Apple loses appeal of UK ruling in patent case against Samsung

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 115

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Hallas View Post



    I'm amused by all the anti-UK sentiment on here—especially never buying anything with British technology in it. As has been said, good luck with that, given that the ARM processor is fundamentally a 100% British design.

    Let me just say, as a British Apple fan myself, there's no difference in outrage here between British Apple users and American ones. I thought this judgement was utterly outrageous and moronic when I first read it, and I can't believe that Apple has lost the appeal. It seems to be a totally indefensible judgement, and I hope Apple can find some way out of it. Also, I don't see how any judge can use the word “cool” in an objective judgement and be taken seriously.

    But it's AT LEAST as stupid to blame every member of the UK population for the idiotic decision of one moronic judge who's an embarrassment to our legal system. We're as annoyed about this as you are.

    All this boils bown to is the usual conclusion: “The law is an ass.”




    As I said that a brief burst of outrage on my part, and of course was not serious. However the appeals judge (Jacob) did not strike the ruling nor public apology down.  While Jacob stated that granting of such an order was not to punish the party concerned for its behaviour or  "to make it grovel – simply to lose face", in essence it does exactly that.

  • Reply 22 of 115

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post




    ARM is HQ'd in Cambridge. ARM chips are made throughout the world. Apple is one of its co-founders. Yes I think I can still buy iPhones.


    I am not serious BTW. Just a brief burst of outrage.


    The UK ruling against infringement may be based on UK law. I get it. However the forced advertising of an apology or potential UK expulsion is the invention of a UK judge who likes controversy. Wiki him.


    It will seen as outrageous by many, and will be defended by Samsung fans and many in the UK.



     


    Apple's public allegations of copying by Samsung have been ruled to be unwarranted. Apple must now publicly retract those allegations.


     


    The original judge's ruling has now been upheld by three other judges, at least one of whom is an iPad owner. Are you saying that they too are just trying to court controversy?

  • Reply 23 of 115
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by aderutter View Post


    I'm in the UK and think the advertising ruling is disgustingly wrong. I think Apple should ignore that ruling and pay whatever fine is thrown at them for doing so. The sooner Apple don't have to rely on Samsung for anything the better.



     


    I disagree with the ruling, but Apple should abide by it. If they don't abide by the rule of law in the UK then why should Samsung abide by the rule of law in the US?

  • Reply 24 of 115

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post


     


    Apple's public allegations of copying by Samsung have been ruled to be unwarranted. Apple must now publicly retract those allegations.


     


    The original judge's ruling has now been upheld by three other judges, at least one of whom is an iPad owner. Are you saying that they too are just trying to court controversy?





    From reading Jacob's public statements following the appeals ruling that attempt to clarify this, I think he understands that this will be viewed by many as controversial. Not the infringement ruling. The public apology ruling.

  • Reply 25 of 115
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member

    Quote:


    "Judge Birss ordered Apple to run advertisements on its UK website as well as in British magazines and newspapers, declaring Samsung did not copy the iPad. The Web notice was to remain active at least six months, while other ads would be taken out in various print publications as a consolation for the "damaging impression" Samsung suffered a result of the suit."



     


     


    Given that it was Samsung that sued Apple, this doesn't make any sense. Samsung sued in order to obtain a ruling, pre-emptively, that they did not copy Apple's designs. Any negative impressions they suffered as a result of the suit were at their own request. 


     


    http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/samsung-apple.pdf


    (notice who the claimant is and who the defendant is)


     


     


    Are all UK judges retarded? There must be a reason that both Samsung and both took their cases to the UK, a jurisdiction in which Apple had not sued either of them. Is the UK High Court generally seen as being easily manipulated as the East Texas courts?

  • Reply 26 of 115
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post



    Apple will just have to be content with being cool.

    And so the trend is set for most markets outside the US, I suspect.


    Yes, I expect the judge's words are going to feature quite prominently in the ad.


     


    Still, if the point of this exercise was to let the likes of Samsung know that they face a long, drawn-out court battle if they attempt to sell Apple's designs as their own, then surely Cupertino has made its point.


     


    Stacking up loss after loss from now on  will just reverse any gains they've made in the US.

  • Reply 27 of 115

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post




    ARM is HQ'd in Cambridge. ARM chips are made throughout the world. Apple is one of its co-founders. Yes I think I can still buy iPhones.


    I am not serious BTW. Just a brief burst of outrage.


    The UK ruling against infringement may be based on UK law. I get it. However the forced advertising of an apology or potential UK expulsion is the invention of a UK judge who likes controversy. Wiki him.


    It will seen as outrageous by many, and will be defended by Samsung fans and many in the UK.



    Apple is not one of ARM's co-founders. They were around a few decards before doing any work with Apple.

  • Reply 28 of 115
    sensisensi Posts: 346member
    urbanverb wrote: »
    I can't imagine Apple ever complying with that ridiculous order. Who do they think they are in the UK?!
    Initiate a trial over frivolous design 'patents', make slanderous allegations in the press against a competitor, then cockily whine with nationalist tremolos about the consequences of your actions once your claims are debunked in court: that's pathetic.
  • Reply 29 of 115
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


     


     


    Given that it was Samsung that sued Apple, this doesn't make any sense. Samsung sued in order to obtain a ruling, pre-emptively, that they did not copy Apple's designs. Any negative impressions they suffered as a result of the suit were at their own request. 


     


    http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/samsung-apple.pdf


    (notice who the claimant is and who the defendant is)



    Thanks for the link. I was surprised at how plainly worded the ruling was.


     


    Reading thru it offers a detailed reasoning behind the Judge's finding, which appears to me to be proper as far as the community design claims go. As an aside, even Apple concedes their design patent may not be practiced by any of their iPads (see point 8 in the link), so it's not as tho Samsung was being accused by Apple of copying that product.

  • Reply 30 of 115
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


    Apple is not one of ARM's co-founders. They were around a few decards before doing any work with Apple.



    No. ACORN was around before, but ARM (the company) was founded with Apple. The ARM architecture predates the ARM Holdings company we know today but it took off only once it was spun off to ARM Holdings, founded as a partnership between Apple and ACORN.

  • Reply 31 of 115
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sensi View Post



    Initiate a trial over frivolous design 'patents', make slanderous allegations in the press against a competitor, then cockily whine with nationalist tremolos about the consequences of your actions once your claims are debunked in court: that's pathetic.


    You know that it was Samsung that initiated the frivolous lawsuit over design 'patents' right?

  • Reply 32 of 115

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post


    On another forum someone said that in the England, if you cannot prove your case and lose, you have to pay for wasting everybody's time (well, that is just putting it succinctly). In this respect, since Apple lost, they have to say Samsung didn't copy.


    I thought that was a ludicrous judgement, but I guess that is in accordance with English law. I just don't agree with it.



    I think this ruling is brilliant and wish judges would/could do this in the US as well!


     


    The notion that someone can go around suing everyone for everything, with the only risk to them being the loss of money spent in litigation is ridiculous. Rulings like this make sure that the accuser has some "skin in the game", and would go a long way from preventing frivolous lawsuits like "we own the rounded corner rectangle". Otherwise, we are simply left in the same scenario we are in now, where companies with superfluous cash end up being massive litigation abusers in hopes of a fringe windfall case....

  • Reply 33 of 115
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Thanks for the link. I was surprised at how plainly worded the ruling was.


     


    Reading thru it offers a detailed reasoning behind the Judge's finding, which appears to me to be proper as far as the community design claims go. As an aside, even Apple concedes their design patent may not be practiced by any of their iPads (see point 8 in the link), so it's not as tho Samsung was being accused by Apple of copying that product.



     


    And since Apple didn't win the iPad portion of the ruling in the US, then the UK judges certainly haven't gone against the grain as it were.


     


    The mandatory advert thing is also not that unusual in UK libel cases: the Sun newspaper had to print a full front page apology, having claimed that Elton John was gay...

  • Reply 34 of 115


  • Reply 35 of 115
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post


    I think this ruling is brilliant and wish judges would/could do this in the US as well!


     


    The notion that someone can go around suing everyone for everything, with the only risk to them being the loss of money spent in litigation is ridiculous. Rulings like this make sure that the accuser has some "skin in the game", and would go a long way from preventing frivolous lawsuits like "we own the rounded corner rectangle". Otherwise, we are simply left in the same scenario we are in now, where companies with superfluous cash end up being massive litigation abusers in hopes of a fringe windfall case....



    Samsung sued in this case, not Apple. So your entire argument, being premised on making the accuser, the one filing frivolous lawsuits, should have some skin in the game, is fundamentally flawed.

  • Reply 36 of 115

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    You know that it was Samsung that initiated the frivolous lawsuit over design 'patents' right?



    That is not true. The issue of design patents were filed by Apple in their counter suit to Samsung. It is possible that Samsung's initial claims may be considered frivolous, but they were certainly not 'design patents'...


     


    http://www.zdnet.com/apple-sues-samsung-in-the-uk-over-android-4010024342/


     


     


    Edit: just saw that you posted above while I was writing this, but it should still apply. In addition, many analysts consider Samsung's suit to be "defensive" and in response to the original Apple lawsuit filed against HTC in 2010.

  • Reply 37 of 115
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Thanks for the link. I was surprised at how plainly worded the ruling was.


     


    Reading thru it offers a detailed reasoning behind the Judge's finding, which appears to me to be proper as far as the community design claims go. As an aside, even Apple concedes their design patent may not be practiced by any of their iPads (see point 8 in the link), so it's not as tho Samsung was being accused by Apple of copying that product.



    See when I read it, I think "what was the judge smoking?". First he acknowledges the Samsung was similar to the iPad, to the point of being the same.


     


     


     


    Quote:


    When I first saw the Samsung products in this case I was struck by how similar they look to the Apple design when they are resting on a table. They look similar because they both have the same front screen. It stands out.



    But then he says an informed user would know the difference. He acknowledges that he was not an informed user and that is why the appeared identical. he, a judge ruling on the case, believes users would be more informed than he is on matter of design. He further says they are differentiated by the design on the back of the units, assumably he is referring to the company names stamped in large print on the back. Genius.

  • Reply 38 of 115
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post


    That is not true. The issue of design patents were filed by Apple in their counter suit to Samsung. It is possible that Samsung's initial claims may be considered frivolous, but they were certainly not 'design patents'...


     


    http://www.zdnet.com/apple-sues-samsung-in-the-uk-over-android-4010024342/



    It's actually completely true. Apple only made claimed in the counter suit. Samsung sued over the design first, in the UK. Specifically to have the design protection declared invalid.


     


     


    From the actual court document:


    Quote:



    1. This action concerns Community Registered Design No. 000181607-0001. The design belongs to the defendant (Apple). Among the named designers are Sir Jonathan Ive and Steve Jobs. The claimant (Samsung) seeks a declaration that three of its Galaxy tablet computers (the Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7) do not infringe. Apple counterclaims for infringement. One of the matters to be dealt with is whether the counterclaim should be stayed. The validity of the registration is not in issue in this case. Samsung has applied to revoke the registration at OHIM.


     




     


    Plain English.

  • Reply 39 of 115

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    It's actually completely true. Apple only made claimed in the counter suit. Samsung sued over the design first, in the UK. Specifically to have the design protection declared invalid.


     


     


    From the actual court document:


     


    Plain English.



     


    It looks like the court document you posted is from after Apple's counterclaim. I will have to review the initial claim by Samsung to see if design patents were referenced, but do not have time at the moment.


     


    However, for the sake of argument, let's assume they DID reference design patents. How does one interpret a request to seek a declaration that their devices do not infringe as making that party the "accuser"? How is that request "accusing" anyone of anything? If Samsung did indeed request this in their original filing, it was most certainly in response to the Apple v HTC lawsuit.


     


    If your trying to suggest that Apple has not been the clear aggressor in all these global lawsuits, you certainly have an uphill battle against you... 

  • Reply 40 of 115
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member

    Quote:


    However, they added that the move need not "clutter" Apple's homepage as it would only have to add a link entitled "Samsung/Apple judgement" for a one-month period.



     


    ... the smallest hyperlink in this history of the web ....

Sign In or Register to comment.