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.
1) Well, except that the injunction in Germany had nothing to do with infringement. Apple's injunction in Germany was based on Germany's esoteric "unfair competition" law. Judge Birss acknowledged this in this decision:
2) furthermore, he made it clear that the case was not about Apple's iPad's. So regardless of the judge's "cool" comment, Apple should have known what NOT to write about.
"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.
Troll, troll, troll.
They pay what they have to pay because, unlike you, they have brains. It's legal, they are right.
And I can bet that you never used an Apple product before. Hell... Are you even twenty? Are you ashamed of what? Since when can a public company make someone feel ashamed (besides Samsung)? You are just a no-life troll. End of it.
Who here wants to bet that this "droid" was someone else a few days ago?
I see nothing towards furthering the course of Justice in the perverse rulings coming from these Jurists, only a worrying sense of envy of or resentment at a litigant, sentiments they should clearly by their calling be far above and beyond.
Whatever next, will we see a sudden spate of retirements from the bench and entries into the world of patent litigation private practice?
I hope I am mistaken, but this appears to be getting quite sordid.
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?
1) There is much to be said about judge Paul Grewal & Koh's integrity. You just need to look at the number of Samsung's evidence / expert witness denied vs. Apple's; or artificial deadlines set up for Samsung vs. Apple's.
2) The case was never about the iPad (see #22) or any Apple products. Period. Therefore, the infamous "cool" comment had no place in the first notice (neither did the US case in August or the Dusseldorf case).
The article says the contract doesn't expire until 2014 - Samsung can't just arbitrarily raise the price when it's already set in stone. I am guessing the marketwatch.com is really saying that Samsung is no longer offering volume discount for Apple, effectively raising the price of Ax processors by 20%.
This is no news though. Didn't Samsung also raise the prices of NAND/DRAM - the main reason for which Apple contracted inferior component makers like Hynix, LG, Elpidas for the iPhone 5?
They pay what they have to pay because, unlike you, they have brains. It's legal, they are right.
And I can bet that you never used an Apple product before. Hell... Are you even twenty? Are you ashamed of what? Since when can a public company make someone feel ashamed (besides Samsung)? You are just a no-life troll. End of it.
Who here wants to bet that this "droid" was someone else a few days ago?
Hmm, sitting at my Mac Pro typing this makes me wonder how the hell you know so much about me?
It makes me ashamed because I have always chosen to use Apple products even before I could afford to buy my own, my first G4 450 dual processor is sitting behind me with the 17" CRT studio display with proprietary ADC connector. I specifically got the dual processor to work with OS X, even though the OS 9.0.4 it shipped with was far more stable at the time.
I learned how to make a living by spending far to many hours fixing old Macs for a local charity, I started on OS 7.6, learned OS 8, Tech Tool Pro, Norton Disk Doctor inside out. I insisted on using Apple printers & Aldus Pagemaker to write my college work even though the college only had PC's (386's I think). I walked a few miles off the campus to get my work done on a Mac. I new Macs were better, and the work I made was better when using them.
I was the annoying teenager who claimed Macs were better than PC's when Apple were releasing models that had CPU's that were slower than their previous generation. I now earn my living using Macs. I have seen how Apple have gone from making ugly computer cases with razor sharp insides (the Quadra's, G3's & 9600's) to the G4's & the svelte G5, which died on me 2 months after the Apple Care expired. I attempted to resurrect it & found a few people with similar stories & tried to get Apple to listen to our complaints… http://pixelchimp.net/mac-death
I believed Steve Jobs when he said Apple were trying to make a dent in the universe, I believed them when they said they wanted to protect the environment & remove BFR's & other nasty chemicals from the Macs when Greenpeace misguidely attacked them. I dutifully explained this to anyone who would listen & anyone who was considering getting a Mac. I thought they were the underdog, who would improve things & make the world better.
I hated Bill Gates and then Steve Balmer to an irrational level, technically I just hated using Windows, but Microsoft seemed to be a big brutish bully. You know the sort, someone who thinks they know everything & are willing to shout other people down until they loose the will to live & stop talking.
Now Apple seem to be the big bully, in their own way they are as despicable as Microsoft was in the 90's. They dodge tax when they are making record profits & behave like the world owes them everything, they abandon things their loyal users have relied upon for years. They take the work of small developers & squash them with 1/2 baked versions of software (Sherlock, Podcasts.app).
Apple have become so angst ridden that they have started to pick the wrong fights, they should work with Google because Google can actually do Maps & Voice search & massive server infrastructure. How come we never see photos of the inside Apple's datacenter running Mac Pro's? Does iCloud run on Macs inside the datacenter?
I feel ashamed because I thought they were meant to be the good guys, but they are no different to the others, manipulative & greedy.
Back on topic…
The UK law found their design was not infringed on twice, but they still think it is OK to add their own petty comments to a legal document that missed the point, just like you have done.
The article says the contract doesn't expire until 2014 -<span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;"> Samsung can't just arbitrarily raise the price when it's already set in stone. I am guessing the marketwatch.com is really saying that Samsung is no longer offering volume discount for Apple, effectively raising the price of Ax processors by 20%. </span>
<span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;">This is no news though. Didn't Samsung also raise the prices of NAND/DRAM - the main reason for which Apple contracted inferior component makers like Hynix, LG, Elpidas for the iPhone 5?</span>
However, this could explain why Apple is eager to move its producing factories to TSMC's
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?
If I recall correctly the "leaking" of documents, which was an accusation made by Apple, actually turned out to be quite something else. No documents were "leaked". What Samsung did was simply summarize press reports that were already published in the media. Sure, that was something that they must have known would piss off Lucy Koh, but they did it anyway. If you recall, the parties were slugging it out in the media as much as in the court. They still are.
Samsung was also miffed that they were not permitted to raise certain things in court which were already a matter of public record and they made a reasonable case that they were being unfairly treated by Koh ... for example with respect to the disclosure action, where Samsung were sanctioned for failing to disclose certain material information .... but Apple was not (initially, they were later) sanctioned for withholding emails for a much longer period of time. There are many examples of possible one-sidedness by the judge in that case. It will be interesting to see how the appeal plays out. I prefer not to speculate on the end result because I am not a good mind-reader. :-)
This is what piques me personally ... double think, double standards. BOTH parties in a dispute have the right to a full and fair presentation of all relevant facts and arguments if "justice" is to be done. Frankly I could care less which party prevails in a specific scrap which is simply a part of the senseless war of mutual assured destruction.
Regarding your other quotes: Its actually a good example of how careful one needs to be in interpreting legal writings and things like court judgements.
Try this: BOTH are correct. They do not in fact contradict each other when placed in the correct context.
BTW: I did not WRITE the judgement. I may in fact think some things in the whole process are somewhat silly "not as cool" is a good example. But the Appeals court did not overturn that expression of opinion by the high court judge. Incidentally, the appeals court DID consider the entire case de novo, which is somewhat unusual, but which they explained was necessary because of the high media profile and rapid developments in the battles. That in itself seemed pretty wise to me. YMMD.
If it wouldn't cause a death sentence or hanging Tim by his toenails in theTower of London, I wish Apple would say to the judges of the UK court, "Your Honor, regarding paying Samsung's legal fees, can we just deduct that from the One Trillion dollars Samsung owes Apple, you know, for COPYING APPLE PRODUCTS AND INFRINGING ON APPLE PATENTS?! Thank you your Honor. / /
While not claiming to know ALL the details on this - I wonder how the Judge can claim that the information posted on Apple's web site was in any way inaccurate - I thought it was taken directly from the court transcript.
Oh and now you have to pay for the other side's legal fees - sounds to me like someone pissed in his Wheaties or something. Where is the legal precedent for retroactively deciding that one side should pay the other's legal fees because you feel personally slighted.
Makes me think of the phrase "he doth protest too much" - lord forbid that anyone should peer too closely at the decision made, let's keep the focus on how naughty Apple has been.
While not claiming to know ALL the details on this - I wonder how the Judge can claim that the information posted on Apple's web site was in any way inaccurate - I thought it was taken directly from the court transcript.
Oh and now you have to pay for the other side's legal fees - sounds to me like someone pissed in his Wheaties or something. Where is the legal precedent for retroactively deciding that one side should pay the other's legal fees because you feel personally slighted.
Makes me think of the phrase "he doth protest too much" - lord forbid that anyone should peer too closely at the decision made, let's keep the focus on how naughty Apple has been.
For the legal precedent, go read Taniwha's comment #15.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
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.
1) Well, except that the injunction in Germany had nothing to do with infringement. Apple's injunction in Germany was based on Germany's esoteric "unfair competition" law. Judge Birss acknowledged this in this decision:
... In Germany the first instance court in Düsseldorf held that the Galaxy tablets infringed the design but on appeal the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal decided there was no infringement. However the German court did grant an injunction on the Samsung tablets on a different basis under German unfair competition law.
2) furthermore, he made it clear that the case was not about Apple's iPad's. So regardless of the judge's "cool" comment, Apple should have known what NOT to write about.
Because this case (and parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about. It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law. Whether or not Apple could have sued in England and Wales for copying is utterly irrelevant to this case. If they could, they did not. Likewise there is no issue about infringement of any patent for an invention.
