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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:05 AM   #101
Bradllez
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Orlando
I honestly believe this was taken way out of proportions.

They should just change it and a month will be gone before any of us know it.
__________________
MacBook Air 13-inch, Late 2010 | MacBook Pro Retina Base Model, Mid 2012 | iPhone 4 GSM (Black) 16GB | iMac 21.5-inch, Mid 2011
iPad (3rd Generation) White 64GB WiFi | iPhone 5 GSM (White) 16GB
Bradllez is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:05 AM   #102
618537
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwebs View Post
Why would the government interfere? If Apple pulled out of the UK it would have next to no impact on the government as they avoid tax anyway, so the government wouldn't loose a penny.
It's only short sighted of people to see major corporations as major tax avoiders and not being worth part of the UK economy.

The very fact that they have turnovers as high as they do is incentive enough for the government to work to address such avoidance. For that to happen it requires everyone to be on fairly good terms, at worse unbalanced but certainly not at each others throats because some judge got a little upset that they were quoted and Samsung continued to be embarrassed.

Personally as a tax payer I'd rather have Apple cough up their tax than spend money on court time chasing them over something as stupid as this.
618537 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:06 AM   #103
Bezetos
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: far away from an Apple store
Apple should stop playing dumb, grow up, and to what the court ordered. If they want to sell products in the UK they should follow the law.
Bezetos is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:07 AM   #104
Boiler
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
They specified the exact text
Any of you have read the actual ruling?
It's good you read the judgment
The judge could have avoided setting himself up with some of those embarrassing quotes though
Boiler is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:08 AM   #105
Macula
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: All over the place
In a free society, there are always two options: abiding by the law (and the verdicts of its courts) or facing the consequences.

In principle, one may opt to just face the consequences. Especially if one has Apple's cash reserves.
Macula is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:09 AM   #106
Neuro
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London
This just makes me feel Apple are even more arrogant than I already thought they were.

Apple 'the company', is putting me off Apple's products, which I would otherwise consider buying.
Neuro is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:09 AM   #107
tatonka
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by unplugme71 View Post
The more news I hear about this, the more I don't like Samsung. Even if Samsung didn't do anything and it was the judge, I still look at Samsung to blame. I'm sure others do too.

If anything, Samsung should just say forget about it as it makes them look worse now.
I don't think there is too many people with such a strong bias. I am still at a loss how somebody could blame this on Samsung ..
tatonka is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:10 AM   #108
618537
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro View Post
This just makes me feel Apple are even more arrogant than I already thought they were.

Apple 'the company', is putting me off Apple's products, which I would otherwise consider buying.
They only complied with a court order and stated the facts / quotes. Which they're perfectly entitled to do so.

Does it affect the quality of their products? No.

Last edited by 618537; Nov 1, 2012 at 10:10 AM. Reason: typo
618537 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:12 AM   #109
Oletros
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by eversonj90 View Post
They only complied with a court order .
No, they didn't so the new order
Oletros is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:12 AM   #110
GadgetDon
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by erzhik View Post
To anyone defending Apple:
Stop it, stop it right now please. Apple was clearly making fun of the ruling and Samsung with their original statement. Apple is not a 10 year old child, they are a billion dollar company and should act like one instead of acting like a ******** brat. Apple got what was coming to them. This wasn't some child's play, this was a court ruling and they should've followed that (no, their initial apology is not following that order, how about you read up that statement and court's order). If I was the judge in that case, I would've fined them for that as well. Apple has more than 1 lawyer, I am damn sure if all those lawyers put their collective minds together, they can write a normal, legal apology without taking up 2 weeks. Christ, college students write thesis papers in less than that.
Yes, Apple was making fun of the ruling with the original statement. It was a stupid ruling that deserved mockery, tyrants should be given no respect.

And yes, I'll call it tyranny. What the original court demanded is that Apple affirmatively state the judgement as correct, to go beyond that and state not just no infringement but no copying. The mark of a democracy is the right to tell every government official "you're wrong" and say about every governmental action "This is wrong". This court decision required Apple to publicly and at their own expense state the decision was wrong. Particularly when there was no action to cure, no posts on the website about how terrible Samsung was to copy their designs or advertisements about how you shouldn't buy from those copycats Samsung.

And so, they did indeed publicly state the judgement, they also pointed out that there have been judgements going the other way. The tyrants are now insisting not only that Apple affirm their decision but deny other decisions.

Well, they have the power of the law. I wonder if they will object to Apple adding one line, "And yet it moves"
GadgetDon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:13 AM   #111
618537
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by tatonka View Post
I don't think there is too many people with such a strong bias. I am still at a loss how somebody could blame this on Samsung ..
Was it really necessary for Samsung to take it back to court? This is where it starts becoming a problem for them... the judge already said "They are not as cool.".

I think Samsung were hoping for an amazing apology they could use for PR instead they got an apology but surrounded by facts about how uncool their product was in comparison and how other jurisdictions differed in judgements.
618537 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:14 AM   #112
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by FNi View Post
No. There is the letter of the law, then there's the spirit of the law. Judges don't take too kindly to people acting dumb when given an order they don't like.
That's perhaps a cultural difference between the UK and US. I'd guess that most judges in the US wouldn't think of writing an opinion using those kinds of words, even in passing, and they'd be more specific in issuing an order, since it's the letter of the law, not the "spirit" (which is subject to interpretation) that is normally enforceable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by subsonix View Post
Well I don't know for a fact, but don't you think that a large corporation like this would check the text before it hits the webpage in a case like this? If so, it is surprising that they did not manage to keep the balance, or missed the point of the ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QCassidy352 View Post
"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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_maddison View Post
The only thing the judge should be surprised at is how he came to his verdict in the first place. Does that mean that counterfeit merchandise is fine, because it's not as cool s the real thing!

As a UK Citizen, doesn't surprise me though, our legal system is inconsistent and shambolic.

I'd go as far to say that Judge Robin Jacob is possibly embarrassed by the fact Apple showed the world how ridiculous the judgement was, by simply quoting the judgement. It's his pride that's taking a knock, and that's why he's outraged.
Likely Apple's attorneys knew quite well that the appellate court could smack them down, but they decided to take a gamble. If nothing more, it got the judge's words about Samsung's device not being "cool" out there for a few more days.

I don't know whether Apple would be enjoined from putting a second link elsewhere on their website saying "Additional information about IP lawsuits around the world" stating factual truths, such as that a jury in a US federal court did find Samsung to be infringing upon design patents. My guess is that the judges won't want a link on the "official" notice, but what's to stop a company from posting a factual truth on its website?
KPOM is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:14 AM   #113
rkahl
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Now if they could get Romney to do this about all his lies.
__________________
Too much!
rkahl is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:15 AM   #114
Oletros
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetDon View Post
Yes, Apple was making fun of the ruling with the original statement. It was a stupid ruling that deserved mockery, tyrants should be given no respect.

And yes, I'll call it tyranny. What the original court demanded is that Apple affirmatively state the judgement as correct, to go beyond that and state not just no infringement but no copying. The mark of a democracy is the right to tell every government official "you're wrong" and say about every governmental action "This is wrong". This court decision required Apple to publicly and at their own expense state the decision was wrong. Particularly when there was no action to cure, no posts on the website about how terrible Samsung was to copy their designs or advertisements about how you shouldn't buy from those copycats Samsung.

And so, they did indeed publicly state the judgement, they also pointed out that there have been judgements going the other way. The tyrants are now insisting not only that Apple affirm their decision but deny other decisions.

Well, they have the power of the law. I wonder if they will object to Apple adding one line, "And yet it moves"
Please, say that you're not claiming all of that in a serious way
Oletros is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:15 AM   #115
618537
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
No, they didn't so the new order
They did, it was just viewed as half-arsed.

Samsung upset that it apologises but states facts and quotes, judge unhappy over the use of "They're not as cool.".

Judge facilitated half of the text:

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

Not complying would have been to do nothing at all.
618537 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:15 AM   #116
subsonix
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
You're kidding, don't you?
The part about public shaming punishment, or the part about writing the copy?
subsonix is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:15 AM   #117
thefourthpope
macrumors 6502a
 
thefourthpope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: DelMarVa
Time to exercise greater care in those court rulings.
thefourthpope is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:16 AM   #118
tatonka
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by eversonj90 View Post
Was it really necessary for Samsung to take it back to court? This is where it starts becoming a problem for them... the judge already said "They are not as cool.".

I think Samsung were hoping for an amazing apology they could use for PR instead they got an apology but surrounded by facts about how uncool their product was in comparison and how other jurisdictions differed in judgements.
Everybody and their mother sees that Apples text goes against the intention of the ruling, which is to set the record straight, not to pile on. Regardless of the original source of the statements. Apple knew what they were doing and they got slapped on their finger for it.
tatonka is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:17 AM   #119
RDStrong
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetDon View Post
Yes, Apple was making fun of the ruling with the original statement. It was a stupid ruling that deserved mockery, tyrants should be given no respect.

And yes, I'll call it tyranny. What the original court demanded is that Apple affirmatively state the judgement as correct, to go beyond that and state not just no infringement but no copying. The mark of a democracy is the right to tell every government official "you're wrong" and say about every governmental action "This is wrong". This court decision required Apple to publicly and at their own expense state the decision was wrong. Particularly when there was no action to cure, no posts on the website about how terrible Samsung was to copy their designs or advertisements about how you shouldn't buy from those copycats Samsung.

And so, they did indeed publicly state the judgement, they also pointed out that there have been judgements going the other way. The tyrants are now insisting not only that Apple affirm their decision but deny other decisions.

Well, they have the power of the law. I wonder if they will object to Apple adding one line, "And yet it moves"
I know that in the USA corporations are often given the same rights as people but... Apple is a corporation and not an individual with the right to vote. If they wish to do business in the UK then they must abide by the court's decision.
RDStrong is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:17 AM   #120
tdream
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlez View Post
take a step back:

Samsung copies Apple

Apple sues

Samsung crys and sends out mocks

Apple sends out mock

--

Who started it?
Yes Samsung copied Apple much like Chrylser copied Ford in making wheels.
__________________
rMacbook Pro 2.6 Galaxy Note 12.2 Moto G iPad 3

Last edited by OllyW; Nov 1, 2012 at 03:03 PM. Reason: removed PRSI
tdream is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:17 AM   #121
Oletros
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by eversonj90 View Post
They did, it was just viewed as half-arsed.

Samsung upset that it apologises but states facts and quotes, judge unhappy over the use of "They're not as cool.".

Judge facilitated half of the text:

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

Not complying would have been to do nothing at all.
Judge facilitated ALL the text, Apple didn't comply and wrote more that they were allowed.
Oletros is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:18 AM   #122
126351
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetDon View Post
And yes, I'll call it tyranny. What the original court demanded is that Apple affirmatively state the judgement as correct, to go beyond that and state not just no infringement but no copying. The mark of a democracy is the right to tell every government official "you're wrong" and say about every governmental action "This is wrong". This court decision required Apple to publicly and at their own expense state the decision was wrong. Particularly when there was no action to cure, no posts on the website about how terrible Samsung was to copy their designs or advertisements about how you shouldn't buy from those copycats Samsung.
lol - UK courts are independant of UK government (much the UK gov's chagrin).
126351 is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:19 AM   #123
Cougarcat
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Apple should codename the next iPad BHJ, "Butt-head Judge," or JAW, "Judges are Wimps."
Cougarcat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:19 AM   #124
frayne182
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by tatonka View Post
No matter who is right or wrong legally here .. comparative advertisement always leaves a very bad taste in my mouth .. never was a fan of the i am a mac commercials and I don't like this childish BS either.

That said .. Samsung is not a stranger to this type of marketing either, which is no better, even if they come from the underdog position.

T.
lol what?

Samsung isn't looking bad at all.

Apple compares just as much as Samsung. Hell they had the Nexus 7 up at their last conference.
__________________
Custom Gaming PC ; Google Nexus 7 ; iPhone4 ; iPhone5
frayne182 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 10:20 AM   #125
618537
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by tatonka View Post
Everybody and their mother sees that Apples text goes against the intention of the ruling, which is to set the record straight, not to pile on. Regardless of the original source of the statements. Apple knew what they were doing and they got slapped on their finger for it.
So remove the red text? While Samsung weren't found guilty the judgement is still embarrassing for them as it makes them the one with the lesser product.

They set the record straight in the quote below... no need for any more or grovelling apologies.

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

In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:

"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. 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 willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
618537 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 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 09:57 PM
Apple Removes UK Website Statement Regarding Galaxy Tab Design, Publishes Newspaper Acknowledgement MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 167 Nov 17, 2012 04:30 PM
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
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 05:04 AM.

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

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