Apple Ordered to Alter Website Statement Acknowledging Samsung Galaxy Tab Did Not Infringe on iPad Design - Page 2

CapitalQ · Nov 1, 2012, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtlez

So the judge thinks it is not okay for Apple to say it's product is more cool and no one of authority cares that Samsung mocks Apple in every advertisement they do?

You're right, Samsung has no reason to mock Apple. It's not like Apple sues them at every possible opportunity or anything...

Oletros · Nov 1, 2012, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtlez

So the judge thinks it is not okay for Apple to say it's product is more cool and no one of authority cares that Samsung mocks Apple in every advertisement they do?

Apple can say that Samsung tablets are not cool everywhere they want EXCEPT in the legal notice that the cour ordered them to put in their homepage

RDStrong · Nov 1, 2012, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtlez

So the judge thinks it is not okay for Apple to say it's product is more cool and no one of authority cares that Samsung mocks Apple in every advertisement they do?

They care whether Apple follow the court's decision.

subsonix · Nov 1, 2012, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oletros

The same legal department that brought the first ruling?

Well, Apple's legal department. Are you implying that they are incompetent?

livingston · Nov 1, 2012, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtlez

So the judge thinks it is not okay for Apple to say it's product is more cool and no one of authority cares that Samsung mocks Apple in every advertisement they do?

I agree but you have to admit if they didn't get any kind of approval, that was a pretty dumb move. Samsung is a blatant copier, but Apple shouldn't stoop to their level even if it is hilarious.

turtlez · Nov 1, 2012, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oletros

No, they didn't

um, yeah, they did lol..

rmwebs · Nov 1, 2012, 08:38 AM

Apple are just being damn pathetic now. Change the damn statement and write it off as experience, what a bunch of idiots their legal dept are.

Oletros · Nov 1, 2012, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtlez

um, yeah, they did lol..

Read the ruling and you will see what the court ordered to put on the homepage

turtlez · Nov 1, 2012, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapitalQ

You're right, Samsung has no reason to mock Apple. It's not like Apple sues them at every possible opportunity or anything...

take a step back:

Samsung copies Apple

Apple sues

Samsung crys and sends out mocks

Apple sends out mock

--

Who started it?

karlwig · Nov 1, 2012, 08:38 AM

As most people here, I'm no lawyer. But anyone can see that Apple's "acknowledgement" was incredibly cocky, so I'm not surprised.

QCassidy352 · Nov 1, 2012, 08:38 AM

"That is a plain breach of the order."

No, actually, it's in precise compliance with the order. Perhaps the judge should have specified the exact text if he felt so strongly about particular wording. He didn't, and apple compiled with what he ordered. The judge was sloppy and he knows it.

rmwebs · Nov 1, 2012, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtlez

But it is fine for Samsung to mock Apple in every advertisement they do?

Sorry but when exactly did a legally required notice become an advert in any shape or form?

StarPower · Nov 1, 2012, 08:39 AM

Classic Apple right there.

The Judge and his stupidly inane "forcing" Apple to write that deserved it, as did shady Sam(e)sung's blatantly cheap and second-rate Apple iPad knockoff.

Apple did what Samsung and that Judge deserved. He actually SAID THAT SAMSUNG'S PRODUCT WASN'T "COOL" ENOUGH TO BE AN IPAD IMITATOR!!!! Thus Samsung made such an inferior product, it couldn't even live up to being the knockoff that it intended to be.

Oletros · Nov 1, 2012, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by subsonix

Well, Apple's legal department. Are you implying that they are incompetent?

No, you're the one that has said that they put those additional paragraphs on the homepage following the legal departement advise.

KnightWRX · Nov 1, 2012, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nungster

Bollocks! They did what the court ordered. And now the court is refining what their intention is, Apple will comply and again do what the court ordered.

The original July ruling's Schedule 1 and the October appeal's ruling that modified Schedule 1 disagree with you. The court had ordered a very simple statement with a link to the judgement.

Apple tried to be "playful" and now it's backfired. I wonder if the posters here that bashed Samcraig and Oleteros in the other thread and argued ad nauseum that Apple was "in the right with their statement" are going to apologize for all the name-calling now ?

(Of course not, anti-Apple troll/haters don't deserve apologies, even when they were right! Let's all just spin this into something where Apple is always right and does no wrong).

livingston · Nov 1, 2012, 08:39 AM

Anyone have a link to the original ruling

everj · 08:40 AM

Apple should just tell the UK Court of Appeal to shove it.

The government won't let it get out of hand - alienating Apple is the last thing that's good for the British economy.

Apple complied with the order and quoted what the proceedings consisted of. Someone got butt hurt, boo-hoo.

As a previous poster said the UK justice system is very inconsistent and unbalanced.

Oletros · Nov 1, 2012, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QCassidy352

"That is a plain breach of the order."

No, actually, it's in precise compliance with the order. Perhaps the judge should have specified the exact text if he felt so strongly about particular wording. He didn't, and apple compiled with what he ordered. The judge was sloppy and he knows it.

They specified the exact text.

Any of you have read the actual ruling?

KnightWRX · Nov 1, 2012, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarPower

The Judge and his stupidly inane "forcing" Apple to write that deserved it, as did shady Sam(e)sung's blatantly cheap and second-rate Apple iPad knockoff.

If Apple is above the law, then so should Samsung or any other corporate entity. Are you suggesting that countries should not have laws that govern the behavior of corporations ? No IP laws, no tax laws, nothing at all to prevent corporations from abusing either citizens or other corporations ?

Corporatism, the new form of government.

livingston · Nov 1, 2012, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oletros

They specified the exact text.

Any of you have read the actual ruling?

I haven't, do you have a link to it?

rmwebs · Nov 1, 2012, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eversonj90

Apple should just tell the UK Court of Appeal to shove it.

The government won't let it get out of hand - alienating Apple is the last thing that's good for the British economy.

Apple complied with the order and quoted what the proceedings consisted of. Someone got butt hurt, boo-hoo.

As a previous poster said the UK justice system is very inconsistent and unbalanced.

Yes, because telling the courts to shove it would be a fantastically intelligent move. Afterall it worked for News Corp when they had that little problem with the News of the World. Oh...wait a second...

Look, we're talking about a notice that has to be displayed on a page for 30 days - it's not going to kill Apple to just follow the damn law.

rikscha · Nov 1, 2012, 08:42 AM

stupid court, but I would expect that in the UK.

Samsung clearly copied the design. You must be blind to not see it.

OllyW · Nov 1, 2012, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livingston

Anyone have a link to the original ruling

Here you go...

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...sung-apple.pdf

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...2012/2049.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

KnightWRX · Nov 1, 2012, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livingston

Anyone have a link to the original ruling

Original ruling about website publicity :

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...2012/2049.html

Ruling denying Apple's appeal :

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

Oletros · Nov 1, 2012, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livingston

Anyone have a link to the original ruling

The appeal ruling: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

The original ruling: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2012/1882.html

Nov 1, 2012, 08:38 AM	#32
rmwebs macrumors 68030 Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: North London, England	Apple are just being damn pathetic now. Change the damn statement and write it off as experience, what a bunch of idiots their legal dept are. __________________ Walt Disney World Guide
	19

Nov 1, 2012, 08:38 AM	#35
karlwig macrumors regular Join Date: Mar 2008	As most people here, I'm no lawyer. But anyone can see that Apple's "acknowledgement" was incredibly cocky, so I'm not surprised.
	14

Nov 1, 2012, 08:38 AM	#36
QCassidy352 macrumors G3 Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Boston, MA	"That is a plain breach of the order." No, actually, it's in precise compliance with the order. Perhaps the judge should have specified the exact text if he felt so strongly about particular wording. He didn't, and apple compiled with what he ordered. The judge was sloppy and he knows it.
	11

Nov 1, 2012, 08:40 AM	#42
everj macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Norwich, U.K.	Apple should just tell the UK Court of Appeal to shove it. The government won't let it get out of hand - alienating Apple is the last thing that's good for the British economy. Apple complied with the order and quoted what the proceedings consisted of. Someone got butt hurt, boo-hoo. As a previous poster said the UK justice system is very inconsistent and unbalanced. __________________ MacBook Pro: 15.4" HR Antiglare, 2.3Ghz Quad Core i7, 16GB RAM, 500GB SATA @ 7200rpm, Mountain Lion iPhone 4S: 64GB White // iPad 3: 64GB White Wifi Last edited by everj; Nov 1, 2012 at 08:40 AM. Reason: typo
	5

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Nov 1, 2012, 08:39 AM	#38
StarPower macrumors member Join Date: Jul 2012	Classic Apple right there. The Judge and his stupidly inane "forcing" Apple to write that deserved it, as did shady Sam(e)sung's blatantly cheap and second-rate Apple iPad knockoff. Apple did what Samsung and that Judge deserved. He actually SAID THAT SAMSUNG'S PRODUCT WASN'T "COOL" ENOUGH TO BE AN IPAD IMITATOR!!!! Thus Samsung made such an inferior product, it couldn't even live up to being the knockoff that it intended to be.
	3

Nov 1, 2012, 08:39 AM	#41
livingston Banned Join Date: Oct 2012	Anyone have a link to the original ruling
	1

Nov 1, 2012, 08:42 AM	#47
rikscha macrumors 6502 Join Date: Mar 2010	stupid court, but I would expect that in the UK. Samsung clearly copied the design. You must be blind to not see it.
	4