...
So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products. The registered design is not the same as the design of the iPad. It is quite a lot different. For instance the iPad is a lot thinner, and has noticeably different curves on its sides. There may be other differences - even though I own one, I have not made a detailed comparison. Whether the iPad would fall within the scope of protection of the registered design is completely irrelevant. We are not deciding that one way or the other. This case must be decided as if the iPad never existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Droid
How can you not understand this:
"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.
Troll, troll, troll.
They pay what they have to pay because, unlike you, they have brains. It's legal, they are right.
And I can bet that you never used an Apple product before. Hell... Are you even twenty? Are you ashamed of what? Since when can a public company make someone feel ashamed (besides Samsung)? You are just a no-life troll. End of it.
Who here wants to bet that this "droid" was someone else a few days ago?
Whatever next, will we see a sudden spate of retirements from the bench and entries into the world of patent litigation private practice?
I hope I am mistaken, but this appears to be getting quite sordid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
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?
1) There is much to be said about judge Paul Grewal & Koh's integrity. You just need to look at the number of Samsung's evidence / expert witness denied vs. Apple's; or artificial deadlines set up for Samsung vs. Apple's.
2) The case was never about the iPad (see #22) or any Apple products. Period. Therefore, the infamous "cool" comment had no place in the first notice (neither did the US case in August or the Dusseldorf case).
http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-processor-price-bump-130419/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Arrogance back fired.
Lesson learned.
You are absolutely right!
That $1 Billion dollar settlement definitely taught Samsung a lesson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prima Kingu
And Samsung has already bumped up the price of Apple’s processors by 20%
http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-processor-price-bump-130419/
The article says the contract doesn't expire until 2014 - Samsung can't just arbitrarily raise the price when it's already set in stone. I am guessing the marketwatch.com is really saying that Samsung is no longer offering volume discount for Apple, effectively raising the price of Ax processors by 20%.
This is no news though. Didn't Samsung also raise the prices of NAND/DRAM - the main reason for which Apple contracted inferior component makers like Hynix, LG, Elpidas for the iPhone 5?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan
You are absolutely right!
That $1 Billion dollar settlement definitely taught Samsung a lesson.
but Samsung was never sanctioned for "lack of integrity."
As for $1B, I guess Samsung's recent 20% price hike on Apple's Ax processors would make up for the loss in no time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Troll, troll, troll.
They pay what they have to pay because, unlike you, they have brains. It's legal, they are right.
And I can bet that you never used an Apple product before. Hell... Are you even twenty? Are you ashamed of what? Since when can a public company make someone feel ashamed (besides Samsung)? You are just a no-life troll. End of it.
Who here wants to bet that this "droid" was someone else a few days ago?
Hmm, sitting at my Mac Pro typing this makes me wonder how the hell you know so much about me?
It makes me ashamed because I have always chosen to use Apple products even before I could afford to buy my own, my first G4 450 dual processor is sitting behind me with the 17" CRT studio display with proprietary ADC connector. I specifically got the dual processor to work with OS X, even though the OS 9.0.4 it shipped with was far more stable at the time.
I learned how to make a living by spending far to many hours fixing old Macs for a local charity, I started on OS 7.6, learned OS 8, Tech Tool Pro, Norton Disk Doctor inside out. I insisted on using Apple printers & Aldus Pagemaker to write my college work even though the college only had PC's (386's I think). I walked a few miles off the campus to get my work done on a Mac. I new Macs were better, and the work I made was better when using them.
I was the annoying teenager who claimed Macs were better than PC's when Apple were releasing models that had CPU's that were slower than their previous generation. I now earn my living using Macs. I have seen how Apple have gone from making ugly computer cases with razor sharp insides (the Quadra's, G3's & 9600's) to the G4's & the svelte G5, which died on me 2 months after the Apple Care expired. I attempted to resurrect it & found a few people with similar stories & tried to get Apple to listen to our complaints… http://pixelchimp.net/mac-death
I believed Steve Jobs when he said Apple were trying to make a dent in the universe, I believed them when they said they wanted to protect the environment & remove BFR's & other nasty chemicals from the Macs when Greenpeace misguidely attacked them. I dutifully explained this to anyone who would listen & anyone who was considering getting a Mac. I thought they were the underdog, who would improve things & make the world better.
I hated Bill Gates and then Steve Balmer to an irrational level, technically I just hated using Windows, but Microsoft seemed to be a big brutish bully. You know the sort, someone who thinks they know everything & are willing to shout other people down until they loose the will to live & stop talking.
Now Apple seem to be the big bully, in their own way they are as despicable as Microsoft was in the 90's. They dodge tax when they are making record profits & behave like the world owes them everything, they abandon things their loyal users have relied upon for years. They take the work of small developers & squash them with 1/2 baked versions of software (Sherlock, Podcasts.app).
Apple have become so angst ridden that they have started to pick the wrong fights, they should work with Google because Google can actually do Maps & Voice search & massive server infrastructure. How come we never see photos of the inside Apple's datacenter running Mac Pro's? Does iCloud run on Macs inside the datacenter?
I feel ashamed because I thought they were meant to be the good guys, but they are no different to the others, manipulative & greedy.
Back on topic…
The UK law found their design was not infringed on twice, but they still think it is OK to add their own petty comments to a legal document that missed the point, just like you have done.
However, this could explain why Apple is eager to move its producing factories to TSMC's
Quote:
Originally Posted by leighr
This whole case is startling to smell of a corrupt judge with a Samsung galaxy in his back pocket.
I think Judge Birss said he has an iPad.
...
So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products. The registered design is not the same as the design of the iPad. It is quite a lot different. For instance the iPad is a lot thinner, and has noticeably different curves on its sides. There may be other differences - even though I own one, I have not made a detailed comparison. Whether the iPad would fall within the scope of protection of the registered design is completely irrelevant. We are not deciding that one way or the other. This case must be decided as if the iPad never existed.
...
dunno, maybe he's a gadget junky with multiple androids, iphones..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
It's legal, they are right.
One does not necessarily follow the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
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?
If I recall correctly the "leaking" of documents, which was an accusation made by Apple, actually turned out to be quite something else. No documents were "leaked". What Samsung did was simply summarize press reports that were already published in the media. Sure, that was something that they must have known would piss off Lucy Koh, but they did it anyway. If you recall, the parties were slugging it out in the media as much as in the court. They still are.
Samsung was also miffed that they were not permitted to raise certain things in court which were already a matter of public record and they made a reasonable case that they were being unfairly treated by Koh ... for example with respect to the disclosure action, where Samsung were sanctioned for failing to disclose certain material information .... but Apple was not (initially, they were later) sanctioned for withholding emails for a much longer period of time. There are many examples of possible one-sidedness by the judge in that case. It will be interesting to see how the appeal plays out. I prefer not to speculate on the end result because I am not a good mind-reader. :-)
This is what piques me personally ... double think, double standards. BOTH parties in a dispute have the right to a full and fair presentation of all relevant facts and arguments if "justice" is to be done. Frankly I could care less which party prevails in a specific scrap which is simply a part of the senseless war of mutual assured destruction.
Regarding your other quotes: Its actually a good example of how careful one needs to be in interpreting legal writings and things like court judgements.
Try this: BOTH are correct. They do not in fact contradict each other when placed in the correct context.
BTW: I did not WRITE the judgement. I may in fact think some things in the whole process are somewhat silly "not as cool" is a good example. But the Appeals court did not overturn that expression of opinion by the high court judge. Incidentally, the appeals court DID consider the entire case de novo, which is somewhat unusual, but which they explained was necessary because of the high media profile and rapid developments in the battles. That in itself seemed pretty wise to me. YMMD.
/
/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
This place is becoming as bad as MR with all its anti Apple trolls.
ha funny I did read all coments, and all I see Trolls and Apple fanboy's.
only one ho make some sense is @droid.
long time apple user's like me, who've owned several mac's long before itoys, look critical at the stuff Appel is doing.
i shit on those apple fanboys and their itoys.
fact is apple has moved from professional solutions to itoys gimmick stuff.
While not claiming to know ALL the details on this - I wonder how the Judge can claim that the information posted on Apple's web site was in any way inaccurate - I thought it was taken directly from the court transcript.
Oh and now you have to pay for the other side's legal fees - sounds to me like someone pissed in his Wheaties or something. Where is the legal precedent for retroactively deciding that one side should pay the other's legal fees because you feel personally slighted.
Makes me think of the phrase "he doth protest too much" - lord forbid that anyone should peer too closely at the decision made, let's keep the focus on how naughty Apple has been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64
While not claiming to know ALL the details on this - I wonder how the Judge can claim that the information posted on Apple's web site was in any way inaccurate - I thought it was taken directly from the court transcript.
Oh and now you have to pay for the other side's legal fees - sounds to me like someone pissed in his Wheaties or something. Where is the legal precedent for retroactively deciding that one side should pay the other's legal fees because you feel personally slighted.
Makes me think of the phrase "he doth protest too much" - lord forbid that anyone should peer too closely at the decision made, let's keep the focus on how naughty Apple has been.
For the legal precedent, go read Taniwha's comment #15.
For everything else, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html