PDA

View Full Version : UK Judge Rules Apple Must Publish Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad




Pages : [1] 2 3 4

MacRumors
Jul 18, 2012, 11:37 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/18/uk-judge-rules-apple-must-publish-notices-acknowledging-samsung-did-not-copy-ipad/)


Business Insider points (http://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-apple-must-post-notice-online-in-uk-saying-samsung-didnt-copy-ipad-2012-7) to a Bloomberg bulletin indicating that a UK judge has ruled Apple must display on its UK website and in British newspapers a notice acknowledging that Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad with its Galaxy Tab 10.1. The UK court had previously ruled (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/09/uk-judge-rules-samsung-tablets-not-as-cool-as-ipad/) that the Galaxy Tab did not infringe upon Apple's design, with the judge observing that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is simply "not as cool" as the iPad.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/08/galaxy_tab_10_1_revised-500x359.jpg


According to the news flash, Apple will need to post the notice on its UK website for six months. Apple can presumably still appeal the ruling, although that information has not yet been disclosed.

We'll update this article once the full Bloomberg report is available.

Update: Bloomberg's article (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/apple-must-publish-notice-samsung-didn-t-copy-ipad-judge-says.html) has gone live with additional details on the situation.The notice should outline the July 9 London court decision that Samsung's Galaxy tablets don't infringe Apple's registered designs, Judge Colin Birss said. It should be posted on Apple's U.K. website for six months and published in several newspapers and magazines to correct the damaging impression the South Korea-based company was copying Apple's product, Birss said.

The order means Apple will have to publish "an advertisement" for Samsung, and is prejudicial to the company, Richard Hacon, a lawyer representing Cupertino, California-based Apple, told the court. "No company likes to refer to a rival on its website."Samsung had also requested that Apple be barred from making public statements claiming that the Galaxy Tab had infringed upon the iPad design, but Birss ruled that Apple is within its rights to make such claims in line with the company's belief that the ruling is incorrect.

Article Link: UK Judge Rules Apple Must Publish Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/18/uk-judge-rules-apple-must-publish-notices-acknowledging-samsung-did-not-copy-ipad/)



GekkePrutser
Jul 18, 2012, 11:39 AM
Lol I bet Apple will include that 'not as cool as iPad' somewhere in their mandatory notice..

And they can legally prove it's true... I don't see why they wouldn't want to point that out :)

Peace
Jul 18, 2012, 11:40 AM
Is this judge actually serious ?

Why not have Apple hire someone to walk around in front of Apple Stores with a sign that says the same thing. That's just as stupid as this "ruling"

Patriot24
Jul 18, 2012, 11:40 AM
Good for the judge. There has to be consequences to keep things transparent and grounded.

fabian9
Jul 18, 2012, 11:40 AM
Ridiculous.

LastLine
Jul 18, 2012, 11:41 AM
Lol I bet Apple will include that 'not as cool as iPad' somewhere in their mandatory notice..

And they can legally prove it's true... I don't see why they wouldn't want to point that out :)
Agreed. I'd love them to turn it into a full on marketing campaign.

ziggyonice
Jul 18, 2012, 11:41 AM
Before the iPad, tablets sucked.
After the iPad, everyone well... er... copied the iPad.

http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/tablets-before-and-after-ipad.jpg?w=499&h=700

LaWally
Jul 18, 2012, 11:41 AM
Love it.

hobo.hopkins
Jul 18, 2012, 11:41 AM
I don't understand this at all. Unless Apple was previously asserting on their website that Samsung was copying the iPad, I don't see how they can force them to even mention another company in that way. Seems silly to me.

2bikes
Jul 18, 2012, 11:41 AM
Do they also have to start selling Samsung tabs on their websites?!? Give me a break.

This sounds like a kids` bet where one has to wear a loser shirt to school.

rafaltrus
Jul 18, 2012, 11:42 AM
Before the iPad, tablets sucked.
After the iPad, everyone well... er... copied the iPad.

Image (http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/tablets-before-and-after-ipad.jpg?w=499&h=700)

Following the same logic, there should be only one maker of cars -__-

Rennir
Jul 18, 2012, 11:44 AM
Before the iPad, tablets sucked.
After the iPad, everyone well... er... copied the iPad.

Image (http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/tablets-before-and-after-ipad.jpg?w=499&h=700)

To me, all the tablets before the iPad look pretty similar too.

KnightWRX
Jul 18, 2012, 11:44 AM
Is this judge actually serious ?

Why not have Apple hire someone to walk around in front of Apple Stores with a sign that says the same thing. That's just as stupid as this "ruling"

Apple maybe should have toned down the media bashing and libel against Samsung if they didn't want to have to do this. You know, wait until a court has decided something before you go make claims of "blatant copying". Look how much it's been picked up by people, now Apple have to undo the damage and injury they caused with their unfounded accusations.

iBreatheApple
Jul 18, 2012, 11:45 AM
Ouch. I can see this making Apple cringe. They're not ones to do stuff like this so I'm sure they're not happy. I wonder how they'll carry out the "notice."

lifeinhd
Jul 18, 2012, 11:45 AM
Now that's just humiliating.

Humiliating, but funny :p

Nunyabinez
Jul 18, 2012, 11:45 AM
Not a lawyer, but I can't imagine this surviving on appeal. Granted the UK is not the US, but since when do you have to publicize the loss of a case? Pay the defendant's legal fee, yes, but this seems weird to me. I could see if it were a libel case where you WON, that you would ask to have a retraction, but this is not that kind of case. Plus, why would any one who visits Apple's site care about the fact that Samsung didn't copy? Shouldn't that be more interesting to people who visit Samsung's site?

pdjudd
Jul 18, 2012, 11:47 AM
I don't understand this at all. Unless Apple was previously asserting on their website that Samsung was copying the iPad, I don't see how they can force them to even mention another company in that way. Seems silly to me.
Me too. At most they could force Apple to retract marketing, but I seriously doubt they can dictate such things on a website. That could constitute advertising. IMO the most a judge could do is force Apple to make a public statement acknowledging such a thing, but they can't dictate a websites design for an extended period of time - especially when they never made such statements online in the first place.

ETA: Even more so given that this is not a libel case at all. Anything public Apple did say is totally irrelevant since they are not being charged with libel or slander. I don't see this surviving appeal.

MacSince1990
Jul 18, 2012, 11:47 AM
"Not as cool as the iPad"? Honestly, why do judges and attorney's always have to speak in legalese I can't understand... would plain English kill them?

:D

Master Atrus
Jul 18, 2012, 11:47 AM
This is awesome! Think of all the fun could have with this ...

"This is our announcement that Samsung did not copy the iPad with their Galaxy Tab. Even if they tried to, it doesn't matter because Judge so and so says it 'isn't as cool' as an iPad. Click here to purchase your "cool" iPad."

(so, not the best spot, but you get the idea)

Patriot24
Jul 18, 2012, 11:47 AM
Ouch. I can see this making Apple cringe. They're not ones to do stuff like this so I'm sure they're not happy. I wonder how they'll carry out the "notice."

Bury it on a page with very few ways to find it/navigate to it.

Anti-Lucifer
Jul 18, 2012, 11:47 AM
Following the same logic, there should be only one maker of cars -__-

right, the only auto maker I see doing the same thing in the car industry is hyundai (another korean company) imitating the likes of mercedes, bmw.

I thought chinese companies were bad at copying, korean companies are worse.

MacsRgr8
Jul 18, 2012, 11:47 AM
Before the iPad, tablets sucked.
After the iPad, everyone well... er... copied the iPad.

Image (http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/tablets-before-and-after-ipad.jpg?w=499&h=700)

Exactly.
Same goes for iPhone.

Competition is good. Copying is bad.

I wonder if the same can be applied to music and arts? Can a judge simply "state" that it wasn't copied well enough..?

C.G.B. Spender
Jul 18, 2012, 11:47 AM
I wonder how they'll carry out the "notice."

With style. If it comes to that.

2bikes
Jul 18, 2012, 11:47 AM
Following the same logic, there should be only one maker of cars -__-

I don't think that is a healthy comparison. It is more like this: Mercedes-Benz comes up with a design, and some other company (say Hyundai) makes a car very similar to it. Don`t consider the engine and the wheels etc. That`s what I see with before and after iPad pictures. There are still processors, touch interfaces, rams but you see different designs.

derbothaus
Jul 18, 2012, 11:48 AM
Ha Ha. At least UK judges have a little common sense. If you let other judges approve patent status on things as general as "touch based input for mobile phone" there is no ending to the litigation possible (and money and legal fees) The new gold mine is patent lawyer (used to be doctor/ real lawyer) at least until we pull our collective heads out of our asses.

the read
Jul 18, 2012, 11:48 AM
I believe it's valid.

Apple need to apologies. I want to see it happen. Apple did not invent the tablet.

Well done UK. Great to see not everyone is blinded by the ******** created by Apple legal and marketing teams.

KnightWRX
Jul 18, 2012, 11:48 AM
Not a lawyer, but I can't imagine this surviving on appeal. Granted the UK is not the US, but since when do you have to publicize the loss of a case? Pay the defendant's legal fee, yes, but this seems weird to me. I could see if it were a libel case where you WON, that you would ask to have a retraction, but this is not that kind of case. Plus, why would any one who visits Apple's site care about the fact that Samsung didn't copy? Shouldn't that be more interesting to people who visit Samsung's site?

Apple has been doing a lot of libel in their cases against Samsung though. They have been accusing them of "blatant copying" in the press. Would you rather they pay damages ? If anything, this is a slap on the wrist type punishement, and only applies in the UK.

screensaver400
Jul 18, 2012, 11:48 AM
The notice:

"Apple alleged that Samsung copied the design of iPad. In deciding against Apple, the judge said that the Samsung product did not copy the iPad because it was "not as cool." We agree on the latter point."

attila
Jul 18, 2012, 11:48 AM
Put the notice up next to a comparison between the packages and their USB chargers

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4dae0b7eccd1d52f62180000-547/apple-iphone-usb-cable-2007-vs-samsung-galaxy-tab-usb-cable-2010.jpg

Hardtimes
Jul 18, 2012, 11:49 AM
Apple maybe should have toned down the media bashing and libel against Samsung if they didn't want to have to do this. You know, wait until a court has decided something before you go make claims of "blatant copying". Look how much it's been picked up by people, now Apple have to undo the damage and injury they caused with their unfounded accusations.

Exactly

the read
Jul 18, 2012, 11:49 AM
Ha Ha. At least UK judges have a little common sense. If you let other judges approve patent status on things as general as "touch based input for mobile phone" there is no ending to the litigation possible (and money and legal fees) The new gold mine is patent lawyer (used to be doctor/ real lawyer) at least until we pull our collective heads out of our asses.

Agreed.

JohnDoe98
Jul 18, 2012, 11:49 AM
The report doesn't say where on the website the info needs to be placed. Sounds like there might be some leeway granted here and Apple will burry it somewhere where it's affect is innocuous.

iSee
Jul 18, 2012, 11:50 AM
Following the same logic, there should be only one maker of cars -__-

I think you're having trouble with the logic; that post didn't suggest there should be only one maker of tablets.

Consultant
Jul 18, 2012, 11:50 AM
I don't understand this at all. Unless Apple was previously asserting on their website that Samsung was copying the iPad, I don't see how they can force them to even mention another company in that way. Seems silly to me.

Exactly. Perhaps the judge is part of the borg robot drone collective.

P.S. The judge must be blind. Apple should post this - "Samsung did not copy Apple" proof:
http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/kr14a/samsung_have_not_copied_apple_here_is_the_proof/

Mac21ND
Jul 18, 2012, 11:50 AM
Can they also post that the judge said Samsung tablets are "not as cool?" That's what I would do :D

duh! @ScreenSaver400 beat me to it!

Mal
Jul 18, 2012, 11:51 AM
Apple maybe should have toned down the media bashing and libel against Samsung if they didn't want to have to do this. You know, wait until a court has decided something before you go make claims of "blatant copying". Look how much it's been picked up by people, now Apple have to undo the damage and injury they caused with their unfounded accusations.

Care to prove that libel accusation? Seems to me Apple been very careful not to say anything that could be construed as libel, even by an overzealous lawyer. I agree with Apple on the blatant copying, btw, it's simply not something that is legally problematic for Samsung because of prior examples of similar designs.

jW

lifeinhd
Jul 18, 2012, 11:51 AM
The report doesn't say where on the website the info needs to be placed.

Or what color it needs to be.

White text on a white background? Sounds good to me :D

Hardtimes
Jul 18, 2012, 11:52 AM
Not a lawyer, but I can't imagine this surviving on appeal. Granted the UK is not the US, but since when do you have to publicize the loss of a case? Pay the defendant's legal fee, yes, but this seems weird to me. I could see if it were a libel case where you WON, that you would ask to have a retraction, but this is not that kind of case. Plus, why would any one who visits Apple's site care about the fact that Samsung didn't copy? Shouldn't that be more interesting to people who visit Samsung's site?

Thats civilised society in action for you! People and corporations need to be accountable for their actions.

alex2792
Jul 18, 2012, 11:54 AM
Lol this judge has a sense of humor. I I'm going to visit Apple's UK site just to see this notice.

Rocketman
Jul 18, 2012, 11:55 AM
I see this article was published at 9:37am Pacific. I gave them the tip at 8:55am almost live with the Bloomberg scoop. This seems to be one of those stories that stayed about the same from start to finish without any major corrections along the way.

Interesting to have a non-monetary relief order. Specific performance.

Rocketman

FNi
Jul 18, 2012, 11:55 AM
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the Judge's ruling, but I do appreciate the enforcing of an appeasement if your claim is ultimately proved unfounded.

Regardless of the outcome, just the mere action of publicly accusing a competitor of copying can do a lot of damage to their reputation - something that can't easily be fixed with a monetary settlement.

Knowing that you might have to eat a little bit of humble pie if the case doesn't go your way could actually stop some of this "lawyer first, questions second" litigation that seems to be the norm lately.

iBreatheApple
Jul 18, 2012, 11:55 AM
With style. If it comes to that.

And perhaps some mockery. Only time will tell.

GadgetDon
Jul 18, 2012, 11:56 AM
Apple maybe should have toned down the media bashing and libel against Samsung if they didn't want to have to do this. You know, wait until a court has decided something before you go make claims of "blatant copying". Look how much it's been picked up by people, now Apple have to undo the damage and injury they caused with their unfounded accusations.

Did Samsung countersue for "libel"?

I don't know the UK legal system that well, but to win such a lawsuit in the United States, you'd have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung did copy Apple and that it was illegal for them to do so. As I read the judge's explanation for finding for Samsung, it was basically that if Samsung did copy, they did a poor enough job that it wasn't proven. That's the judge's job to make that call, cool.

That does not make it false that there are elements in the Samsung tablet that clearly were inspired by iOS, and definitely does not make it false that Apple believes there was wholesale copying. The judge is ordering Apple to make what it believes is a false statement.

Now, nuance is everything. If the specifics of the order are that Apple must publish notices that Samsung was determined in court not to have violated Apple's patents, that is a true statement. But even then, requiring Apple to essentially advertise Samsung on its website seems inappropriate.

nanotlj
Jul 18, 2012, 11:56 AM
As irony as it is, Sir Jony Ive who leads the design of iPad is from UK.

pdjudd
Jul 18, 2012, 11:56 AM
Thats civilised society in action for you! People and corporations need to be accountable for their actions.
And there are ways to do that - this is not one of them. I wouldn't want a judge to rule this way on any company unless this was a specific case concerning libel - of which this is not.

Tsunami911
Jul 18, 2012, 11:56 AM
"Samsung did not copy the iPad. Ruling clearly states that the iPad is much 'too cool' to be confused for a Samsung device. Better luck next time Samsung."

DerekRod
Jul 18, 2012, 11:57 AM
Ye Olde Public Shaming

KnightWRX
Jul 18, 2012, 11:57 AM
Care to prove that libel accusation?

Gee...

http://obamapacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ipad-2-Keynote-031.jpg

Ask for somethuing harder next time. Tim Cook and Steve Jobs have been on record in many interviews about "copying" while responding to questions about the lawsuits.

Seems to me Apple been very careful not to say anything that could be construed as libel, even by an overzealous lawyer. I agree with Apple on the blatant copying, btw, it's simply not something that is legally problematic for Samsung because of prior examples of similar designs.

You agree with Apple on something you say they never said... interesting.

And while you and Apple may agree, it seems the judge in this case doesn't.

parish
Jul 18, 2012, 11:57 AM
Lol I bet Apple will include that 'not as cool as iPad' somewhere in their mandatory notice..

And they can legally prove it's true... I don't see why they wouldn't want to point that out :)

Since it was stated in open court by a Judge it is a matter of public record so I can see no way they could be prevented from repeating it

Hardtimes
Jul 18, 2012, 11:57 AM
As irony as it is, Sir Jony Ive who leads the design of iPad is from UK.

How is that ironic?

kingtj
Jul 18, 2012, 11:58 AM
Yep, ridiculous -- just like the whole patent lawsuit in the first place.

I think that might be this judge's point, really. Quit wasting time in the courts bickering about this garbage. Just build a quality product and if it's really worth buying, people will buy it and you'll profit.

Ridiculous.

iBreatheApple
Jul 18, 2012, 11:58 AM
"Samsung did not copy the iPad. Ruling clearly states that the iPad is much 'too cool' to be confused for a Samsung device. Better luck next time Samsung."

See I was thinking a statement like this would be but to those familiar with the situation would likely think Apple a fool for posting such as they are the ones who filed for infringement, no?

KnightWRX
Jul 18, 2012, 11:59 AM
Did Samsung countersue for "libel"?

Did they have to ? The Judge issued a ruling. He may know a thing or two about UK law in these matters.

applesith
Jul 18, 2012, 11:59 AM
http://bloggingexperiment.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/simpsons-bart-chalkboard.jpg

heyjack70
Jul 18, 2012, 11:59 AM
This just in:

Judge decrees that Apple become Samsung's butler.

luckeyz
Jul 18, 2012, 12:00 PM
Thanks Ziggy! Sometimes you need an info graphic. Love it.

Before the iPad, tablets sucked.
After the iPad, everyone well... er... copied the iPad.

Image (http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/tablets-before-and-after-ipad.jpg?w=499&h=700)

SkyBell
Jul 18, 2012, 12:00 PM
I have no valid opinion on this particular case, but I must say I'm glad to see at least some people are trying to put Apple in their place. They've gotten far too cocky, greedy and sue-happy. I don't oppose that they make decent products, but they need to have their ego deflated quite a bit.

ouchiko
Jul 18, 2012, 12:01 PM
If Apple are happy enough to take Samsung to court then they should face the consequences of losing too. Apple has told the world via this event that the Tab is a copy of the iPad - since the judge ruled that this is in fact not the case Apple should therefore tell the world that it isn't.

PVisitors
Jul 18, 2012, 12:01 PM
Odd ruling. Why treat Apple like a naughty schoolboy?

Just curious has this ever happened before in a UK ruling where a company has had to advertise on their website that their competitors have not copied their design?

pacalis
Jul 18, 2012, 12:01 PM
I don't think that is a healthy comparison. It is more like this: Mercedes-Benz comes up with a design, and some other company (say Hyundai) makes a car very similar to it. Don`t consider the engine and the wheels etc. That`s what I see with before and after iPad pictures. There are still processors, touch interfaces, rams but you see different designs.

No. It is more like this. Mercedes-Benz comes up with a design using parts sourced from Hyundai and then accuses Hyundai of stealing it's own technology.

Mal
Jul 18, 2012, 12:02 PM
Gee...

http://obamapacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ipad-2-Keynote-031.jpg

Ask for somethuing harder next time. Tim Cook and Steve Jobs have been on record in many interviews about "copying" while responding to questions about the lawsuits.



You agree with Apple on something you say they never said... interesting.

And while you and Apple may agree, it seems the judge in this case doesn't.

That's not libel. Apple said they copied. The judge never said they didn't. He said it wasn't close enough to violate their patents. Samsung did copy Apple's designs. They simply didn't do it well enough to be legally liable.

jW

iPhoneApple
Jul 18, 2012, 12:02 PM
"Due to Judge (insert name here), we are required to inform you that Samsung's (insert product name here) does not infringe on our design patents because it is simply "not as cool."

TomCooke89
Jul 18, 2012, 12:02 PM
right, the only auto maker I see doing the same thing in the car industry is hyundai (another korean company) imitating the likes of mercedes, bmw.

I thought chinese companies were bad at copying, korean companies are worse.

I think he was trying to say that the iPad has done to the design of tablets, what Mini's did to the design of cars.

PracticalMac
Jul 18, 2012, 12:03 PM
Ouch. I can see this making Apple cringe. They're not ones to do stuff like this so I'm sure they're not happy. I wonder how they'll carry out the "notice."

Apple Website:
Samsung is not cool enough to make a copy of Apple's iPad

Good?

alessai
Jul 18, 2012, 12:03 PM
Put the notice up next to a comparison between the packages and their USB chargers

Image (http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4dae0b7eccd1d52f62180000-547/apple-iphone-usb-cable-2007-vs-samsung-galaxy-tab-usb-cable-2010.jpg)

the funny thing in this picture, is that the USB for samsung is better than Apple's, do you see the rubber at the end of the cable its longer in Samsung's which prevent this annoying problem ( i have both products so i know ):
http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ipod-cable-530x440.jpg

globalhemp
Jul 18, 2012, 12:04 PM
Due to this issue, I personally have purchased what I believe to be the best products and have ruled out Samsung:

1. Sony Bravia HDTV -- while high-end Samsung products seem to a very close tie, I choose Sony
2. ViewSonic LED monitor (for PC) -- while most all stores stock and push Samsung
3. Panasonic cordless phones -- not sure if Samsung makes them, but refrained from another AT&T set (~ 2-4 year lifespan based on last 2 sets)
4. Apple iMac -- no substitute!
5. Toshiba laptops -- no Samsung PC's

Bottom line: vote with your dollars. Your purchase helps fund the companies you believe in so they prosper and continue to make more products you like. Reward good behavior.

pdjudd
Jul 18, 2012, 12:04 PM
That's not libel. Apple said they copied. The judge never said they didn't. He said it wasn't close enough to violate their patents. Samsung did copy Apple's designs. They simply didn't do it well enough to be legally liable.

jW
Not only that, the image is not stating a fact, the question mark is not stating something but inquiring.

Apple Website:


Good?
Care to provide a link?

KnightWRX
Jul 18, 2012, 12:04 PM
Thanks Ziggy! Sometimes you need an info graphic. Love it.

Of course, another way to see it is not to cherry pick Rugged tablet designs, but actual designs pre-iPad that show that the iPad is just "one of the boys" :

http://trog.qgl.org/up/1110/tablets_before_and_after_ipad.jpg

hobo.hopkins
Jul 18, 2012, 12:05 PM
Gee...

http://obamapacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ipad-2-Keynote-031.jpg

Ask for somethuing harder next time. Tim Cook and Steve Jobs have been on record in many interviews about "copying" while responding to questions about the lawsuits.


