Couldn't stay that high forever.
Apple and especially Google, is a prime example of over-inflated stocks.
Couldn't stay that high forever.
Finally I should say something about the notice itself. We heard no discussion about that. Plainly Judge Birss's Schedule has been overtaken by events. Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
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.
Yes, Bravo Apple for violating both the spirit and letter of the law, by saying the UK courts found Samsung didn't infringe but correct courts think so. Only Apple Fans believe this is a what the judge meant. Wow.
As if there is no appeal or as if the patent part of that case was based on was just found invalid because of prior art.Right, Apple will end up with nothing despite a court ruling that it be paid...and you think others should grow up?
There is 0 evidence that apple lost 770 million because of what samsung allegedly did. Thats all you need to know about the case to know the verdict was compleet BS.If you could look at the evidence in this trial and walk away thinking Samsung is a great company that didn't do anything wrong, don't even bother discussing this stuff anymore, you're clueless.
There is 0 evidence that apple lost 770 million because of what samsung allegedly did. Thats all you need to know about the case to know the verdict was compleet BS.
It's almost unprecedented.
[/COLOR]
Apples sheer arrogance is becoming almost unprecedented!
Right, Apple will end up with nothing despite a court ruling that it be paid...and you think others should grow up? You've basically put your head in the sand and are pretending this isn't happening. Just because you're completely dismissive of the US doesn't mean that the rest of the world is right and the US is wrong.
If you could look at the evidence in this trial and walk away thinking Samsung is a great company that didn't do anything wrong, don't even bother discussing this stuff anymore, you're clueless.
If you believe Samsung did do something wrong here, then maybe the crazy US patent system worked in this case.
Do you think Samsung, or any other company wouldn't do the same?
Seriously what planet do these people live on if they were genuinely thinking Apple would release a grovelling apology when an apology wasn't asked for? The Judge when stating "Samsung aren't as cool as Apple" handed Apple PR spin on a plate; that much was obvious back in June.
Childish
Do you have a link to state the exact ruling of what the Judge stated Apple must post, preferably not one from an Apple fan site?
As posted by KnightWRX above:
Finally I should say something about the notice itself. We heard no discussion about that. Plainly Judge Birss's Schedule has been overtaken by events. Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
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.
Within seven days of the date of this Order [18th July 2012] [Apple] shall at its own expense (a) post in a font size no smaller than Arial 11pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this order on the homepage of its UK website ... as specified in Schedule 1 to this Order, together with a hyperlink to the Judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 9th July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on [Apple's] websites for a period of six months from the date of this order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no smaller than Arial 14pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine.
The material part of the notice specified in Schedule 1 reads:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computer, 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]
Apple didn't say the correct courts think so. They simply stated facts that other courts found them to infringe.
Apple must be laughing hard at this one. "Oh noes, we're forced to run ads saying that our product is cooler than Samsung's! What a shame! *giggle* *guffaw*"
Let's be honest, Samsung do take the p1$$ a bit when it comes to copying Apple's design.. Chromebook 3 remind anyone of anything?:
No courts have yet rendered an infringement verdict for this design registration as far as I'm aware of. There has been a single case of a preliminary injunction granted on the basis of possible infringement, but the trial has not taken place.
You'll also remember that Judge Koh had been forced to grant a preliminary injunction on the Tabs based on D'889 but after the verdict was read, the Tabs were declared non-infringing and the injunction has since been lifted.
So really, it's not a fact to say other courts found Samsung to infringe in this particular case has this event has not taken place, unless you care to provide such a ruling to back-up your assertion.
And this is really what the Judge in Samsung v. Apple in the UK wanted to prevent : Apple's media smear campaign. Seems Apple's UK message goes against this, wonder if this will get more court attention.
$100 wiped off the share price in 1 week.
Who is laughing Apple?
Not your shareholers
You're just reposting what I posted. Proving the poster you're replying to right. You're also not posting the Appeal's court modification to schedule 1, which should now not be considered.