Apple ordered to pay Samsung legal fees for 'misleading' UK notice
In a UK court ruling on Friday, Apple was ordered to pay Samsung's legal fees after the company was found to have not complied with a previous determination demanding a notice be posted to its website saying the South Korean company did not infringe on the iPad's design.
First reported by Groklaw, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales found the original posting on Apple's website to contain inaccuracies and "false innuendo," warranting the payment of Samsung legal fees on an "indemnity basis," which is higher the "standard" basis.
In July, UK Judge Colin Birss handed ordered Apple to post a notice on the homepage of its website saying Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad. When the post went up, however, it came in the form of a link to a statement which Apple had modified, adding in three paragraphs of non-compliant text between the ordered material's two paragraphs.
The court found the added content to be false and sought to "undermine the intent" of the order, specifically citing a quote from Judge Birss regarding the distinctive nature of Apple products, saying it was taken out of context and "foster[ed] the false notion that the case was about the iPad."
Also a point of contention was the reference to judgments over similar patent trials from around the world, including the landmark Apple v. Samsung U.S. trial in which Apple was awarded $1.2 billion in damages. The court said such insertions were "calculated to produce huge confusion" and that the notice contained "further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true."
Earlier in November, Apple was ordered to rewrite the notice as per the intended order. Friday's ruling was meant to illustrate the court's disapproval of Apple's conduct, especially in regard to its respect for the original order.
To conclude, the judgment's author, Sir Robin Jacob, offered the following scathing remark: "I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple."
The ruling in full from England and Wales Court of Appeal (BAILII):
First reported by Groklaw, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales found the original posting on Apple's website to contain inaccuracies and "false innuendo," warranting the payment of Samsung legal fees on an "indemnity basis," which is higher the "standard" basis.
In July, UK Judge Colin Birss handed ordered Apple to post a notice on the homepage of its website saying Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad. When the post went up, however, it came in the form of a link to a statement which Apple had modified, adding in three paragraphs of non-compliant text between the ordered material's two paragraphs.
The court found the added content to be false and sought to "undermine the intent" of the order, specifically citing a quote from Judge Birss regarding the distinctive nature of Apple products, saying it was taken out of context and "foster[ed] the false notion that the case was about the iPad."
Also a point of contention was the reference to judgments over similar patent trials from around the world, including the landmark Apple v. Samsung U.S. trial in which Apple was awarded $1.2 billion in damages. The court said such insertions were "calculated to produce huge confusion" and that the notice contained "further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true."
Earlier in November, Apple was ordered to rewrite the notice as per the intended order. Friday's ruling was meant to illustrate the court's disapproval of Apple's conduct, especially in regard to its respect for the original order.
To conclude, the judgment's author, Sir Robin Jacob, offered the following scathing remark: "I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple."
The ruling in full from England and Wales Court of Appeal (BAILII):
Comments
As I stated in the other thread, there's a lot of UK companies who are probably happy Apple is doing this as it could likely benefit them in the future.
Got Milk?
Arrogance back fired.
Lesson learned.
Judge trying to create noise and assert himself. Time to dim the lights. Your 15 minutes is up.
"I sentence you to be EXPOSED before your PEERS....."
"TEAR DOWN THE WALL!!!!!!!"
Tell me, Galbi, if you've failed to learn the lesson so many times, why would a multi-billion dollar company?
Your need to hate Apple and see wrong in all they do is most amusing.
Perhaps this case highlights the sometimes nonsensical English judicial system and the almost clueless judges who administer it. It also shows the absurdities in the Patent Law and its many and varied interpretations world wide. The fact that the judge described the iPad as "cool" and as such it could never be mistaken for the Galaxy Tab speaks volumes about the sound scientific and legal basis on which this judgement was based, namely very little I think.
The ruling is absurd and the judge is an imbecile. Anyone with functional eyes knows that Samsung stole the designs. The judge is effectively forcing Apple to lie on their British website. Samsung knew what they were doing. Thieves, and nothing besides. I know it's going to be some time before Apple can transition away from Samsung in a meaningful and painful way for Samsung, but I want it to happen so badly. Samsung simply can not be trusted and should be dropped completely as a supplier. The only way to make them suffer for their continued copying of Apple innovation is to hit them financially.
Time will tell if Tim Cook is even half as vindictive as Steve Jobs was. Taking knives in the back from your suppliers is simply intolerable and unacceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
In a UK court ruling on Friday, Apple was ordered to pay Samsung's legal fees
Can they make payment in the form of iTunes gift cards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Arrogance back fired.
Lesson learned.
Well, not sure if Apple learned anything from this.. I was hoping Apple would go all the way with their bold non-compliance and make a mockery of the UK judicial system. It would have been fun to watch Tim Cook spend a few nights in the UK prison system.
Just think about all the attention! all that free marketing bonanza!! It's a win-win for Apple!!! /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green
The ruling is absurd and the judge is an imbecile. Anyone with functional eyes knows that Samsung stole the designs. The judge is effectively forcing Apple to lie on their British website. Samsung knew what they were doing. Thieves, and nothing besides. I know it's going to be some time before Apple can transition away from Samsung in a meaningful and painful way for Samsung, but I want it to happen so badly. Samsung simply can not be trusted and should be dropped completely as a supplier. The only way to make them suffer for their continued copying of Apple innovation is to hit them financially.
