Apple Removes UK Website Statement Regarding Galaxy Tab Design, Publishes Newspaper Acknowledgement

[Alx*27]

What a moronic order by the judge.

The end result is what amounts to a classified ad which look likes it was placed by an individual. Nicely done Apple.

Presumably there is an ad for an old Ford Granada above it and a message advertising a new Thai massage parlour below?

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by Alx*27

Presumably there is an ad for an old Ford Granada above it and a message advertising a new Thai massage parlour below?

Unlikely. It has to be published "on a page earlier than page 6 in The Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine."

[JAT]

Originally Posted by kdarling

(Apple's claim of needing "two weeks" probably came from the very popular corporate programmer's stock reply to how long it'll take to change anything. Saying "two weeks" is an inside joke in most companies.)

No ****. Too bad it took this many posts to get the first on topic intelligent comment.

This place is going downhill. Speaking as someone who has been visiting for awhile.

[fatboyslick]

Actually quite a clever ad by Apple - make it completely fill the space and within the first few lines are a web address and a long number - no one will read it as at a glance it looks like spam/boring crap

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by fatboyslick

Actually quite a clever ad by Apple - make it completely fill the space and within the first few lines are a web address and a long number - no one will read it as at a glance it looks like spam/boring crap

Clever ad by Apple ? It's the court mandated text. You mean the court was clever ?

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by JAT

No ****. Too bad it took this many posts to get the first on topic intelligent comment.

This place is going downhill. Speaking as someone who has been visiting for awhile.

It was actually said before by me and a few others.

But I hear ya!

[fatboyslick]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Clever ad by Apple ? It's the court mandated text. You mean the court was clever ?

No i mean Apple were clever in their presentation of it.
They didnt make it stand out or attractive to the eye.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by fatboyslick

No i mean Apple were clever in their presentation of it.
They didnt make it stand out or attractive to the eye.

How is that clever - they weren't required to make it clever or attractive. And any company - who was mandated to post this notice wouldn't make a fancy "ad."

Hardly clever. SOP.

[unplugme71]

Originally Posted by pcharles

Clearly you know nothing about the British Government.

Back in the 70's, Ford Motor Company threatened to pull all manufacturing out of the UK if it was forced to to implement equal pay for women.

The British minister involved just said "I'll have to take that chance." Ford implemented equal pay, continued to manufacture, and within a few years, the rest of the world was forced to follow suit.

Pay is determined by productivity, or at least should be. If woman productivity equaled that of men, Ford did the right thing. Otherwise I'm sure they would've pulled out.

----------

Originally Posted by Sue De Nimes

You mean throw their toys out of the pram like a petulant child?

Apple are engaged in business not playground tantrum throwing.

----------



Just because someone disagrees with the way Apple conducts itself doesn't make them (a) a Samsung fanboy or (b) an Android circle jerk (whatever that is)

I personally believe that Apple has gone the way of Microsoft in the 90s and has turned into a ruthless and cut-out corporate entity. That won't affect whether I buy from them or not (same as with Microsoft for me)

If they produce something i want at the right price I will buy it.

It they act like another nasty big company I will criticise them for it.

I criticise them for their Tax Avoidance schemes the same as I with with Vodafone, Starbucks and all the others doing the same.

So all this patent suit is business and not tantrum throwing? Ok.

----------

Originally Posted by G4DP

Another person who thinks Apple actually employs a lot of people. How many people do you really think they employ in all of there 30+ stores?

The UK web site is run from Ireland, along with all support services.

For everyone, including half of people in the UNITED KINGDOM.

IRELAND IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDANT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. They employ no more than 1,000 in the UNITED KINGDOM.

All services we use in the UK are either run from IRELAND or the NETHERLANDS.

10 people or 100 people, is still people.

----------

Originally Posted by zin

Yes, and I'm sure the revenue lost would piss off Apple.

those people could just buy from another country if they wanted to. just like they did before apple became global.

[Topher15]

It's amazing how many people don't understand what the case was even about. The iPad had NOTHING to do with this case. It was a total irrelevance!

I do think that Samsung did copy the iPad, but I also agree that the judge was completely right.

How?

Because the case was not between the iPad and the Galaxy tablets. It was between the Registered Design and the Galaxy tablets. As the judge said in this case: "This case must be decided as if the iPad never existed."

Here's the revenant comments from the judge:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
3. Because this case (and parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about. It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law. Whether or not Apple could have sued in England and Wales for copying is utterly irrelevant to this case. If they could, they did not. Likewise there is no issue about infringement of any patent for an invention.

4. So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products. The registered design is not the same as the design of the iPad. It is quite a lot different. For instance the iPad is a lot thinner, and has noticeably different curves on its sides. There may be other differences - even though I own one, I have not made a detailed comparison. Whether the iPad would fall within the scope of protection of the registered design is completely irrelevant. We are not deciding that one way or the other. This case must be decided as if the iPad never existed.

And:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html
17. There is much more material of the same sort. Nearly all of it reveals a fundamental misconception, namely that the UK case was about whether Samsung had copied the iPad. I cannot emphasise enough that it was not. As I said in my earlier judgment "this case must be decided as if the iPad never existed". "It is not about whether Samsung copied the iPad" and "the registered design is not the same as the iPad."

So, all that matters is if Samsung infringed Apple's Registered Design, and this is that Registered Design:



Once I realised what the case was actually about (i.e. the Registered Design, not the actual iPad product design), I'm inclined to agree with the judge that Samsung's tablets do not infringe the above design.

Samsung may not have copied or infringed Apple's Registered Design but I do think they copied the iPad product design (just like I think they copied the iPhone design; Samsung in general has been trying to morph themselves into an Apple-like company by copying them, as the design of multiple products shows, from computers and cables to packaging and advertising.)

The problem I have with the forced public statements is that they only pertain to the Registered Design and have nothing to do with the iPad design, however the public will of course understand this as Apple admitting, albeit under court order, that Samsung did not copy the iPad, but that was not the courts judgement.

Even if Apple were to agree that Samsung did not infringe their Registered Design, it don't think it would be inconsistent of Apple to maintain that Samsung copied the iPad product design, since even the judge agrees "that the registered design is not the same as the iPad."

[SomeDudeAsking]

Ummmm, you do know that you are saying that Apple patented a rectangle, right? There is nothing unique about that "design" you posted. Heck, Apple copied a picture frame.

[Topher15]

Originally Posted by SomeDudeAsking

Ummmm, you do know that you are saying that Apple patented a rectangle, right? There is nothing unique about that "design" you posted. Heck, Apple copied a picture frame.

I'm saying the Registered Design is what it is, and that's all the case was about. Anyone who relates this case to the iPad has no idea what they are talking about.

You are wrong to simplify the Registered Design to a mere rectangle or picture frame. This is the sort of nonsense from people that have no clue.

A registered community design applies to "the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and/or materials." All these things contribute to it's uniqueness, and Apple's Registered Design is clearly unique; unique enough for the judge to conclude that an "informed user" would not confuse it against the Samsung tablets.

Apple identified four features of their Registered Design and the judge added a fifth.

(i) A rectangular, biaxially symmetrical slab with four evenly, slightly rounded corners;

(ii) A flat transparent surface without any ornamentation covering the entire front face of the device up to the rim;

(iii) A very thin rim of constant width, surrounding and flush with the front transparent surface;

(iv) A rectangular display screen surrounded by a plain border of generally constant width centred beneath the transparent surface.

I would add one other feature, that the edges of the front as shown on the representations are sharp. The sides are at 90o to the plane of the front face. So the thin rim has only its side visible on a front view.

Any decision of infringement is based on both the individual features of the design and the overall impression. Things like necessity and choice would be taken into account before deciding if a product infringes a registered design. In this particular case 'transparent surface' would be a necessity and so disregarded, but 'ornamentation' would be down to choice and so could influence any decision.

[SomeDudeAsking]

You're still patenting a rectangle in the most generic terms.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Topher15

You are wrong to simplify the Registered Design to a mere rectangle or picture frame. This is the sort of nonsense from people that have no clue.

Like judges in the Netherlands who claim such a design is too simple and functional and the Registered Design would thus probably not hold up in an actual trial ?

That was a reason the Dutch judge gave to deny Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction. You want to claim people who think Samsung didn't copy the iPad itself are blind, well, people who want to claim that and US Design Patent D'889 aren't just plain rectangles being patented are also blind sorry.

Apple did register a damn rectangle with rounded corners and is now suing Samsung over it... and losing badly (no one has yet ruled in their favor concerning this IP, not in Europe nor the United States).

[Topher15]

No one has patented a rectangle. It's embarrassing that you think this is the case.

Apple registered a particular design for a product and for any device to infringe that design the device must infringe all its various features.

If this was a case of Apple registering a "rectangle with rounded corners" as you seem to think it is, then the registration would either (i) be dismissed or (ii) be accepted and Apple would win every case against every tablet that was rectangular with rounded corners. And yet neither is true:

For (i), the judge did not dismiss the registered design. He accepted its validity and used it in comparison with Samsung's tablets.

For (ii), he found Samsung's tablets be non-infringing (and I agree with him), and this shows that what Apple registered was not a generic shape.

In fact, the judge did indicate how the Samsung's tablets could be infringing when he said: "If the only difference between the registered design and the Samsung products was the presence of the trade mark [on the front of the tablet], then things would have been different." In other words, if Samsung's tablets look exactly like Apple's registered design except for Samsung's having 'Samsung' written on the front, then it could be infringing.

All of this demonstrates that the design Apple registered was something quite specific, which allowed Samsung's tablets to be distinct and therefore not infringing, but could have been infringing if the tablet shared significant features of the registered design.

Anyone claiming that Apple is "patenting a rectangle in the most generic terms" really does need to educate themselves.

[wikus]

Awe, why couldn't they include their famous apple logo into the print ad?

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Topher15

No one has patented a rectangle. It's embarrassing that you think this is the case.

Apple registered a particular design for a product and for any device to infringe that design the device must infringe all its various features.

Sorry, again you're wrong. That design was never used in any actual product, even the UK judge points it out. It goes back to 2004 and is fairly generic in nature. Sure, it's more than a "Rectangle with rounded corners" since it's 3D, so technically it's a rectangle shaped box with rounded corners. And a sharp edge. I mention the sharp edge because that was one point the UK judge used to claim the Tabs non-infringing, since they rounded off their edges from the side to the screen, Apple's design doesn't.

The picture is right there. Sure you can nitpick it has tons more feature, but frankly, you can't deny it's simply a 3D box shape with a glossy type finish, drawn on a piece of napkin in all probability.

[Topher15]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Sorry, again you're wrong. That design was never used in any actual product, even the UK judge points it out.

This is confusing. Where did I say the design was used in any product? I'm not sure you read/understood what I've been saying. Only a few posts ago I specifically mentioned that the iPad product is irrelevant and cited those points made by the judge, which I agree with.

Apple registered a design, intended for a possible product, but the product that eventually derived from that design, the iPad, did not rely on that design itself.

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

It goes back to 2004 and is fairly generic in nature. Sure, it's more than a "Rectangle with rounded corners" since it's 3D, so technically it's a rectangle shaped box with rounded corners. And a sharp edge. I mention the sharp edge because that was one point the UK judge used to claim the Tabs non-infringing, since they rounded off their edges from the side to the screen, Apple's design doesn't.

The picture is right there. Sure you can nitpick it has tons more feature, but frankly, you can't deny it's simply a 3D box shape with a glossy type finish, drawn on a piece of napkin in all probability.

It appears generic but it isn't as generic as a "rectangle with rounded corners". It has specific features--its shape, angles, ornamentation, transparent covering--and it's the totality of those features that provide uniqueness. This case demonstrates that uniqueness: the judge said the Samsung tablet did not infringe, in part, specifically because the Samsung tablet had notable differences in shape, angles and ornamentation. The judge can only arrive at that conclusion by acknowledging that Apple's design was sufficiently unique, such as a competing product can be distinct from it.

You might call that nitpicking, I call it accurately describing the design, and in any dispute such as this case, providing a specific and accurate description is all that matters.

No one can both maintain that Apple's registered design is overly generic (and therefore ridiculous), and that a competing tablet of similar shape does not infringe it. If we are to view the designs of these product in such a broad way then clearly there would be infringement taking place.

My view, just like the judge, is that Samsung's tablet doesn't infringe Apple's design because that design is unique enough.