Apple posts new notice saying Samsung didn't copy iPad on UK website

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
As required by a court ruling, Apple within 48 hours updated the front page of its website in the U.K. to say Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers did not copy the design of the iPad.

UK


At the bottom of the page, Apple's statement in a large font size tells visitors that its previous legal notice, published on Oct. 25, was "inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales." It includes a link to the new, full, correct statement.

Like the previous post, the full text is featured on a blank white webpage with no images, though links to judgements are included. It acknowledges that the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 co not infringe on Apple's Community registered design No. 0000181607-0001.

The last statement included a quote from Judge Colin Birss who said in court that Samsung's devices were "not as cool" as Apple's. But that statement and its placement on Apple's website were found to be in breach of the original order, and the court ordered Apple on Thursday to revise it within 48 hours.

The new statement is required to remain on the front page of Apple's U.K. website until December 14. The revised statement was required to have at least 11-point font.

The full revised statement is included below:

Samsung / Apple UK judgment



On 9 July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited?s Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple?s Community registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of
the High Court is available from
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal?s judgment is available from www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the Community registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
«13456710

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 188
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


     There is no injunction in respect of the Community registered design in force anywhere in Europe.


    And yet Samsung still cannot sell any tablets.

  • Reply 2 of 188


    Says nothing about copying. Says they didn't infringe. AGAIN. Get the titles right.

  • Reply 3 of 188


    Unnecessary. Apple should not have been made to do this.

  • Reply 4 of 188
    malomalo Posts: 19member
    This is really a ridiculous requirement by the High Court of Englad; it's quite obvious that Samsung is a imitator and copied Apple! To suggest otherwise tells us all, how envious people are of Apple.

    Where's the chalk board, "I will not state Samsung copied Apple, when they really did copy Apple."

  • Reply 5 of 188


    I would have punched the judge in the face and said, "This is dumb."


     


    I understand that a court needs to have the power to make a public declaration, but it seems really odd to me that any government body has the power to put (written) words in someone's (proverbial) mouth.


     


    edit: ugh... the comments have been skinned to match the new theme.

  • Reply 6 of 188
    [INDENT][/INDENT]

    You wouldn't really know its there until you read the mall print at the ottom of the page:D
  • Reply 7 of 188
    jnjnjnjnjnjn Posts: 588member
    And did you hear the reason Apple had to put that statement on its website?
    Consumers could be confused because the Tabs could be illegal...
    Utterly insane, as if one consumer would be confused, and even if they did buy an 'illegal' device, so what.
    Will the English police confiscate it then?

    The real reason (I think) is that the English court is showing its 'power'.
    We can make big Apple say anything we want.

    The other points are also insane, the Tab's were all banned in Europe a few months ago, and recently the German court banned the Tab 7.7 (whatever, who cares) specifically.
    So it's a fact that the court decision isn't Europe wide. In fact only some laws are union wide and most are not upheld by most countries anyway.
    The 10.whatever tabs are adapted by Samsung to 10.whatever.N tabs and on that ground accepted again in Europe.

    What a mess, I remember a Dutch court ordering the PirateBay to shutdown (several times).
    I think that's the definition of "being laughed off the planet".

    J.
  • Reply 8 of 188


    Doesn't matter anymore.  The first posted verbiage was far more damaging than this.  People will remember the "Not as cool as the iPad" phrase, while this wording will fade from people's memory much like Samsung's tablet.  "High Court of England" indeed.  "High" as in what the judge was smoking when he made this ridiculous ruling.  This court is now being mocked the world over and this judge will be remembered as the attention grabbing doofus who started it all.   He will probably write a tell-all book next and start making the talk-show rounds like the rest of the "15 minute" media wh#$es.  It is a shame the judges who heard the appeals had to go along with this to save face and did not have the cajones to make their own judgements.  Oh well, life goes on.  It would be funny if the price of iDevices in the UK suddenly went up (not going to happen of course).  They could call it the "Birss Value-Added Tax" imposed because of the increased "coolness" of the device, much like the dealer mark-up for popular automobiles.  See how popular that judge would be in the UK then. 

  • Reply 9 of 188
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,523member
    malo wrote: »
    This is really a ridiculous requirement by the High Court of Englad; it's quite obvious that Samsung is a imitator and copied Apple! To suggest otherwise tells us all, how envious people are of Apple.
    Where's the chalk board, "I will not state Samsung copied Apple, when they really did copy Apple."

