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 Posts Notice to UK Site Acknowledging that Samsung Galaxy Tab Did Not Infringe on iPad Design Because "They are not as cool"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They got this order against them because they kept the media pressure up after the non-infringement ruling. Now they are going against the appeal court's ruling in posting the message in this way. The ruling suggested a much more neutral publicity :
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
Wonder if Samsung will push the issue or if simply having Apple post this on their website is enough pain ?
BTW guys, even in the US trial, Apple did not win the claims against the Galaxy Tabs. The Jury found that US design patent D'889 was not infringed by the different Tab products listed.
So this UK decision is actually in line with the US decision.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
Wonder if Samsung will push the issue or if simply having Apple post this on their website is enough pain ?
BTW guys, even in the US trial, Apple did not win the claims against the Galaxy Tabs. The Jury found that US design patent D'889 was not infringed by the different Tab products listed.
So this UK decision is actually in line with the US decision.
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.
Apple didn't say the correct courts think so. They simply stated facts that other courts found them to infringe. Not that the UK was wrong, just that the UK found them not to infringe. There's no wording that explicitly states UK was wrong. It may have been implied but the wording on that page is accurate.
I feel as if the judge almost set this one up for Apple to do but had to follow their law/rulings anyway. If the court system would've wanted to punish apple, then Apple would've been required to maintain its top menu bar with company logo on top instead of a wall of text.
Lol at people get their knickers in a twist saying Apple will get done for contempt of court. The order was not to make an apology, but to post that Samsung did not infringe on the design of the iPad in relation to this particular patent:
Have Apple said the Galaxy Tab doesn't infringe on the iPad? Yes they have, see first paragraph.
Have they posted in size 14 Arial? Yes, they have.
Have they quoted the Judgement out of context? No they haven't in fact it's almost the full judgment given by Judge Birss.
Where did the court order say they can't add /facts/ from other court cases they won? It didn't. They made no specific reference to this and thus Apple are entitled to post about it. You can argue they have made the English High Court look stupid, but they made themselves look stupid by giving the go ahead to something as silly as this. It's almost unprecedented.
Have Apple said the Galaxy Tab doesn't infringe on the iPad? Yes they have, see first paragraph.
Have they posted in size 14 Arial? Yes, they have.
Have they quoted the Judgement out of context? No they haven't in fact it's almost the full judgment given by Judge Birss.
Where did the court order say they can't add /facts/ from other court cases they won? It didn't. They made no specific reference to this and thus Apple are entitled to post about it. You can argue they have made the English High Court look stupid, but they made themselves look stupid by giving the go ahead to something as silly as this. It's almost unprecedented.
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.
And for the rest he is right, almost all other cases apple is loosing.
Its clear apple is very afraid of samsung, 1 big company with the resources and tech to challenge it. (and the sales numbers to match it, almost twice as must smartphones sold) The law suits are a knee jerk reaction, but they would be better competing with products.
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.
As I understand it, Apple is still yet to prove to the courts that it incurred irreparable damage due to Samsung copying their designs, but it has to prove that to the courts for the ruling to apply.
Recently I think it was last week or the week before, I read Apple again in the news because they have still not released the required figures in fear of the public finding out how much profit it makes on each device etc, or so I read. So I'm not sure but I don't think Samsung will have to pay the fine will they? Because part of Apples defence was the damage to it's sales that were causes?
----------
Apples sheer arrogance is becoming almost unprecedented!
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.
Did you not know that the case is already in the process of being appealed? Dismissive of the US? How the hell did you draw that conclusion? Talk about head in the sand.
Samsung will likely win the appeal due to the head juror in the original case being a liar. Or are you suffering from selective amnesia?
Apple are taking the piss with this notice. They could have been just as smug without being childish and purile about the ruling. All they had to do was quote the judge, no need to mention any other rulings.
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.
More like Childishly funny! No one should expect Apple to blatantly post a statement in favor of Samsung that easily. They got their point across, and we all had a laugh. It's not Apples place to market for Samsung.
Reminds me of an exchange Clarence Darrow had with a judge:
Judge: Mr. Darrow, are you trying to show contempt for this court?
Darrow: No, your honor. I'm trying to hide it.
Priceless.
Judge: Mr. Darrow, are you trying to show contempt for this court?
Darrow: No, your honor. I'm trying to hide it.
Priceless.
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.
Reminds me of a laptop. Here is one quite similar from 2000
Yes, it is silver as well. In 12 years they have got smaller - but the overall layout is the same.
Some of the blind fanboy devotion to Apple is just creepy.
1) The ruling required Arial font.
2) Apple was forced to create this ad both online and in some papers in the UK for antagonizing the courts and their decision that Samsung did not infringe. It will be very interesting to see how they respond to this ad.
3) It's very possible Apple knew this would create a media storm and want that (see next point)
4) Right now "everyone" will see/read this ad. If Apple is forced to rescind - they will balk and get even more press. And the press will always reference the ad that violated further "helping" Apple's assertions
5) If Apple is found to have violated the nature of the ruling, the result COULD be a stricter ruling/fine/etc. But honestly - a lot of the damage will have already been done - unless the new punishment is severe.
It was a big roll of the dice. I'm also surprised that since it was a court ruling - they didn't have to submit the ad first to the courts for approval. But I can't claim to know the intimate details of the UK court system.
2) Apple was forced to create this ad both online and in some papers in the UK for antagonizing the courts and their decision that Samsung did not infringe. It will be very interesting to see how they respond to this ad.
3) It's very possible Apple knew this would create a media storm and want that (see next point)
4) Right now "everyone" will see/read this ad. If Apple is forced to rescind - they will balk and get even more press. And the press will always reference the ad that violated further "helping" Apple's assertions
5) If Apple is found to have violated the nature of the ruling, the result COULD be a stricter ruling/fine/etc. But honestly - a lot of the damage will have already been done - unless the new punishment is severe.
It was a big roll of the dice. I'm also surprised that since it was a court ruling - they didn't have to submit the ad first to the courts for approval. But I can't claim to know the intimate details of the UK court system.
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.
Edit; just read the next section.
Doesn't really go against it. The judge says he wants to avoid consumers believing the Tab is an illegal product. No where do Apple allude to the Tab being illegal.
It's all moot anyway considering the High Court have to see the post before giving it the green light.
Last edited:
uh. NO. What stock chart are you looking at?
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=...n;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;
Think I've got a bit lost here with the quotations flying around.
The judge proposed the paragraph. The paragraph was posted word for word and then extra details added. There was no mention that Apple needed to apologise, just post Samsung did not infringe, which they have done.