Apple Ordered to Pay All of Samsung's Court Costs in UK Tablet Design Dispute

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Are you saying that nothing Samsung does (in the cell world) is not inspired? And that nothing Samsung does is original or their own?

Because I'd argue that.

Uh, how did you read that? I never said anything close to that.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

Uh, how did you read that? I never said anything close to that.

That's how hyperbole works, right?

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

I think that it's pretty darn clear that Samsung copied Apple.

You seem to be mistaking your opinion as a fact. Interesting.

[RobertoCravallo]

Originally Posted by gmanist1000

Anyone else tired of seeing that Samsung logo on this site?

Who`s fault is it, that it keeps coming up in a mac forum?

I used to think very highly about APPLE, that has changed drastically with all the lawsuits it is starting. So now we all know why APPLES hardware is so expensive: they need the money for lawsuits.

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

You seem to be mistaking your opinion as a fact. Interesting.

Weird, the part where I said "I think," would imply that it is my opinion. Crazy that you missed that in such a short sentence.

[perealb]

Originally Posted by samcraig

So are you giving up your Apple products with Samsung parts?

What makes Samsung's devices crap inside? Isn't Apple using Samsung parts. Are Apple products crap inside?

Do you realize how conflicted you are?

I didn't say everything Samsung makes is crap. I was talking particularly about Chromebook. And again you missed my point about Samsung copying Apple's design.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by perealb

I didn't say everything Samsung makes is crap. I was talking particularly about Chromebook. And again you missed my point about Samsung copying Apple's design.

Ok. That still doesn't answer my question on why the chromebook is crap inside, now does it? I didn't miss anything.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

Weird, the part where I said "I think," would imply that it is my opinion. Crazy that you missed that in such a short sentence.

Crazy that you would think you weren't trying to state "Samsung copied Apple" as a fact when you say "I don't think anyone can deny Samsung copied Apple".

Yes, people can deny it. Your opinion is that you don't think people exist that can deny "a fact" that is merely another opinion you hold. Funny how people can deny your opinion uh ?

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Crazy that you would think you weren't trying to state "Samsung copied Apple" as a fact when you say "I don't think anyone can deny Samsung copied Apple".

Yes, people can deny it. Your opinion is that you don't think people exist that can deny "a fact" that is merely another opinion you hold. Funny how people can deny your opinion uh ?

In my opinion, I think that it's obvious that Samsung copied Apple and for the most part people denying it either do not like Apple or really like Samsung (or just plain old don't care). This is all in my opinion. That does not make it a universal fact.

I'm not sure whose opinion you expect me to argue from.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

In my opinion, I think that it's obvious that Samsung copied Apple and for the most part people denying it either do not like Apple or really like Samsung (or just plain old don't care). This is all in my opinion. That does not make it a universal fact.

If it's all your opinion, then I can safely dismiss it as completely ludicrous in my opinion then.

[iRCL]

Originally Posted by chris7777

Talk about the Judge throwing a hissy fit.

I might be a little more sympathetic to samsung, If they had not exactly copied apple advertisements, and packaging. But that is just way too "coincidental" to be an accident.

Apple disagreed with the decision, and playfully pointed out the Judges own words. He took offense and pitched a tantrum, by ordering to pay Samsung, as punishment for mocking his short sighted decision.

Oh my god you're the biggest fan boy of all time for this ridiculous post. This is a court of law not some facebook social exchange that happened

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

If it's all your opinion, then I can safely dismiss it as completely ludicrous in my opinion then.

Of course you can. No one is telling you otherwise.

[paulbennett95]

Which part of the statement posted by Apple was false? Seems the judge is a bit butthurt because Apple mentioned the "not as cool" thing. Trolled I guess.

[RobertoCravallo]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

If it's all your opinion, then I can safely dismiss it as completely ludicrous in my opinion then.

@ KnightWRX
I am with you and do understand that Mr. DeathChill talked himself into a corner.....

[BvizioN]

Originally Posted by nick_elt

If you are taken to Court but then found not guilty why should you pay all your legal fees?

You shouldn't. But when i commneted about UK jsutice system i wasn't particulary talking about this case. It's in so many ways screwed and personaly have absolutely no faith in it.

[scottsjack]

That old, nasty Apple of Steve Job's days dies hard. A few more losses and Apple may be brought down from the heavens so it can get back to work (on new Mac Pros!).

[BvizioN]

Originally Posted by tomjleeds

Hahahaha!

Your level of intelligence is a joke beyond belief!

You must have some sort of brain power that we don't, to know my level of intelligence from a single comment. Must be from the fish & chips down canal street

[perealb]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Ok. That still doesn't answer my question on why the chromebook is crap inside, now does it? I didn't miss anything.

Of course you think that. That's why I said you missed the point.

[ntg]

if a judge doesn't appear to specify an order correctly, and Apple is thus allowed leeway to 'add' additional comments from that same legal statement, then I can't really see what all the fuss is about.
The Judge mentioned cool, etc, and Apple just included it.
It's a mad world, eh!

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by paulbennett95

Which part of the statement posted by Apple was false? Seems the judge is a bit butthurt because Apple mentioned the "not as cool" thing. Trolled I guess.

Read more - and use less tinfoil on that hat.

Originally Posted by perealb

Of course you think that. That's why I said you missed the point.

What inside of a chromebook is crap? Are you deliberately avoiding the question?

[k995]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

In my opinion, I think that it's obvious that Samsung copied Apple and for the most part people denying it either do not like Apple or really like Samsung (or just plain old don't care). This is all in my opinion. That does not make it a universal fact.

I'm not sure whose opinion you expect me to argue from.

And apple copied from others and those copied ...

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by ntg

if a judge doesn't appear to specify an order correctly, and Apple is thus allowed leeway to 'add' additional comments from that same legal statement, then I can't really see what all the fuss is about.
The Judge mentioned cool, etc, and Apple just included it.
It's a mad world, eh!

You either don't understand the ruling and/or haven't read much about it.

Apple was called out for providing misleading information. That is why they were ordered to post a specific statement. Apple didn't JUST post the specific statement - then ALSO posted more misleading information.

It wasn't just not in the spirit of the original ruling - but a stupid maneuver.

[LordVic]

Originally Posted by ntg

if a judge doesn't appear to specify an order correctly, and Apple is thus allowed leeway to 'add' additional comments from that same legal statement, then I can't really see what all the fuss is about.
The Judge mentioned cool, etc, and Apple just included it.
It's a mad world, eh!

Actually, if you read the official court order as released by the Appeal by apple, Apple was under explicit orders as to what they had to say on the website.

Apple played a game with it and added more to it. took out some of it. And then did the good old "BUT" at the end to try and mislead.

They got caught. They have to pay. Thats all it came down to. They flaunted their own legaleeze in the judges face, and the judge wanted no part of it.

Apple could have you know, from day 1, just abided by the instructions the judge gave them.

----------

Originally Posted by samcraig

What inside of a chromebook is crap? Are you deliberately avoiding the question?

I'd say the whole thing
but I'm biased in the sense that I think the entire idea of a Chrome OS platform is ridiculous
(but thats just my opinion and nobody needs listen to my mindless rantings about it).

hardware wise? it's a perfectly functional device that does most of what it's set out to do.

[unlinked]

Originally Posted by ollyb

While the original statement was misleading, childish, etc, which part of it was "false"? I would have thought that factual accuracy would have been important for them to get right in their eyes, even if they were going to disobey the intention of the statement.

From the ruling (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/...12/1430.html):

And the matter added was indeed false. Before introducing the quotes from HHJ Birss it begins:
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products.
But the Judge was not comparing "the Apple and Samsung products." There is not and has never been any Apple product in accordance with the registered design. Apple's statement would clearly be taken by ordinary readers and journalists to be a reference to a real Apple product, the iPad. By this statement Apple was fostering the false notion that the case was about the iPad.

[KPOM]

Originally Posted by NutsNGum

Pretty obnoxious behaviour by Apple. I'll bet the heels wouldn't have been dragged if this had been a judgement from an American court.

My guess is that someone in Apple UK's General Counsel and/or Marketing department will have his head handed to him on a platter as a result of this.

That said, it appears that Apple would have been in the clear by adding information about other cases, or even quoting the judge, but they didn't like the implication that the Galaxy Tab had been ruled to have infringed upon the specific design patents when that hasn't been the case.

----------

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Can you point to other decisions besides the California verdict ? If not, maybe my post was more factual than you'd like. I'll ignore the racism for now.[COLOR="#808080"]

Well, the California verdict was pretty significant. It's a little bit like asking "besides Hurricane Katrina, can you point to any other instances where FEMA screwed up?" I agree it did not include the design patent over the iPad, though.