Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 12, 2012, 11:23 AM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Apple Ordered to Pay All of Samsung's Court Costs in UK Tablet Design Dispute




Following a series of events in a UK court case between Apple and Samsung that resulted in Apple having to publish a revised notice acknowledging that Samsung's Galaxy Tab devices had not infringed upon the registered design related to the iPad, the court has now ruled that Apple must pay all of Samsung's legal fees. The order was made after the court decided that Apple's behavior in the matter had been inappropriate and showed a "lack of integrity".
Quote:
As to the costs (lawyers' fees) to be awarded against Apple, we concluded that they should be on an indemnity basis. Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, "standard" basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple's conduct warranted such an order.
The order also highlights the court's issues with Apple's original statement, which contained improperly inserted text within the notice that was required by the court. The court's order specifically permitted Apple to comment on or publish its own information relating to the case, but the company was judged to have purposely circumvented the intent of the order by inserting information judged to be false within the ordered text.
Quote:
I do not think the order as made precluded any addition to the required notice if that addition had been true and did not undermine the effect of the required notice. But I do consider that adding false and misleading material was illegitimate. For by adding such material the context of the required notice is altered so that it will be understood differently. [...]

The reality is that wherever Apple has sued on this registered design or its counterpart, it has ultimately failed. It may or may not have other intellectual property rights which are infringed. Indeed the same may be true the other way round for in some countries Samsung are suing Apple. But none of that has got anything to do with the registered design asserted by Apple in Europe. Apple's additions to the ordered notice clearly muddied the water and the message obviously intended to be conveyed by it.
Beyond the inclusion of false and misleading text within the required notice, the court also took exception to Apple's claim that it would take 14 days to modify the notice posted on its website. The court ultimately gave Apple 48 hours to make the changes, and the company complied with that demand.

Article Link: Apple Ordered to Pay All of Samsung's Court Costs in UK Tablet Design Dispute
MacRumors is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 11:25 AM   #2
HarryKeogh
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Well, that's what Apple gets for trying to be a wise-ass.
HarryKeogh is offline   71 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 11:26 AM   #3
NutsNGum
macrumors 68030
 
NutsNGum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Pretty obnoxious behaviour by Apple. I'll bet the heels wouldn't have been dragged if this had been a judgement from an American court.
NutsNGum is offline   18 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 11:29 AM   #4
Oracle1729
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Anyone else notice so much of the apple news lately is about these legal games and fighting with their partners, suppliers, competitors.

Apple has really lost their ability to focus on product and would rather get into school-yard squabbles than focus on their business

Apple 2012 = Microsoft 1998.
Oracle1729 is offline   36 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 11:33 AM   #5
topmounter
macrumors 68000
 
topmounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: FEMA Region VIII
We knew this would happen, but it's still sad to watch the wheels coming off.
__________________
iLoveDrones.com
topmounter is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 11:56 AM   #6
charlituna
macrumors 604
 
charlituna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
The real issue here is that the Judge made on record comments that basically sound like he agrees personally that Samsung copied, but the legal tests that would allow him to declare a violation of the law were not met. Then when he made this order he wasn't precise in the rules and opened himself up to having those comments exposed, thus causing embarrassment.

So he screams that Apple knew what was intended etc. which is a bit ironic since it seems he recognized that Samsung 'intended' to copy Apple's product design but the test of specificity failed and in patents specifics trump 'intent'.

Last edited by charlituna; Nov 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM.
charlituna is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 12:10 PM   #7
rei101
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle1729 View Post
Anyone else notice so much of the apple news lately is about these legal games and fighting with their partners, suppliers, competitors.

Apple has really lost their ability to focus on product and would rather get into school-yard squabbles than focus on their business

Apple 2012 = Microsoft 1998.
I have been complaining about the same thing here for the last 2 years.
rei101 is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 12:13 PM   #8
LordVic
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ontario
With this order,
The HTC cross license deal...

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe, jUst maybe Cook and Cronies have gotten the picture that the public is getting sick of this.

I'm hoping that Apple lets the lawsuits take more of a backseat and starts actually spending more time inventing.

Apple did it's best when they were able to create new products to fill markets nobody thought could be filled. Not refreshing existing markets over and over again.

Apple is in a holding pattern and using lawsuits to try and slow everyone else down. What apple truly needs now is a "gotcha!" idea that nobody could resist. Like they had with the iphone and the ipad and the ipod
__________________
“We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win.”
― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything
LordVic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 06:18 PM   #9
faroZ06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle1729 View Post
Anyone else notice so much of the apple news lately is about these legal games and fighting with their partners, suppliers, competitors.

Apple has really lost their ability to focus on product and would rather get into school-yard squabbles than focus on their business

Apple 2012 = Microsoft 1998.
It's the biggest company in the world; of course it's going to be involved in the court.

----------

Well, I forgot exactly what the lawsuit was about a while ago, but now, I Googled it and found a picture of a Samsung tablet that Apple claims to be a copy of their design:



I have to say that I agree. It's clearly more than inspired by the iPad.
faroZ06 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 06:24 PM   #10
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
it's not the biggest

Quote:
Originally Posted by faroZ06 View Post
It's the biggest company in the world; of course it's going to be involved in the court.
Let's get this right - Apple currently has the highest market cap for a publicly traded company.

This doesn't make it the biggest - it's actually not even in the top 100 of the Fortune 500. Apple is #111 on the latest list. it's #17 on the latest list. Even HP is bigger than Apple - HP is #10. Wal-Mart is three times larger than Apple.

It doesn't even make it the most valuable - just the most valuable publicly traded company. Some of the Asian and Middle Eastern companies are more valuable, but they're not public.
__________________
Edward Snowden - American Hero.
Daniel Ellsberg: "Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America"
Marriage equality is unstoppable

Last edited by AidenShaw; Nov 12, 2012 at 06:40 PM. Reason: landed on an older list that said "latest" - found the 2012 list
AidenShaw is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 06:34 PM   #11
TrikieD
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by faroZ06 View Post
It's the biggest company in the world; of course it's going to be involved in the court.

----------

Well, I forgot exactly what the lawsuit was about a while ago, but now, I Googled it and found a picture of a Samsung tablet that Apple claims to be a copy of their design:

ImageImage

I have to say that I agree. It's clearly more than inspired by the iPad.
You can refresh your memory of what the original case and verdict were about at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2012/1882.html if you care to.

As far as your illustration though, perhaps para 189 covers it:

Quote:
This case illustrates the importance of properly taking into account the informed user's knowledge and experience of the design corpus. When I first saw the Samsung products in this case I was struck by how similar they look to the Apple design when they are resting on a table. They look similar because they both have the same front screen. It stands out. However to the informed user (which at that stage I was not) these screens do not stand out to anything like the same extent. The front view of the Apple design takes its place amongst its kindred prior art. There is a clear family resemblance between the front of the Apple design and other members of that family (Flatron, Bloomberg 1 and 2, Ozolins, Showbox, Wacom). They are not identical to each other but they form a family. There are differences all over these products but the biggest differences between these various family members are at the back and sides. The user who is particularly observant and is informed about the design corpus reacts to the Apple design by recognising the front view as one of a familiar type. From the front both the Apple design and the Samsung tablets look like members of the same, pre-existing family. As a result, the significance of that similarity overall is much reduced and the informed user's attention to the differences at the back and sides will be enhanced considerably.
Another thought, you may or may not be right about whether the iPad inspired the Tab, but the case wasn't about that. It was about the Community Registered Design. In fact the judgement excluded the iPad as an example of the design. See para 8:

Quote:
Apple did not contend that either of its famous iPad products should be used as concrete examples of the Apple design. Neither the original iPad nor the iPad 2 are identical to the design. Whether either of them is or is not within the scope of protection would be a matter of debate. To use either as an example of the Apple design would be to beg the question of the true scope of Apple's rights.

Last edited by TrikieD; Nov 12, 2012 at 06:53 PM.
TrikieD is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 07:21 PM   #12
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by faroZ06 View Post
It's clearly more than inspired by the iPad.
The Judge specifically states in the ruling that the case is not about whether or not Samsung copied the iPad. Feel free to read the ruling next time, or one of the millions of explanation posted in these numerous threads about just what this damn case was about.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 07:21 AM   #13
turtlez
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle1729 View Post
Anyone else notice so much of the apple news lately is about these legal games and fighting with their partners, suppliers, competitors.

Apple has really lost their ability to focus on product and would rather get into school-yard squabbles than focus on their business

Apple 2012 = Microsoft 1998.
Apple's legal team don't do the product designing lol..

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmatthewware View Post
I think Steve Jobs left behind some great legacies at Apple. I hope his crusade against phone companies who use Android is one legacy that the current leadership lets go.
I agree, it might not be much of a financial loss to Apple but funding a competitor really sucks. Especially when most of the world can see the blatant copying going on
turtlez is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 11:27 PM   #14
wikus
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Planet earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle1729 View Post
Anyone else notice so much of the apple news lately is about these legal games and fighting with their partners, suppliers, competitors.

Apple has really lost their ability to focus on product and would rather get into school-yard squabbles than focus on their business

Apple 2012 = Microsoft 1998.
Yeah, its too bad OS X has turned to crap since Snow Leopard. I refuse to get any later OS from Apple. Too many bugs, not enough optimization, way too much iPadification.

