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, 10:45 AM   #51
jimsowden
macrumors 68000
 
jimsowden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NY
Apple should have been forced to pay for an ad Samsung made, and that the court cleared. That's an actual punishment.
__________________
Maybe Apple's just keeping it simple
jimsowden is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 10:51 AM   #52
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbeagle View Post
Apple should sue the judge now for 'forcing Apple to damage their reputation' or some such nonsense.
And the argument to sue ALL 4 judges would be....

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by rorschach View Post
If judges don't want their rulings quoted then perhaps they should leave out those parts. The ad was specified down to the font size; if the judge had wanted specific text and nothing else on the page, then he should have said so.
And they did so, have you read the ruling?
Oletros is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 10:51 AM   #53
OllyW
Moderator
 
OllyW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The Black Country, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
What I find more concerning is that a High Court patents judge thinks that "Samsung's product isn't as cool or as well designed as Apple, ergo there is no infringement" is a perfectly rational judgment. What sort of precedent does this set, from his judgment one could easily conclude therefore that any iPad [or other product] knock offs could then be construed as not infringing as they're not as 'cool'.
Nice cherry picking.

That wasn't the only reason for there being no infringement.

Perhaps you'd like to read the full judgement. The "They are not cool" line is in section 190 out of 191. There was a lot more reasoning taken over the decision than "Samsung's product isn't as cool or as well designed as Apple, ergo there is no infringement".
__________________
Some Apple stuff
Some other stuff
https://soundcloud.com/disco-tramps
OllyW is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 10:54 AM   #54
dermeister
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
 
Love how the newspaper ad looks like spam of some sort. Which is basically what the ruling was.
__________________
uBar 2.0 - The task bar for the Mac
dermeister is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:00 AM   #55
Hurda
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
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.
Hurda is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:01 AM   #56
everything-i
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prallethrin View Post
This the part that irks me. It seem lost on the judge that the public could misinterpret this as admission of "wrongdoing" on part of Apple. I'm surprised Apple's lawyers didn't bring this up.

Well, it too late now unless they appeal again. But given that Apple didn't appeal immediately probably means they aren't interested in doing so.
Have to agree, I don't understand what Apple actually did wrong here. They accused Samsung of copying their products by taking the matter to court. There was at least just cause for them to do this as they had already had similar ruling in their favour however in this case the judge decided that there was no case to answer which should have been the end of it. But no there seems to be a requirement that Apple undergo some form of strange public humiliation by placing the ruling on their website and taking out adverts. I can't understand this stance as the fact that they lost the case was enough for the general public to understand the result, Apple lost and Samsung were vindicated. Where is the wrong doing here on Apples part, if Apple were guilty of some form of misrepresentation then that should have been settled in the courts too not by heaping humiliation onto the looser of the original case. This harkens back to the middle ages where criminals would be manacled in a market square with the towns folk pelting them with rotten vegetables. Even the judges ruling was ridiculous being summarised by how 'cool' he considers a device to be as the thrust of his argument. This was not a good day for the British legal system, in fact the judges ruling was rather embarrassing.

Last edited by everything-i; Nov 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM.
everything-i is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:05 AM   #57
SamuelW
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
A ducking stool or the stocks seem to be judicial preference as much more cool than squinty ads. Or maybe the school master's yellow cane in chambers.
SamuelW is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:05 AM   #58
bbeagle
macrumors 65816
 
bbeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
And they did so, have you read the ruling?
It's obvious that you haven't. Because there is nothing written.

The ruling is here: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...sung-apple.pdf

There is nothing in this ruling that says Apple has to run any advertisements.

'The matter was discussed in court afterwards'. So this was all verbal.
http://www.zdnet.com/judge-apple-mus...ad-7000001149/

Apple could write more, there was nothing wrong with that. The main issue is that the judges wanted an APOLOGY. The judges felt that what Apple wrote was not an apology.
bbeagle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:06 AM   #59
PVisitors
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllyW View Post
Nice cherry picking.

That wasn't the only reason for there being no infringement.

Perhaps you'd like to read the full judgement. The "They are not cool" line is in section 190 out of 191. There was a lot more reasoning taken over the decision than "Samsung's product isn't as cool or as well designed as Apple, ergo there is no infringement".
You think everything in that judgment is the ratio of the case? Okay then.

When push comes to shove, the Judge summed up his reasoning with the fact Apple's design looks cooler. Do you really think that such a statement is appropriate for a patent's trial?
PVisitors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:06 AM   #60
everything-i
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllyW View Post
Nice cherry picking.

That wasn't the only reason for there being no infringement.

Perhaps you'd like to read the full judgement. The "They are not cool" line is in section 190 out of 191. There was a lot more reasoning taken over the decision than "Samsung's product isn't as cool or as well designed as Apple, ergo there is no infringement".
So why did he even say this, it should never have been brought down to this level. The judge is there to interpret the law as relates to the facts presented not to pass comments on what he considers to be 'cool' or not.
everything-i is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:13 AM   #61
ArtOfWarfare
macrumors 603
 
ArtOfWarfare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Send a message via Skype™ to ArtOfWarfare
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDee View Post
Anyone that looks at that newspaper page won't even read it because its just a load of text & looks like the standard bunch of terms and conditions that you find at the bottom of an ad that no one reads.
Not to mention the fact that:

1 - It starts with the word "Advertisement"

and

2 - Even if a layperson reads it, they won't understand what it means.

Question: Does freedom of the press exist in the UK? If so, it seems to me that this court order has grossly violated it. I'd say freedom of press includes the freedom to not print anything.

I'd say Apple can take the court itself to court... or maybe the government instead? IDK, once your court system fails to uphold the law of the land, it seems your entire government structure kind of breaks down as people come to realize that it's in no way serving their interests anymore.
__________________
Battery Status - On the Mac App Store
The only app that'll estimate when your wireless devices will need their batteries changed.
Including the ones paired with other Macs on your network.
ArtOfWarfare is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:16 AM   #62
anand
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Between heaven and hell
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.
Agree. Pull all products from the UK.
anand is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:17 AM   #63
OllyW
Moderator
 
OllyW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The Black Country, England
Moderator Note:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forum Rules
Threads and posts on controversial political, religious, and social issues are to be limited to the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum, and made only by those eligible for that forum.
We had to close yesterday's news discussion thread to delete a lot of off-topic political comments so please don't derail this thread in the same manner. If you qualify for PRSI access and wish to start an offshoot thread there, please do so.
__________________
Some Apple stuff
Some other stuff
https://soundcloud.com/disco-tramps

Last edited by OllyW; Nov 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM. Reason: sp
OllyW is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:22 AM   #64
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prallethrin View Post
Well, it too late now unless they appeal again. But given that Apple didn't appeal immediately probably means they aren't interested in doing so.
Apple did appeal. Original judgement was on the 18th of July, appeal was ruled on on October 18th. The appeal upheld the original july rulings of the 9th about non-infringement and of the 18th about Apple having to rectify damage to Samsung's reputation following their disregard for the 9th's ruling.

Some of you guys really need to get up to speed on the proceedings, your comments are all over the place and quite ignorant of the entire situation.
__________________
"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   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:23 AM   #65
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbeagle View Post
It's obvious that you haven't. Because there is nothing written.

The ruling is here: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...sung-apple.pdf

There is nothing in this ruling that says Apple has to run any advertisements.
This is the ruling where the judge said that Samsung didn't infringed not the one that ruled that Apple had to write that Samsung didn't infringed.

Do you thought that they had to write the note because they lost the trial?
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:24 AM   #66
Stephen123
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllyW View Post
Nice cherry picking.

That wasn't the only reason for there being no infringement.

Perhaps you'd like to read the full judgement. The "They are not cool" line is in section 190 out of 191. There was a lot more reasoning taken over the decision than "Samsung's product isn't as cool or as well designed as Apple, ergo there is no infringement".
I just read the full judgement. Either UK law is utterly different from US copyright law AND international copyright treaties, or the judge has no understanding of copyright law. The judge gives his reasoning. There is no need to guess what it might have been; he tells us outright. And his reasoning is based on trademark law not copyright law. I realize UK copyright law is a little different in some ways, but I don't think it's different enough to suddenly be trademark law.
Stephen123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:25 AM   #67
OllyW
Moderator
 
OllyW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The Black Country, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbeagle View Post
There is nothing in this ruling that says Apple has to run any advertisements.
It was part of this judgement and later confirmed by the three judges in the
appeal judgement.
__________________
Some Apple stuff
Some other stuff
https://soundcloud.com/disco-tramps
OllyW is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:25 AM   #68
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbeagle View Post
Apple is clearly upset with the verdict and is dragging their feet. Of course they could do it in just a few minutes, but because they don't HAVE TO, they won't do it. This is their little LEGAL way of annoying the judge.
Actually, the judge asked the message to be put up between 24 and 48 hours, and if Apple can't comply, Tim Cook himself will have to provide a written affidavit of why exactly they can't.

You'd know if you read the previous article, it was all in there.

For your reference, from Ars Technica's coverage :

Quote:
Apple tried to argue that it would take 14 days to post an updated notice on its website, but the request was shot down. In fact, Judge Jacob made it clear that Apple's actions are beginning to make him testy.

"I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can’t put this on" its site, Jacob said. "I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given. This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?"
So at this point, they better comply.
__________________
"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   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:25 AM   #69
sillypooh
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Nicely anonymous. I like it. Why attract more attention... Ridiculous ruling if you ask me.
sillypooh is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:27 AM   #70
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by axcurtis View Post
This court-ordered ad is just chickens**t by Apple haters who would like to drag down something good that is happening in the world. Reminds me of the old PC-Mac arguments.
The court ordered ad is by the same judge that said the iPad was cooler. So he's an Apple fan when says their products are cool, but he's an Apple hater when he tells Apple not to take his verdict lightly ?

No, I think he's a balanced and objective person.
__________________
"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 Nov 2, 2012, 11:32 AM   #71
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
The court ordered ad is by the same judge that said the iPad was cooler. So he's an Apple fan when says their products are cool, but he's an Apple hater when he tells Apple not to take his verdict lightly ?

No, I think he's a balanced and objective person.
An Apple hater that owns an iPad
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:35 AM   #72
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVisitors View Post
The idea of needing to post on your own site that a product didn't infringe just because you lost the case is pretty strong new precedent which is pretty much unheard of in modern patent law.
Good thing this is not what happened. Bad thing that I already explained this to you and you persist in believing in this made up FUD you keep posting.

When will you read the rulings and understand the real timeline of what happened ? Apple doesn't have to post these ads because they lost. They lost on the 9th of July. The ads ruling was a seperate ruling on the 18th, for comments made after the 9th of July rulings. It has nothing to do with Samsung's non-infringement verdict and everything to do with Apple's continued slandering of Samsung's reputation.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigapplefan View Post
Since when was cool a differentiator between products.
Good thing Cool is not the differentiator the court used to rule for non-infringement then. Actual design elements, shapes, colors are what the court ruled on and found that Samsung's were different enough from Apple's registered 607 design that the Tabs are non-infringing. "Cool" was an "overall impression" posted on the very last paragraph, 3 words out of thousands.
__________________
"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, 11:37 AM   #73
jayenh
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDee View Post
Anyone that looks at that newspaper page won't even read it because its just a load of text & looks like the standard bunch of terms and conditions that you find at the bottom of an ad that no one reads.
Then why would they be reading a newspaper like the Guardian in the first place, since that is also mainly "a load of text". Not everyone needs pretty pictures to keep them focused. Also consider the size of the text compared to the standard print size of the paper (as can be seen above the notice), which is clearly larger than your typical T&C's.
jayenh is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2012, 11:41 AM   #74
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by everything-i View Post
Have to agree, I don't understand what Apple actually did wrong here. They accused Samsung of copying their products by taking the matter to court.
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 ?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbeagle View Post
It's obvious that you haven't. Because there is nothing written.

The ruling is here: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...sung-apple.pdf
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen123 View Post
I just read the full judgement. Either UK law is utterly different from US copyright law AND international copyright treaties, or the judge has no understanding of copyright law.
This was not a copyright case.
__________________
"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 Nov 2, 2012, 11:42 AM   #75
portishead
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: los angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryTV View Post
How long will it take the first fanboy to come up with some absurd pretend technical reason why Apple can't change the text in an hour? Poor apple, they think they can bend the reality of anyone who has ever published any text on the web, or edited a post. Or used a word processor. This is insane.
I'm sure they can change it to whatever they want, but if the UK courts didn't like what they originally wrote, maybe they need to get something approved. Not sure how long that will take, nor do I care. This isn't "insane" it's a stupid court ruling even dumber than the one in California.
portishead 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 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 07:58 AM.

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

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