    It should be noted that most judgements seem to have gone against Apple across the globe. I don't personally agree with the decision in this case, but most courts do.
  • Reply 10 of 188
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,323moderator
    inaccurate and did not comply with the order

    It was one of those anyway. The court is now forcing Apple to lie to the public to protect the corrupt. British justice at its best.
  • Reply 11 of 188



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by malo View Post



    This is really a ridiculous requirement by the High Court of Englad; it's quite obvious that Samsung is a imitator and copied Apple! To suggest otherwise tells us all, how envious people are of Apple.

    Where's the chalk board, "I will not state Samsung copied Apple, when they really did copy Apple."


     


    The court ruling only addresses patent infringement, which is a more specific issue than copying. The court is also requiring a "public statement" about the ruling, which Apple-haters gleefully misconstrue as punitive or corrective. It's neither, however. The UK Court is essentially speaking through Apple's website.

  • Reply 12 of 188


    What a retarded thing to do. Apple already lost the case so why add insult to injury?


     


    Comparing a tablet that existed before and after the iPad is like day and night after all...everyone knows this.


     


    This is an abuse of power and it seems out of line since it is not a black and white situation with an obvious outcome... The British legal establishment just proved how backward thinking it is to the world. Worst, Jony Ive is a Brit !


     


    If I were Apple, I would simply put every effort in making sure that the UK does not get any business from Apple. Apple should boycott the British businesses and partners. Fire the ad agency,  architecture firm and all else. This should send a clear message especially now when the UK gov is trying to recrute IT firms and become a "silicon valley" of Europe. 


    Money talks. 

  • Reply 13 of 188

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by replicant View Post


    This is an abuse of power and it seems out of line since it is not a black and white situation with an obvious outcome... The British legal establishment just proved how backward thinking it is to the world. Worst, Jony Ive is a Brit ! 



     


    Still, yes. I assume Apple sponsored his green card. His nationality is still listed as "British." However, "British" is a very broad label. Ive has nothing to do with the country's judiciary system.

  • Reply 14 of 188
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member


     


    Quote:


    ?Apple posts new notice saying Samsung didn't copy iPad on UK website




    No they didn't.


     


     


    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    As required by a court ruling, Apple within 48 hours updated the front page of its website in the U.K. to say the court ruled that Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers did not copy the design of the iPad.


    Fixed it for you. 

  • Reply 15 of 188

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by replicant View Post


    What a retarded thing to do. Apple already lost the case so why add insult to injury?


     


    Comparing a tablet that existed before and after the iPad is like day and night after all...everyone knows this.


     


    This is an abuse of power and it seems out of line since it is not a black and white situation with an obvious outcome... The British legal establishment just proved how backward thinking it is to the world. Worst, Jony Ive is a Brit !


     


    If I were Apple, I would simply put every effort in making sure that the UK does not get any business from Apple. Apple should boycott the British businesses and partners. Fire the ad agency,  architecture firm and all else. This should send a clear message especially now when the UK gov is trying to recrute IT firms and become a "silicon valley" of Europe. 


    Money talks. 



     


    How did this guy not get Apple's CEO position? ^^


    Who the hell is Tim Cook, anyway?


    You go get those crazy Brits, replicant!


    Yeah!

  • Reply 16 of 188
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    mstone wrote: »
    And yet Samsung still cannot sell any tablets.

    Which tablet? And where exactly?
  • Reply 17 of 188

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post


    I would have punched the judge in the face and said, "This is dumb."


     


    I understand that a court needs to have the power to make a public declaration, but it seems really odd to me that any government body has the power to put (written) words in someone's (proverbial) mouth.


     


    edit: ugh... the comments have been skinned to match the new theme.



    I guess Samsung felt the same way when the US judge foolishly awarded $1B fine to them

  • Reply 18 of 188
    The Judge's statement that Samsung's tablet is not as cool as Apple's will forever be a part of the official record. I'd use that all over the website. "iPad. Adjudged Cooler Than the Competition."
  • Reply 19 of 188

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Says nothing about copying. Says they didn't infringe. AGAIN. Get the titles right.



    So you block my account?

  • Reply 20 of 188
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,031member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Says nothing about copying. Says they didn't infringe. AGAIN. Get the titles right.



    Well if you want to get to the bones of it, the iPad had nothing to do with it either.

Sign In or Register to comment.