Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Removes UK Website Statement Regarding Galaxy Tab Design, Publishes Newspaper Acknowledgement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Onto the main discussion point of this thread, unfortunately there seems to be a dearth of anyone with reading comprehension. The judgements written by the judges in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are freely available on the internet and show the reasoning behind the decision. The reasoning of the High Court cannot be boiled down to the "cool" statement at the end of the judgement as that was not the only reason he gave. You can read all of his observations on the comparison between the two devices in paragraphs 183-189 of the High Court judgement. Furthermore the court of appeal agreed by saying (at paragraph 54)
A number of posters have criticised the judges reasoning in this case and for finding that Samsung had not infringed but no one has stated how they have come to this conclusion with reference to any precedent or case law or even the legal test that is to be applied in such cases.
Patent law is an incredibly complex legal area and that some posters here have the impertinence to think they can speak authoratively on it is frankly gob smacking. I do not hold an opinion on whether the court was correct in its application of the law because my expertise does not lie in patents but the arguments that have been put forward by the UK courts in this case have been far more persuasive than any posting as they have gone into their reasoning.
In regards to the publicity notice this is unusual and the court admits that it is a relatively new feature to patent litigation. The Court of Appeal considers this in paragraphs 64-88 of its judgement and once again no one has come up with a persuasive argument as to why this reasoning is wrong. There have been some general arguments about freedom of speech however these can be dealt with in fairly short compass. Firstly Article 10 of the ECHR does not give absolute protection to freedom of speech and it may be curtailed provided that a legitimate aim is pursued and it is proportionate. The aim here is rectify any commercial uncertainty in Europe that may have resulted from Apple's actions. In particular Apple moving for an injunction in Germany when a Europe Wide decision had already been made in the High Court. It was apple's actions that made the Court of Appeal consider that a publicity order was necessary to counteract the false impression they had given. The publicity message was quite restrained in its language and only pointed to the decision it could therefore be seen as proportionate and the infringement lawful.
In regards to the claim made by PVisitor that the court could only justify the publicity order by reference to an 1800's case that is simply incorrect. There is reference to a case from the early 20th Century but considering the legal point to be decided was a procedural question in relation to injunctions that have been in existence in the court for (probably) century's reference to "older" case law seems completely legitimate. If you feel the court was wrong perhaps you can point to the rule of court, statute or case that says so?
A number of posters have criticised the judges reasoning in this case and for finding that Samsung had not infringed but no one has stated how they have come to this conclusion with reference to any precedent or case law or even the legal test that is to be applied in such cases.
Patent law is an incredibly complex legal area and that some posters here have the impertinence to think they can speak authoratively on it is frankly gob smacking. I do not hold an opinion on whether the court was correct in its application of the law because my expertise does not lie in patents but the arguments that have been put forward by the UK courts in this case have been far more persuasive than any posting as they have gone into their reasoning.
In regards to the publicity notice this is unusual and the court admits that it is a relatively new feature to patent litigation. The Court of Appeal considers this in paragraphs 64-88 of its judgement and once again no one has come up with a persuasive argument as to why this reasoning is wrong. There have been some general arguments about freedom of speech however these can be dealt with in fairly short compass. Firstly Article 10 of the ECHR does not give absolute protection to freedom of speech and it may be curtailed provided that a legitimate aim is pursued and it is proportionate. The aim here is rectify any commercial uncertainty in Europe that may have resulted from Apple's actions. In particular Apple moving for an injunction in Germany when a Europe Wide decision had already been made in the High Court. It was apple's actions that made the Court of Appeal consider that a publicity order was necessary to counteract the false impression they had given. The publicity message was quite restrained in its language and only pointed to the decision it could therefore be seen as proportionate and the infringement lawful.
In regards to the claim made by PVisitor that the court could only justify the publicity order by reference to an 1800's case that is simply incorrect. There is reference to a case from the early 20th Century but considering the legal point to be decided was a procedural question in relation to injunctions that have been in existence in the court for (probably) century's reference to "older" case law seems completely legitimate. If you feel the court was wrong perhaps you can point to the rule of court, statute or case that says so?
Last edited by a moderator:
Point out where on earth Judges Robin-Jacob, Kitchin and Longmore stated that it is /explicitly/ slander by Apple? Because as far as I can see it is to promote commercial certainty (which is entirely justified as I said in the paragraph you chose to ignore when quoting me).
Theres your reasoning by the CA why the order was published. As I said the CA sits above the HC in the hierarchy and thus this reasoning will be applied, not that of Justice Birss.
Perhaps my point has not come across as well as I wanted it to be. The point I was making is that, as you say, it's a unusual order, indeed the actual court mentions that it is. I wasn't trying to say it soley rested on the 1925 case [overshot the century, was pulled off previous reading a few days ago], but that is the closest Justice Robin Jacob could find to demonstrate.
No where did I claim that the court's reasoning was wrong or unlawful. Merely that the consequences of such an order will be curious indeed, and not something I would be advocate. One can easily disagree without a judgment without claiming it to wrong in the sense of legality.
I'm not sure where all the Samsung fanboys came from. They think this ruling is justice, but the CA ruling is unfair. You can't have it both ways, and you can't pick and choose which stupid court rulings you support. Not sure why there is a huge android circle jerk on MacRumors.
If you want to look at another Korean company lying check out Hyundai & Kia. Lying about mpg estimates.
If you want to look at another Korean company lying check out Hyundai & Kia. Lying about mpg estimates.
A very reasonable position to take and I do agree that the courts must take care when applying new fangled legal tools such as the publicity order to well established legal procedure. I especially think in cases such as this that publicity will almost certainly follow in any event and that such posting may be unnecessary. However, I think there is also an argument to say that where a party has been commercial disadvantaged by the other parties actions that some form of compensatory order may be in order. I think that the development of the law in the area of publicity orders will be quite interesting!
Given that the California decision was decided on an entirely different basis it is perfectly compatible to agree with one and not the other.
Apple, instead of kicking, screaming and stamping your feet like a four year old, just take your punishment like a man, er, company. Print what they want you to print and be done with it. It will have zero bearing in your sales and you are simply looking foolish and drawing even more attention to it by dragging this out.
Commercial uncertainty created by Apple post-verdict. IE, Slander.
----------
What huge Android circle jerk are you talking about ? You're the first one to bring up Android in this thread. We're talking about Apple here, not Google's mobile operating system.
those people feels like Apple founded by their fathers or uncles and they have big stake in every dirty move by Apple
You mean throw their toys out of the pram like a petulant child?
Apple are engaged in business not playground tantrum throwing.
----------
Just because someone disagrees with the way Apple conducts itself doesn't make them (a) a Samsung fanboy or (b) an Android circle jerk (whatever that is)
I personally believe that Apple has gone the way of Microsoft in the 90s and has turned into a ruthless and cut-out corporate entity. That won't affect whether I buy from them or not (same as with Microsoft for me)
If they produce something i want at the right price I will buy it.
It they act like another nasty big company I will criticise them for it.
I criticise them for their Tax Avoidance schemes the same as I with with Vodafone, Starbucks and all the others doing the same.
It should be the most obvious to some of the obvious trolls. You can bury your head in the sand if you want but others know you for what you are.
----------
Not everyone but there are enough. It's obvious by the comments.
What am I exactly ? And how come others know me better than I know myself ?
What are you even talking about here ?
You may as well copy and paste this and post it every couple minutes.
Reading all the different threads on this subject over the last couple months for some reason I can't fathom there are a lot of posters that seem incapable of understanding this.
Ridiculous post and ridiculous accusation.
Are you an kool-aid drinking fanboy isheep because you don't like anything bad being said about Apple. Not at all. In fact those epithets are quite obnoxious.
I think there are some posters here who either don't know what an internet troll actually is, use it as hyperbole - or the biggest error - confuse someone as a troll who is actually - you know - posting factual information rather that FUD.
At least it wasn't......
COMIC SANS
I'll see your Papyrus and Comic Sans..
And raise you Zapf Dingbats.
BL.
Lots of FUD going around you can't deny it, but haven't seen much hyperbole in this thread.
----------
When you have avatars that stand out and constantly post ridiculous things, people notice.
What is wrong with drawing attention to it. I don't find it makes Apple look silly. Nor do many others. Anything that draws attention to the flawed Legal Process in this case is a positive.
This is just the beginning. I'd wager this goes on at least another week. Perhaps even 1 contempt of court prior to the end.
This is about how you look in the court of public opinion. Bruce has not shown his end game yet. Be patient.
Apple is hurting their own image by coming up with all these law suits. They are big bullies.
Apple deserves a taste of their own medicine.