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 2, 2012, 11:46 AM   #76
Vertigo50
macrumors 6502a
 
Vertigo50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Apple employees were also ordered to write on the board 100 times:

"I will not poke fun at Samsung."


Good lord, what kind of legal system do they have over there?
Vertigo50 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:47 AM   #77
cdembek
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2008
This has to be the most ridiculous ruling ever; total waste of time.
cdembek is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:51 AM   #78
lrjr
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Onto the main discussion point of this thread, unfortunately there seems to be a dearth of anyone with reading comprehension. The judgements written by the judges in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are freely available on the internet and show the reasoning behind the decision. The reasoning of the High Court cannot be boiled down to the "cool" statement at the end of the judgement as that was not the only reason he gave. You can read all of his observations on the comparison between the two devices in paragraphs 183-189 of the High Court judgement. Furthermore the court of appeal agreed by saying (at paragraph 54)

Quote:
I would add that even if I were forming my own view of the matter, I would have come to the same conclusion and for the same reasons. If the registered design has a scope as wide as Apple contends it would foreclose much of the market for tablet computers. Alterations in thickness, curvature of the sides, embellishment and so on would not escape its grasp. Legitimate competition by different designs would be stifled.
A number of posters have criticised the judges reasoning in this case and for finding that Samsung had not infringed but no one has stated how they have come to this conclusion with reference to any precedent or case law or even the legal test that is to be applied in such cases.

Patent law is an incredibly complex legal area and that some posters here have the impertinence to think they can speak authoratively on it is frankly gob smacking. I do not hold an opinion on whether the court was correct in its application of the law because my expertise does not lie in patents but the arguments that have been put forward by the UK courts in this case have been far more persuasive than any posting as they have gone into their reasoning.

In regards to the publicity notice this is unusual and the court admits that it is a relatively new feature to patent litigation. The Court of Appeal considers this in paragraphs 64-88 of its judgement and once again no one has come up with a persuasive argument as to why this reasoning is wrong. There have been some general arguments about freedom of speech however these can be dealt with in fairly short compass. Firstly Article 10 of the ECHR does not give absolute protection to freedom of speech and it may be curtailed provided that a legitimate aim is pursued and it is proportionate. The aim here is rectify any commercial uncertainty in Europe that may have resulted from Apple's actions. In particular Apple moving for an injunction in Germany when a Europe Wide decision had already been made in the High Court. It was apple's actions that made the Court of Appeal consider that a publicity order was necessary to counteract the false impression they had given. The publicity message was quite restrained in its language and only pointed to the decision it could therefore be seen as proportionate and the infringement lawful.

In regards to the claim made by PVisitor that the court could only justify the publicity order by reference to an 1800's case that is simply incorrect. There is reference to a case from the early 20th Century but considering the legal point to be decided was a procedural question in relation to injunctions that have been in existence in the court for (probably) century's reference to "older" case law seems completely legitimate. If you feel the court was wrong perhaps you can point to the rule of court, statute or case that says so?

Last edited by OllyW; Nov 2, 2012 at 11:57 AM. Reason: removed PRSI comments
lrjr is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:55 AM   #79
Oohara
macrumors 65816
 
Oohara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
They should have made them begin the ad with "But there's one more thing..."
Oohara is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:58 AM   #80
PVisitors
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
This never happened. Samsung pro-actively brought court action to get a ruling of non-infringement declared. Samsung effectively filed a lawsuit against itself on behalf of Apple if you will.

And again, the lawsuit is not what led to this, has nothing to do with this. Comments made about the 9th of July's ruling are what resulted in this penalty for Apple.

Usual suspects, you've been explained this, given references to the rulings, why do you keep insisting on this ignorance you post instead of actually knowing the truth ?

----------



There are 3 rulings.

9th of July, Samsung does not infringe : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2012/1882.html

18th of July, after ruling, Apple continued to slander thus ad required : http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...2012/2049.html

18th of October, both rulings upheld on appeal by Apple : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

If you don't know the timeline and haven't read all the material, stop commenting now, get educated and come back afterwards.

----------



This was not a copyright case.
Point out where on earth Judges Robin-Jacob, Kitchin and Longmore stated that it is /explicitly/ slander by Apple? Because as far as I can see it is to promote commercial certainty (which is entirely justified as I said in the paragraph you chose to ignore when quoting me).

Quote:
How then does all of that affect the decision as to whether or not there should be a publicity order? The grant of such an order is not to punish the party concerned for its behaviour. Nor is it to make it grovel - simply to lose face. The test is whether there is a need to dispel commercial uncertainty.
Given the massive publicity of HHJ Birss's "not as cool" judgment, if there had been nothing else I would not have let the order he made come into force. Events had made it unnecessary.
But I have come to the firm conclusion that such an order is necessary now. The decision of the Oberlandesgericht received much publicity. What was the ordinary consumer, or the marketing department of a potential Samsung customer to make of it? On the one hand the media said Samsung had won, on the other the media were saying that Apple had a German Europe-wide injunction. Real commercial uncertainty was thereby created. A consumer might well think "I had better not buy a Samsung - maybe it's illegal and if I buy one it may not be supported". A customer (and I include its legal department) might well wonder whether, if it bought Samsung's 7.7 it might be in trouble before the German courts. Safest thing to do either way is not to buy.
Theres your reasoning by the CA why the order was published. As I said the CA sits above the HC in the hierarchy and thus this reasoning will be applied, not that of Justice Birss.
PVisitors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 12:03 PM   #81
SamuelW
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Don't think Apple slandered/libelled Samsung at all. Simply pointing out the flattery inherent in the similarity of design.
SamuelW is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 12:05 PM   #82
PVisitors
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrjr View Post

In regards to the claim made by PVisitor that the court could only justify the publicity order by reference to an 1800's case that is simply incorrect. There is reference to a case from the early 20th Century but considering the legal point to be decided was a procedural question in relation to injunctions that have been in existence in the court for (probably) century's reference to "older" case law seems completely legitimate. If you feel the court was wrong perhaps you can point to the rule of court, statute or case that says so?
Perhaps my point has not come across as well as I wanted it to be. The point I was making is that, as you say, it's a unusual order, indeed the actual court mentions that it is. I wasn't trying to say it soley rested on the 1925 case [overshot the century, was pulled off previous reading a few days ago], but that is the closest Justice Robin Jacob could find to demonstrate.

No where did I claim that the court's reasoning was wrong or unlawful. Merely that the consequences of such an order will be curious indeed, and not something I would be advocate. One can easily disagree without a judgment without claiming it to wrong in the sense of legality.
PVisitors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 12:10 PM   #83
portishead
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: los angeles
I'm not sure where all the Samsung fanboys came from. They think this ruling is justice, but the CA ruling is unfair. You can't have it both ways, and you can't pick and choose which stupid court rulings you support. Not sure why there is a huge android circle jerk on MacRumors.

If you want to look at another Korean company lying check out Hyundai & Kia. Lying about mpg estimates.
portishead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 12:14 PM   #84
lrjr
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
Perhaps my point has not come across as well as I wanted it to be. The point I was making is that, as you say, it's a unusual order, indeed the actual court mentions that it is. I wasn't trying to say it soley rested on the 1925 case [overshot the century, was pulled off previous reading a few days ago], but that is the closest Justice Robin Jacob could find to demonstrate.

No where did I claim that the court's reasoning was wrong or unlawful. Merely that the consequences of such an order will be curious indeed, and not something I would be advocate. One can easily disagree without a judgment without claiming it to wrong in the sense of legality.
A very reasonable position to take and I do agree that the courts must take care when applying new fangled legal tools such as the publicity order to well established legal procedure. I especially think in cases such as this that publicity will almost certainly follow in any event and that such posting may be unnecessary. However, I think there is also an argument to say that where a party has been commercial disadvantaged by the other parties actions that some form of compensatory order may be in order. I think that the development of the law in the area of publicity orders will be quite interesting!
lrjr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 12:17 PM   #85
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by portishead View Post
I'm not sure where all the Samsung fanboys came from. They think this ruling is justice, but the CA ruling is unfair. You can't have it both ways, and you can't pick and choose which stupid court rulings you support. Not sure why there is a huge android circle jerk on MacRumors.

If you want to look at another Korean company lying check out Hyundai & Kia. Lying about mpg estimates.
The CA ruling was the same regarding the design

What Samsung fanboys?
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 12:17 PM   #86
lrjr
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by portishead View Post
I'm not sure where all the Samsung fanboys came from. They think this ruling is justice, but the CA ruling is unfair. You can't have it both ways, and you can't pick and choose which stupid court rulings you support. Not sure why there is a huge android circle jerk on MacRumors.

If you want to look at another Korean company lying check out Hyundai. Lying about mpg estimates.
Given that the California decision was decided on an entirely different basis it is perfectly compatible to agree with one and not the other.
lrjr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 12:34 PM   #87
brucebrendon
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Genius use of "." at the end of a URL, twice.
brucebrendon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 12:45 PM   #88
Rafterman
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Apple, instead of kicking, screaming and stamping your feet like a four year old, just take your punishment like a man, er, company. Print what they want you to print and be done with it. It will have zero bearing in your sales and you are simply looking foolish and drawing even more attention to it by dragging this out.
Rafterman is online now   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 12:55 PM   #89
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
Point out where on earth Judges Robin-Jacob, Kitchin and Longmore stated that it is /explicitly/ slander by Apple? Because as far as I can see it is to promote commercial certainty (which is entirely justified as I said in the paragraph you chose to ignore when quoting me).
Commercial uncertainty created by Apple post-verdict. IE, Slander.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by portishead View Post
I'm not sure where all the Samsung fanboys came from. They think this ruling is justice, but the CA ruling is unfair. You can't have it both ways, and you can't pick and choose which stupid court rulings you support. Not sure why there is a huge android circle jerk on MacRumors.
What huge Android circle jerk are you talking about ? You're the first one to bring up Android in this thread. We're talking about Apple here, not Google's mobile operating system.
__________________
"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   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 12:58 PM   #90
hamkor04
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurda View Post
Unbelieveable, how many people in here STILL don't understand why Apple has to post this message.
No, it's not because they lost their lawsuit against Samsung. It is because they continued to piss into the judge's and Samsung's face AFTER the initial verdict.
those people feels like Apple founded by their fathers or uncles and they have big stake in every dirty move by Apple
__________________
“All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.”
hamkor04 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 01:11 PM   #91
Sue De Nimes
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by unplugme71 View Post
If I was Apple, I would close the UK web and retail stores. The amount of jobs lost would piss off a lot of people and the government.
You mean throw their toys out of the pram like a petulant child?

Apple are engaged in business not playground tantrum throwing.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by portishead View Post
I'm not sure where all the Samsung fanboys came from. They think this ruling is justice, but the CA ruling is unfair. You can't have it both ways, and you can't pick and choose which stupid court rulings you support. Not sure why there is a huge android circle jerk on MacRumors.

If you want to look at another Korean company lying check out Hyundai & Kia. Lying about mpg estimates.
Just because someone disagrees with the way Apple conducts itself doesn't make them (a) a Samsung fanboy or (b) an Android circle jerk (whatever that is)

I personally believe that Apple has gone the way of Microsoft in the 90s and has turned into a ruthless and cut-out corporate entity. That won't affect whether I buy from them or not (same as with Microsoft for me)

If they produce something i want at the right price I will buy it.

It they act like another nasty big company I will criticise them for it.

I criticise them for their Tax Avoidance schemes the same as I with with Vodafone, Starbucks and all the others doing the same.
__________________
2011 27" 3.4Ghz i7 iMac, 16GB RAM, 2TB HD, 2GB 6970m
Sue De Nimes is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 01:21 PM   #92
portishead
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: los angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
What huge Android circle jerk are you talking about ? You're the first one to bring up Android in this thread. We're talking about Apple here, not Google's mobile operating system.
It should be the most obvious to some of the obvious trolls. You can bury your head in the sand if you want but others know you for what you are.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue De Nimes View Post
Just because someone disagrees with the way Apple conducts itself doesn't make them (a) a Samsung fanboy or (b) an Android circle jerk (whatever that is).
Not everyone but there are enough. It's obvious by the comments.
portishead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 01:26 PM   #93
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by portishead View Post
It should be the most obvious to some of the obvious trolls. You can bury your head in the sand if you want but others know you for what you are.
What am I exactly ? And how come others know me better than I know myself ?

What are you even talking about here ?
__________________
"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   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 01:57 PM   #94
Portaluk
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurda View Post
Unbelieveable, how many people in here STILL don't understand why Apple has to post this message.
No, it's not because they lost their lawsuit against Samsung. It is because they continued to piss into the judge's and Samsung's face AFTER the initial verdict.

You may as well copy and paste this and post it every couple minutes.

Reading all the different threads on this subject over the last couple months for some reason I can't fathom there are a lot of posters that seem incapable of understanding this.
Portaluk is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 01:57 PM   #95
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by portishead View Post
It should be the most obvious to some of the obvious trolls. You can bury your head in the sand if you want but others know you for what you are.[COLOR="#808080"]
Ridiculous post and ridiculous accusation.

Are you an kool-aid drinking fanboy isheep because you don't like anything bad being said about Apple. Not at all. In fact those epithets are quite obnoxious.

I think there are some posters here who either don't know what an internet troll actually is, use it as hyperbole - or the biggest error - confuse someone as a troll who is actually - you know - posting factual information rather that FUD.
samcraig is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 02:03 PM   #96
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazUK View Post
At least it wasn't......

COMIC SANS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intarweb View Post
Or Papyrus
I'll see your Papyrus and Comic Sans..

And raise you Zapf Dingbats.

BL.
bradl is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 02:14 PM   #97
unlinked
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prallethrin View Post
Well the judge wasn't totally unreasonable.

He recognize that forcing Apple to declare that Samsung did not infringe was unreasonable, as Apple did not believe it so and it would to violate their right to free speech.

But his decision to force Apple to disseminate the verdict IMO is controversial.
What right to free speech?
unlinked is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 02:24 PM   #98
portishead
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: los angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Ridiculous post and ridiculous accusation.

Are you an kool-aid drinking fanboy isheep because you don't like anything bad being said about Apple. Not at all. In fact those epithets are quite obnoxious.

I think there are some posters here who either don't know what an internet troll actually is, use it as hyperbole - or the biggest error - confuse someone as a troll who is actually - you know - posting factual information rather that FUD.
Lots of FUD going around you can't deny it, but haven't seen much hyperbole in this thread.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
What am I exactly ? And how come others know me better than I know myself ?

What are you even talking about here ?
When you have avatars that stand out and constantly post ridiculous things, people notice.
portishead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 02:31 PM   #99
Glideslope
macrumors 68020
 
Glideslope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafterman View Post
Apple, instead of kicking, screaming and stamping your feet like a four year old, just take your punishment like a man, er, company. Print what they want you to print and be done with it. It will have zero bearing in your sales and you are simply looking foolish and drawing even more attention to it by dragging this out.
What is wrong with drawing attention to it. I don't find it makes Apple look silly. Nor do many others. Anything that draws attention to the flawed Legal Process in this case is a positive.

This is just the beginning. I'd wager this goes on at least another week. Perhaps even 1 contempt of court prior to the end.

This is about how you look in the court of public opinion. Bruce has not shown his end game yet. Be patient.
__________________
“There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. ” Sun Tzu
Glideslope is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 02:31 PM   #100
nia820
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlatlinerG View Post
So at what point can Apple sue the judge who keeps making Apple do these things? All of this extra press is now hurting Apple's image, the same reason Apple has to post this ridiculous documentation..
Apple is hurting their own image by coming up with all these law suits. They are big bullies.

Apple deserves a taste of their own medicine.
nia820 is offline   1 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
Apple Removes Download Options From Quicktime Trailers Website MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 218 Dec 10, 2013 06:01 PM
Apple Posts Notice to UK Site Acknowledging that Samsung Galaxy Tab Did Not Infringe on iPad Design Because "They are not as cool" MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 267 Jan 24, 2013 08:57 PM
Apple Removes Code Hiding Samsung Court Order on UK Website MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 101 Dec 12, 2012 11:18 AM
Apple Ordered to Alter Website Statement Acknowledging Samsung Galaxy Tab Did Not Infringe on iPad Design MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 443 Nov 15, 2012 11:31 PM
Apple Wins EU Sales Ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, Loses Appeal on Galaxy Tab 10.1N MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 21 Jul 26, 2012 06:47 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:20 PM.

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

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