Apple Earns Delay on Publishing Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad

[MacRumors]

Last week, a UK judge ruled that Apple must post public notices in newspapers and on its website acknowledging that Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad with its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet. That announcement came a little over a week after the same judge had ruled against Apple in its infringement claim against Samsung, opining that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is simply "not as cool" as the iPad.

Apple of course appealed the ruling that it must publish those notices, which were to remain on its UK website for six months, and Bloomberg now briefly reports that Apple has been granted a stay on that requirement until an appeal is heard in October.

Apple was ordered earlier this month to put a note on its U.K. site and buy advertisements in British newspapers to alert customers to a court ruling that Samsung hadn't copied the iPad's design. Cupertino, California-based Apple appealed saying it didn't want to advertise for its rival. The order is stayed until its appeal against the ruling is heard in October.

More information on the stay may yet be forthcoming, but it appears that Apple will have significant time to put forward its arguments attempting to convince a separate court that the notice requirement was an improper part of the verdict.

Article Link: Apple Earns Delay on Publishing Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad

 

[Pivs]

'Now go say you're sorry.'

 

[clukas]

lol apple must be really happy about this!

 

[turtlez]

I wonder what the Samesung tablet would look like if Apple didn't make an iPad? Oh wait there wouldn't be any tablets because apparently they were an oversized toy on ipad1 release that wouldn't sell at all right?

 

[Joe-Diver]

Requiring them to make this announcement post could severely damage their legal efforts in other parts of the world. Losing their case is bad enough....this juvenile add on from the judge is silly and damaging. It's also forcing Apple to make an admission they don't agree with or believe in. Just because they lost and the judge ruled against them, does not mean they must now accept and agree with it. They have to comply with the ruling. That is all. Forcing an admission that is a statement of position is wrong.

 

[rickdollar]

IMO, the only way this would be a reasonable punishment is if Apple had previously posted on their website that Samsung is copying Apple.
As far as I know, Samsung has never been mentioned on their website.

 

[Mad-B-One]

I would have the right text for that:

"We as Apple Inc. are forced by a ruling we appeal to state that Samsung did not copy the iPad with their Galaxy Tab 10.1. However, Samsung is barred from selling the smaller Galaxy Tab and one of their phones from selling in the European Union for copying the iPad. We do not understand why the closest resembling product, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 does not resemble the iPad, but the judge found, this particular product did not copy the iPad. Our sensere appologies to Samsung who only copied us to produce smaller devices."

 

[hobo.hopkins]

I still can't believe that something so stupid was even decided in court.

 

[bad03xtreme]

There have been much dumber things decided by judges than this...

 

[wikus]

LOL, poor apple... why are people so hung up on defending apple though? Do they have some sort of deep connection to the company? Are they shareholders (I doubt there are that many)?

What do apple fans really want? Complete monopoly and zero competition? We all know thats what Apple itself wants, but what is there to gain from regular joe schmoe off the street working a 9-5 job in a cubicle that must have the next apple product?

Regardless, I love this. Apple's being put in its place and basically being told to shut the hell up as all their ridiculous legal efforts have gone *way* too far. All Apple has done is delay the release of other products and hurt the consumer; congratulations to anyone supporting todays new Microsoft.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple of course appealed the ruling that it must publish those notices
[...]
Apple has been granted a stay on that requirement until an appeal is heard in October.

I'm personally not surprised. This was about 100% sure to happen.

 

[nagromme]

Requiring them to make this announcement post could severely damage their legal efforts in other parts of the world. Losing their case is bad enough....this juvenile add on from the judge is silly and damaging. It's also forcing Apple to make an admission they don't agree with or believe in. Just because they lost and the judge ruled against them, does not mean they must now accept and agree with it. They have to comply with the ruling. That is all. Forcing an admission that is a statement of position is wrong.

He probably felt he had to do something juvenile against Apple after he did something (small) juvenile against Samsung The “not as cool” ruling.

