The problem with the ruling is that it goes beyond what was at issue. There's no question that Samsung copied Apple. That they did is clear for anyone to see. The legal issue of whether Apple could demonstrate that Samsung infringed on its intellectual property is separate. Legal decisions don't dictate reality. Asking Apple to apologise is ridiculous.
I'd agree that it would be ridiculous to ask Apple to apologize in this instance. That's why the court made it clear that wasn't what they required them to do.
I wonder why Apple tried to make use of the legal system "over there" then.
If the legal system "over there" had made the decision you wanted, you'd think it was fine.
The truth is, this was clearly a case in the gray. If it was clear-cut that Apple would win, Samsung wouldn't have let it goto court - they would have settled out of court. Thats the exact time you need a third party to decide one way or another. Just because you like Apple more than you like Samsung doesn't mean Apple are always right.
Samsung is the plaintiff, they are the one's who 'made use of the legal system "over there"'.
Simple. If the stock is going down, then something is wrong fundamentally at Apple. Nexus 4, which is almost as good as iPhone 5 costs 299$ unlocked while the iPhone 5 is between 700$ and 1000$ unlocked! Come on, this is unbelievable greedy! Yes, stock going down will be good for customers in the long run.
Nope, still doesn't make any sense, complete lack of logical connection between statements, as well as to the conclusion.
[" url="/t/154002/apple-publishes-statement-in-uk-paper-saying-samsung-didnt-copy-ipad/30#post_2225754"]Ads are meant to pop out and attract people's attention. That ad is exactly the opposite of that.
I doubt that many people are going to even notice it. And that's a good thing!
Screw Samsung.:smokey:
It would be something if the UK judge ordered Apple to produce a new TV ad, directed by Ridley Scott, exalting the wonderful court-ruled-non-infringing products of Samsung, but fortunately, that dry bit of text is all the court required.
It would be something if the UK judge ordered Apple to produce a new TV ad, directed by Ridley Scott, exalting the wonderful court-ruled-non-infringing products of Samsung, but fortunately, that dry bit of text is all the court required.
Speaking of Ridley Scott, Apple should get him to do another ad for them again.
I'm sure that 99.3% of people here probably know this already, but he was of course the person behind Apple's 1984 ad.
Apple has good ads, but they've had a few misses lately too. They should mix things up and make some different style ads.
Well, the market thinks otherwise. It's 576$ right now. And still going down like a rock.
Time to buy.
It's interesting the effect that elections always seem to have on markets, the uncertainty causes people to pull out, often leading to some juicy profits for astute buyers after the dust settles.
I wonder why Apple tried to make use of the legal system "over there" then.
If the legal system "over there" had made the decision you wanted, you'd think it was fine.
The truth is, this was clearly a case in the gray. If it was clear-cut that Apple would win, Samsung wouldn't have let it goto court - they would have settled out of court. Thats the exact time you need a third party to decide one way or another. Just because you like Apple more than you like Samsung doesn't mean Apple are always right.
Your first question is actually answered in my original post: to defend their intellectual property.
Your second statement is kind of weird. Of course I'd be happy if justice was served.
Your third statement, about Samsung copying Apple being a 'gray case', is just plain ridiculous.
LOL First we get Apple telling the truth, telling the whole truth, but getting a UK judge all riled up because they outsmarted him by including additional truths about other cases in other countries. Now we have this version with long numbers, URLs, and verbiage that few will read.
This has been a fun ride for a court case. Too bad this chapter is likely over.
LOL First we get Apple telling the truth, telling the whole truth, but getting a UK judge all riled up because they outsmarted him by including additional truths about other cases in other countries. Now we have this version with long numbers, URLs, and verbiage that few will read.
This has been a fun ride for a court case. Too bad this chapter is likely over.
Simple. If the stock is going down, then something is wrong fundamentally at Apple. Nexus 4, which is almost as good as iPhone 5 costs 299$ unlocked while the iPhone 5 is between 700$ and 1000$ unlocked! Come on, this is unbelievable greedy! Yes, stock going down will be good for customers in the long run.
Can't tell if you are serious or not. The way this is good for customers is if you are customers and Apple stock is the product. Now is a great time to buy if you have the means.
If the stock is going down, then something is wrong fundamentally at Apple. Nexus 4, which is almost as good as iPhone 5 costs 299$ unlocked while the iPhone 5 is between 700$ and 1000$ unlocked! Come on, this is unbelievable greedy!
LOL First we get Apple telling the truth, telling the whole truth, but getting a UK judge all riled up because they outsmarted him by including additional truths about other cases in other countries. Now we have this version with long numbers, URLs, and verbiage that few will read.
This has been a fun ride for a court case. Too bad this chapter is likely over.
Yep, I'll miss it. That wig-wearing fool got burned by Apple showing the world what a total baffoon he was. Serves him right. By the time Apple put the legalese in the paper the damage had already been done. I almost feel sorry for the UK legal system. They have become the laughing stock of the world's court systems because of one idiot trying to make a name for himself.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke
The problem with the ruling is that it goes beyond what was at issue. There's no question that Samsung copied Apple. That they did is clear for anyone to see. The legal issue of whether Apple could demonstrate that Samsung infringed on its intellectual property is separate. Legal decisions don't dictate reality. Asking Apple to apologise is ridiculous.
I'd agree that it would be ridiculous to ask Apple to apologize in this instance. That's why the court made it clear that wasn't what they required them to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
I wonder why Apple tried to make use of the legal system "over there" then.
If the legal system "over there" had made the decision you wanted, you'd think it was fine.
The truth is, this was clearly a case in the gray. If it was clear-cut that Apple would win, Samsung wouldn't have let it goto court - they would have settled out of court. Thats the exact time you need a third party to decide one way or another. Just because you like Apple more than you like Samsung doesn't mean Apple are always right.
Samsung is the plaintiff, they are the one's who 'made use of the legal system "over there"'.
They made the "advertising" look so bad, no one will even bother looking
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX
Simple. If the stock is going down, then something is wrong fundamentally at Apple. Nexus 4, which is almost as good as iPhone 5 costs 299$ unlocked while the iPhone 5 is between 700$ and 1000$ unlocked! Come on, this is unbelievable greedy! Yes, stock going down will be good for customers in the long run.
Nope, still doesn't make any sense, complete lack of logical connection between statements, as well as to the conclusion.
It would be something if the UK judge ordered Apple to produce a new TV ad, directed by Ridley Scott, exalting the wonderful court-ruled-non-infringing products of Samsung, but fortunately, that dry bit of text is all the court required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Nope, still doesn't make any sense, complete lack of logical connection between statements, as well as to the conclusion.
Well, the market thinks otherwise. It's 576$ right now. And still going down like a rock.
And right across the top it says "Advertisement"...makes it look like one of those paid articles that is really trying to sell something.
Also, where in the paper did it appear?? Most likely in an area rarely viewed by those skimming the paper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
It would be something if the UK judge ordered Apple to produce a new TV ad, directed by Ridley Scott, exalting the wonderful court-ruled-non-infringing products of Samsung, but fortunately, that dry bit of text is all the court required.
Speaking of Ridley Scott, Apple should get him to do another ad for them again.
I'm sure that 99.3% of people here probably know this already, but he was of course the person behind Apple's 1984 ad.
Apple has good ads, but they've had a few misses lately too. They should mix things up and make some different style ads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3
And right across the top it says "Advertisement"...makes it look like one of those paid articles that is really trying to sell something.
Also, where in the paper did it appear?? Most likely in an area rarely viewed by those skimming the paper.
Probably in exactly the same area that the court "proposed", seeing as this 14pt Arial wall of text is exactly what Apple was asked to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX
Well, the market thinks otherwise. It's 576$ right now. And still going down like a rock.
Time to buy.
It's interesting the effect that elections always seem to have on markets, the uncertainty causes people to pull out, often leading to some juicy profits for astute buyers after the dust settles.
The only thing plain to see is that Samsung copied Apple.
Your first question is actually answered in my original post: to defend their intellectual property.
Your second statement is kind of weird. Of course I'd be happy if justice was served.
Your third statement, about Samsung copying Apple being a 'gray case', is just plain ridiculous.
This has been a fun ride for a court case. Too bad this chapter is likely over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
LOL First we get Apple telling the truth, telling the whole truth, but getting a UK judge all riled up because they outsmarted him by including additional truths about other cases in other countries. Now we have this version with long numbers, URLs, and verbiage that few will read.
This has been a fun ride for a court case. Too bad this chapter is likely over.
It's only over when the fat lady sings...
...on Apple's UK website.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX
Simple. If the stock is going down, then something is wrong fundamentally at Apple. Nexus 4, which is almost as good as iPhone 5 costs 299$ unlocked while the iPhone 5 is between 700$ and 1000$ unlocked! Come on, this is unbelievable greedy! Yes, stock going down will be good for customers in the long run.
Can't tell if you are serious or not. The way this is good for customers is if you are customers and Apple stock is the product. Now is a great time to buy if you have the means.
Originally Posted by NelsonX
If the stock is going down, then something is wrong fundamentally at Apple. Nexus 4, which is almost as good as iPhone 5 costs 299$ unlocked while the iPhone 5 is between 700$ and 1000$ unlocked! Come on, this is unbelievable greedy!
This has to be a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
LOL First we get Apple telling the truth, telling the whole truth, but getting a UK judge all riled up because they outsmarted him by including additional truths about other cases in other countries. Now we have this version with long numbers, URLs, and verbiage that few will read.
This has been a fun ride for a court case. Too bad this chapter is likely over.
Yep, I'll miss it. That wig-wearing fool got burned by Apple showing the world what a total baffoon he was. Serves him right. By the time Apple put the legalese in the paper the damage had already been done. I almost feel sorry for the UK legal system. They have become the laughing stock of the world's court systems because of one idiot trying to make a name for himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
The legal system over there is a joke.
Isn't that how Australia got colonized in the first place?