Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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"

Mal said:
I'm sorry that you believe that. I think Apple (at least the people in charge) thinks more like I do: happy customers buy more products, which makes more money. Thinking that making more money is the means is absolutely nuts, because you can't make more money by making money. You make money by making your customers happy. You make customers happy by making products that they truly enjoy using and by taking good care of them if anything ever goes wrong. Apple has consistently done an incredible job at doing both of those things.

jW
Click to expand...

Except if you adopt a monopoly approach.

Apple (let's be honest, not only Apple actually - Apple inovated bringing the "ecosystem-bound" hardware) but Google and Microsoft are also big players in the artificially-limited device market.

That is, actually a device supports this or that technology, but brands don't implement or block any implementation that can harm their monopoly. This is far from being a fair or "make us happy" approach.

You can talk about fair marketing when dealing with Macs and PCs, but the smartphone/tablet era is all about making us sheeps enclosed in an ecosystem.
 
pandamonia said:
Android Tablet market share hit 25% and Apples share is down to 56%.
Click to expand...

But is that because sales on the iPad are down or just the flooding of the market with more Android models

Apples new iPad mini is just an expensive "me too" and shares dropped on the disappointment of that too.
Click to expand...

We haven't seen sales numbers to really judge if the world agrees with you that it is expensive. Or at least too expensive. As for the share drop, it's a common occurrence when the analysts BS proves too over inflated. And generally it bounces back when the photos of the lines and sales number start showing up
 
Mal said:
Thinking that making more money is the means is absolutely nuts, because you can't make more money by making money.
Click to expand...

Not really... just think about the financial industry.

Mal said:
You make money by making your customers happy. You make customers happy by making products that they truly enjoy using and by taking good care of them if anything ever goes wrong. Apple has consistently done an incredible job at doing both of those things.
Click to expand...

I agree, Apple has good customer service. But it's not without flaws. And as good as it may be, it still doesn't mean that their prime directive isn't money rather than the customers. There's plenty of evidence of this - from they way they develop and market their products, the way they price them and corner users into closed systems, and the way they force a degree of obsolescence into their products in very fast cycles.

And I understand that business is business, specially when dealing with corporations. But you don't have to go too far into the past to find cases where Apple showed its dark side in the quest for profits.
 
clibinarius said:
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.
Click to expand...

Spirit of the ruling sure, but letter? Show where it says that Apple has to agree that Samsung was innocent, can't include other details from the court records or otherwise etc. it likely doesn't which puts the fault on the court for not including such things
 
Apple has become the biggest d-bag in the tech industry. They are like the plastics from the movie mean girls'
 
RDStrong said:
Contempt of court is a criminal act. Executives could be arrested for it and Apple barred from trading in the UK. None of that $124bn can buy Apple out it if they're found in contempt.

And for the record, if Apple had accepted the original ruling without resorting to snarky comments that undermined said ruling then they would have never been forced to place advertisements online or in the print media.
Click to expand...

Lawl. Way over playing the contempt of court thing here. Are you samsungs mom?

----------
PVisitors said:
I don't think there is any confusion when Apple state that the judgment has effect across the EU. That's all there is to it. It's clear in black and white. It doesn't matter what a German or US court says when you read this "That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012".

Most consumers could see that and a company's legal dept. as referenced by the Judges in the CA would be able to pick that point out very quickly.

How have Apple not complied to the said court order to be liable for contempt of court as some people here are suggesting?
Click to expand...

Because apple haters have law degrees from the University of Franklin and Bash.

----------
reefoid said:
I would say there is a case for confusion here. First they say the UK judgement applies across the EU (which it does), but then they bring the German judgement into it which contradicts the UK judgement. I would consider that confusing for the average consumer.

TBH, I thought the original order by the judge to run these was a bit harsh, but I'm amazed Apple have been allowed to run this in its present format. I wonder how Samsung feel about this?
Click to expand...

Apple is just covering itself when Germany dumps the sad sack EU before the six months are up.

----------
Oletros said:
No, I have not said that. If you can't understand that simple fact now it is clear why do you don't understand that the judge didn't ruled that the tablet is not infringed BECAUSE it is not cool.

Being cool or not doesn't affect at all the infringement, the ruling says that they don't infringe because they are different
Click to expand...
Lol, yes and the reason they are different is because the Samsung device is not as cool as the Apple device.

Stop arguing this, you look silly. The judge said it was not as cool. It was part of his reasoning of differentiation.

Again what is your twisted agenda here? Is your teenage image tied up in bring seen as a cool Samsung user?

You keep making the same wrong argument the judge is going to show up here and correct you.
 
Basically the judge said that Samsung obviously copied Apple but because they did such a low quality job that in his opinion it falls short of infringement.
 
Bezetos said:
Didn't do court establish that Samsung did NOT copy the iPad?
Click to expand...

I think the court established Samsung failed to copy the iPad due to flimsy materials and lack of coolness. It is like the court said "We know Samsung tried to copy Apple, but they did such a poor job we can not consider it in violation.". It is not exactly a great victory for Samsung. The judge didn't say it was clearly and distinctively different he basically said it was just clearly inferior, so much so nobody could mistake the pos galaxy with an iPad.

I for one won't argue with English High Court on that.

----------
diazj3 said:
Yes.... because as everybody knows, historically there is no limit to how high some stocks go. The only real bubble in the stock market is the myth that bubbles exist - and that one bursted a long time ago... 😀

But seriously, this notion that it will just keep going up, calls for caution.



Exactly. The moment this notion of "it will never really go down" sets in among market outsiders and amateurs... BAM! something unforeseen happens that brings everybody back to reality. Or maybe the big stock holders decide they want to sell out and cash in, specially while Apple has this tendency to just accumulate cash and sit on it. History.

Perhaps the time for Apple shares as a long term investment has passed.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Do you have any understanding of stock pricing at all? Beyond that do you understand how much money apple makes and how that is a key factor in deciding what it's stock ultimately is worth because stock is an ownership certificate.
 
Apple played this too good

"So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung will fully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."

Apple played this too good. Well played, Apple. Well played.

See how it doesn't talk much about how they lost the lawsuit? They don't blame the judge because they borrow his words to describe how cool the iPad is and how uncool the Galaxy tab is. And then they also go on to tell you how only the UK court didn't find infringement issues while others did. Two birds, one stone.
 
Oletros said:
And this part is false, the German trial has not taken place and the injunction is a preliminary injunction.

Galaxy Tab 10.1 has not been found infringing any design patent anywhere in the world
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty douchy of Apple either way. I think they were too aggressive (although I do agree it's their right and totally OK to defend themselves if they feel it is necessary) and now that they lost, they come across as sore losers.

I am also not sure this is what the judge had in mind, or even that they could get away with it. After all, the ruling was about the UK and UK law. Subverting it this way is causing more of the same harm that the ruling tried to remedy in the first place.

Apple should have just stuck to the facts of that lawsuit.

I wasn't sure if I should finally buy myself an iPad (we are, very slowly, on the way to becoming a Mac household here) - I'd like one but I really don't have any specific use for it - so this just tipped me in favor of at least waiting another generation. And before anybody tries to troll about that, I of course recognize that the loss of one sale isn't going to hurt them, but it's the principle of the thing, right?
 
Last edited:
marksman said:
I think the court established Samsung failed to copy the iPad due to flimsy materials and lack of coolness. It is like the court said "We know Samsung tried to copy Apple, but they did such a poor job we can not consider it in violation.". It is not exactly a great victory for Samsung. The judge didn't say it was clearly and distinctively different he basically said it was just clearly inferior, so much so nobody could mistake the pos galaxy with an iPad.
Click to expand...

That's not what the court said, that's your convoluted interpretation of what the court said.

----------
gnasher729 said:
No, the court ruled that Samsung did not copy the iPad in a way that infringed on Apple's design patents. Nobody has any doubt that Samsung copied.
Click to expand...

Again, that's not true. If they did not infringe, they did not copy. It's a bit naive saying that the court thinks Samsung copied the design.

This is exactly why the court forced Apple to state that Samsung did not copy.

The US firm had previously been ordered to place a notice to that effect - with a link to the original judgement - on its website and place other adverts in the Daily Mail, Financial Times, T3 Magazine and other publications to "correct the damaging impression" that Samsung was a copycat.
Click to expand...

How can anyone still claim that "the court" or even "everyone" knows that Samsung copied? Childish.
 