 

[Dr McKay]

I wonder what the Samesung tablet would look like if Apple didn't make an iPad? Oh wait there wouldn't be any tablets because apparently they were an oversized toy on ipad1 release that wouldn't sell at all right?

Are you seriously implying that without iPad there wouldn't be any tablets? You know there were tablets years before the iPad right?

 

[KnightWRX]

IMO, the only way this would be a reasonable punishment is if Apple had previously posted on their website that Samsung is copying Apple.
As far as I know, Samsung has never been mentioned on their website.

http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/110415samsungcomplaint.pdf

Linked to from :

http://www.apple.com/pr/

Contains the text :

Samsung has chosen to slavishly copy Apple's innovative technology

Feel free to revise your opinion now.

----------

Are you seriously implying that without iPad there wouldn't be any tablets? You know there were tablets years before the iPad right?

No, he's just proving the Judge's point about Apple having irreperably harmed Samsung's reputation and their need to make amends.

 

[NAG]

Are you seriously implying that without iPad there wouldn't be any tablets? You know there were tablets years before the iPad right?

Actually, his statement seems to imply the lack of Samsung tablets and not tablets as a category.

 

[jon9091]

LOL, poor apple... why are people so hung up on defending apple though? Do they have some sort of deep connection to the company? Are they shareholders (I doubt there are that many)?

Probably because the company spent so many years as an "insignificant" little company compared to big bad Microsoft...and people had to hear over and over and over how small the user base was, etc. I guess they see it as Apple's time to be the big kid on the block. Just a hunch though.

 

[dethmaShine]

To people like KnightWRX claiming that Apple has had a serious impact on the media by calling Samsung copy cats and having lost the case deserve to post this.

Why is no one asking Samsung to post a similar apology having called apple infringers in all news headlines and losing almos every other case?

 

[clibinarius]

Requiring them to make this announcement post could severely damage their legal efforts in other parts of the world. Losing their case is bad enough....this juvenile add on from the judge is silly and damaging. It's also forcing Apple to make an admission they don't agree with or believe in. Just because they lost and the judge ruled against them, does not mean they must now accept and agree with it. They have to comply with the ruling. That is all. Forcing an admission that is a statement of position is wrong.

If they don't want to say they're guilty, they have a right to accept consequences of contempt of court. With limited liability-and the fact it could be authorized somewhere else-if Apple believes Samsung copied them, they could:

1. Pull out of England
2. Pay damages
3. Be kicked out of England.

I say its fair. Samsung's copying was not proved, yet Apple has been relentlessly saying Samsung copied. If Apple doesn't comply, they could probably be sued and they'd lose the suit, which would damage them far more.

 

[pacalis]

Probably because the company spent so many years as an "insignificant" little company compared to big bad Microsoft...and people had to hear over and over and over how small the user base was, etc. I guess they see it as Apple's time to be the big kid on the block. Just a hunch though.

They are the big kid. When you have 68% market share the upside is only half of the downside. So there is more value in protecting the status quo.

 

[samcraig]

1. Whatever Apple does publish (if they are legally bound to) will not be something clever. It will be something that has been approved by the courts.

2. The more press these cases and appeals get - the worse for Apple because even if they win, they lose. Why? Because of the headline that they are fighting an APPEAL acknowledging Samsung did NOT copy the iPad

It won't hurt sales. But it will negate any assertion Apple has that Samsung copied. Even if they win the appeal.

 

[kdarling]

What was ordered and why

First, here's what Apple was ordered to do for the period of one year or until the judge decided otherwise:

Post in a size no smaller than Arial 14pt, the following notice on all the Apple EU homepages, and also do the same in the following on a page before page 6: The Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine:

"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (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 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink]."

Here are the legal reasons quoted for it:

The starting point for the analysis of this request is Article 15 of the Enforcement Directive. It is as follows:

Publication of Judicial Decisions

Member States shall ensure that, in legal proceedings instituted for infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may order, at the request of the applicant and at the expense of the infringer, appropriate measures for the dissemination of the information concerning the decision, including displaying the decision and publishing it in full or in part. Member States may provide for other additional publicity measures which are appropriate to the particular circumstances, including prominent advertising.

The relevant recital is recital 27 which provides:

To act as a supplementary deterrent to future infringers and to contribute to the awareness of the public at large, it is useful to publicise decisions in intellectual property infringement cases.

The relevant practice direction relating to Art 15 is Practice Direction 26.2 to Part 63 of the CPR, as follows:

Where the court finds that an intellectual property right has been infringed, the court may, at the request of the applicant, order appropriate measures for the dissemination and publication of the judgment to be taken at the expense of the infringer.

In the decision of Henderson J...

That emphasizes that there is a strong deterrent element to this power, as well as a wish to make sure that the relevant public is aware of relevant decisions which have been reached.

... also..

In summary, the policy comes down to two points: to deter future infringers and to publicise and disseminate the outcomes of these sorts of proceedings.

He debated about whether Samsung could run the ads themselves, but then noted out that Apple had continued to talk about copying even after his decision that Samsung had not copied:

"It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad. This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual property." - Apple

As anyone anywhere on the planet can tell you, dissing a judge's decision is not smart. It doesn't matter if you're a teen punk or a major corporation. The judge said this about what Apple was doing:

In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, but to many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing.

I think that helped decide it for him. Apple just wouldn't stop even after they lost. Note, however, that he refused to gag Apple, on the grounds of free speech.

Full order here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html

 

[KnightWRX]

In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, but to many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing.

Almost looks like he's referring to posters on Macrumors that believe 100% Apple got copied and don't understand all the underlying issues. It's almost as if all of us that keep explaining these things in these threads just got a little vindication.

I think that helped decide it for him. Apple just wouldn't stop even after they lost. Note, however, that he refused to gag Apple, on the grounds of free speech.

Again, sounds like these very forums... People just won't stop, even after the rulings and verdicts drop.

Full order here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html

Did it show up recently ? I was searching all over their site last week for it when the story first appeared. Thanks for the link.

 

[Glassed Silver]

I still can't believe that something so stupid was even decided in court.

Judge must have been kindergarten teacher

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[chown33]

... at the request of the applicant and at the expense of the infringer ... (underline added)

All the dissemination requirements are stated as applying to the infringer, at the expense of the infringer, etc. In what way is Apple the infringer here? They were arguing that Samsung was the infringer, and the ruling was that Samsung was not infringing.

This isn't a flame-bait question. I'm genuinely wondering how penalties that are clearly stated as applying to an IP infringer can be turned around when the alleged infringee loses their case.

I'm assuming that Samsung isn't arguing that Apple is copying their IP (alleging infringement by Apple), nor have I read anything that suggests they are.

I'm also assuming that "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression" rights aren't infringable under this statute, since they don't seem to be in the class of Intellectual Property rights. So while one might argue that Apple has infringed on Samsung's freedom of expression by alleging that the design is a copy, I don't see where that infringement is covered by the IP statute. Samsung might have an argument on defamation grounds (How dare Apple call us copycats when a UK court has ruled we're not), but that seems like a slippery slope.

TLDR: I don't see how the cited statue applies in this case, since the alleged infringer was Samsung, and the quoted penalties apply to infringers, not to infringees who lose their case. And since when does free expression amount to intellectual property infringement?

 

[kdarling]

TLDR: I don't see how the cited statue applies in this case, since the alleged infringer was Samsung, and the quoted penalties apply to infringers, not to infringees who lose their case.

As far as I can tell, it's because of a primary difference between the American and English (and some EU) legal systems:

In their system, if a company brings up a case like this and loses, they have to pay the piper.

It's been debated for years in America if we should adopt the same system in order to keep the number of frivolous lawsuits down. (If you know the door swings both ways, you supposedly wouldn't be so quick to file suit.)

And since when does free expression amount to intellectual property infringement?

You mean when Apple spoke up after the trial? Apparently that was interpreted as acting like the ruling had never happened, which was a no-no.

Good questions. Perhaps we have some British lawyers around to help us understand?