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 5, 2012, 10:58 AM   #126
reefoid
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by iphoneclassic View Post
Also UK needs Joe Arpaio to make sure Apple complies.
Had to look him up. I think we could do with him actually. Can we borrow him for a few years? Our police commissioners are about to be elected so perfect timing
reefoid is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:02 AM   #127
Ironduke
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glideslope View Post
I have no problem doing things for monetary compensation. Almost every US company rapes you of tax income daily. You think that is going to change?
Your leaders encourage it. You may not like our Hearts, but your leaders have no problem bending over for us?
no just Blair

quit trying to be funny

YOUR NOT
__________________
iMac 21.5" 4GB Ram, ATI 4670, 500GB HD - 13" Unibody Macbook Collectors Edition 2.4GHz, 4GB Ram, 320GB HD - iPhone 3G
Ironduke is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:02 AM   #128
Psychj0e
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
I hope the court gets back at Apple for this.

And next I hope Apple is held to account for not paying its due to the UK taxpayer.
Psychj0e is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:04 AM   #129
Oletros
macrumors 601
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvmxtra View Post
What I don't understand about this judge is that decision is so freaking blind. Sammy clearly copies apple. Even droid nut knows that.. but yet it came to this.

Seriously?
Then almost all the courts are blind regarding the ipad design patents/community designs

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
What the **** are you on about? Apple wasn't found guilty of anything. The judge decided that even though Samsung copied Apple's design, the copy wasn't good enough to infringe on Apple's design patents.
This is false and you know it because people have explained it to you more than once
Oletros is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:05 AM   #130
JackieTreehorn
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Amsterdam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jsameds View Post
It does come across as a little smarmy but originally they followed the court order to the letter, but the judge didn't agree - he was being pedantic about the whole affair, so Apple responded like this, playing him at his own game.
Exactly. That judge held more grudges towards Apple than Apple does towards Samsung/Google.
__________________
How's the smut business, Jackie?
27" iMac i7 | 13" MBA 3rd Gen 128 SSD | iPad 3 64Gb | iPhone 4 32Gb | iPhone 4s 32Gb | AppleTV 2nd Gen | AppleTV 3rd Gen | iPod Classic 120Gb | iPod Nano 8Gb
JackieTreehorn is online now   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:06 AM   #131
GoCubsGo
macrumors Nehalem
 
GoCubsGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMOTotal View Post
If it is legit then there is nothing Apple should worry about.
It is legit but it seems if the judge stepped in once then he doesn't believe Apple is within the spirit of the agreement. I just wouldn't go as far as pushing it the next time around like Apple has.
__________________
Because I'm a smartass.
GoCubsGo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:06 AM   #132
MacGit
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glideslope View Post
no problem bending over for us?
LOL! That just about sums up what that makes those who do that then.
Nice one. Looks like you need some bandage for your foot.
__________________
Headache for the rest of us...
MacGit is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:06 AM   #133
Ironduke
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychj0e View Post
I hope the court gets back at Apple for this.

And next I hope Apple is held to account for not paying its due to the UK taxpayer.
well said

we should dress up like chavs and throw some american tourists into the thames too

APPLE PAY YOUR TAXES!
__________________
iMac 21.5" 4GB Ram, ATI 4670, 500GB HD - 13" Unibody Macbook Collectors Edition 2.4GHz, 4GB Ram, 320GB HD - iPhone 3G
Ironduke is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:09 AM   #134
Fishticks
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
If you regard how they intend to treat GoogleMaps appn and the way they don't stand up to their errors, it just proves that they aren't able to fight back commercially and with innovations anymore.
Fishticks is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:09 AM   #135
kd5jos
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
The teenager is the "judge."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post
What kind of teenagers are making these decisions at Apple? Just display the dang text and let the 30 days expire. If you are right and your product is great, you will be fine. Instead you look immature and arrogant.
Immaturity and arrogance has been handed down as a determination from the court. Apple is just protecting itself from their stupidity. That's all. I applaud them for it. I'm surprised they didn't make the text white on a white background. Maybe they'll use that next. I can hope
__________________
[15" MBP 9,1, 2.6 GHz, 16 GB RAM, 750 GB Momentus XT] [Mac Mini Server, 2.53 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 1 1TB HD, 1 2 TB HD] [AirPort Extreme]
kd5jos is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:09 AM   #136
Oletros
macrumors 601
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jsameds View Post
Ioriginally they followed the court order to the letter, but the judge didn't agree -
No, they didn't, they added text to the court recomandation without submitting it
Oletros is online now   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:11 AM   #137
kd5jos
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Oh I see....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychj0e View Post
I hope the court gets back at Apple for this.

And next I hope Apple is held to account for not paying its due to the UK taxpayer.
This isn't about justice, it's about revenge. Okay, I get it.
__________________
[15" MBP 9,1, 2.6 GHz, 16 GB RAM, 750 GB Momentus XT] [Mac Mini Server, 2.53 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 1 1TB HD, 1 2 TB HD] [AirPort Extreme]
kd5jos is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:14 AM   #138
AnonMac50
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmatthewware View Post
Apple wasn't found guilty of anything. They sued for copyright infringement and Samsung was found not guilty.

This would be like you suing someone for scratching your car then being unable to prove they did it, then the judge saying you have to put a billboard over your house for a month saying you're a liar. It's pretty ridiculous.
Except Apple continued to say that Samsung had copied them. I can't find their exact words right now, but if I do, I'll post them.
__________________
[Tutorial] Three Finger Drag on Non-supported Multitouch Macs (MAJOR UPDATES!!! (8/7/2013))
Front Row for Lion
Now I know why the maps icon wants you to jump off of a bridge!
AnonMac50 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:16 AM   #139
datasmog
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Wrong

Really should expect something better from MacRumours, the Apple UK home page doesn't look anything like the image posted here. In fact apart from the statement in the footer it's pretty much identical to the US site.
Furthermore one would expect to scroll down a page to see the footer anyway. Apple are entitled to design web pages to promote their products any way they choose. And if that means using a fairly large image so what?
I really don't see what the problem is here.
datasmog is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:16 AM   #140
lrjr
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieTreehorn View Post
Exactly. That judge held more grudges towards Apple than Apple does towards Samsung/Google.
I don't think you have read the judgement if you think they followed it correctly. Sir Robin Jacob gave the judgement for the Court of Appeal and he said that unless another suggestion was made by the parties the statement should be:-

Quote:
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
The fact that apple followed their statement with a factually inaccurate and misleading paragraph was the reason they were found to be in non compliance with the order and told to rectify it. As to grudges, it has been my experience that judges do not take kindly to those that disobey their rulings so in that respect Apple has earned Sir Robin's ire.

Also if you want to educate yourself the whole judgement can be found at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
lrjr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:24 AM   #141
Psychj0e
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by kd5jos View Post
This isn't about justice, it's about revenge. Okay, I get it.
It's about justice and complying with a host nations wishes.
Psychj0e is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:28 AM   #142
Mainyehc
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Quote:
Originally Posted by odditie View Post
It's kinda humorous going back and forth from apple.com to apple.com/uk to see the differences.

I'm sure they are pissed, but hopefully this doesn't just drag the whole thing out longer.
I'm guessing they did it on purpose… A quick check of various international pages of countries which, like the US, have an official online Apple Store, reveals that they display the same layout as the UK page. The only pages which show up as apple.com are, ironically, those which don't have a store.

So, either they forgot to update the code on those, or they didn't update it for the apple.com site on purpose and, since the other sites are for "lesser countries" (contrast http://www.apple.com/br and http://www.apple.com/pt , and don't forget Brazil is arguably an immensely larger market than Portugal) and sometimes aren't even translated from english (take http://www.apple.com/sa , for instance), they just reuse the code from the main site, hence the similarity.

Anyway, back on topic, this is very well played on their part. Sorry to say but, as trollish as Apple may have been (even to begin with, as they started it all by suing), the UK judge's decision and the arguments he threw around just don't really stick.

Now, in all fairness, if a product is a copycat (outright or not), what does it matter whether it's cooler or not than the original? It could be even cooler while still being a copy; the simple fact that the judge mentioned the "coolness" factor as a measure of infringement is, in and of itself, an admission of guilt. Coolness comparisons *were* made because they *were* warranted, and Samsung was excused of infringing only because they did it, as usual, in a sloppy fashion. And Apple had, IMHO, the right to point out that out to the public…

Now, they just link to the ruling, letting their end-customers figure it out for themselves. The judge got its way, Samsung still comes off looking like a copycat, Apple complied, and they can still deny they did this "under-the-fold" thing on purpose as they use that code across various websites and also used it before. Everybody (except Samsung) wins!
__________________
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
—George Orwell [Winston Smith], in “1984”

Last edited by Mainyehc; Nov 5, 2012 at 11:44 AM.
Mainyehc is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:29 AM   #143
Glideslope
macrumors 68020
 
Glideslope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
no just Blair

quit trying to be funny

YOUR NOT
I'm not trying to be funny Duke. These threads with the Kangaroo Court lead by the Mad Hatter generate genuine anger. I don't always side with Apple. However, in this ruling I have been consistent. Legal Exhibitionism.

If you think it's so bad, withdraw from the EU and try and go it alone. You're not in the currency? What is holding you back? Leaders who can't take on Big Bad American Business? It's still Blair's fault in 2013 for all purposes?

Save it. Take us on head first or leave it on the table.
__________________
“There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. ” Sun Tzu
Glideslope is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:32 AM   #144
Jibbajabba
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silmarien View Post
Why not just take it like a champ? All this mess just seems immature to me.
Indeed - I don't care if its Apple's or Samsung's fault - getting a bit tired of this childish back and forth.
Jibbajabba is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:35 AM   #145
Peppa
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
So childish.
__________________
15" MacBook Pro 2012 • Kindle Paperwhite • Verizon Galaxy S3
Peppa is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:37 AM   #146
tctony
macrumors 6502a
 
tctony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
I find it funny that you write "who cares?" and then "it's such a childish judgement"

I guess you care?
I mean who cares what Apple does with this. Its such a lame and childish judgement on the judge's behalf anyway. Seriously.. "You have to post an apology on your website" What is this, 6th grade?
__________________
iPhone 4S (6.0), iPad 3 (6.0)
MBP17 (OSX 10.8.1) 2.8 GHz C2D, 64 GB SSD/500 GB HDD, 8 GB RAM
Apple TV 3, iPod Classic 120 GB

"no hot no sweat screen no heavy" - iphonetoday
tctony is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:40 AM   #147
Oletros
macrumors 601
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tctony View Post
I mean who cares what Apple does with this. Its such a lame and childish judgement on the judge's behalf anyway. Seriously.. "You have to post an apology on your website" What is this, 6th grade?
It is not an apology.

Why it is childish?
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is online now   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:40 AM   #148
lrjr
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainyehc View Post
Anyway, back on topic, this is very well played on their part. Sorry to say but, as trollish as Apple may have been (even to begin with, as they started it all by suing), the UK judge's decision and the arguments he threw around just don't really stick.

Now, in all fairness, if a product is a copycat (outright or not), what does it matter whether it's cooler or not than the original? It could be even cooler while still being a copy; the simple fact that the judge mentioned the "coolness" factor as a measure of infringement is, in and of itself, an admission of guilt. Comparisons *were* made because they *were* warranted, and Samsung was excused of copying only for doing a sloppy job. And Apple was, IMHO, in its right to point out that to the public…
So Judge Birss' reasoning doesn't stick. Interesting conclusion so what do you disagree with then. Did Judge Birss not use the correct legal test or was the test applied wrongly? If the test was applied incorrectly how should it have been?

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the case was brought on a copyright basis when it was in fact brought under alleged infringement of a community registered design. The test of infringement is when the informed user is not left with a different overall impression than the community design.

So you were in fact completely incorrect in your assumption about the basis on which the courts made their decisions. If you want to learn more about the case why don't you read the judgments which can be found here:-

High Court:- www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

Court of Appeal:- www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
lrjr is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:46 AM   #149
Oletros
macrumors 601
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainyehc View Post
Now, in all fairness, if a product is a copycat (outright or not), what does it matter whether it's cooler or not than the original? It could be even cooler while still being a copy; the simple fact that the judge mentioned the "coolness" factor as a measure of infringement is, in and of itself, an admission of guilt. Coolness comparisons *were* made because they *were* warranted, and Samsung was excused of infringing only because they did it, as usual, in a sloppy fashion. And Apple had, IMHO, the right to point out that out to the public…
You have not read the ruling, do you?

Coolness was not a measure of infringement
__________________
There are four kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, statistics, and analyst projections.
Oletros is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 11:47 AM   #150
lrjr
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glideslope View Post
I'm not trying to be funny Duke. These threads with the Kangaroo Court lead by the Mad Hatter generate genuine anger. I don't always side with Apple. However, in this ruling I have been consistent. Legal Exhibitionism.

If you think it's so bad, withdraw from the EU and try and go it alone. You're not in the currency? What is holding you back? Leaders who can't take on Big Bad American Business? It's still Blair's fault in 2013 for all purposes?

Save it. Take us on head first or leave it on the table.
What on earth are you talking about? You have called the court "Kangaroo" multiple times but provided no reasoning, maybe that's because you don't have any real reasons and you are simple posturing. Also by real reasons I mean reasons grounded in good legal argument not something you may have pulled from nowhere.
lrjr 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

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 01:29 PM.

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

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