If that is the most libelous thing you can cite I think you're still incorrect. I think you need to work a little harder. Not to mention that a single slide in a keynote is hardly equatable to six months of advertising a competitor's product on a website.

Dainin
Jul 18, 2012, 12:06 PM
This makes no sense at all. They basically have to advertise the Samsung Tablet on their webpage? There is no way this will survive an appeal.

KnightWRX
Jul 18, 2012, 12:08 PM
That's not libel. Apple said they copied. The judge never said they didn't. He said it wasn't close enough to violate their patents. Samsung did copy Apple's designs. They simply didn't do it well enough to be legally liable.

I'll trust a judge before I trust you though. What are your credentials ? Why do you think your opinion holds more value than a ruling by a judge in a court case ? ;)

----------

If that is the most libelous thing you can cite I think you're still incorrect. I think you need to work a little harder. Not to mention that a single slide in a keynote is hardly equatable to six months of advertising a competitor's product on a website.

It was 1 example. Steve Jobs and Tim Cook have been on record quite a few times about it. I'm not bothering to dig every little reference though, Apple can do their own appeal and defense and Samsung can fight it if they wish, not my battle.

Mal
Jul 18, 2012, 12:09 PM
I'll trust a judge before I trust you though. What are your credentials ? Why do you think your opinion holds more value than a ruling by a judge in a court case ? ;)

I don't. I'm saying the same thing as the judge. The judge never said they didn't copy Apple. The judge said that Apple didn't have the right to damages from it.

I'm about done with you, Knight. You've been proven wrong more times on this site than I care to remember, and you always ignore the opponents arguments and continue to argue the same points as if you're not even listening.

jW

cocky jeremy
Jul 18, 2012, 12:09 PM
So, the judge basically ruled Samsung didn't copy the iPad because they did a bad job of copying it? Really? :rolleyes:

tehn00p
Jul 18, 2012, 12:10 PM
Put the notice up next to a comparison between the packages and their USB chargers

Image (http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4dae0b7eccd1d52f62180000-547/apple-iphone-usb-cable-2007-vs-samsung-galaxy-tab-usb-cable-2010.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI

gnasher729
Jul 18, 2012, 12:10 PM
"Samsung did not copy the iPad. They tried, but they failed. The Samsung tablet is not as cool as the iPad". :D

No. It is more like this. Mercedes-Benz comes up with a design using parts sourced from Hyundai and then accuses Hyundai of stealing it's own technology.

You are saying it Ok to steal designs from your customers?

Sixtafoua
Jul 18, 2012, 12:11 PM
Hahahahahahaha that's hilarious, I wonder where they'll have to post it and how they'll word it.

Frobozz
Jul 18, 2012, 12:12 PM
This is interesting, because I doubt 1 in 1000 consumers of either device would be able to tell you that Apple had accused Samsung of copying the iPad. Furthermore, they don't give a crap. It's interesting fodder for the technorati and legal spheres– including blogs like this. But consumers? Yeah, I doubt any have a clue what this is about.

C.G.B. Spender
Jul 18, 2012, 12:12 PM
I don't. I'm saying the same thing as the judge. The judge never said they didn't copy Apple. The judge said that Apple didn't have the right to damages from it.

I'm about done with you, Knight. You've been proven wrong more times on this site than I care to remember, and you always ignore the opponents arguments and continue to argue the same points as if you're not even listening.

jW

Dude’s right very often, but seems he can’t be wrong even when he is.

DudeDad
Jul 18, 2012, 12:13 PM
How about: "Samsung did not copy the iPad when it designed the Galaxy Tab 10.1...according to the judge, it's not as cool as the iPad. If it was a copy, it, too, would be a cool device."

nick_elt
Jul 18, 2012, 12:14 PM
To me, all the tablets before the iPad look pretty similar too.
There is only so many ways you can make a tablet. All this court action is ridiculous. Lawyers are the only winners. You cant buy a galaxy tab thinking it was an ipad and vice versa.

pdjudd
Jul 18, 2012, 12:15 PM
I don't. I'm saying the same thing as the judge. The judge never said they didn't copy Apple. The judge said that Apple didn't have the right to damages from it.
And it should be pointed out specifically that the judge never addressed nor found Apple guilty of Libel or Slander nor has any such suit been brought against Apple. Ay talk about libel or slander (2 different things) is irrelevant.

aziatiklover
Jul 18, 2012, 12:15 PM
Sounds like the judge got paid by samsung under dat table! Samsung is known for their corruption all over asia! Thats how they do to be number 1 tv seller here in asia.

Sabenth
Jul 18, 2012, 12:15 PM
oh this will be a laugh and half to see in the papers

r.harris1
Jul 18, 2012, 12:16 PM
Kind of like failing a restaurant inspection, hanging for all to see.

pacalis
Jul 18, 2012, 12:16 PM
the funny thing in this picture, is that the USB for samsung is better than Apple's, do you see the rubber at the end of the cable its longer in Samsung's which prevent this annoying problem ( i have both products so i know ):


Also the new Samsung chargers have the USB cable coming in the side, so they don't stick out as far like the USB chargers on Apple.

Nevermind that Apple is shrinking it's adapter on the iPhone 5 to be similar in size to the current micro-USB on all the Samsung phones.

melendezest
Jul 18, 2012, 12:18 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI

Um,

"The first mass-production device from a major manufacturer to incorporate PDMI is the Dell Streak, a 5" tablet device running the Android operating system version 1.6 through 2.2."

"This section's factual accuracy is disputed. (August 2011)"

I thought Apple came out with their connector type long before that...Just curious.

CausticPuppy
Jul 18, 2012, 12:21 PM
Lol I bet Apple will include that 'not as cool as iPad' somewhere in their mandatory notice..

Presumably Apple has some freedom in how this message is displayed. For example, it could be done in the form of a snarky video featuring John Hodgman as iPad, and very uncool wannabe wearing the same outfit.

GadgetDon
Jul 18, 2012, 12:22 PM
Did they have to ? The Judge issued a ruling. He may know a thing or two about UK law in these matters.

Again, I'm working off the story as reported here and elsewhere, the actual decision may have more nuance.

But the lawsuit was "Samsung violated our patents by copying these elements of our design and using these technologies which we have patented, and they are not legally allowed to do that". The judge listened to the evidence, and said that the evidence didn't show that to the burden of proof necessary, and the infamous "not as cool" line as an example of how they weren't close enough to have done so. Fair enough.

That's a long, long way from "Samsung didn't copy Apple". There are many forms of copying which might not hit the patents, there may have been other differences to override the copied parts, and (again the not as cool statement) Samsung may not have successfully copied Apple well enough to infringe. So (again based on the reporting we have seen) the judge is ordering Apple to affirmatively state something that the judge had not ruled was so. And the two venues both are legally significant (any future lawsuits in the UK or elsewhere will assuredly bring up that notice as "proof" that there was no copying) and potentially financially significant (how much do you think Samsung would pay to get what is essentially an ad for Samsung on Apple's website). The value of what Apple would be giving up would exceed reasonable legal fees, the normal form of "loser pays", and would not require Apple to make a statement it does not believe.

Now, again, sometimes things are lost in reporting, particularly the first rush. If the statement is just "Samsung was found not to have violated Apple's patents as alleged in a recent trial", that's different. It's factually true, goes no further than the legal decision, has no probative value beyond the decision itself. It still would be of great value to Samsung to have that on Apple's website and unless Apple has had on the UK website the allegations in the lawsuit (which I've never seen on the US website) seems inappropriate, but less wildly inappropriate than the simplified reported version.

MonkeySee....
Jul 18, 2012, 12:22 PM
pathetic :rolleyes:

Rogifan
Jul 18, 2012, 12:28 PM
I believe it's valid.

Apple need to apologies. I want to see it happen. Apple did not invent the tablet.

Well done UK. Great to see not everyone is blinded by the ******** created by Apple legal and marketing teams.

Apple needs to apologize for what? The average joe 1) probably hasn't even heard about this and 2)could give a ***** less

----------

As irony as it is, Sir Jony Ive who leads the design of iPad is from UK.

Probably why he lives in the USA. :p

menithings
Jul 18, 2012, 12:28 PM
Fat chance in hell Apple will write what the judge ordered on their website since it would negatively influence all of their patent infringement cases, which is what I'm sure the judge has in mind. I'd expect they'd pull all iPads out of the UK before being forced to do something so stupid and weirdly unprecedented.

gatortpk
Jul 18, 2012, 12:29 PM
Lol I bet Apple will include that 'not as cool as iPad' somewhere in their mandatory notice..

And they can legally prove it's true... I don't see why they wouldn't want to point that out :)

It seems perhaps that's what the judge was hinting at.

pacalis
Jul 18, 2012, 12:29 PM
"Samsung did not copy the iPad. They tried, but they failed. The Samsung tablet is not as cool as the iPad". :D

You are saying it Ok to steal designs from your customers?

Well first, you might be in the wrong thread. As I recall this one starts with "a UK judge has ruled .... that Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad. "

Second, I am saying your analogy stinks.

But third, your view of design is superficial. It neglects the fact that the sourced components are also designed, either jointly or by Samsung alone. This design of components, not just for aesthetics, but also cost and manufacturing is a constraint on the overall design of the tablet, so it would be unusual to see huge differences in design coming out of the same Samsung factory.

Moreover, protections provided by design patents are notoriously weak, whereas supplier contracts can be extraordinarily strong. So if Apple isn't bringing a contract suit, it means the Apple wasn't able to do without Samsung's technological prowess, and is instead needling after the fact in an attempt to protect their markets.

ristlin
Jul 18, 2012, 12:32 PM
Before the iPad, tablets sucked.
After the iPad, everyone well... er... copied the iPad.

Image (http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/tablets-before-and-after-ipad.jpg?w=499&h=700)

I especially like the one with the handlebar, very classy. I bet there's one out there with a cup holder.

iMikeT
Jul 18, 2012, 12:32 PM
Fat chance.

Nevzorus
Jul 18, 2012, 12:33 PM
I REALLY think that it looks like the iPad on the front. I saw one with Samsungs tablet in McDonalds and damn, i had to walk over there and pretend i did something else to see if it was an iPad or not. (He had a case that looked like the iPad)

C.G.B. Spender
Jul 18, 2012, 12:33 PM
Judge had me at „not as cool …“.

children
Jul 18, 2012, 12:34 PM
Due to this issue, I personally have purchased what I believe to be the best products and have ruled out Samsung:

1. Sony Bravia HDTV -- while high-end Samsung products seem to a very close tie, I choose Sony
2. ViewSonic LED monitor (for PC) -- while most all stores stock and push Samsung
3. Panasonic cordless phones -- not sure if Samsung makes them, but refrained from another AT&T set (~ 2-4 year lifespan based on last 2 sets)
4. Apple iMac -- no substitute!
5. Toshiba laptops -- no Samsung PC's

Bottom line: vote with your dollars. Your purchase helps fund the companies you believe in so they prosper and continue to make more products you like. Reward good behavior.

Lol some of you fanboys are so petty...

2bikes
Jul 18, 2012, 12:34 PM
No. It is more like this. Mercedes-Benz comes up with a design using parts sourced from Hyundai and then accuses Hyundai of stealing it's own technology.