Last edited:
charlituna said:
Spirit of the ruling sure, but letter? Show where it says that Apple has to agree that Samsung was innocent, can't include other details from the court records or otherwise etc. it likely doesn't which puts the fault on the court for not including such things
Click to expand...

What makes you actually think Apple was violating the spirit of this ruling? Surely the judge knew what he was doing when he said that the Samsung table was not "cool enough" to be infringing on Apple's design patents. He has explicitly stated that to the law it makes no difference whether Samsung copied or not; what matters to the law is whether the end result infringes on Apple's design patent or not. The man has eyes to see, it is as obvious to him as to anyone that Samsung copied, but the result wasn't close enough to infringe. That's why he made this dig at Samsung.

With that said, what do you think the judge expected Apple to do? It is obvious that Apple would publish something that makes Apple look as good as possible and Samsung as bad as possible. That is just common sense. And the judge knows how to write a ruling that will achieve what he wants to achieve. So what Apple did was exactly what that judge expected.

Bezetos said:
Again, that's not true. If they did not infringe, they did not copy. It's a bit naive saying that the court thinks Samsung copied the design.
Click to expand...

What you say is rather clueless. When the question is whether a design patent is infringed or not, it doesn't matter one bit whether someone copied or not. If Samsung locked up their best designers in an isolated room and let them design a phone, and it looked like the iPhone 5 by pure coincidence with no copying happening, then it would be infringing, with no copying having happened. On the other hand, if they wilfully copied everything but then read what Apple's design patents say and change the design just enough to not infringe, then it doesn't infringe, even though there was massive copying.


Bezetos said:
Didn't do court establish that Samsung did NOT copy the iPad?
Click to expand...

No. The judge has said explicitely in his ruling that it doesn't matter in his ruling whether Samsung copied or not. What the judge had to decide was whether the result of the copying was close enough to be infringing or not. Since Samsung didn't manage to make a product as cool as the iPad, they didn't infringe.


Shaun said:
The UK courts are not known for their sense of humour. This was not an apology at all and Apple are going to be in very serious trouble about this. Contempt of Court is a serious offence in the UK and can carry a lengthy prison sentence. Apple could find it's UK officials facing a court hearing over this statement. This is no laughing matter and Apple should take this seriously.
Click to expand...

Come off it. It is obvious that this judge has an excellent sense of humor. What do you think why he would have called Samsung "not as cool as Apple" if he didn't have a sense of humor? Unfortunately, not all Brits have the humor that they claim to have, as you have demonstrated. I myself find Apple's response very funny, and I bet the judge does as well.
 
Last edited:
marksman said:
Do you have any understanding of stock pricing at all? Beyond that do you understand how much money apple makes and how that is a key factor in deciding what it's stock ultimately is worth because stock is an ownership certificate.
Click to expand...

Yes I do, a pretty good one, actually.

So, do you think the stock will keep ballooning indefinitely? Why?

Keep in mind the stock price, hence market capitalization, is just an opinion, and as such, it can crumble due to a very wide variety of reasons (or none). Just check your history books, and see how often that happens in similar circumstances. And that's my point. Buyer beware...

cheers!
 
RDStrong said:
Contempt of court is a criminal act. Executives could be arrested for it and Apple barred from trading in the UK. None of that $124bn can buy Apple out it if they're found in contempt.

And for the record, if Apple had accepted the original ruling without resorting to snarky comments that undermined said ruling then they would have never been forced to place advertisements online or in the print media.
Click to expand...

Are you daft? The statement had to be approved by the court. Nothing is going to happen because of this.
 
So Apple is happily promoting the differences in design that make their design cooler, and yet at the same time stating that Samsung's is a copy ....but different.

You can't have it both ways Apple.

The new iPad Mini looks very much like a Galaxy Note, but would anyone expect Apple to stop selling the iPad Mini? Again, you can't have it both ways Apple.
 
charlituna said:
Spirit of the ruling sure, but letter? Show where it says that Apple has to agree that Samsung was innocent, can't include other details from the court records or otherwise etc. it likely doesn't which puts the fault on the court for not including such things
Click to expand...

Bringing in other court cases to demonstrate that the UK court was flawed is dubious at best. Its not saying Samsung didn't copy Apple, its stating that according to the British government, Samsung didn't copy Apple.

Big big difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back