Also UK needs Joe Arpaio to make sure Apple complies.
Had to look him up. I think we could do with him actually. Can we borrow him for a few years? Our police commissioners are about to be elected so perfect timing
Also UK needs Joe Arpaio to make sure Apple complies.
I have no problem doing things for monetary compensation. Almost every US company rapes you of tax income daily. You think that is going to change?
Your leaders encourage it. You may not like our Hearts, but your leaders have no problem bending over for us?
What I don't understand about this judge is that decision is so freaking blind. Sammy clearly copies apple. Even droid nut knows that.. but yet it came to this.
Seriously?
What the **** are you on about? Apple wasn't found guilty of anything. The judge decided that even though Samsung copied Apple's design, the copy wasn't good enough to infringe on Apple's design patents.
It does come across as a little smarmy but originally they followed the court order to the letter, but the judge didn't agree - he was being pedantic about the whole affair, so Apple responded like this, playing him at his own game.
If it is legit then there is nothing Apple should worry about.
no problem bending over for us?
I hope the court gets back at Apple for this.
And next I hope Apple is held to account for not paying its due to the UK taxpayer.
What kind of teenagers are making these decisions at Apple? Just display the dang text and let the 30 days expire. If you are right and your product is great, you will be fine. Instead you look immature and arrogant.
Ioriginally they followed the court order to the letter, but the judge didn't agree -
I hope the court gets back at Apple for this.
And next I hope Apple is held to account for not paying its due to the UK taxpayer.
Apple wasn't found guilty of anything. They sued for copyright infringement and Samsung was found not guilty.
This would be like you suing someone for scratching your car then being unable to prove they did it, then the judge saying you have to put a billboard over your house for a month saying you're a liar. It's pretty ridiculous.
Exactly. That judge held more grudges towards Apple than Apple does towards Samsung/Google.
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given].
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on .. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link [ ]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe
This isn't about justice, it's about revenge. Okay, I get it.
It's kinda humorous going back and forth from apple.com to apple.com/uk to see the differences.
I'm sure they are pissed, but hopefully this doesn't just drag the whole thing out longer.
no just Blair
quit trying to be funny
YOUR NOT
Why not just take it like a champ? All this mess just seems immature to me.
I find it funny that you write "who cares?" and then "it's such a childish judgement"
I guess you care?
I mean who cares what Apple does with this. Its such a lame and childish judgement on the judge's behalf anyway. Seriously.. "You have to post an apology on your website" What is this, 6th grade?
Anyway, back on topic, this is very well played on their part. Sorry to say but, as trollish as Apple may have been (even to begin with, as they started it all by suing), the UK judge's decision and the arguments he threw around just don't really stick.
Now, in all fairness, if a product is a copycat (outright or not), what does it matter whether it's cooler or not than the original? It could be even cooler while still being a copy; the simple fact that the judge mentioned the "coolness" factor as a measure of infringement is, in and of itself, an admission of guilt. Comparisons *were* made because they *were* warranted, and Samsung was excused of copying only for doing a sloppy job. And Apple was, IMHO, in its right to point out that to the public
Now, in all fairness, if a product is a copycat (outright or not), what does it matter whether it's cooler or not than the original? It could be even cooler while still being a copy; the simple fact that the judge mentioned the "coolness" factor as a measure of infringement is, in and of itself, an admission of guilt. Coolness comparisons *were* made because they *were* warranted, and Samsung was excused of infringing only because they did it, as usual, in a sloppy fashion. And Apple had, IMHO, the right to point out that out to the public…
I'm not trying to be funny Duke. These threads with the Kangaroo Court lead by the Mad Hatter generate genuine anger. I don't always side with Apple. However, in this ruling I have been consistent. Legal Exhibitionism.
If you think it's so bad, withdraw from the EU and try and go it alone. You're not in the currency? What is holding you back? Leaders who can't take on Big Bad American Business? It's still Blair's fault in 2013 for all purposes?
Save it. Take us on head first or leave it on the table.