Apple publishes statement in UK paper saying Samsung didn't copy iPad
In compliance with a court ruling, Apple has published a statement in a U.K. newspaper advertising that Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad.
A picture of the text-only advertisement found in Friday's edition of The Guardian was published by The Next Web. It says that Samsung's Galaxy tablets, specifically the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9, and Tab 7.7, do not infringe Apple's patents.
The advertisement provides readers with links where they can read the full judgement, as well as the appeal filed and lost by Apple. It notes that there is no injunction against Samsung's tablets being enforced anywhere in Europe.
Apple was ordered by Judge Birss 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 did have a statement on its website regarding the court's decision, but it was removed Friday after the U.K. court ordered the company to rewrite the copy. The revised statement, with a larger font size, is expected to soon appear on the front page of Apple's website in its entirety.
Originally the statement was tucked away in the form of a link at the bottom of the page. But Judge Robin Jacob said that Apple's advertisement on its own website was "a plan breach of the order."
A picture of the text-only advertisement found in Friday's edition of The Guardian was published by The Next Web. It says that Samsung's Galaxy tablets, specifically the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9, and Tab 7.7, do not infringe Apple's patents.
The advertisement provides readers with links where they can read the full judgement, as well as the appeal filed and lost by Apple. It notes that there is no injunction against Samsung's tablets being enforced anywhere in Europe.
Apple was ordered by Judge Birss 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 did have a statement on its website regarding the court's decision, but it was removed Friday after the U.K. court ordered the company to rewrite the copy. The revised statement, with a larger font size, is expected to soon appear on the front page of Apple's website in its entirety.
Originally the statement was tucked away in the form of a link at the bottom of the page. But Judge Robin Jacob said that Apple's advertisement on its own website was "a plan breach of the order."
Comments
Apple complied with the order in full.
Judge got antsy when he found that Apple was more clever than initially suspected.
LOL is all that can be said.
The other way was a bit snarky this way is absolutely perfect insofar that Apple gets their point across and the judge understands legalese and that's what you are aiming for...
so they that should do that on the webpage ...totally legalistic...
But I do like the idea of putting the apology in contract Phraseology that nobody can understand but a judge/tlawyer.
Also I don't think the judge stated that the apology has to be in layman's terms...
TL;DR... Baffle 'um with Lawyer Speak.
So if Apple posts the info in pure legalese, they're bad. If they interpret it for the readers, they're bad.
:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
LOL is all that can be said.
Yes, at you. I never knew you were a judge or had legal precedence. Interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar
great idea... Coach the apology insomuch legalese nobody understands it..
Um, this isn't an apology, and Apple was NEVER required to issue an apology. Apple simply had to state that the Court found Apple's allegation to not be true which is exactly what they did here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar
great idea... Coach the apology insomuch legalese nobody understands it....
But I do like the idea of putting the apology in contract Phraseology that nobody can understand but a judge/tlawyer.
Also I don't think the judge stated that the apology has to be in layman's terms
It's not intended as an apology, nor is it. The court only wanted a clear statement from Apple (who better?) that there was no infringement in any EU country. Simply clarification and not punishment.
The problem is that Samsung didn't want to negotiate.
There was no reason for this. Samsung HAS blatantly copied Apple's designs and this ruling should never have been handed down.
As Sgt Joe Friday would say: "Just the facts."
Indeed Samsung would have been billions and billions of dollars ahead with a larger market lead had it licensed Apple on the terms discussed in their legal tussle.
This wasn't about the design of the iPad, but some other design that Samsung wanted to prove it didn't infringe.
So why do all the IT rags keep banging on about copying the iPad?
I question the motives of the judge. He is obviously biased because of this petty ruling, and he should be investigated and asked to stand down if he went into this case with preconceived opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystigo
I question the motives of the judge. He is obviously biased because of this petty ruling, and he should be investigated and asked to stand down if he went into this case with preconceived opinions.
Why is he obviously biased? Because he didn't find on the side you wanted him to?
Had he found in favor of Apple, would it have been OK for someone who likes Samsung products to say he is "obviously biased" and asked to have him stand down?
He actually preferred the iPad to the Samsung, going by his comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystigo
I question the motives of the judge. He is obviously biased because of this petty ruling, and he should be investigated and asked to stand down if he went into this case with preconceived opinions.
Yup. All five of the judges who came to the same general decision: the original judge, three more in the first Apple appeal plus yet another for the later clarification of the Appeals Court order.