Apple Ordered to Alter Website Statement Acknowledging Samsung Galaxy Tab Did Not Infringe on iPad Design

[GadgetDon]

Please, say that you're not claiming all of that in a serious way

I am indeed. And I would say the same had Apple won and Samsung been required to post a statement that they had copied Apple's designs.

Free speech is at the heart of democracy and compelling speech a violation of the spirit. It requires extreme justification for this. Some potential justifications might be:

In case of libel, a statement correcting the libelous statement. Of course, no claims of libel were raised in this trial.

Significant use of advertisements or posts on website to fight the case in the court of public opinion. Apple has never mentioned Samsung in an ad, and the notice published was the first visible reference to the legal fights.

Customers of an affected product would be able to take some action to receive some benefit (a.k.a. a product was found to be defective in a class action suit and customers needed to be informed how to take advantage of the payment/repair/whatever). Not relevant here.

Perhaps you could require some publicity if the charges had been highly reported on but by time of the verdict the coverage had ended. Clearly not true here, there was massive coverage of the verdict.

Sometimes an apology is part of a settlement and the judge might be involved in enforcing that the apology does happen, but this did not happen in this case.

The facts simply do not justify the extraordinary act of hijacking Apple's free speech rights and demanding specific speech. This decision merely compounds the tyranny, not merely compelling specific speech but denying Apple the right to include true statements about the language of the judgement and the existence of counter judgements.

In terms of actual effect, is this a big deal? Probably not. But the principle is huge. Imagine a system where those convicted of a crime, even though they protest their innocence, are required to go on TV and state "Yes, I did these deeds". Imagine a system where your family was killed from a faulty space heater, you sue and aren't able to fulfill the burden of proof that the maker was responsible, and you were required to state "Heatco Space Heaters had nothing to do with my family's death and I was wrong to suggest otherwise".

And again, my position would be the same had the verdict gone the other way and Samsung been required to post a statement that it was guilty of copying. The freedom of speech, including the freedom not to speak, is paramount.

 

[frabber]

ouch how painful..

note to self:
IF get screwed by court in all appeals THEN just comply and wilfully undergo sentence

 

[apolloa]

Apple was 100% wrong and they knew it. They took a chance - and lost.

What people are forgetting is that the requirement to put the notification up in the first place was only tangentially due to the court case. Apple was required to post the specific notification because AFTER the court case - which the Galaxy Tab was found NOT to infringe - Apple made several statements that undermined the UK courts.

THIS THIS AND THIS!!

MANY people seem to have forgotten this tiny little fact and instead just call the UK courts childish, well, think about what OTHER punishments they COULD have imposed instead? Apple got off bloody lightly if you ask me and their arrogance STILL can't comply.
That's why I say their arrogance is going to kill them. They are a pathetic spoilt corporation and it is starting to show in it's products.

 

[sseaton1971]

Finally I should say something about the notice itself. We heard no discussion about that. Plainly Judge Birss's Schedule has been overtaken by events. Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
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.


Paragraph 87 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

Interesting that it says "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:" That sure doesn't sound like the court gave specific verbiage, but rather a recommendation.

Perhaps there is another document where the court actually gives explicit instructions about what to post. If not, then I don't see where Apple did anything wrong. Sure, they were snarky about it, but who really cares? If Samsung or the court thinks notices on Apple's Web site and in print are going to really help Samsung in any way, they are pretty naive.

 

[FNi]

Let's just ignore the estimated £6bn made through UK sales?
The people they employ here?
The arrangements with UK mobile networks?
The services they supply?
The businesses they kit out?
The consumers that use their technology?

Oh ... their entire involvement in the UK economy?

You seem to be of the opinion commercial success should buy you benefits within a court of law.

Have you considered moving to China?

 

[melendezest]

This just makes me feel Apple are even more arrogant than I already thought they were.

Apple 'the company', is putting me off Apple's products, which I would otherwise consider buying.

Very interesting. I am always curious about what motivates individuals to purchase/abstain from purchasing a particular product.

For my part, I stick to the attributes of the product itself, but I can see how an individual perceives a company can affect their purchasing decision.

I guess I'm more selfish than I thought, 'cause I don't care if Apple becomes an "evil empire" or whatever. For me, there is no substitute. I've yet to find any other OS, hardware, etc that works better or pleases me more.

 

[Oletros]

Interesting that it says "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:" That sure doesn't sound like the court gave specific verbage, but rather a recommendation.

Perhaps there is another document where the court actually gives explicit instructions about what to post. If not, then I don't see where Apple did anything wrong. Sure, they were snarky about it, but who really cares? If Samsung or the court thinks a notices on Apple's Web site and in print are going to really help Samsung in any way, they are pretty naive.

Ein? The court actually gives explicits instructions. You have to post this unless you submit to us other things.

 

[618537]

It is used by Apple for trading in the UK as well as it being a British top level domain.

Just like the apparently has jurisdiction on websites which in no way are related to the US other than it is used by US citizens.

Actually the US claim jurisdictions over TLDs which fall under the control of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), a US agency.

.com is one of those TLDs which automatically makes it US jurisdiction and it isn't a British TLD.

Just because Apple Retail UK uses it doesn't mean it's fair game to UK authorities.

 

[G4DP]

Apple posted the apology - made a point of making factual statements and quotes (albeit to the credit of another poster they posted more than they should have - unconfirmed).

The second quote was in reference to the person that said Apple wasn't a big company in the UK. £6bn kind of disagrees.

Hope that clears it up a bit.

So you are arguing on something you didn't even see? I hope your not actually British.

 

[618537]

You seem to be of the opinion commercial success should buy you benefits within a court of law.

Have you considered moving to China?

You took that post out of context.

It was in response to the suggestion that Apple wasn't a serious business in the UK, and for all those reasons listed it suggests otherwise.

 

[RDStrong]

Actually the US claim jurisdictions over TLDs which fall under the control of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), a US agency.

.com is one of those TLDs which automatically makes it US jurisdiction and it isn't a British TLD.

Just because Apple Retail UK uses it doesn't mean it's fair game to UK authorities.

They've been instructed to post it on more than just the ".com/uk" domain.

 

[MH01]

Bollocks! They did what the court ordered. And now the court is refining what their intention is, Apple will comply and again do what the court ordered.

Ever deal with an eight year old? A teenager? .

lol..... yeah but in this case Apple is being an 8 year old....

Apple is trying to play the cool Mac dude from the mac/pc ads, its not mature.

 

[pittman87]

This just makes me feel Apple are even more arrogant than I already thought they were.

Apple 'the company', is putting me off Apple's products, which I would otherwise consider buying.

Arrogant? They followed the ruling and stated there was no infringement and posted a link to the ruling in the first paragraph. They then posted, verbatim, what the judge said during the ruling and posted information from other rulings. The UK court got embarrassed by Apple, plain and simple. They should've just ordered them to pay Samsung court costs and be done with it. And I really question your priorities if you let ridiculous court rulings affect your purchases of products.

 

[FNi]

Actually the US claim jurisdictions over TLDs which fall under the control of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), a US agency.

.com is one of those TLDs which automatically makes it US jurisdiction and it isn't a British TLD.

Just because Apple Retail UK uses it doesn't mean it's fair game to UK authorities.

Actually, UK courts can tell Apple what to do with it as they're using the TLD to trade within UK territories. We may not be able to authoritatively revoke a .COM (like ICE can), but we can certainly revoke their trading licence/seize assets as an 'incentive'.

Please stop trying to be a have-a-go solicitor/UK Law expert, you're not very good at it.

 

[MH01]

The 2 weeks dev time for a Homepage change, wow apple, apple must really think that everyone is a fool.

And for the ones that believe it.... and some will, you can do this change within 48 hours.

 

[NorEaster]

Just because a judge says you're guilty/innocent does not mean that you really are; it applies only within the confines of the legal system. There have been plenty of people that have been wrongfully convicted, and exonerated later. Conversely, I'm convinced there have also been people that have been exonerated that should have been found guilty. To assume that any justice system is infallible is just unrealistic.

...Umm, so should we just through out the entire judicial system? Should we all ignore laws then? Your logic is plainly faulty here.

And answer this question for me: In the case of the US court's judgement against Samsung (and the ruling that Samsung owes ~$1B to Apple), do you think it'd be OK for Samsung to ignore that court order (assuming all appeals will be exhausted eventually and the US court's decision doesn't change)? Because based on your reply above, it seems to me you're saying: It's OK if you disagree with the court's judgement and purposefully act against it (as long as it's Apple). Right?

 

[sseaton1971]

Ein? The court actually gives explicits instructions. You have to post this unless you submit to us other things.

I disagree with you. The ruling states "I would propose the following:" Perhaps the court should have been very explicit and stated: "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side the following statement shall be posted without alteration or addendum:"

 

[Steev45]

Stupid Judge

If the judge does not like what Apple wrote, he should compose a statement for them.
As an international company, Apple has every right to note different court rulings in different countries on this same issue.

Frankly, the fact that Samsung stole some of Apples ideas is next to irrelevant.
Apple has "stolen" ideas from other companies (the mouse from Zerox?), too.
Anyone who cannot tell the difference between an ipad or a Samsung pad is next to retarded.
The judge made a supremely stupid statement in using the judicially undefinable term "cool" in his ruling.
There is plenty of dumbness to go around in this.

 

[melendezest]

They weren't asked to admit they were guilty, just post a paragraph of information (and link) that said the High Court ruled that certain Samsung products didn't infringe on particular patents.


Then the High Court would come down on Apple like a ton of bricks. It would not end well for them.

1. No, they were asked to say: "this guy didn't copy us", when obviously Apple feels they did. So, they quote the judge aaand other rulings.

2. I would love to actually see that scenario unfold. This would be an issue of jurisdiction; the UK market would be off-limits. I understand this would have an impact on Apple's financials, but the world is a biiig market. The implication of unwavering principles, on the other hand, would be awesome: "We feel these guys copied us. Blatantly. The UK courts did not agree, so we're pulling our products out of the UK. We will not advertise, nor negotiate with thieves, damn the cost".

I know this would never happen, but it would rock. Then again, I don't live in the UK, and without Apple stuff I wouldn't enjoy computing as much...

 

[wrightc23]

It's not contempt of court.

No it's just contempt of a court ruling.

I thought the statement was quite amusing even if it did smack of arrogance on Apples part. The same self-aggrandizing attitude I noted at the iPad mini launch.

Two weeks is taking the ..... though. Apple have had their fun, correct the statement on their site and move on.

 

[618537]

So you are arguing on something you didn't even see? I hope your not actually British.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html#para64

I would assume he's referring to the above, without any links to the contrary.

64/65 which is contained.

 

[Glideslope]

I say pull out of the UK.

 

[618537]

Actually, UK courts can tell Apple what to do with it as they're using the TLD to trade within UK territories. We may not be able to authoritatively revoke a .COM (like ICE can), but we can certainly revoke their trading licence/seize assets as an 'incentive'.

Please stop trying to be a have-a-go solicitor/UK Law expert, you're not very good at it.

and you're yet to provide any supporting evidence to your post.

 

[samcraig]

The 2 weeks dev time for a Homepage change, wow apple, apple must really think that everyone is a fool.

And for the ones that believe it.... and some will, you can do this change within 48 hours.

It can be done in a few minutes. They just need to delete the non-court ordered text.

If the judge does not like what Apple wrote, he should compose a statement for them.
As an international company, Apple has every right to note different court rulings in different countries on this same issue.

Frankly, the fact that Samsung stole some of Apples ideas is next to irrelevant.
Apple has "stolen" ideas from other companies (the mouse from Zerox?), too.
Anyone who cannot tell the difference between an ipad or a Samsung pad is next to retarded.
The judge made a supremely stupid statement in using the judicially undefinable term "cool" in his ruling.
There is plenty of dumbness to go around in this.

First - the judge DID issue an exact statement. How incredibly ignorant of a statement. Have you not read any thread or news item here at all?

Second - the court case is irrelevant. This ruling has very little to do with the court case and everything to do with Apple defying and undermining the courts.

Please read before posting

 

[618537]

They've been instructed to post it on more than just the ".com/uk" domain.

Reference to judgement which mentions additional sites?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html#para64

Within seven days of the date of this Order [18th July 2012] [Apple] shall at its own expense (a) post in a font size no smaller than Arial 11pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this order on the homepage of its UK website ... as specified in Schedule 1 to this Order, together with a hyperlink to the Judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 9th July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on [Apple's] websites for a period of six months from the date of this order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no smaller than Arial 14pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine.