Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 26, 2012, 07:32 AM   #101
unplugme71
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockosmodurnlif View Post
Couldn't stay that high forever.
Apple and especially Google, is a prime example of over-inflated stocks.
unplugme71 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 07:35 AM   #102
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
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
Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
"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   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 07:35 AM   #103
unplugme71
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by clibinarius View Post
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.
unplugme71 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 07:44 AM   #104
PVisitors
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
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.
PVisitors is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 07:56 AM   #105
Virgo
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
I thought this was a headline from The Onion when I saw this on twitter.
Virgo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:00 AM   #106
Ballis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Oslo, Norway
hahaha, gotta love apple!
Ballis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:02 AM   #107
k995
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclysm View Post
Right, Apple will end up with nothing despite a court ruling that it be paid...and you think others should grow up?
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.

Quote:
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.
k995 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:11 AM   #108
Lennholm
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
I'm surprised the UK court allowed Apple to make references to an unrelated case in another jurisdiction in this mandated notice.
Lennholm is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:18 AM   #109
apolloa
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by k995 View Post
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?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
It's almost unprecedented.
Apples sheer arrogance is becoming almost unprecedented!
__________________
RIP Jasper, 2000 - 2014
You made our lives special
apolloa is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:21 AM   #110
PVisitors
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by apolloa View Post

[/COLOR]

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.
PVisitors is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:23 AM   #111
G4DP
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclysm View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Apple wouldn't know a cartographer if they stabbed them with a pair of compass' in the backside!
G4DP is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:27 AM   #112
oscillatewildly
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 23 Railway Cuttings
Re the notice; A'holes.
__________________
He always beat me at Subbuteo ‘Cause he ‘flicked to kick’ And I didn't know
oscillatewildly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:40 AM   #113
token787
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Terrible. Why can't Apple just keep it simple?
token787 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:41 AM   #114
apolloa
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
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.
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.
__________________
RIP Jasper, 2000 - 2014
You made our lives special
apolloa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:44 AM   #115
ChrisTX
macrumors 68030
 
ChrisTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Texas
Quote:
Originally Posted by ppc_michael View Post
Childish
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.
__________________
Thanks Steve for all of the awesome technology!
Proud owner of an early 2011 15" MacBook Pro, First gen 15" MacBook Pro, iPad 3, Apple TV, Prototype iPhone 6+, and numerous iPods.
ChrisTX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:46 AM   #116
PVisitors
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by apolloa View Post
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.
Quote:
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.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

section 64.

schedule 1:
Quote:
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]
PVisitors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:46 AM   #117
touchmonkey
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
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.
touchmonkey is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:48 AM   #118
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by unplugme71 View Post
Apple didn't say the correct courts think so. They simply stated facts that other courts found them to infringe.
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.
__________________
"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   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:48 AM   #119
Sue De Nimes
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudane View Post
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?:
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.
__________________
2011 27" 3.4Ghz i7 iMac, 16GB RAM, 2TB HD, 2GB 6970m
Sue De Nimes is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:49 AM   #120
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
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.
samcraig is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:50 AM   #121
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
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.
__________________
"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   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:51 AM   #122
Sensation
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Has anyone got the newspaper articles that Apple have been told to print? Im glad to see the UK courts are doing the right thing in all these patent troll cases.
Sensation is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:52 AM   #123
PVisitors
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
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.
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 by PVisitors; Oct 26, 2012 at 09:02 AM.
PVisitors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:57 AM   #124
AaronTheYoung
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonia View Post
$100 wiped off the share price in 1 week.

Who is laughing Apple?

Not your shareholers
uh. NO. What stock chart are you looking at?

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=A...rce=undefined;
AaronTheYoung is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:58 AM   #125
PVisitors
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
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.
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.
PVisitors is offline   0 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 Ordered to Alter Website Statement Acknowledging Samsung Galaxy Tab Did Not Infringe on iPad Design MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 443 Nov 16, 2012 12:31 AM
Apple Loses Appeal on UK Ruling Requiring Ads Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Infringe iPad Design MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 428 Oct 28, 2012 07:37 PM
samsung galaxy tab 7.0 2 plus is better than ipad mini ok AR999 iPad 6 Oct 24, 2012 12:47 PM
U.S. Ban on Samsung Galaxy Tab Sales Goes into Effect as Apple Posts Bond MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 79 Aug 3, 2012 02:49 AM
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 07:47 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 AM.

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

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