality hardware, improving on the already best desktop operating system in the world, crushing the competition and become the de facto standard in the tablet industry, taking majority profits in all of these areas, generating and retaining customers at an incredible rate, and improving nearly every aspect of how you do business, Apple, you've done nothing but iterate and procrastinate for 4 years unlike the incredibly innovative and creative stuff that we've seen from Samsung (like their sales figures).
You had a couple of spelling errors.
I fixed them for you.
No charge, of course. I know you Android supporters don't have a lot of money to throw around when it comes to these things.
Just stop lying. It’s not that difficult a concept. Stop posting statements that are not true. Stop posting statements that are false. Do not present information that is not correct. Other synonymic sentences. If demanding people not lie makes someone an “elitist jerk”, then I’m the elitistiest jerkiest elitist jerk ever. I couldn’t care less.
Either way apple need to stop crying over split milk and get on with what they're good at cus' they ain't very good at suing people that much is clear.
Explains why they’ve won, huh.
Now how about people discuss this topic…
Here’s the topic. Apple made phone. Samsung copied phone. Apple sued Samsung. Apple won lawsuit. Samsung lost lawsuit. Samsung pays Apple.
Order handed down. Apple complied fully. Judge said, “No, do it again.” Apple protested, rightly, having already done it. Judge threatened fines for complying fully with the ruling. Apple forced to change.
Every report on the lawsuit says this.
Does it? Here's what I was able to find for the progression of events:
Apple's breeches are clearly listed throughout these cases but I will quote explicitly so there can be no confusion
Quote:
iii) Following Judge Birss's "not as cool" judgment, which did receive massive publicity, Apple obtained the Oberlandesgericht order banning SEC from selling the 7.7 throughout Europe. That order received massive publicity in the press too.
iv) Apple took steps to enforce that injunction. Its German lawyers wrote a letter to SEC's lawyers on 14th August complaining that the 7.7 was being advertised on Samsung's websites throughout Europe. The complaint extended to the UK. It threatened German proceedings to punish Samsung for breaching the Oberlandesgericht order. It took the position that SEC was responsible for the actions of its subsidiaries. That was in clear conflict with Judge Birss's declaration.
Quote:
Given our finding that the Contested Notice did not comply with our order and did not achieve what was intended there was no dispute but that we should order it be removed. There was dispute as to what should go up in its place. Apple contended that no more was needed on its home page. We thought otherwise. The Contested Notice had had over a million hits. It was necessary that the fact it was misleading be brought home.
Quote:
costs...can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple's conduct warranted such an order.
You'll find in the last link they also discuss the legal framework by which they make make such an order. I need not add any more commentary. This is now the second thread you've taken particular issue with my statements on. Is this a regular 'hazing' process? From your post history you seem to be this aggressive with everyone but particularly new posters. I don't really 'get it' myself.
Still, there is direct, cited evidence of Apple's non compliance and misleading public statements, as well as the remedies put into effect as a result. I'm not sure how you'll claim I'm incorrect or misleading here but I look forward to reading it.
To comment on the real topic of the thread, I think anti-cloning provisions are pretty reasonable depending on their scope. Prohibiting Samsung from making a slim, rectangular, full touch-screen device would be excessive and these existed before the iPhone. Prohibiting them from copying the general look and feel though is likely to be a good thing. Design flexibility often leads to innovations and perhaps Samsung need to be pushed if they won't jump for themselves.
You don't cite any source for this statement, and it's hard to believe that you have superior judicial knowledge about UK law compared to a practising judge. It's easy to claim something is illegal but I think you're confused. Apple made claims in public that were incorrect, they ostensibly lied about the judgements. This is the claim I was making and what resulted in them putting the notice on their website. This has been widely reported upon and it's not like I am making any exceptional claims here. You can find reference to this from basically any online news source. Could you please cite something showing this order was illegal?
A piece of advice -- don't bother replaying to this "Tallest Skil".
"Tallest Skil" is a bat shit crazy Apple fundamentalist.
As a matter of fact, "Tallest Skil" is a grown man with the mindset of a 12 year old Justin Bieber fan when it comes to Apple.
Just stop lying. It’s not that difficult a concept. Stop posting statements that are not true. Stop posting statements that are false. Do not present information that is not correct. Other synonymic sentences. If demanding people not lie makes someone an “elitist jerk”, then I’m the elitistiest jerkiest elitist jerk ever. I couldn’t care less.
Explains why they’ve won, huh.
Here’s the topic. Apple made phone. Samsung copied phone. Apple sued Samsung. Apple won lawsuit. Samsung lost lawsuit. Samsung pays Apple.
That simple enough for you to comprehend?
Don’t kiss me.
You cant stop me kissing you xxxx.... xxxx..... come on you know you like it.
…the Defendant shall, at its own expense, (a) post in a font size no small than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on the home pages of its EU websites (“the Defendant's Websites"), as specified in Schedule 1 to this order, together with a hyperlink to the judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 09 July 2012
Content of Schedule 1:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink].
Content posted on Apple’s website:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [2012] EWCA Civ 1339.
RULING: COMPLIED. LAWSUIT: OVER.
Then the judge magically decided he had the right (didn’t) to dictate what else Apple had on its website (doesn’t).
Because of his actions and the precedent set, any future lawsuit that Apple wins in the UK (in all of the EU? Not quite sure how interconnected they’re allowed to be) allows Apple to legally force the other party to remove ANY AND ALL other content that party has from its website.
Samsung, for example, in a future lost lawsuit, could be forced to BLANK OUT its entire European website and only post the content decided upon. They could also be forced to change that content at any time, even after the ruling has been carried out.
And you’re fine with this.
Still, there is direct, cited evidence of Apple’s non compliance…
So prove it, since your own links say otherwise.
…and misleading public statements…
So prove it.
This is now the second thread you've taken particular issue with my statements on. Is this a regular 'hazing' process?
Nope, explicitly conformed to it. The judge illegally changed the order post facto.
You don't cite any source for this statement, and it's hard to believe that you have superior judicial knowledge about UK law compared to a practising judge. It's easy to claim something is illegal but I think you're confused. Apple made claims in public that were incorrect, they ostensibly lied about the judgements. This is the claim I was making and what resulted in them putting the notice on their website. This has been widely reported upon and it's not like I am making any exceptional claims here. You can find reference to this from basically any online news source. Could you please cite something showing this order was illegal?
The UK case is cut and dried and hung out for all to see. There was no appeal, so it's finished. If TS doesn't like it ... too bad, does anybody other than TS care about his uninformed and wilfully ignorant opinion?
Ok you're certainly just confused here. If you click the last link in my post you will find this in the contents:
Quote:
The Contested Notice is a mixture of the notice we ordered along with material added by Apple. There are two kinds of addition
The first is how Apple published the notice we did order (Annex 1 quoted above). Instead of simply publishing the text as ordered, Apple broke it up, interspersing it with text of its own devising. The first and fifth paragraphs constitute the notice as ordered. The middle three paragraphs were interspersed by Apple.
(the rest omitted for brevity)
Thus it was ruled that Apple did not comply fully with the order as they had added their own text and misled people as a result. News articles are cited in the link I provided.
Quote:
Then the judge magically decided he had the right (didn’t) to dictate what else Apple had on its website (doesn’t).
"the judge"? You did read the links right? The very first bolded and centred bit of the article is this:
Quote:
LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN
and
SIR ROBIN JACOB
None of these people are the original Judge, and both the original Judge and they fully lay out the legal framework which allows them to make an order against Apple.
You claim I haven't proven misleading statements, but I have quoted the very parts of the judgement that condemned Apple for their misleading notices and actions violating court orders. How much more can I do than quite the actual judgement? If you can suggest a way that I can prove this to you then I will as the truth is really very clearly evident.
I don't think TS is confused at all, just a complete idiot. The UK case is cut and dried and hung out for all to see. There was no appeal, so it's finished. If TS doesn't like it ... too bad, does anybody other than TS care about his uninformed and wilfully ignorant opinion ?
Thanks for the insults. I guess you have a rebuttal to the post I made above, showing quite plainly that Apple explicitly conformed to the ruling handed down?
And you have a citation where I said anything whatsoever about an appeal? You’ll want to post that before I report this.
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet
Thus it was ruled that Apple did not comply fully with the order as they had added their own text and misled people as a result.
No one was misled, nothing was misrepresented. I fail to see how explicitly following the instructions given is “not explicitly following the instructions given”. Is the UK really that broken?
You claim I haven't proven misleading statements, but I have quoted the very parts of the judgement that condemned Apple for their misleading notices and actions violating court orders.
Show me the part of the original court order that disallowed the content Apple posted.
Comments
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/115711499?access_key=key-2i5scgb8dky4lmgnomxq&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll
Begin about page 13.
That said I feel my point is valid and I should not be censored…
Good for you. Your point is NOT valid.
Learn anything before saying anything. That seems to be the reason you say incorrect things.
Your refusal to comprehend why something happens does not mean the people actually making something happen don’t comprehend it.
That’s not for you to say.
That’s not for you to say.
Rule #2. Come off it.
YEAH. I’m sure that the protection of intellectual property has “no relevance” today.
Order handed down. Apple complied fully.
I've bolded the sections below which show clearly that Apple was NOT in full compliance with the court order. Not that complicated really.
Apple v. Samsung – Consequences of breaching a Court Order in the UK
On 30 January 2013, a US Federal Court ruled that Samsung Electronics Co Ltd had not willfully infringed some of Apple Inc (Apple’s) patents. This is of relevance to the proceedings between Apple and Samsung in the UK Courts where Apple failed to comply with a specific Court Order made initially by the High Court then later varied and endorsed by the Court of Appeal.
Apple’s breach of a Court Order and the subsequent penalty imposed by the UK Courts highlights the seriousness of non-compliance with a Court Order.
Facts of the case
First Judgment in the High Court (July 2012) – Making of the Court Order
Samsung Electronics UK Ltd (Samsung) sought a declaration that 3 of its Galaxy tablet computers did not infringe Apple’s EU Community registered design. Apple subsequently counterclaimed for infringement.
In the High Court Judgment on 18 July 2012, HHJ Birss QC made a Judgment dealing with the remedies to be awarded to Samsung following Apple’s unsuccessful claim.
As part of the remedies, Samsung had sought an Injunction requiring Apple to place statements on its websites and certain UK newspapers to the effect that Samsung’s Galaxy tablet had been found not to infringe Apple’s EU Community registered design. The Judge agreed to the placement of the statement in the newspapers but noted that Apple were pursuing proceedings in Courts outside the UK, and had some success with its claims in the US and Germany. The Judge therefore decided that the statements were to be limited to the UK websites on Samsung’s list. He also reduced the length of time for placing the statements from the requested 12 months to 6 months stating the fast-moving nature of the electronics industry increased the risk of prejudice to Apple. A Publicity Order was therefore granted by the Court for the non-infringer (Samsung).
Apple appealed and the case subsequently went to the Court of Appeal.
Second Judgment in the Court of Appeal (October 2012) – Reinforcing the Court Order
In the Court of Appeal Judgement dated 18 October 2012, the Court dismissed Apple’s appeal against the High Court ruling. Sir Robin Jacob ruled that the Trial Judge, HHJ Birss QC, had made no material error in his assessment of the overall impression created by the designs. He considered that if Apple’s design registration had a scope as wide as Apple contended, it would foreclose much of the market for tablet computers.
However the Court of Appeal varied the Order requiring Apple to give publicity to the Court’s decision on its UK homepage and through advertisements in newspapers and magazines. The Court was satisfied by Apple’s request for the notice to be provided via a link from the main webpage and for the placement period to be reduced to one month. The notice was also ordered to include a hyperlink to the full Judgment. Any further variation was to be allowed through written submissions from both parties for settlement.
Up to this point, costs were not dealt with in the main Judgments.
Third Judgment in the Court of Appeal (November 2012) – Breach of the Court Order
On 9 November 2012, the Court of Appeal issued a further Judgment following complaints by Samsung of non-compliance by Apple to the Publicity Order which was made on 18 October 2012.
Firstly, the Court noted that the Order required posting of the notices on the Apple webpage within 7 days of the date of the Order and for the publishing of the notice in all newspapers at the earliest available issue. The cost of doing so was to be at Apple’s own expense. Apple did not post the notices in all the newspapers until 16 November 2012.
The Court found this action as a ‘self evident non-compliance with the newspaper/magazine aspect of the Publicity Order’.
Secondly, the Court found that rather than simply publishing the text of the notice as ordered, Apple had broken it up, interspersing it with text of its own devising. The material it had added was false and misleading and, as a result, the notice would have been understood differently. In particular the concluding paragraph was of particular concern as it effectively undermined the UK Court Judgements.
The paragraph of the contested notice read as follows:
‘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 US jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple’s design and utility patents, awarding over one billion US dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the UK Court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other Courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung wilfully copied Apple’s far more popular iPad.’
Sir Robin Jacob highlighted in the Judgment that the reality was that wherever Apple has sued in relation to its registered designs, they have ultimately failed. The Court subsequently ordered for the contested notice be removed and a new notice be published, making it clear that the previous notice on its homepage was inaccurate. It Ordered that the notice remain on Apple’s website until 15 December 2012.
This time the Court chose to deal with costs of the case and concluded that they should be awarded against Apple on an indemnity basis. The decision for the higher than normal award was made as a mark of the Court’s disapproval of Apple’s conduct. Emphasis was made to the non-compliance of the Publicity Order.
The Court was very disturbed that Apple had requested 14 days to comply for ‘technical reasons’. The Court duly ordered compliance within 48 hours which they found to be more than sufficient and generous time.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Apple were found by the Court of Appeal to have breached a Publicity Order and were subsequently punished by the Court ordering costs on an indemnity basis which effectively required Apple to pay for all costs Samsung incurred during the course of the legal proceedings in the UK. It is unusual for the Court of Appeal to specifically deal with costs in this manner and it is clear that they did so as punishment for Apple’s actions.
It is also important to note that the UK Courts have extensive powers to penalise parties who fail to comply with a Court Order. Such powers include awarding costs on an indemnity basis and in more severe circumstances, holding relevant parties in civil contempt of Court which is punishable by monetary fines and/or imprisonment.
I've bolded the sections below which show clearly that Apple was NOT in full compliance with the court order. Not that complicated really.
We’re talking about the website, thanks.
Good for you. Your point is NOT valid.
Learn anything before saying anything. That seems to be the reason you say incorrect things.
Your refusal to comprehend why something happens does not mean the people actually making something happen don’t comprehend it.
That’s not for you to say.
That’s not for you to say.
Rule #2. Come off it.
YEAH. I’m sure that the protection of intellectual property has “no relevance” today.
No wonder Apple user are seen as elitist jerks. Either way apple need to stop crying over split milk and get on with what they're good at cus' they ain't very good at suing people that much is clear.
Now how about people discuss this topic rather then act like children attacking me for having an opinion some don't like. If you would rather attack me than stay on topic then so be it but you're not doing yourselves any favors.
xxxx
You had a couple of spelling errors.
I fixed them for you.
No charge, of course. I know you Android supporters don't have a lot of money to throw around when it comes to these things.
Just stop lying. It’s not that difficult a concept. Stop posting statements that are not true. Stop posting statements that are false. Do not present information that is not correct. Other synonymic sentences. If demanding people not lie makes someone an “elitist jerk”, then I’m the elitistiest jerkiest elitist jerk ever. I couldn’t care less.
Explains why they’ve won, huh.
Here’s the topic. Apple made phone. Samsung copied phone. Apple sued Samsung. Apple won lawsuit. Samsung lost lawsuit. Samsung pays Apple.
That simple enough for you to comprehend?
Don’t kiss me.
You had a couple of spelling errors.
I fixed them for you.
No charge, of course. I know you Android supporters don't have a lot of money to throw around when it comes to these things.
I see what you did there.
Order handed down. Apple complied fully. Judge said, “No, do it again.” Apple protested, rightly, having already done it. Judge threatened fines for complying fully with the ruling. Apple forced to change.
Every report on the lawsuit says this.
Does it? Here's what I was able to find for the progression of events:
Apple's breeches are clearly listed throughout these cases but I will quote explicitly so there can be no confusion
iii) Following Judge Birss's "not as cool" judgment, which did receive massive publicity, Apple obtained the Oberlandesgericht order banning SEC from selling the 7.7 throughout Europe. That order received massive publicity in the press too.
iv) Apple took steps to enforce that injunction. Its German lawyers wrote a letter to SEC's lawyers on 14th August complaining that the 7.7 was being advertised on Samsung's websites throughout Europe. The complaint extended to the UK. It threatened German proceedings to punish Samsung for breaching the Oberlandesgericht order. It took the position that SEC was responsible for the actions of its subsidiaries. That was in clear conflict with Judge Birss's declaration.
You'll find in the last link they also discuss the legal framework by which they make make such an order. I need not add any more commentary. This is now the second thread you've taken particular issue with my statements on. Is this a regular 'hazing' process? From your post history you seem to be this aggressive with everyone but particularly new posters. I don't really 'get it' myself.
Still, there is direct, cited evidence of Apple's non compliance and misleading public statements, as well as the remedies put into effect as a result. I'm not sure how you'll claim I'm incorrect or misleading here but I look forward to reading it.
To comment on the real topic of the thread, I think anti-cloning provisions are pretty reasonable depending on their scope. Prohibiting Samsung from making a slim, rectangular, full touch-screen device would be excessive and these existed before the iPhone. Prohibiting them from copying the general look and feel though is likely to be a good thing. Design flexibility often leads to innovations and perhaps Samsung need to be pushed if they won't jump for themselves.
You don't cite any source for this statement, and it's hard to believe that you have superior judicial knowledge about UK law compared to a practising judge. It's easy to claim something is illegal but I think you're confused. Apple made claims in public that were incorrect, they ostensibly lied about the judgements. This is the claim I was making and what resulted in them putting the notice on their website. This has been widely reported upon and it's not like I am making any exceptional claims here. You can find reference to this from basically any online news source. Could you please cite something showing this order was illegal?
A piece of advice -- don't bother replaying to this "Tallest Skil".
"Tallest Skil" is a bat shit crazy Apple fundamentalist.
As a matter of fact, "Tallest Skil" is a grown man with the mindset of a 12 year old Justin Bieber fan when it comes to Apple.
Just stop lying. It’s not that difficult a concept. Stop posting statements that are not true. Stop posting statements that are false. Do not present information that is not correct. Other synonymic sentences. If demanding people not lie makes someone an “elitist jerk”, then I’m the elitistiest jerkiest elitist jerk ever. I couldn’t care less.
Explains why they’ve won, huh.
Here’s the topic. Apple made phone. Samsung copied phone. Apple sued Samsung. Apple won lawsuit. Samsung lost lawsuit. Samsung pays Apple.
That simple enough for you to comprehend?
Don’t kiss me.
You cant stop me kissing you xxxx.... xxxx..... come on you know you like it.
You cant stop me kissing you xxxx.... xxxx..... come on you know you like it.
A piece of advice -- don't bother replaying to this "Tallest Skil".
"Tallest Skil" is a bat shit crazy Apple fundamentalist.
As a matter of fact, "Tallest Skil" is a grown man with the mindset of a 12 year old Justin Bieber fan when it comes to Apple.
Imagine having to deal with "Tallest Skil" in real life... what a nightmare...
I'm genuinely surprised that you did.
Does it?
Yep.
Original order:
Content of Schedule 1:
Content posted on Apple’s website:
RULING: COMPLIED. LAWSUIT: OVER.
Then the judge magically decided he had the right (didn’t) to dictate what else Apple had on its website (doesn’t).
Because of his actions and the precedent set, any future lawsuit that Apple wins in the UK (in all of the EU? Not quite sure how interconnected they’re allowed to be) allows Apple to legally force the other party to remove ANY AND ALL other content that party has from its website.
Samsung, for example, in a future lost lawsuit, could be forced to BLANK OUT its entire European website and only post the content decided upon. They could also be forced to change that content at any time, even after the ruling has been carried out.
And you’re fine with this.
Still, there is direct, cited evidence of Apple’s non compliance…
So prove it, since your own links say otherwise.
So prove it.
This is now the second thread you've taken particular issue with my statements on. Is this a regular 'hazing' process?
Sounds more like your comments have issues.
I'm genuinely surprised that you did.
You kind of come across as being a bit...dim.
"GTR" is another nasty poster here (actually most of the posters here are quite nasty, reasonable posters either left or have been banned).
This forum pretty much descended into a mean-spirited, elitist, nationalist and racist, we-hate-anything-non-Apple pit.
Nope, explicitly conformed to it. The judge illegally changed the order post facto.
You don't cite any source for this statement, and it's hard to believe that you have superior judicial knowledge about UK law compared to a practising judge. It's easy to claim something is illegal but I think you're confused. Apple made claims in public that were incorrect, they ostensibly lied about the judgements. This is the claim I was making and what resulted in them putting the notice on their website. This has been widely reported upon and it's not like I am making any exceptional claims here. You can find reference to this from basically any online news source. Could you please cite something showing this order was illegal?
The UK case is cut and dried and hung out for all to see. There was no appeal, so it's finished. If TS doesn't like it ... too bad, does anybody other than TS care about his uninformed and wilfully ignorant opinion?
Yep.
Original order:
Content of Schedule 1:
Content posted on Apple’s website:
RULING: COMPLIED. LAWSUIT: OVER.
Ok you're certainly just confused here. If you click the last link in my post you will find this in the contents:
(the rest omitted for brevity)
Thus it was ruled that Apple did not comply fully with the order as they had added their own text and misled people as a result. News articles are cited in the link I provided.
Then the judge magically decided he had the right (didn’t) to dictate what else Apple had on its website (doesn’t).
"the judge"? You did read the links right? The very first bolded and centred bit of the article is this:
LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN
and
SIR ROBIN JACOB
None of these people are the original Judge, and both the original Judge and they fully lay out the legal framework which allows them to make an order against Apple.
You claim I haven't proven misleading statements, but I have quoted the very parts of the judgement that condemned Apple for their misleading notices and actions violating court orders. How much more can I do than quite the actual judgement? If you can suggest a way that I can prove this to you then I will as the truth is really very clearly evident.
"GTR" is another nasty poster here (actually most of the posters here are quite nasty, reasonable posters either left or have been banned).
This forum pretty much descended into a mean-spirited, elitist, nationalist and racist, we-hate-anything-non-Apple pit.
You sir needs to learn some manners...
Thanks for the insults. I guess you have a rebuttal to the post I made above, showing quite plainly that Apple explicitly conformed to the ruling handed down?
And you have a citation where I said anything whatsoever about an appeal? You’ll want to post that before I report this.
Thus it was ruled that Apple did not comply fully with the order as they had added their own text and misled people as a result.
No one was misled, nothing was misrepresented. I fail to see how explicitly following the instructions given is “not explicitly following the instructions given”. Is the UK really that broken?
You claim I haven't proven misleading statements, but I have quoted the very parts of the judgement that condemned Apple for their misleading notices and actions violating court orders.
Show me the part of the original court order that disallowed the content Apple posted.
Let me guess, you think that some other company actually made a modern smartphone first.
Yes, the LG Prada, you bloody retard.