You are correct, they are parts. But getting confused a little about the technology part. MB gives the specs to Hyundai, so they are MBs technology. Hyundai having the specs, changes it a little and puts it`s own brand with using all the research done by MB for years to come up with those specs.

theelysium
Jul 18, 2012, 12:36 PM
****** ridiculous. Just cuz that judge doesn't think it was copied does not mean that Samsung actually didn't copy. It's his opinion and his opinion dose not need to be published in an ad from Apple.

johncarync
Jul 18, 2012, 12:37 PM
http://www.subarusvx.com/applesamsung.jpg

charlituna
Jul 18, 2012, 12:37 PM
Is this judge actually serious ?

Why not have Apple hire someone to walk around in front of Apple Stores with a sign that says the same thing. That's just as stupid as this "ruling"

And I suspect that Apple will appeal on such grounds. They will probably dig around in the laws and found that there is none that gives the judge the right to make such a demand, particularly since at no point did Apple ever have claims that Samsung did copy up on their site (so they aren't being forced to 'right' some libelous claim they published) and appeal saying the Judge is overstepping his authority. And they will likely win.

Certainly at the least they will start by appealing to delay any deadline to publish until they have exhausted appeals in the actual court case.

Dr McKay
Jul 18, 2012, 12:39 PM
I'd expect they'd pull all iPads out of the UK before being forced to do something so stupid and weirdly unprecedented.

Yes, pull out of a market of over 63 Million people out of spite.

KnightWRX
Jul 18, 2012, 12:39 PM
I don't. I'm saying the same thing as the judge. The judge never said they didn't copy Apple. The judge said that Apple didn't have the right to damages from it.

The judge said and I quote :

Conclusion
The Samsung tablets do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 000181607-0001.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html

Don't misrepresent the actual decision.

I'm about done with you, Knight. You've been proven wrong more times on this site than I care to remember, and you always ignore the opponents arguments and continue to argue the same points as if you're not even listening.

You haven't proven me wrong here. You've only asserted your opinion, which goes contrary to a court issued ruling. At least wait until an appeal is won and invalidates the current judgement before you try to "prove me wrong".

Yamcha
Jul 18, 2012, 12:40 PM
There are some Samsung tablets and smartphones that look very much like the iPad, however there are others that don't.. So I don't think we can say all Samsung mobile devices have copied Apple..

People need to be objective, I think the devices with the touchwiz interface should not be able to be sold, but the rest I think are fine..

Kaibelf
Jul 18, 2012, 12:41 PM
You know what's hilarious? In the UK, someone can accuse someone else of rape and the accused person's name is splashed ALL OVER the papers, but if the charges are found to be a total lie, the accuser is still unable to be identified. Yet here, the judge is making Apple go and publish a notice saying Samsung didn't copy their trade secrets because the final product was essentially too ugly? What a country. :eek:

foobarbaz
Jul 18, 2012, 12:42 PM
Also, Apple will apparently have to write "I must not tell lies" 200 times and go to bed without dinner.

Bubba Satori
Jul 18, 2012, 12:43 PM
Karma is not a beach in Bali. :cool:

ristlin
Jul 18, 2012, 12:44 PM
I don't. I'm saying the same thing as the judge. The judge never said they didn't copy Apple. The judge said that Apple didn't have the right to damages from it.

I'm about done with you, Knight. You've been proven wrong more times on this site than I care to remember, and you always ignore the opponents arguments and continue to argue the same points as if you're not even listening.

jW

Don't bother with that guy. It's always the same pattern. He argues his point to the bitter end until you present irrefutable evidence, at which point he says he's done with and adds you to his ignore list. It's sad really lol. If he wasn't so serious, I'd say he was a troll, but he actually thinks he is right.

the-jobster
Jul 18, 2012, 12:44 PM
lol! cool judge! I wonder if Samsung will sue Apple for copying if they indeed release a :apple:TV using this innovative design involving a screen and a bezel :D

RoboCop001
Jul 18, 2012, 12:44 PM
Hahaha, that's hilarious.

New commercial:

Regular guy:
So I was looking at some tablets...

cut to: Regular girl:
... and I was just so overwhelmed... I couldnt tell which one was an ipad!

Cut to random kid:
They all look the same, mummy!!

Apple Guy walks in, holding ipad, white background:
Hahah, not quite, little Billy! You see, all tablets look very different according to a ruling last month. But iPads were ruled to be the coolest! Here you go!

kid: Yay!

End screen with "iPad"

Super fast Announcer: ipad was ruled coolest in 27 countries, "coolest" is a registered trademark of Apple inc.

AR999
Jul 18, 2012, 12:44 PM
And I suspect that Apple will appeal on such grounds. They will probably dig around in the laws and found that there is none that gives the judge the right to make such a demand, particularly since at no point did Apple ever have claims that Samsung did copy up on their site (so they aren't being forced to 'right' some libelous claim they published) and appeal saying the Judge is overstepping his authority. And they will likely win.

Certainly at the least they will start by appealing to delay any deadline to publish until they have exhausted appeals in the actual court case.

Just lol,

Given hes the judge I think he might be familiar with what the law is.

jmgregory1
Jul 18, 2012, 12:45 PM
This won't hold up - Apple did not, that I've ever seen, advertise that Samsung was copying the design of the iPad. So then asking them to advertise that Samsung did not copy their design is going WAY too far. This is akin to public humiliation and Apple has only been fighting the patent battle in court, not in the court of public opinion.

Bubba Satori
Jul 18, 2012, 12:45 PM
Image (http://www.subarusvx.com/applesamsung.jpg)

My $70 Falken tires look exactly the same as $300 Pirelli gumballs.

Next.

rjohnstone
Jul 18, 2012, 12:45 PM
...I think the devices with the touchwiz interface should not be able to be sold, but the rest I think are fine..
Why?
TouchWiz looks nothing like iOS.

The App drawer view that everyone complains about, simply puts all the apps in an alphabetical listing in a grid format. Apple doesn't own this nor did they invent this concept.
You can't change the order or location of any icon or app in the app drawer, so there is no functionality to infringe from iOS.

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 12:46 PM
That's not libel. Apple said they copied. The judge never said they didn't. He said it wasn't close enough to violate their patents. Samsung did copy Apple's designs. They simply didn't do it well enough to be legally liable.

jW

I like when people try to bend so much reality that the claims became totally nonsense.

ekdor
Jul 18, 2012, 12:48 PM
Nice tidy pay check for the judge then... **** samsung

jontech
Jul 18, 2012, 12:48 PM
Apple would like to offer our sincere apologies to our Samsung friends in Korea. As a gesture of good will, we are offering a $10 coupon (15000 Won) off any new iPad for Samsung engineers.

caddisfly
Jul 18, 2012, 12:48 PM
Apple has been doing a lot of libel in their cases against Samsung though. They have been accusing them of "blatant copying" in the press. Would you rather they pay damages ? If anything, this is a slap on the wrist type punishement, and only applies in the UK.

no, Apple hasn't commited libel...libel is legal finding of a court with a series of specific findings of fact and intent you have to prove. If Samsung thinks it is libel, then they need to bring a case;

and, if you follow this judges ruling, if they don't prove their case, Samsung should publish on their website for 6 months that Apple was not guilty of libel.

this judge is ridiculous! Just imagine if we followed this logic around the nut-jobs who made claims around Obamacare being unconstitutional, etc now that the Supreme Ct has found otherwise.

fr33 loader
Jul 18, 2012, 12:48 PM
I REALLY think that it looks like the iPad on the front. I saw one with Samsungs tablet in McDonalds and damn, i had to walk over there and pretend i did something else to see if it was an iPad or not. (He had a case that looked like the iPad)

You walked all the way there to investigate? Pretending at that!
Youre hilarious!!!

Who cares what the other person is using? Go get your own so you want have time checking other peoples tablet. Or just focus on your BigMac. Lol

charlituna
Jul 18, 2012, 12:48 PM
Gee...

http://obamapacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ipad-2-Keynote-031.jpg

Ask for somethuing harder next time. Tim Cook and Steve Jobs have been on record in many interviews about "copying" while responding to questions about the lawsuits.



You agree with Apple on something you say they never said... interesting.

And while you and Apple may agree, it seems the judge in this case doesn't.

None of which has been proven as libel. Or even sued for as libel. It's as if the companies know they were copying but were hoping they could still get away with it legally. Which is why they hadn't bothered to sue cause it's not false.

Now if Samsung etc sue for libel and win the case then this notice might be more logical. But saying that Apple needs to make good on being caught making libelous claims when they haven't actually been found guilty in a court of law is a stretch. Especially when the 'victims' haven't even made the accusation

MacCassem
Jul 18, 2012, 12:48 PM
Judges are supposed to be wise and impartial. I think this particular British judge is just the opposite.

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 12:48 PM
The judge said that Apple didn't have the right to damages from it.

False, the judge said that Samsung didn't copy the iPad design

aerok
Jul 18, 2012, 12:49 PM
Thanks Ziggy! Sometimes you need an info graphic. Love it.

Here are more pics :rolleyes:

http://gdeluxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20111004-034552.jpg

kdarling
Jul 18, 2012, 12:50 PM
Perhaps the judge read about how Apple sent threatening letters to retailers the moment they won the Tab injunction in the USA...

... and decided that if Apple likes to do that when they win, perhaps they should do something similar but opposite when they lose.

uknowimright
Jul 18, 2012, 12:52 PM
hahahaha that's great

also Knight is more often right than wrong, it's just that the RFD is quite strong in some of you, don't know why you care so much for a company that's just out to nickel and dime you (as pretty much all corps do)

Dr McKay
Jul 18, 2012, 12:52 PM
You know what's hilarious? In the UK, someone can accuse someone else of rape and the accused person's name is splashed ALL OVER the papers, but if the charges are found to be a total lie, the accuser is still unable to be identified. Yet here, the judge is making Apple go and publish a notice saying Samsung didn't copy their trade secrets because the final product was essentially too ugly? What a country. :eek:

Did you just compare crying rape to the iPad/Galaxy Tab lawsuit? And you phrase that like America is perfect...

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 12:53 PM
And I suspect that Apple will appeal on such grounds. They will probably dig around in the laws and found that there is none that gives the judge the right to make such a demand, particularly since at no point did Apple ever have claims that Samsung did copy up on their site (so they aren't being forced to 'right' some libelous claim they published) and appeal saying the Judge is overstepping his authority

And you're so sure that the judge can't rule this because you're an UK IP expert, don't you?


Here in Spain is very common that the loser of a trial have to public show the results of the trial, being a TV, a radio, a newspaper or any bussiness

----------

Judges are supposed to be wise and impartial. I think this particular British judge is just the opposite.

Exactly why he is not wise and impartial?

bushido
Jul 18, 2012, 12:55 PM
Before the iPad, tablets sucked.
After the iPad, everyone well... er... copied the iPad.

Image (http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/tablets-before-and-after-ipad.jpg?w=499&h=700)

u have to take into account that those tablets came out way before and the tech simply wasn't ready. apple was just smart enough to wait til the hardware requirements were there/possible

just take a look at those early iPad prototype drawings

---

back on topic, that ruling is hilarious

gatearray
Jul 18, 2012, 12:56 PM
Here are more pics :rolleyes:

Image (http://gdeluxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20111004-034552.jpg)

those pre-iPad tablets need more buttons, styli, and other sundry doodads. :)

Zaim2
Jul 18, 2012, 12:56 PM
http://i.imgur.com/Rg8SF.jpg

pacalis
Jul 18, 2012, 12:57 PM
You are correct, they are parts. But getting confused a little about the technology part. MB gives the specs to Hyundai, so they are MBs technology. Hyundai having the specs, changes it a little and puts it`s own brand with using all the research done by MB for years to come up with those specs.

While your generic process is fine it is unlikely that this is really the issue. Samsung is not accused of copying the chipsets that it manufactures for Apple, which is the main area where the above scenario might take place.

Also, Samsung bests Apple on specs.

Sooner or later, people are going to have to realize that Samsung is not a low cost producer (it manufactures Apple's A5 chipset in Texas). It is instead arguably the most technologically advanced firm in a multitude of technologies that are needed to build smartphones.

Rogifan
Jul 18, 2012, 12:57 PM
Perhaps the judge read about how Apple sent threatening letters to retailers the moment they won the Tab injunction in the USA...

... and decided that if Apple likes to do that when they win, perhaps they should do something similar but opposite when they lose.
When did Apple ask that retailers or other companies put up a message on their website referring to Apple? The judge mentions "damaging impression". What is he basing that on? I'll bet the average Joe doesn't even know Apple sued Samsung. The only people who care (or get worked up about this stuff) are tech bloggers and the junkies who frequent their sites.

pacalis
Jul 18, 2012, 12:57 PM
Image (http://i.imgur.com/Rg8SF.jpg)

Haha nice.

ZZ Bottom
Jul 18, 2012, 12:57 PM
Is public shaming of the plaintiff typical in UK courts?

shartypants
Jul 18, 2012, 12:58 PM
Lame

Simplicated
Jul 18, 2012, 12:58 PM
My mum was watching a tablet commercial earlier today. She said the tablet in the commercial looked like an iPad, and asked if it was a Samsung Galaxy Tab.

Except, it was an iPad commercial...

I wish macrumors would bring back the vote down button.

Luckily they still have the Ignore List

aperantos
Jul 18, 2012, 12:58 PM
I do not know if I am more amazed at how many British intellectual property lawyers there are posting on this site, or how few here can tell the difference between a functionary legal notice and an eye catching advertisement.

lilo777
Jul 18, 2012, 12:59 PM
Is this judge actually serious ?

Why not have Apple hire someone to walk around in front of Apple Stores with a sign that says the same thing. That's just as stupid as this "ruling"

I think your suggestion is pretty good. It would be an appropriate punishment for Apple liars.

throys
Jul 18, 2012, 01:00 PM
Before the iPad, tablets sucked.
After the iPad, everyone well... er... copied the iPad.

Image (http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/tablets-before-and-after-ipad.jpg?w=499&h=700)

LMFAO .... :D but your right, so true

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:00 PM
I thought chinese companies were bad at copying, korean companies are worse.

This x 1000

entatlrg
Jul 18, 2012, 01:00 PM
Samsung must somehow own that judge.

Mad-B-One
Jul 18, 2012, 01:00 PM
Nice tidy pay check for the judge then... F samsung

Samsung must somehow own that judge.

How did you come up with this conclusion? Judges are only elected (by general election) in the USA. In other countries, there are no campaigns and therefore what you accuse here is bribary. Really? Sounds like Fanboy to me. So, if someone comes to a different conclusion than you in judgement, they have to be bribed?

PS: I'm not saying the judge is right, but I will not agree on him being something else than independent and impartial on the case.

ristlin
Jul 18, 2012, 01:01 PM
I like when people try to bend so much reality that the claims became totally nonsense.

Libel statements imply false statements that are damaging to a reputation. Apple accusing Samsung of copying (in Apple's position) is a true statement, albeit damaging. If the court sides with Apple, then they aren't guilty of libel. If they don't side with Apple, they are are guilty of libel. The onus is on Apple to prove that they made a true statement (since Samsung has and will continue to hold the position that they did not copy).

I wouldn't have thought that accusing another company as copying would be a tough case to prove, but dang was I wrong.

Example of a bad case:
Person A goes to press and calls Person B "a ****"

The case goes to court. Person B demands the court to define what it means to "be a ****" and goes on to show that there is no real "number" to warrant the label. Person A can only present evidence of "multiple relations" but cannot counter the fact that being "a ****" has no real measure. Person A loses.


Example of a solid case:
Person A goes to press and calls Person B "a liar"

The case goes to court. Person A shows that Person B said X when in fact Y happened, proving that Person B lied. Person A wins, continues to go to press calling Person B a liar.

lilo777
Jul 18, 2012, 01:02 PM
Samsung must somehow own that judge.

It also appears that they own all judges except for the judge Lucy who happens to be the judge from the Northern District of California. She'll get around too after her rulings get overturned.

Keebler
Jul 18, 2012, 01:04 PM
I think it's splitting hairs about whether or not they copied it - some folks say they did (I'm one of them) and some say not.

But regardless, I can't understand how a judge can force a company to put a notice on their website? Or even post notices in the newspaper? Usually it's a fine. Am I crazy thinking this has never happened before in any industry?

A few things:

1. Apple will indeed be creative with this no doubt. Or maybe they won't with the initial one, but I'd be surprised if they didn't follow up with different ad the weeks/months after.

2. I believe SJ would be going thermonuclear with this decision - re: someone telling them/him what to do.

3. How closely is Samsung watching this decision regarding other countries in which Apple has blocked or is trying to block Samsung?

Cheers,
Keebler

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:04 PM
Did they have to ? The Judge issued a ruling. He may know a thing or two about UK law in these matters.

Judges know what they're doing when Apple loses these cases but do not when Apple wins. Got it.

uknowimright
Jul 18, 2012, 01:06 PM
let me guess Motorola and HTC are also paying off judges :rolleyes:

ristlin
Jul 18, 2012, 01:06 PM
My mum was watching a tablet commercial earlier today. She said the tablet in the commercial looked like an iPad, and asked if it was a Samsung Galaxy Tab.

Except, it was an iPad commercial...



Luckily they still have the Ignore List

Apple copied Samsung, duh.

bushido
Jul 18, 2012, 01:06 PM
well the judge is actually right if u think about the whole case (ignore who copied who for a second)

apple called them a liar but they lost in court, now they called someone a liar who is free of its charges. so its damaging to samsungs image

thats like calling a woman a bi*** who was proven to be a housewife. now everyone goes on still thinking shes a b**** even though the court ruled that shes just a housewife. its perfectly reasonable to ask from the accuser to make a statement (like an excuse) to make sure everyone knows shes not really a b'***

sry for my english ^^

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:07 PM
No. It is more like this. Mercedes-Benz comes up with a design using parts sourced from Hyundai and then accuses Hyundai of stealing it's own technology.

When are the misinformed going to realize that Samsung putting together commoditized parts is akin to fabricating door handles for a car that they didn't even design themselves? Samsung is not doing anything that Apple can't have done for them elsewhere.

ristlin
Jul 18, 2012, 01:08 PM
Judges know what they're doing when Apple loses these cases but do not when Apple wins. Got it.

Sums up Knight's position quite nicely.

uknowimright
Jul 18, 2012, 01:10 PM
Sums up Knight's position quite nicely.

Knight is pretty neutral, he just calls out ********

Nevzorus
Jul 18, 2012, 01:13 PM
You walked all the way there to investigate? Pretending at that!
Youre hilarious!!!

Who cares what the other person is using? Go get your own so you want have time checking other peoples tablet. Or just focus on your BigMac. Lol

Haha, it really is rare in my city to see someone with a tablet so i just had to. :)

I don't care, i just think it's fun to know? I will get my own soon, but that won't make me stop looking at what other people use. It's interesting to see how technology is such a normal thing and how much people use it. Btw, i live in Sweden.

SBlue1
Jul 18, 2012, 01:13 PM
This guy is funny! :cool:

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 01:13 PM
Libel statements imply false statements that are damaging to a reputation. Apple accusing Samsung of copying (in Apple's position) is a true statement, albeit damaging. If the court sides with Apple, then they aren't guilty of libel. If they don't side with Apple, they are are guilty of libel. The onus is on Apple to prove that they made a true statement (since Samsung has and will continue to hold the position that they did not copy).

I wouldn't have thought that accusing another company as copying would be a tough case to prove, but dang was I wrong.

Example of a bad case:
Person A goes to press and calls Person B "a ****"

The case goes to court. Person B demands the court to define what it means to "be a ****" and goes on to show that there is no real "number" to warrant the label. Person A can only present evidence of "multiple relations" but cannot counter the fact that being "a ****" has no real measure. Person A loses.


Example of a solid case:
Person A goes to press and calls Person B "a liar"

The case goes to court. Person A shows that Person B said X when in fact Y happened, proving that Person B lied. Person A wins, continues to go to press calling Person B a liar.

And this has to do with my response with the op exactly how?

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:14 PM
False, the judge said that Samsung didn't copy the iPad design

According to the UK law...that's all a judge can do. Even if he believes that, personally, they copied it.

PsudoPowerPoint
Jul 18, 2012, 01:15 PM
I hope Apple's advertisements says something like

"It's official, the judge has ruled that the Galaxy Tab is 'not as cool' as the iPad. So while the Galaxy Tab may look a like a copy, it's no iPad."

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 01:15 PM
But regardless, I can't understand how a judge can force a company to put a notice on their website? Or even post notices in the newspaper? Usually it's a fine. Am I crazy thinking this has never happened before in any industry?


Well, here in Spain is not uncommon


According to the UK law...that's all a judge can do. Even if he believes that, personally, they copied it.

A UK judge can't rule that some company infringes the IP of another?

esp211
Jul 18, 2012, 01:16 PM
The judge must be Samsung or Google's shill. I can understand why Apple wants to protect its IP and designs especially since Erik Schmidt stole the entire iOS concept while serving on the board. I can also understand why Samsung and everyone else wants to copy a product that is extremely successful. But companies and people in general, have been copying each other since the beginning of time. At this point, I'd much rather see Apple focus its energy and resources on coming out with more brilliant products instead of protecting yesterday's ideas. Anyway, all the tablets I see everywhere are iPads and the reported numbers quarter after quarter prove this. Everyone wants an iPad, not some weak copy from Samsung or anyone else.

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 01:18 PM
The judge must be Samsung or Google's shill. I can understand why Apple wants to protect its IP and designs especially since Erik Schmidt stole the entire iOS concept while serving on the board.


Do you really believe this crap?

:confused::confused::confused:

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:18 PM
While your generic process is fine it is unlikely that this is really the issue. Samsung is not accused of copying the chipsets that it manufactures for Apple, which is the main area where the above scenario might take place.

Also, Samsung bests Apple on specs.

Sooner or later, people are going to have to realize that Samsung is not a low cost producer (it manufactures Apple's A5 chipset in Texas). It is instead arguably the most technologically advanced firm in a multitude of technologies that are needed to build smartphones.

They are only "technologically advanced" in fabricating parts. Next to nothing they make is advanced by Samsung, and I have no idea where you're pulling this nonsense from. Specs are also relative, Samsung will take specs over quality and cut corners to make up for it...

lilo777
Jul 18, 2012, 01:18 PM
The judge must be Samsung or Google's shill. I can understand why Apple wants to protect its IP and designs especially since Erik Schmidt stole the entire iOS concept while serving on the board. I can also understand why Samsung and everyone else wants to copy a product that is extremely successful. But companies and people in general, have been copying each other since the beginning of time. At this point, I'd much rather see Apple focus its energy and resources on coming out with more brilliant products instead of protecting yesterday's ideas. Anyway, all the tablets I see everywhere are iPads and the reported numbers quarter after quarter prove this. Everyone wants an iPad, not some weak copy from Samsung or anyone else.

And you are still repeating Apple lies about Samsung copying their products. Is not it ironic?

Mattie Num Nums
Jul 18, 2012, 01:19 PM
Reminds me of the 90's when Macs looked like PC's.

adztaylor
Jul 18, 2012, 01:20 PM
The judge must be Samsung or Google's shill...

I stopped reading there, what rubbish.

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:20 PM
A UK judge can't rule that some company infringes the IP of another?

He can only make a ruling within the law. Even if his own personal beliefs differ with the law. It's quite obvious that Samsung copied something here, if you don't believe that you have to be on some very hard drugs. They simply copied little enough to get away with it.

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 01:21 PM
They are only "technologically advanced" in fabricating parts. Next to nothing they make is advanced by Samsung

Good joke, because you're joking, don't you?

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:22 PM
And you are still repeating Apple lies about Samsung copying their products. Is not it ironic?

Perhaps you haven't actually looked at what Samsung has done? Please, explain to me how Apple's own iOS icons ended up on Samsung's Galaxy Tab marketing materials and booths if they were not directly copying? If you can answer this, I may never speak of this matter again...but I'm sure you cannot, because Samsung is well known for copying and this goes back over 20 years.

2bikes
Jul 18, 2012, 01:22 PM
While your generic process is fine it is unlikely that this is really the issue. Samsung is not accused of copying the chipsets that it manufactures for Apple, which is the main area where the above scenario might take place.

Also, Samsung bests Apple on specs.

Sooner or later, people are going to have to realize that Samsung is not a low cost producer (it manufactures Apple's A5 chipset in Texas). It is instead arguably the most technologically advanced firm in a multitude of technologies that are needed to build smartphones.

Now you are getting me confused. Didn't you imply Apple was using Samsung`s technology by using them as a manufacturer? And now you say Samsung is not accused of copying the chipset? Can you explain?

Also, Specs don't mean anything. It is the experience. Hyundai might have a bigger and stronger engine on the specs, but if the engine blows up while driving or if the shaft that transfers the power to the wheels is weak, specs mean nothing.

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:23 PM
Good joke, because you're joking, don't you?

Name one technological advancement Samsung has made aside from fabrication. Or is that all you got?

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 01:23 PM
He can only make a ruling within the law. Even if his own personal beliefs differ with the law. It's quite obvious that Samsung copied something here, if you don't believe that you have to be on some very hard drugs. They simply copied little enough to get away with it.

When it is clear for everyone that you're totally wrong and you have no arguments do you insult people?

Sometimes I think that some of you are paid by Apple's competition to try to make Apple product owners foolish

esp211
Jul 18, 2012, 01:23 PM
Do you really believe this crap?

:confused::confused::confused:

The timing of Android transformation and Schimid's service on Apple board is impeccable. Believe what you want, I don't really care.

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 01:24 PM
Name one technological advancement Samsung has made aside from fabrication. Or is that all you got?

I don't waste the time with people like you

markie
Jul 18, 2012, 01:24 PM
Exactly.
Same goes for iPhone.

Competition is good. Copying is bad.

Except the iPhone itself is a copy of a Korean phone (since one person bashed Korean companies for copying):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/LG_KE850_Prada_Hauptmen%C3%BC.jpg/200px-LG_KE850_Prada_Hauptmen%C3%BC.jpg

And before you say "but the Prada wasn't a true smartphone" - the iPhone wasn't a smartphone when it first came out either.

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:24 PM
Now you are getting me confused. Didn't you imply Apple was using Samsung`s technology by using them as a manufacturer? And now you say Samsung is not accused of copying the chipset? Can you explain?

Also, Specs don't mean anything. It is the experience. Hyundai might have a bigger and stronger engine on the specs, but if the engine blows up while driving or if the shaft that transfers the power to the wheels is weak, specs mean nothing.

Samsung knows what Apple is creating long before the market sees it. Not that I believe Samsung is leveraging that to copy Apple's products, as it would result in some even more serious cases. It's interesting though that Samsung has deleted tons of internal emails before submitting evidence to the court.

uknowimright
Jul 18, 2012, 01:24 PM
Perhaps you haven't actually looked at what Samsung has done? Please, explain to me how Apple's own iOS icons ended up on Samsung's Galaxy Tab marketing materials and booths if they were not directly copying? If you can answer this, I may never speak of this matter again...but I'm sure you cannot, because Samsung is well known for copying and this goes back over 20 years.

the booth was inside of a store that sells electronics and mobile devices, the icons were on the store's wall not on the booth

next

esp211
Jul 18, 2012, 01:25 PM
And you are still repeating Apple lies about Samsung copying their products. Is not it ironic?

Hmmm let's see. Who was the main supplier for the original iPad build?

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:25 PM
Except the iPhone itself is a copy of a Korean phone (since one person bashed Korean companies for copying):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/LG_KE850_Prada_Hauptmen%C3%BC.jpg/200px-LG_KE850_Prada_Hauptmen%C3%BC.jpg

And before you say "but the Prada wasn't a true smartphone" - the iPhone wasn't a smartphone when it first came out either.

The iPhone was designed well before the Prada was even revealed. Try again.

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 01:25 PM
The timing of Android transformation and Schimid's service on Apple board is impeccable. Believe what you want, I don't really care.

What Android transformation? I like when people still accuses Schmidt when even Jobs never ever accused him of wrongdoing.

It is amusing

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:26 PM
I don't waste the time with people like you

So you have nothing...exactly. I work in this industry btw, if you don't waste time talking to people like me it would explain your weak position.

Boston007
Jul 18, 2012, 01:26 PM
Ridiculous.

Your comment is.

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:28 PM
the booth was inside of a store that sells electronics and mobile devices, the icons were on the store's wall no on the booth

next

Interesting, that's a good explanation, I'll take it. Next: Gorilla Glass? Black bezel/silver body? Green phone icon? Samsung Omnia was the first of these copycat devices, explain away.

Mattie Num Nums
Jul 18, 2012, 01:28 PM
The iPhone was designed well before the Prada was even revealed. Try again.

The Prada phone didn't just come out of thin air... common sense my friend.

lilo777
Jul 18, 2012, 01:29 PM
Name one technological advancement Samsung has made aside from fabrication. Or is that all you got?

Are you aware that Samsung has order of magnitude more patents than Apple? How is that for innovation?

esp211
Jul 18, 2012, 01:29 PM
What Android transformation? I like when people still accuses Schmidt when even Jobs never ever accused him of wrongdoing.

It is amusing

Uh when Android phones resembled then dominant mobile phone company known as RIM? It seems like you just want to believe what you want to believe without any regard to things that are published and reported so carry on.

gkpm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:30 PM
What Android transformation? I like when people still accuses Schmidt when even Jobs never ever accused him of wrongdoing.

It is amusing

It is amusing that somehow you think you know everything Jobs has said to everyone, but yet even today more stuff (like the Yelp talks) that he said comes out, which no one knew about.

KnightWRX
Jul 18, 2012, 01:30 PM
Judges know what they're doing when Apple loses these cases but do not when Apple wins. Got it.

Uh ? No, when Apple wins, judges know what they are doing. The difference is, Apple has yet to win anything but preliminary rulings where cases have yet to go to trial or even through discovery, they've lost in actual summary judgements though.

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:30 PM
The Prada phone didn't just come out of thin air... common sense my friend.

It is not common sense to assume that Apple stole the Prada's design - which itself changed during the iPhone's development. Perhaps it was the other way around? Is that common sense too? Nonsense.

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 01:30 PM
Uh when Android phones resembled then dominant mobile phone company known as RIM? It seems like you just want to believe what you want to believe without any regard to things that are published and reported so carry on.

The one that wants to believe what wants to believe is you. There were TWO Android prototypes, the WM esque and the touch only prototypes.

Android has been hardware agnostic from the start and today is still hardware agnostic

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:31 PM
Are you aware that Samsung has order of magnitude more patents than Apple? How is that for innovation?

That could be called acquisition among many other things. Are patents now innovation? Is it ok now to assume that the patent system works (I'm assuming you think it does not).

bushido
Jul 18, 2012, 01:32 PM
Interesting, that's a good explanation, I'll take it. Next: Gorilla Glass? Black bezel/silver body? Green phone icon? Samsung Omnia was the first of these copycat devices, explain away.

the phone icon has ALWAYS been green, even on my first siemens phone with a colored display

and gorilla glass is from a different company all together, so only apple should be allowed to use it? how is that good for the customer exactly?

Sensation
Jul 18, 2012, 01:33 PM
This in incredible news, Apple fail once again.

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:33 PM
Uh ? No, when Apple wins, judges know what they are doing. The difference is, Apple has yet to win anything but preliminary rulings where cases have yet to go to trial or even through discovery, they've lost in actual summary judgements though.

Do you agree that judges merely follow the boundaries of the law? That whether they decide one way or the other that there is more than just a fleeting chance that Samsung actually has done something disingenuous that has these Apple fans pissed off?

KdParker
Jul 18, 2012, 01:33 PM
If that is the most libelous thing you can cite I think you're still incorrect. I think you need to work a little harder. Not to mention that a single slide in a keynote is hardly equatable to six months of advertising a competitor's product on a website.

He is working hard enough to show he supports judges so and so's ruling.

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 01:33 PM
It is amusing that somehow you think you know everything Jobs has said to everyone, but yet even today more stuff (like the Yelp talks) that he said comes out, which no one knew about.

Yes, amusing, because the claims made by the OP against Schmidt imply ILLEGAL doing.

Yap, amusing that if Jobs or the Apple board thought that Schmidt had done industrial theft they wouldn't say anything.

But heim think what you want

cmwade77
Jul 18, 2012, 01:34 PM
I say they simply quote the judge and say that Smasung didn't copy their design because "it's not as cool as the iPad".

iEvolution
Jul 18, 2012, 01:34 PM
Name one technological advancement Samsung has made aside from fabrication. Or is that all you got?

They are no less of a technological leader than Apple is, name one technological advancement that Apple has made aside from fabrication.

Touch screen - before Apple
Tablets - before Apple
Computers - before Apple
Smart phones - before Apple
MP3 players - before Apple

Sorry but Apple hasn't revolutionized anything and much like Samsung they've just had good marketing.

Samsung is the leader in TVs/flash memory/smart phones markets. So if you're going to base technological advancements on sales then they are just as qualified as Apple.

I hate Samsung but don't undercut them just because you don't like them, the fact is they are a successful company and a leader in the industry.

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 01:34 PM
So you have nothing...exactly. I work in this industry btw, if you don't waste time talking to people like me it would explain your weak position.

No, I don't waste the time with so biased people like you that insult when you're wrong. I don't waste the time with trolls

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:35 PM
the phone icon has ALWAYS been green, even on my first siemens phone with a colored display

and gorilla glass is from a different company all together, so only apple should be allowed to use it? how is that good for the customer exactly?

I didn't say that only Apple should be able to use it - it's the sudden shift to use all of the exact same parts and icons as the iPhone...including packaging and marketing...Gorilla Glass is just one example.

KnightWRX
Jul 18, 2012, 01:35 PM
It is not common sense to assume that Apple stole the Prada's design - which itself changed during the iPhone's development. Perhaps it was the other way around? Is that common sense too? Nonsense.

Common sense says the form factor has existed for quite a while, Palm having used it in the late 90s ("candy bar" PDA type device). Neither Apple nor anyone else "copied" it, just like every flip phone out there isn't a copy of one another.

It's a form factor, you use it. That is all.

Apple just happens to have been one of the first models to sell a lot of units of said form factor, making it one of the most desirable to consumers who until then had wanted Blackberry type devices or flip phones. Now they want candy bar, who knows what's next.

----------

I didn't say that only Apple should be able to use it - it's the sudden shift to use all of the exact same parts and icons as the iPhone...including packaging and marketing...Gorilla Glass is just one example.

Apple has only acknowledged this year that they are a Corning's partner.

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:36 PM
No, I don't waste the time with so biased people like you that insult when you're wrong. I don't waste the time with trolls

Biased in what way? That I disagree with you bashing senselessly without anything to back it up? Insult? Where did I insult? You seem to have taken the time to comment when all you could do was insult but now I ask for something to back up what you've said and you don't comment. That sounds like some major BS to me...

Blueflame1138
Jul 18, 2012, 01:36 PM
Here's some free copy for Apple

iPad
You can't copy cool

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:37 PM
Apple has only acknowledged this year that they are a Corning's partner.

Yet they were Corning's partner since 2007...do you think Samsung didn't know this? I knew this.

Funkymonk
Jul 18, 2012, 01:37 PM
behave childish, get treated like one.

tninety
Jul 18, 2012, 01:38 PM
The iPhone was designed well before the Prada was even revealed. Try again.

Have you considered when the Prada was designed then? Are you dense? :rolleyes:

Apple wasn't the first to think of a touch screen phone, it was the first one to market one very successfully.

KnightWRX
Jul 18, 2012, 01:38 PM
Do you agree that judges merely follow the boundaries of the law? That whether they decide one way or the other that there is more than just a fleeting chance that Samsung actually has done something disingenuous that has these Apple fans pissed off?

Apple fans get pissed off as soon as Apple gets pissed off or a rumor of Apple being pissed off gets out there, it has nothing to do with chances of any wrongdoing by anybody, or even of any actual "pissing off" of Apple actually.

Just look at all the vitriol against Eric Schmidt when even Apple and Steve Jobs only had glowing praises for the guy when he left, and they are the ones who invited him on the board 1 year after Google's acquisition of Andy Rubin's company.

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:39 PM
behave childish, get treated like one.

Steal ideas, profit.

KnightWRX
Jul 18, 2012, 01:39 PM
Yet they were Corning's partner since 2007...do you think Samsung didn't know this? I knew this.

You didn't, it was always a rumor.

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:40 PM
Have you considered when the Prada was designed then? Are you dense? :rolleyes:

Apple wasn't the first to think of a touch screen phone, it was the first one to market one very successfully.

I have considered when Prada was designed as I've seen both the prototype and the final build. Asking if I'm dense is just as much an insult as calling me dense...

I owned 5 touch screen phones before the iPhone came out - thanks for letting me know that!

GadgetDon
Jul 18, 2012, 01:41 PM
Just read on another article that the notice is to say that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's design (which is a far different thing from "did not copy") and that the notice must explain the legal decision. Furthermore, Samsung asked the judge to keep Apple and it's officers from making public statements that the Galaxy infringed on Apple's design, and the judge turned them down, saying the judge had the right to their opinion.

So, a lot more reasonable than the first reporting suggested. The notice on the website still seems a bit much, but if it's something that can be added to, say, the terms of service page, not terrible there either.

And it does seem like the judge wasn't saying Apple had libeled Samsung after all, or he would have enjoined Apple from public statements.

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:41 PM
You didn't, it was always a rumor.

It was not a rumor to everyone - and you can bet Samsung is one of them.

lilo777
Jul 18, 2012, 01:41 PM
That could be called acquisition among many other things. Are patents now innovation? Is it ok now to assume that the patent system works (I'm assuming you think it does not).

Patent system does not work for software and, unlike Apple patents, most Samsung patents are hardware patents. Apple acquired way more patents than Samsung. Remember that infamous auction for Nortel patents?

2bikes
Jul 18, 2012, 01:41 PM
Samsung knows what Apple is creating long before the market sees it. Not that I believe Samsung is leveraging that to copy Apple's products, as it would result in some even more serious cases. It's interesting though that Samsung has deleted tons of internal emails before submitting evidence to the court.

That is one of the reasons why Apple is trying to eliminate Samsung as a supplier.

LordVic
Jul 18, 2012, 01:42 PM
Interesting, that's a good explanation, I'll take it. Next: Gorilla Glass? Black bezel/silver body? Green phone icon? Samsung Omnia was the first of these copycat devices, explain away.

you're joking right?

Green phone icon has been the iconic icon and colour of making a call on a cell since well. Day 1.

Gorilla glass is not an apple invention nor innovation. IT was invented, and is a fully owned product of Corning. Its use is up for sale to whomever wishes to pay Corning the rights to use it. Including Apple. Just because apple refuses to aknowledge that the glass used in their devices isn't of their own invention doesn't make it any less so. Apple had been passing off gorilla glass as their own for years, doesn't make it true


this just leaves your entire basis for argument over aesthetics like "black bezels and silver body".

again, the judge in the UK case ruled that Apple didnt own the patent on those because of prior art. 50+ cases were sited in the ruling that lead to this decision.

So are all tablets and phones that use a black bezel with silver or metal finish infringing? It's too simple a design element to patent.

aerok
Jul 18, 2012, 01:42 PM
Interesting, that's a good explanation, I'll take it. Next: Gorilla Glass? Black bezel/silver body? Green phone icon? Samsung Omnia was the first of these copycat devices, explain away.

Gorilla Glass is not Apple, green phone icon comes from green send button and has been the norm since first color screen phones.

Black bezel/silver body?
Samsung i750, announced in 2005
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i750-1125.php

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:43 PM
Apple fans get pissed off as soon as Apple gets pissed off or a rumor of Apple being pissed off gets out there, it has nothing to do with chances of any wrongdoing by anybody, or even of any actual "pissing off" of Apple actually.

Just look at all the vitriol against Eric Schmidt when even Apple and Steve Jobs only had glowing praises for the guy when he left, and they are the ones who invited him on the board 1 year after Google's acquisition of Andy Rubin's company.

Yet it appears that Apple fans were correct in seeing though the PR as Jobs obviously felt the same way they did.

samcraig
Jul 18, 2012, 01:43 PM
Lol I bet Apple will include that 'not as cool as iPad' somewhere in their mandatory notice..

And they can legally prove it's true... I don't see why they wouldn't want to point that out :)

They cant legally prove anything. The word of anyone - even a judge doesn't prove gadget is cool. It's even more ridiculous to think it's "legal" since it was never part of the actual ruling.

And I imagine - if this holds up - they will be required to issue a statement on their website that conforms to some standard/approval of the court. Which I would think wouldn't allow for snarky comments about Samsung not being "as cool.

But good luck with that.

Rot'nApple
Jul 18, 2012, 01:43 PM
If those are the only two stipulations the British Judge issued with no further guidance, well, Apple should have a little fun poking Samsung and the Judge this way, for web have image of iPad came first, give date, have it dissolve into image of Samsung tablet, give date, then have it dissolve and then text comes up saying, "Samsung didn't copy Apple's iPad. Huh? You be the Judge!" Something similar for papers.

harley3k
Jul 18, 2012, 01:43 PM
The judge also ordered Apple to be Samsung's butler.

Mr. Gates
Jul 18, 2012, 01:44 PM
YESSSSSS !

Now go sit in the corner Apple. And think about why being a bully is wrong.

Portaluk
Jul 18, 2012, 01:45 PM
When did Apple ask that retailers or other companies put up a message on their website referring to Apple? The judge mentions "damaging impression". What is he basing that on? I'll bet the average Joe doesn't even know Apple sued Samsung. The only people who care (or get worked up about this stuff) are tech bloggers and the junkies who frequent their sites.

At the time of writing this "apple ordered to run samsung ads" is the second most popular read story on the BBC news site.

ristlin
Jul 18, 2012, 01:45 PM
And this has to do with my response with the op exactly how?

Nothing whatsoever. You were caught in the crossfire, so to speak.

JohnDoe98
Jul 18, 2012, 01:45 PM
Gorilla glass is from a different company all together, so only apple should be allowed to use it? how is that good for the customer exactly?

The question isn't if others are allowed to use it, the question is who copied who. Prior to Jobs' deal with Corning in 2006, the Gorilla Glass had been unused in any portable electronic device. It was developed in the 60s and used in only two different racing car models. Apple brought Gorilla Glass to the market, and then everyone jumped on it. If that's not a clear cut case of copying I don't know what is.

That doesn't mean Samsung or others did anything wrong, sometimes, you need to copy to innovate, but that's quite besides the point. The post you responding to asked to show how the glass case isn't an instance of blatant copying.

samcraig
Jul 18, 2012, 01:46 PM
Interesting, that's a good explanation, I'll take it. Next: Gorilla Glass? Black bezel/silver body? Green phone icon? Samsung Omnia was the first of these copycat devices, explain away.


Right - that green phone icon is revolutionary.

http://multiply.com/mu/ditasroxas/image/tfwzPu1M25C2geluneVPoA/photos/1M/1200x1200/846/mitsubishi-mt30.jpg?et=yLl4QXQfvvXNYA1b5zNk%2Cw&nmid=0

Picture is from 2001.

REVOLUTIONARY!!!

Rodimus Prime
Jul 18, 2012, 01:46 PM
The timing of Android transformation and Schimid's service on Apple board is impeccable. Believe what you want, I don't really care.

I suggest you go look at the history.

Google bought Android in what 2003-2004ish. Before Apple even started on the iPhone.

Apple invited Schimid to join its board. Chances are because of Google's bought Android and it was known they were working on a phone OS.

Schimid stay well clear of anything Android related at Google to avoid conflict of interest and to avoid being accused of stealing (expect by Apple fanboys)
As Google got more involved in Android Schimid stopped taking parts in those votes.

Also if you think Board members really get the details of products then you have a lot to learn. They get the big picture but not the little stuff.

JohnDoe98
Jul 18, 2012, 01:47 PM
Apple has only acknowledged this year that they are a Corning's partner.

That's besides the point. Corning's glass was non-existent in the market until Apple introduced it. Apple didn't feel the need to advertise their deal with Corning whereas everyone else did, trying to take credit for the work Apple did by advertising they were using top of the line glass. That's shameless.

gkpm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:48 PM
Yap, amusing that if Jobs or the Apple board thought that Schmidt had done industrial theft they wouldn't say anything.


Eric Schmidt, being the smart political creature that he is, obviously had everything well scrutinised by legal, so a formal accusation of copying would be very hard. The first Android phones didn't even have multitouch activated, until Google figured out that Apple wouldn't be able to enforce it.

But there's at least a story out there that says

The Apple CEO "shouted" at Schmidt and "railed" at him, furious about his smartphone plans and duplicity, said our source. After all, Schmidt sat on Apple's board and was supposed to be a partner on the iPhone, providing internet services like maps.

Schmidt, enduring the abuse, visibly lost his composure; his face went "weird," said our source.

"Steve was very, very upset," Schmidt is said to have later told his companion Bohner. "My God, he was so angry."

http://gawker.com/5497193/exclusive-how-googles-eric-schmidt-lost-his-mistress-his-partner-and-steve-jobs?skyline=true&s=i

Maybe Steve Jobs just realised it wasn't a wise strategy to personally and publically attack Eric Schmidt over it.

uknowimright
Jul 18, 2012, 01:48 PM
remember when the HP w2007 came out with a black bezel and then the Cinema Displays started doing the same after that?

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:48 PM
Patent system does not work for software and, unlike Apple patents, most Samsung patents are hardware patents. Apple acquired way more patents than Samsung. Remember that infamous auction for Nortel patents?

Infamous auction? What was infamous about it? Google acted unprofessionally in a business situation and lost to all of the other players - of which Apple was only one. Was that the infamous part, that Google lost?

Samsung R&D did not come up with the ARM architecture, Gorilla Glass, Touch Screens, Wireless technology, Flash Memory, Buttons, or even Batteries in today's phones and tablets. Where did they contribute to the current devices aside from fabricating and marketing a product similar to what Apple pioneered? By pioneered I do not mean the first touch screens or the first smartphones - I mean the first combination of technologies that took a major leap into what you see today. Samsung has not even accomplished THAT yet they are in a far greater position to have.

KnightWRX
Jul 18, 2012, 01:48 PM
It was not a rumor to everyone - and you can bet Samsung is one of them.

You have no proof of this. And I'm sure Corning's doesn't consider it "copying" that they have more than 1 customer. Just like BestBuy doesn't mind you "copying" it's other customers when you buy things in their store. :rolleyes:

JohnDoe98
Jul 18, 2012, 01:48 PM
Gorilla Glass is not Apple.

Yes it is. No consumer product used Gorilla Glass before Apple.

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 01:48 PM
Nothing whatsoever. You were caught in the crossfire, so to speak.

Ah, I was confused by your answer :)

KnightWRX
Jul 18, 2012, 01:49 PM
Yet it appears that Apple fans were correct in seeing though the PR as Jobs obviously felt the same way they did.

I don't think Jobs ever said anything bad about Eric Schmidt and his time on the board. Links to sources showing otherwise ?

samcraig
Jul 18, 2012, 01:50 PM
If those are the only two stipulations the British Judge issued with no further guidance, well, Apple should have a little fun poking Samsung and the Judge this way, for web have image of iPad came first, give date, have it dissolve into image of Samsung tablet, give date, then have it dissolve and then text comes up saying, "Samsung didn't copy Apple's iPad. Huh? You be the Judge!" Something similar for papers.

You realize this notion is ridiculous, right? If the court is mandating something then they will be overseeing the content. It's not like the judgement is passed and they are "free" to say/do whatever they want.

Plus I'm pretty sure that those kinds of statements are exactly WHY the judge ruled that Apple needed to "apologize" publicly. So it would defeat the purpose.

aerok
Jul 18, 2012, 01:50 PM
The question isn't if others are allowed to use it, the question is who copied who. Prior to Jobs' deal with Corning in 2006, the Gorilla Glass had been unused in any portable electronic device. It was developed in the 60s and used in only two different racing car models. Apple brought Gorilla Glass to the market, and then everyone jumped on it. If that's not a clear cut case of copying I don't know what is.

That doesn't mean Samsung or others did anything wrong, sometimes, you need to copy to innovate, but that's quite besides the point. The post you responding to asked to show how the glass case isn't an instance of blatant copying.

So just because Apple used Gorilla glass before Samsung, that means Samsung copied Apple?

In that logic, Samsung made phones with a touchscreen way before Apple, so Apple blatently copied Samsung. Gotcha!

uknowimright
Jul 18, 2012, 01:50 PM
if Schmidt stole info how come there is no lawsuit against him?

you would think with all the thermonuclear bs Jobs was on that would be the 1st lawsuit that was filed

rendevouspoo
Jul 18, 2012, 01:51 PM
Is this judge actually serious ?

Why not have Apple hire someone to walk around in front of Apple Stores with a sign that says the same thing. That's just as stupid as this "ruling"

Well. When you slander a name with zero evidence to prove your point, there are consequences.

aerok
Jul 18, 2012, 01:51 PM
Yes it is. No consumer product used Gorilla Glass before Apple.

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:GLW

Corning is NOT Apple, has nothing to do with who used first.

Oletros
Jul 18, 2012, 01:52 PM
Eric Schmidt, being the smart political creature that he is, obviously had everything well scrutinised by legal, so a formal accusation of copying would be very hard. The first Android phones didn't even have multitouch activated, until Google figured out that Apple wouldn't be able to enforce it.

But there's at least a story out there that says



http://gawker.com/5497193/exclusive-how-googles-eric-schmidt-lost-his-mistress-his-partner-and-steve-jobs?skyline=true&s=i

Have you read the link? Because it says NOTHING about Schmidt copying or stealing nothing.

And if you believe that Jobs didn't knew anything about Android when he INVITED Schmidt to the board is because you think Jobs and the entire Apple board are stupids. And they weren't stupids

JohnDoe98
Jul 18, 2012, 01:52 PM
So just because Apple used Gorilla glass before Samsung, that means Samsung copied Apple?

In that logic, Samsung made phones with a touchscreen way before Apple, so Apple blatently copied Samsung. Gotcha!

Not quite but close. Apple did copy the mobile phone industry by introducing a mobile phone, that doesn't mean they copied Samsung specifically. They may have been influence by Nokia, Motorola, RIM, Samsung, etc.

By sharp contrast, no consumer product used Corning Glass until Apple introduced it to the market, meaning everyone copied Apple in that specific regard.

samcraig
Jul 18, 2012, 01:53 PM
Eric Schmidt, being the smart political creature that he is, obviously had everything well scrutinised by legal, so a formal accusation of copying would be very hard. The first Android phones didn't even have multitouch activated, until Google figured out that Apple wouldn't be able to enforce it.

Remember that time on MR when people confused an OS with hardware. Oh yeah. ALL THE TIME.

Iconoclysm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:53 PM
you're joking right?

Green phone icon has been the iconic icon and colour of making a call on a cell since well. Day 1.

Gorilla glass is not an apple invention nor innovation. IT was invented, and is a fully owned product of Corning. Its use is up for sale to whomever wishes to pay Corning the rights to use it. Including Apple. Just because apple refuses to aknowledge that the glass used in their devices isn't of their own invention doesn't make it any less so. Apple had been passing off gorilla glass as their own for years, doesn't make it true


this just leaves your entire basis for argument over aesthetics like "black bezels and silver body".

again, the judge in the UK case ruled that Apple didnt own the patent on those because of prior art. 50+ cases were sited in the ruling that lead to this decision.

So are all tablets and phones that use a black bezel with silver or metal finish infringing? It's too simple a design element to patent.

A green phone does not have to look exactly like the iOS icon, which is pretty blatant when you go back to 2008 and look at the Omnia.

Apple never claimed Gorilla Glass as their own, how can you even make such a statement? However, it would still be sitting on a shelf if Apple hadn't pushed for it and been successful with the iPhone...which Apple also never claimed.

You've now tried to reduce the argument by eliminating items one at a time when the argument is presented as a package, it's the whole of its parts. You'll never see the forest through the trees.

Lennholm
Jul 18, 2012, 01:53 PM
That's not libel. Apple said they copied. The judge never said they didn't. He said it wasn't close enough to violate their patents. Samsung did copy Apple's designs. They simply didn't do it well enough to be legally liable.

jW

So Samsung won the case because they didn't do a good enough job? Man, the spin from you fanboys is even more ridiculous than at Fox news.

****** ridiculous. Just cuz that judge doesn't think it was copied does not mean that Samsung actually didn't copy. It's his opinion and his opinion dose not need to be published in an ad from Apple.

"It's his opinion"!? Have you heard about the legal system or would you also go "the judge found me guilty of murder but I don't care, that's just his opinion"

Judges know what they're doing when Apple loses these cases but do not when Apple wins. Got it.

He didn't say anything like that and pretty much the only thing I see on these forums is the opposite. When Apple loses people here are calling the judge very rude things and harshly questions his/her honesty and competence

pacalis
Jul 18, 2012, 01:53 PM
Now you are getting me confused. Didn't you imply Apple was using Samsung`s technology by using them as a manufacturer? And now you say Samsung is not accused of copying the chipset? Can you explain?



Apple sources multiple components from Samsung, including screens, sometimes dram, sometimes battery and all its chipsets. I believe Samsung has manufactured all the Apple A5 chipsets for their phones and tablets.

So first, Samsung and Apple are both using ARM technology that they add additional features to. Samsung has designed a better chipset than then Apples A5, the Exynos 4412 quadcore, 32nm etc.. . It is currently the best chipset in a phone. So Samsung would be going backwards if they copied Apple.

Apple is not suing about this.

Apple was suing about the exterior table design, not the guts. But some guts do influence what the exterior looks like (for example the screen) or the need for battery space, heat management etc....

So what I'm saying is that a lot of the design has to do with the internal performance of what's possible with the internal technology (think batteries in cell phones today, vs. the briefcase motorola phones 20 years ago), and so that's why you see convergence around design.

JohnDoe98
Jul 18, 2012, 01:53 PM
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:GLW

Corning is NOT Apple, has nothing to do with who used first.

It has everything to do with Apple and who used it first. You understand the definition of a copy right? Without an original, a first, there is no copy. Just like without a genuine bill, there is no counterfeit bill. That's some pretty straightforward logic.

ironpony
Jul 18, 2012, 01:55 PM
Posted for 6 months?
I believe everyone, but Apple, will forget about this much sooner.

Wasn't the head designer of the iPad Knighted.
The judge may know what "is cool" but nothing of whats "not cool".

I bet Samsung may even decline this punishment to some degree.??

samcraig
Jul 18, 2012, 01:56 PM
Have you read the link? Because it says NOTHING about Schmidt copying or stealing nothing.

And if you believe that Jobs didn't knew anything about Android when he INVITED Schmidt to the board is because you think Jobs and the entire Apple board are stupids. And they weren't stupids

Indeed. And Jobs never accused Schmidt of anything.

Further - keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

I believe Jobs' tirade "I'm going to destroy android" went deeper than Google and Android. I'm no shrink - but it HAD to have brought up every painful memory of his dealing with Bill Gates and Windows.

And damned if he was going to let someone else get away with it...

GadgetDon
Jul 18, 2012, 01:56 PM
At the time of writing this "apple ordered to run samsung ads" is the second most popular read story on the BBC news site.

Which is why this order seems unnecessary.

Apple has never put the lawsuit on its website nor placed ads. Those who have heard of the allegations only did so by reading news reports in the media, and the media is currently giving Apple's loss heavy play (even before this order was given). So the judge is ordering these notices to be placed for those who did see media reports about the trial but somehow never heard the result. Which seems to be a vanishingly small group.

Yes, Apple sued and lost. In the UK, as I understand it, there is a policy of "loser pays" (something I believe the US should adopt) and Samsung should supply Apple with a hefty bill of their legal expenses for this trial (knowing that Apple will go over it with a fine tooth comb to make sure it's only expenses for this trial). But this "creative" solution seems misplaced.

esp211
Jul 18, 2012, 01:56 PM
I suggest you go look at the history.

Google bought Android in what 2003-2004ish. Before Apple even started on the iPhone.

Apple invited Schimid to join its board. Chances are because of Google's bought Android and it was known they were working on a phone OS.

Schimid stay well clear of anything Android related at Google to avoid conflict of interest and to avoid being accused of stealing (expect by Apple fanboys)
As Google got more involved in Android Schimid stopped taking parts in those votes.

Also if you think Board members really get the details of products then you have a lot to learn. They get the big picture but not the little stuff.

You should really try not to contradict yourself if you want to be taken seriously. On one hand, you say that board members don't know what is going on (which is complete BS) but then say Apple invited Schmidt on the board solely because of Android?

If Google really came up with the idea of an all-touch phone using only your fingers as you claim then why didn't they beat Apple and the iPhone to the market?

tninety
Jul 18, 2012, 01:56 PM
I have considered when Prada was designed as I've seen both the prototype and the final build. Asking if I'm dense is just as much an insult as calling me dense...

I owned 5 touch screen phones before the iPhone came out - thanks for letting me know that!

Maybe I meant to insult you. :rolleyes:

What, so working for Microsoft gives you the privilege of seeing LG's early prototypes and an amazing propensity for defending Apple on MacRumors? :rolleyes: