Apple's UK site says Samsung devices 'not as cool' in compliance with court ruling
As ordered by a U.K. judge, Apple has updated its regional website to state that Samsung did not infringe on its patented iPad design, and also included the judge's determination that Samsung devices are "not as cool."
A link to the text-only addition to Apple's website can be found in the footer of its U.K. page. The link is entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgement."
The text is presented on a blank page with no links, logos or other information. It lets visitors know that the High Court of Justice in England and Wales ruled on July 9, 2012, that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe on Apple's design patent No. 0000181607-0001.
It goes on to state that the judge made "several important points" when comparing Apple's own design to that of Samsung's products. In particular, the judge said that the iPad "is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."
In contrast, the judge found that Samsung's products are "almost insubstantial members" of the company's product lineup with "unusual details on the back."
"They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicty which is possessed by the Apple design," the judge wrote. "They are not as cool."
The statements came from a ruling by Judge Colin Birss in July, when he found that Samsung's products were distinctive from Apple. Apple attempted to appeal the decision, but lost last week.
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 is 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.
Apple argued unsuccessfully in court that mentioning Samsung on its site would be in effect a free advertisement for its rival.
The full text from Apple's statement is included below:
A link to the text-only addition to Apple's website can be found in the footer of its U.K. page. The link is entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgement."
The text is presented on a blank page with no links, logos or other information. It lets visitors know that the High Court of Justice in England and Wales ruled on July 9, 2012, that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe on Apple's design patent No. 0000181607-0001.
It goes on to state that the judge made "several important points" when comparing Apple's own design to that of Samsung's products. In particular, the judge said that the iPad "is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."
In contrast, the judge found that Samsung's products are "almost insubstantial members" of the company's product lineup with "unusual details on the back."
"They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicty which is possessed by the Apple design," the judge wrote. "They are not as cool."
The statements came from a ruling by Judge Colin Birss in July, when he found that Samsung's products were distinctive from Apple. Apple attempted to appeal the decision, but lost last week.
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 is 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.
Apple argued unsuccessfully in court that mentioning Samsung on its site would be in effect a free advertisement for its rival.
The full text from Apple's statement is included below:
Samsung / Apple UK judgment
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 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:
"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."
"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal?s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
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 U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
Comments
Nicely done. LOL
Gotta hand it to Apple, for their "creative compliance."
If anything this works in their favour. Anyone reading it is simply reminded that Apple is cool and Samsung is not, a judge says so so it must be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
Looks like Apple failed to follow court order here
The court order was to link to the judgement and to say that Samsung did not infringe their patent. Thats the first paragraph. They then went on to quote the judge, and are free to quote other juristrictions, as they wish. The order is complied with in the first paragraph.
AI, which is it, Did or Did not Infringe, please make up you minds here
Quote:
As ordered by a U.K. judge, Apple has updated its regional website to state that Samsung did infringe on its patented iPad design, and also included the judge's determination that Samsung devices are "not as cool."
Quote:
The text is presented on a blank page with no links, logos or other information. It lets visitors know that the High Court of Justice in England and Wales ruled on July 9, 2012, that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe on Apple's design patent No. 0000181607-0001.
But you have to give apple credit for using the judges words against Samsung. I bet the judge will hear about giving personal opinions in a case like this again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
The court order was to link to the judgement and to say that Samsung did not infringe their patent. Thats the first paragraph. They then went on to quote the judge, and are free to quote other juristrictions, as they wish. The order is complied with in the first paragraph.
Basically it says Samsung was found not guilty by this court, but guilty by these other courts. By tacking on the commentary they are undermining the intent of the court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
Looks like Apple failed to follow court order here
Agreed. This has contempt of court written all over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Agreed. This has contempt of court written all over it.
British humor?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
Basically it says Samsung was found not guilty by this court, but guilty by these other courts. By tacking on the commentary they are undermining the intent of the court.
The judge didn't say they couldn't tack on additional commentary. The judge said Apple had to say Sammy didn't infringe and the site does say that.
And why is that? There was nothing in the decree that prevented Apple from adding additional information. This whole thing is stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
The judge didn't say they couldn't tack on additional commentary. The judge said Apple had to say Sammy didn't infringe and the site does say that.
I am quite sure some people in cupertino had their fun posting this link.
Samsung Products:
Designed for Humans. Uncool ones.
At times like this, it's so nice having a resident legal scholar in our midst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
The judge didn't say they couldn't tack on additional commentary. The judge said Apple had to say Sammy didn't infringe and the site does say that.
Sounds good to me....do you really think a UK judge is going to buy that pitch though???
I fear this will end very badly for Apple. They were already given a reprieve during the appeal to only include a PROMINENT link on the homepage instead of the actual apology. However, a link in the last section of a page scanned in the English language (lower right), in the smallest font used on the page, is the exact opposite of prominent. And good luck convincing any judge that this "apology", taken in its entirety (which is how a court will evaluate it), meets the criteria of this court ruling.
Originally Posted by Neo42
Looks like Apple failed to follow court order here
Looks like you don't understand law at all.
What, you don't like the use of legal loopholes when they're NOT being used to let a psychotic, pathetic company worm their way out of being publicly humiliated and dishonored for their crimes?
Bolded so all the trolls can see it.
This paragraph on the Apple page should have been larger than the rest and in bold.
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 U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
Contempt of court. Slap Apple with a multi- £billion fine.
Should give the UK balance of payments a welcome boost...