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 Oct 26, 2012, 08:01 AM   #126
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
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.
But not in the spirit of the ruling, is it? They were ordered to do this, why?
samcraig is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:03 AM   #127
PVisitors
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
But not in the spirit of the ruling, is it? There were ordered to do this, why?
They were ordered to do it to clear up uncertainty:

"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."

"Apple itself must (having created the confusion) make the position clear: that it acknowledges that the court has decided that these Samsung products do not infringe its registered design. The acknowledgement must come from the horse's mouth. Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely"

So where have Apple not acknowledged that the High Court ruling in the UK was right? The first paragraph is the acknowledgement as recommended by the Judges of the CA whilst also confirming it has full enforcement across the EU.
PVisitors is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:05 AM   #128
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
They were ordered to do it to clear up uncertainty:

"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."

"Apple itself must (having created the confusion) make the position clear: that it acknowledges that the court has decided that these Samsung products do not infringe its registered design. The acknowledgement must come from the horse's mouth. Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely"

So where have Apple not ackowledged that the High Court ruling in the UK was right? The first paragraph is the acknowledge as recommended by the Judges of the CA.

It can be argued that the rest of the ad causes customer confusion.
samcraig is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:09 AM   #129
PVisitors
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
It can be argued that the rest of the ad causes customer confusion.
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?
PVisitors is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:11 AM   #130
token787
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
I have products from both companies and have to say Samsung is Apple's largest rivalry. Still Apple needs to tread lightly when it comes to the courts ruling or they may find themselves in deep ****. BTW, the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 is cool!!!
token787 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:14 AM   #131
Oletros
macrumors 601
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
How have Apple not complied to the said court order to be liable for contempt of court as some people here are suggesting?
Perhaps if the court thinks that Apple had to pout only what they have proposed and nothing more without telling ir the court

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.
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:16 AM   #132
tdream
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Pure petulance from Apple. It's not that hard to follow simple instructions, is it? There's not room for creative license with a court ordered punishment. Well maybe I can change it around a bit here and there make me look good. Nope, not up for discussion.


And to the Apple trolls all the silly +1 comments, especially concerning the Samsung patent infringement "win". Maybe you didn't notice that the USTPO began proceedings to invalidate Apple's patents used the $1 billion payout case. I'm sure there's a whole lot more of that to follow. The case is slowly unravelling. It was a ridiculous decision in the first place.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/23/...y-invalidated/

The "win" is being tarnished more and more, as more and more evidence and due diligence is being done on the case. I can see Samsung perhaps not paying out anything at all if the case is overturned and at worst a measly fraction of total punitive damages.
__________________
rMacbook Pro 2.6 4G 32GB 3G 16GB iTouch 1G 32GB Mini 1.6 iPad 3 64GB
Moto G | Sony Vaio Flip 15A
tdream is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:20 AM   #133
PVisitors
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
Perhaps if the court thinks that Apple had to pout only what they have proposed and nothing more without telling ir the court
What a judge proposes isn't binding.

If you propose, it's a suggestion. The Judge suggested that statement, thus there would be no case of contempt (going down this approach).
PVisitors is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:20 AM   #134
i.mac
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post

So where have Apple not acknowledged that the High Court ruling in the UK was right? The first paragraph is the acknowledgement as recommended by the Judges of the CA whilst also confirming it has full enforcement across the EU.
That ruling was not right.
__________________
mac classic, quadra, etc...
i.mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:25 AM   #135
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
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?
You don't think that an ad where 3/4 of the copy is about how Samsung infringed and 1/4 dedicated to the ruling that it did not isn't confusing for a customer?

Let me put it another way - If Apple can say that Samsung devices causes customer confusion because they are "similar" - I think Samsung can argue easily that this ad does too.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
What a judge proposes isn't binding.

If you propose, it's a suggestion. The Judge suggested that statement, thus there would be no case of contempt (going down this approach).
You keep missing the point that the whole reason that Apple was forced to do this was because they went against the court's ruling and bad mouthed Samsung. Do you really not see how that same judge would see this ad as antagonistic yet again? Do you not see it - or do you just not care. Because if you don't care, that's your opinion and you're entitled. But if you don't see it - well, I'm not sure how to respond.
samcraig is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:25 AM   #136
Compile 'em all
macrumors 601
 
Compile 'em all's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 127.0.0.1
Im actually happy they posted that, it is a slap on the Samsung face. No the other way round. I guess most people where expecting Apple to say "we are sorry Samsung! we beg you!".

Too bad.
__________________
Compile 'em all is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:26 AM   #137
i.mac
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
It can be argued that the rest of the ad causes customer confusion.
If a customer is confused enough to believe that samedung did not copy apple's design, then this add should not be necessary for the aforementioned confused customer.

This add is meant to show who is the boss in the uk legal system, as ordered by that legal boss. Nothing more.
__________________
mac classic, quadra, etc...
i.mac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:27 AM   #138
PVisitors
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
You don't think that an ad where 3/4 of the copy is about how Samsung infringed and 1/4 dedicated to the ruling that it did not isn't confusing for a customer?

Let me put it another way - If Apple can say that Samsung devices causes customer confusion because they are "similar" - I think Samsung can argue easily that this ad does too.
Contempt of Court is entirely different. AFAIK it wouldn't be Samsung pursuing that, it would be the state itself.

It's not 3/4. The first paragraph was recommended by a judge, so that one we can exclude. The Next two paragraphs are the /reasoning/ why Samsung don't infringe (click on the law report link, it's not even out of context). The 4th paragraph is then about the jurisdiction it applies to and whether it had been confirmed by an appellate court. It's only the last paragraph which is the dubious one. But again I would argue it's not contempt as they're well entitled to state fact, it's not saying that the UK judgment is wrong.

No, they were forced to do it for consumer certainty; not for 'badmouthing Samsung' or going against the Court. Again, click on the law report and read it for yourself; the CA sets out in detail why such order is now necessary. I've already pasted the CA reasoning; that's the ratio, you follow the ratio. The judges personal opinions are irrelevant at this stage.
PVisitors is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:28 AM   #139
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by i.mac View Post
If a customer is confused enough to believe that samedung did not copy apple's design, then this add should not be necessary for the aforementioned confused customer.

This add is meant to show who is the boss in the uk legal system, as ordered by that legal boss. Nothing more.
You lost me when you typed samedung. Your opinion is pretty worthless to me since you can't discuss something like an adult.
samcraig is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:39 AM   #140
mono1980
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lansing, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonia View Post
$100 wiped off the share price in 1 week.

Who is laughing Apple?

Not your shareholers
Apple has done nothing to warrant such a loss. It's just Wall Street being idiots, which is nothing new when it comes to Apple. It's a great time to buy Apple stock.
mono1980 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:45 AM   #141
reefoid
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
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.
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?
reefoid is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 08:56 AM   #142
PVisitors
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid View Post
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?
Welcome to the lovely study of EU Law. Contradictions galore. Basically the consumer is going to get stuck between the complexity of EU law. Apple have every right to mention the legal verdict in Germany as it is entirely valid which is why IMO I'd eat my feet to see either Samsung or the Courts make any noises in relation to this post. It's just the implications of the actual verdict are complex. Maybe it's not confusing to me because I have knowledge of some of the law and have been following the case, and on second consideration if I was part of Apple's legal dept. I would have seriously considered omitting the final paragraph as I think even if you remove that paragraph it speaks volumes for Apple when you have a Judge in a court of law ruling that Samsung didn't copy because Apple had actually designed their iPad better than Samsung's Tab.

In relation to the second point: It was. As far as I can tell, if it wasn't for the German injunction granted then the CA would have ruled that the order to say Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's IP would not be necessary. It was only ruled that it needed to be done for clarification after the German case; which it does by claiming the UK judgment is binding across the whole of the EU.
PVisitors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 09:00 AM   #143
Oletros
macrumors 601
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
Apple have every right to mention the legal verdict in Germany as it is entirely valid which is why IMO I'd eat my feet to see either Samsung or the Courts make any noises in relation to this post. It's just the implications of the actual verdict are complex.
but they are mudding the waters because the German injunction is only a preliminary injunction and the trial has not taken place
Oletros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 09:04 AM   #144
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
I would have seriously considered omitting the final paragraph as I think even if you remove that paragraph it speaks volumes for Apple when you have a Judge in a court of law ruling that Samsung didn't copy because Apple had actually designed their iPad better than Samsung's Tab.
Apple put what they did about the German court (even though not accurate) because if they 100% concede that Samsung didn't copy the iPad then that has implications further down the road with lawsuits. They (I imagine) believe that it was a better risk to post it.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 09:06 AM   #145
Tech198
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Australia, Perth
So, do can the corts agree on anything.....?

If they can't do this in different countries, what hope does Apple and Samsung have.

Then again, this would grab the most attention, "for those that beleive it"
__________________
15" Macbook Pro i7 750Gig HD 8Gig Ram, Apple TV (3rd-Gen.), iPhone 4S 16Gig, iPad (4th-Gen.) 16Gig, Mac Mini 2.3Ghz i7 1TB HD

"There are no stupid questions, just stupid people."
Tech198 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 09:10 AM   #146
tbrinkma
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
This is false
You've made that claim before. Read paragraph 190 of the judge's ruling. The judge's reasoning that Samsung didn't infringe the design patent *literally* included the assessment that the Samsung product wasn't as cool.
__________________
17" MBP (unibody), 2.66GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 750 GB HDD; iPhone 4s 64GB/Black
tbrinkma is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 09:11 AM   #147
Oletros
macrumors 601
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PremiÓ de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrinkma View Post
You've made that claim before. Read paragraph 190 of the judge's ruling. The judge's reasoning that Samsung didn't infringe the design patent *literally* included the assessment that the Samsung product wasn't as cool.
Another time, I have read the fracking paragraph, what it is false is the claim that they didn't infringe because it is not cool.

Got it?
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 09:14 AM   #148
craftytony
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sycamore, IL
Smart move by Apple. It was ridiculous they had to post anything on their site in the first place, but this just makes it great! Thanks to the UK judge giving Apple this opportunity!

Would be funny if Samsung had to post on their site how they lost 1+ Billion dollars to Apple for copying them.
craftytony is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 09:16 AM   #149
FasterQuieter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
I take it as a good sign that they are being peevish about this. Shows they still have the same passion for the brand that Steve did.
FasterQuieter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 09:17 AM   #150
wovel
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: America(s)!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
This is false
No matter how badly you want it to be false, it is still what the judge put in his ruling. The words are there. What exactly do you claim is false?
wovel 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:05 AM.

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

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