Time will tell if Tim Cook is even half as vindictive as Steve Jobs was. Taking knives in the back from your suppliers is simply intolerable and unacceptable.
**Sigh**
This case is over. There is no point in trying to dress the loss in the final instance as a victory for apple.
The case was never about anything other than whether samsung infringed an EU Community Registered Design. Apple lost in the first instance, appealed and lost again.
What got the court annoyed was that apple didn't comply with the court order and attempted to pervert the intent and purpose of the order by playing funny games.
In the final order, the judge goes into the reasons for the Judgement sentence by sentence, in plain english without using any long words or complicated legal terminology (so that even the most intellectually compromised reader can understand it) and shows in detail where Apple lied, both directly and by omission, in the statement on their Web Site, and lied in court to the judges by making the patently absurd argument that they needed 14 Days to make a simple change to the text on a web site. This insulted the intelligence of the court and pissed off the judges so that they made some statements regarding the lack of integrity of apple, the absurdity of their claims and punished them for their childish behaviour.
What some people don't seem to understand is that the EU courts will not tolerate this kind of behaviour and will sanction it if it occurs. In the US it seems that a lawyer can get away with childish nonsense. That is not the case elsewhere.
For those familiar with the UK system, the judges written decision was actually rather amusing. In particular the way that Robin Jacob made it clear to apple that the court does indeed have sufficient power to deal with this kind of impertinence. (He cited a standard textbook on "Implicit Power" of the judiciary, written by his dad a generation ago).
Even though you, and a number of intellectually disadvantaged forum contributors may not understand what went on in the court, the lawyers do understand it, Apple did understand it, and the matter is closed.
Apple lost. They got their butt kicked and called out for lying. It was entirely due to their own bad behaviour.
Forget it, LEARN FROM IT, and get on with something useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
**Sigh**
What some people don't seem to understand is that the EU courts will not tolerate this kind of behaviour and will sanction it if it occurs. In the US it seems that a lawyer can get away with childish nonsense. That is not the case elsewhere.
Very true. Look at the way Samsung got away with leaking documents to the press when Judge Koh told them that they were not admissible as evidence.
Hang on a moment.
In July, UK Judge Colin Birss handed ordered Apple to post a notice on the homepage of its website saying Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad.
and
The court found the added content to be false and sought to "undermine the intent" of the order, specifically citing a quote from Judge Birss regarding the distinctive nature of Apple products, saying it was taken out of context and "foster[ed] the false notion that the case was about the iPad.
So which is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
Well, not sure if Apple learned anything from this.. I was hoping Apple would go all the way with their bold non-compliance and make a mockery of the UK judicial system. It would have been fun to watch Tim Cook spend a few nights in the UK prison system.
Just think about all the attention! all that free marketing bonanza!! It's a win-win for Apple!!! /s
How sweet! Both stupid disgusting and irrational trolls getting along... who would've thought?
Nice trolls... Or troll. Sock-puppet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green
The ruling is absurd and the judge is an imbecile. Anyone with functional eyes knows that Samsung stole the designs. The judge is effectively forcing Apple to lie on their British website.
No, he's not. This is not about the design of the iPad. Samsung went to court to get a ruling that they had not copied one of earlier Apple's designs. This was not the design for any shipping iPad model. Samsung would not risk fighting this on the actual iPad design because they have already been slapped with an injunction in Germany.
Considering that the case was not about the iPad design, the judge was foolish to bring the iPad design into it by saying the Samsung tablet was not as cool as the iPad. What was worse, the original statement he ordered Apple to post did not make this clear enough. Apple made it even less clear by quoting his statement about the Samsung tablet and throwing in the bit about the US ruling (which has no relevance because they didn't actually win the iPad ruling in the US).
So, Apple ended up with a wodge of costs to pay, and had to put up a new statement, which makes it clear that this ruling has nothing to do with the iPad.
To be honest, I would have thought it would be to their advantage to make sure people knew this wasn't about the iPad.
Everywhere else in the world the time when one must grovel and curtsy for an all mighty powerful "Sir" is long gone, except it seems in the British legal system. Pity the poor fellow who stands in front of "Sir Robin" on a real charge.
"There is not and has never been any Apple product in accordance with the registered design."
Apple's registered design is not the same as the iPad, Samsung didn't infringe on the registered design, Apple registered something else & tried to pass that off as being the iPad design.
Apple lost the case in a court of law, then attempts to flout the court's orders by adding 3 extra paragraphs to text it was ordered to display, and now it is pushing the notification below the page viewport with a responsive layout (that has never been used on the homepage before).
Since when is behaving like a spoilt 9 year old a good company policy?
Apple can afford to pay the legal fees but the arrogance of thinking they are above the law will bite them one day.
I love Apple products & have used them for more than 20 years, but they make me feel ashamed sometimes, especially when it comes to light they only pay 2% tax on profits of $36bn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik
"I sentence you to be EXPOSED before your PEERS....."
"TEAR DOWN THE WALL!!!!!!!"
Nice Floyd reference ;-)