They've lost site and theyve definitely been on the decline for the last 2 years.
wikus is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2012, 01:26 PM   #15
bkushner
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikus View Post
Yeah, its too bad OS X has turned to crap since Snow Leopard. I refuse to get any later OS from Apple. Too many bugs, not enough optimization, way too much iPadification.

They've lost site and theyve definitely been on the decline for the last 2 years.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400311,00.asp

Your opinion versus PCmag. I'll go with Pc mag on this one.
bkushner is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2012, 01:30 PM   #16
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikus View Post
Yeah, its too bad OS X has turned to crap since Snow Leopard. I refuse to get any later OS from Apple. Too many bugs, not enough optimization, way too much iPadification.

They've lost site and theyve definitely been on the decline for the last 2 years.
If it didn't refuse to release so much ram, I might not mind it. My issue is that 16GB of ram feels way too cramped at times. It obviously varies. For some stuff 8 was plenty with the ssd. It's just annoying that the OS doesn't want to release inactive memory at times even when I close every application and reopen something.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 02:56 PM   #17
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by NutsNGum View Post
Pretty obnoxious behaviour by Apple. I'll bet the heels wouldn't have been dragged if this had been a judgement from an American court.
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Can you point to other decisions besides the California verdict ? If not, maybe my post was more factual than you'd like. I'll ignore the racism for now.[COLOR="#808080"]
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.
KPOM is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 11:27 AM   #18
mojothemonkey
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Apple wont even notice, but hopefully they start understanding that they're overdoing it a bit with the lawsuits and it's time to start acting like a market leader and not a whiner.

Enough with the patent wars. There is an entire parasitic industry based on patent aggregation, holding, and sales to companies to use as ammunition.

And yes, we know the order to pay fees has nothing to do with public sentiment about their litigiousness. It's a side-comment.
mojothemonkey is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 02:55 AM   #19
ds2000
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojothemonkey View Post
Apple wont even notice
I agree but with the swiss clock price, this cost, the loss of face with maps, tumbling stock, Samsung increasing processor prices and market share, Apple need to sit up and sort themselves out a little bit - ALL companies no matter how rich need to look after their market and monies else the wealth will get eroded.
ds2000 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 12:12 PM   #20
PracticalMac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryKeogh View Post
Well, that's what Apple gets for trying to be a wise-ass.
But will Apple learn?
__________________
FireWire 1394 Intelligent network guaranteed data transfer, 1500mA power, Ethernet compatible
Read: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 70% faster then USB2
Write: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 48% faster
PracticalMac is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 12:15 PM   #21
funkybudda
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by PracticalMac View Post
But will Apple learn?
probably not, but they will just keep getting WTF-PWNED over and over, which I enjoy every moment of, lol.
funkybudda is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 12:46 PM   #22
Mr. Gates
macrumors 68020
 
Mr. Gates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: --Redmond --------- ----------------Washington---
Quote:
Originally Posted by PracticalMac View Post
But will Apple learn?
Not likely !
__________________
This is a RUMOR site For speculation and discussion.Not a Fan-Club. Just because we are interested in Apple rumors it doesn't mean we should be frothing at the mouth with Apple rabid comments.
Mr. Gates is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 11:26 AM   #23
chirpie
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Court to Apple:

"You know what we meant, you know how to comply. Now COMPLY."
chirpie is offline   15 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 11:27 AM   #24
Parise
macrumors 6502a
 
Parise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Orlando, FL
Thats pretty much par for the course when losing ANY lawsuit.
Parise is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 11:36 AM   #25
-ATHEiST-
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parise View Post
Thats pretty much par for the course when losing ANY lawsuit.
Standard court costs yes, However these costs are paid on an indemnity basis which is not on par.

http://www.iphonehacks.com/2012/11/u...ate-apple.html
-ATHEiST- is offline   4 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jury Finds Both Apple and Samsung Guilty of Patent Infringement, Samsung to Pay $119.6 Million, Apple to Pay $158,400 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 609 May 23, 2014 05:53 PM
Apple ordered to pay Samsung Legal Fees Timzer Wasteland 1 Nov 11, 2012 10:43 AM
Samsung Working to Keep Design Dispute Separate from Component Contracts MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 185 Aug 28, 2012 05:26 PM
Apple's Opening Court Statement Focuses on Samsung's Radical Shift in Phone Design MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 806 Aug 28, 2012 03:45 PM
Apple ordered to pay damages to Samsung by Dutch court Androidpwns iPad 5 Jun 21, 2012 10:25 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:50 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC