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 Ordered to Pay All of Samsung's Court Costs in UK Tablet Design Dispute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Who`s fault is it, that it keeps coming up in a mac forum?
I used to think very highly about APPLE, that has changed drastically with all the lawsuits it is starting. So now we all know why APPLES hardware is so expensive: they need the money for lawsuits.
Weird, the part where I said "I think," would imply that it is my opinion. Crazy that you missed that in such a short sentence.
I didn't say everything Samsung makes is crap. I was talking particularly about Chromebook. And again you missed my point about Samsung copying Apple's design.So are you giving up your Apple products with Samsung parts?
What makes Samsung's devices crap inside? Isn't Apple using Samsung parts. Are Apple products crap inside?
Do you realize how conflicted you are?
Ok. That still doesn't answer my question on why the chromebook is crap inside, now does it? I didn't miss anything.
Weird, the part where I said "I think," would imply that it is my opinion. Crazy that you missed that in such a short sentence.
Crazy that you would think you weren't trying to state "Samsung copied Apple" as a fact when you say "I don't think anyone can deny Samsung copied Apple".
Yes, people can deny it. Your opinion is that you don't think people exist that can deny "a fact" that is merely another opinion you hold. Funny how people can deny your opinion uh ?
In my opinion, I think that it's obvious that Samsung copied Apple and for the most part people denying it either do not like Apple or really like Samsung (or just plain old don't care). This is all in my opinion. That does not make it a universal fact.
I'm not sure whose opinion you expect me to argue from.
If it's all your opinion, then I can safely dismiss it as completely ludicrous in my opinion then.
Oh my god you're the biggest fan boy of all time for this ridiculous post. This is a court of law not some facebook social exchange that happened
Which part of the statement posted by Apple was false? Seems the judge is a bit butthurt because Apple mentioned the "not as cool" thing. Trolled I guess.
@ KnightWRX
I am with you and do understand that Mr. DeathChill talked himself into a corner.....
You shouldn't. But when i commneted about UK jsutice system i wasn't particulary talking about this case. It's in so many ways screwed and personaly have absolutely no faith in it.
That old, nasty Apple of Steve Job's days dies hard. A few more losses and Apple may be brought down from the heavens so it can get back to work (on new Mac Pros!).
Hahahaha!
Your level of intelligence is a joke beyond belief!
You must have some sort of brain power that we don't, to know my level of intelligence from a single comment. Must be from the fish & chips down canal street
if a judge doesn't appear to specify an order correctly, and Apple is thus allowed leeway to 'add' additional comments from that same legal statement, then I can't really see what all the fuss is about.
The Judge mentioned cool, etc, and Apple just included it.
It's a mad world, eh!
The Judge mentioned cool, etc, and Apple just included it.
It's a mad world, eh!
Read more - and use less tinfoil on that hat.
What inside of a chromebook is crap? Are you deliberately avoiding the question?
You either don't understand the ruling and/or haven't read much about it.
Apple was called out for providing misleading information. That is why they were ordered to post a specific statement. Apple didn't JUST post the specific statement - then ALSO posted more misleading information.
It wasn't just not in the spirit of the original ruling - but a stupid maneuver.
Actually, if you read the official court order as released by the Appeal by apple, Apple was under explicit orders as to what they had to say on the website.
Apple played a game with it and added more to it. took out some of it. And then did the good old "BUT" at the end to try and mislead.
They got caught. They have to pay. Thats all it came down to. They flaunted their own legaleeze in the judges face, and the judge wanted no part of it.
Apple could have you know, from day 1, just abided by the instructions the judge gave them.
----------
I'd say the whole thing
but I'm biased in the sense that I think the entire idea of a Chrome OS platform is ridiculous
(but thats just my opinion and nobody needs listen to my mindless rantings about it).
hardware wise? it's a perfectly functional device that does most of what it's set out to do.
From the ruling (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html):
And the matter added was indeed false. Before introducing the quotes from HHJ Birss it begins:
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products.
But the Judge was not comparing "the Apple and Samsung products." There is not and has never been any Apple product in accordance with the registered design. Apple's statement would clearly be taken by ordinary readers and journalists to be a reference to a real Apple product, the iPad. By this statement Apple was fostering the false notion that the case was about the iPad.
My guess is that someone in Apple UK's General Counsel and/or Marketing department will have his head handed to him on a platter as a result of this.
That said, it appears that Apple would have been in the clear by adding information about other cases, or even quoting the judge, but they didn't like the implication that the Galaxy Tab had been ruled to have infringed upon the specific design patents when that hasn't been the case.
----------
Well, the California verdict was pretty significant. It's a little bit like asking "besides Hurricane Katrina, can you point to any other instances where FEMA screwed up?" I agree it did not include the design patent over the iPad, though.