UK Judge Rules Apple Must Publish Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jul 18, 2012.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Business Insider points to a Bloomberg bulletin indicating that a UK judge has ruled Apple must display on its UK website and in British newspapers a notice acknowledging that Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad with its Galaxy Tab 10.1. The UK court had previously ruled that the Galaxy Tab did not infringe upon Apple's design, with the judge observing that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is simply "not as cool" as the iPad.

    [​IMG]


    According to the news flash, Apple will need to post the notice on its UK website for six months. Apple can presumably still appeal the ruling, although that information has not yet been disclosed.

    We'll update this article once the full Bloomberg report is available.

    Update: Bloomberg's article has gone live with additional details on the situation.
    Samsung had also requested that Apple be barred from making public statements claiming that the Galaxy Tab had infringed upon the iPad design, but Birss ruled that Apple is within its rights to make such claims in line with the company's belief that the ruling is incorrect.

    Article Link: UK Judge Rules Apple Must Publish Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    GekkePrutser

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #2
    Lol I bet Apple will include that 'not as cool as iPad' somewhere in their mandatory notice..

    And they can legally prove it's true... I don't see why they wouldn't want to point that out :)
     
  3. macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #3
    Is this judge actually serious ?

    Why not have Apple hire someone to walk around in front of Apple Stores with a sign that says the same thing. That's just as stupid as this "ruling"
     
  4. macrumors 68030

    Patriot24

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #4
    Good for the judge. There has to be consequences to keep things transparent and grounded.
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    fabian9

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
  6. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    #6
    Agreed. I'd love them to turn it into a full on marketing campaign.
     
  7. macrumors 68020

    ziggyonice

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Location:
    Rural America
    #7
    Before the iPad, tablets sucked.
    After the iPad, everyone well... er... copied the iPad.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
  9. macrumors 6502a

    hobo.hopkins

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    #9
    I don't understand this at all. Unless Apple was previously asserting on their website that Samsung was copying the iPad, I don't see how they can force them to even mention another company in that way. Seems silly to me.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #10
    Do they also have to start selling Samsung tabs on their websites?!? Give me a break.

    This sounds like a kids` bet where one has to wear a loser shirt to school.
     
  11. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Location:
    Champaign, IL
    #11
    Following the same logic, there should be only one maker of cars -__-
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    #12
    To me, all the tablets before the iPad look pretty similar too.
     
  13. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #13
    Apple maybe should have toned down the media bashing and libel against Samsung if they didn't want to have to do this. You know, wait until a court has decided something before you go make claims of "blatant copying". Look how much it's been picked up by people, now Apple have to undo the damage and injury they caused with their unfounded accusations.
     
  14. macrumors 68020

    iBreatheApple

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Location:
    Florida
    #14
    Ouch. I can see this making Apple cringe. They're not ones to do stuff like this so I'm sure they're not happy. I wonder how they'll carry out the "notice."
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    lifeinhd

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #15
    Now that's just humiliating.

    Humiliating, but funny :p
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    Nunyabinez

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Provo, UT
    #16
    Not a lawyer, but I can't imagine this surviving on appeal. Granted the UK is not the US, but since when do you have to publicize the loss of a case? Pay the defendant's legal fee, yes, but this seems weird to me. I could see if it were a libel case where you WON, that you would ask to have a retraction, but this is not that kind of case. Plus, why would any one who visits Apple's site care about the fact that Samsung didn't copy? Shouldn't that be more interesting to people who visit Samsung's site?
     
  17. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #17
    Me too. At most they could force Apple to retract marketing, but I seriously doubt they can dictate such things on a website. That could constitute advertising. IMO the most a judge could do is force Apple to make a public statement acknowledging such a thing, but they can't dictate a websites design for an extended period of time - especially when they never made such statements online in the first place.

    ETA: Even more so given that this is not a libel case at all. Anything public Apple did say is totally irrelevant since they are not being charged with libel or slander. I don't see this surviving appeal.
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    MacSince1990

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #18
    "Not as cool as the iPad"? Honestly, why do judges and attorney's always have to speak in legalese I can't understand... would plain English kill them?

    :D
     
  19. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    #19
    This is awesome! Think of all the fun could have with this ...

    "This is our announcement that Samsung did not copy the iPad with their Galaxy Tab. Even if they tried to, it doesn't matter because Judge so and so says it 'isn't as cool' as an iPad. Click here to purchase your "cool" iPad."

    (so, not the best spot, but you get the idea)
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    Patriot24

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #20
    Bury it on a page with very few ways to find it/navigate to it.
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #21
    right, the only auto maker I see doing the same thing in the car industry is hyundai (another korean company) imitating the likes of mercedes, bmw.

    I thought chinese companies were bad at copying, korean companies are worse.
     
  22. macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #22
    Exactly.
    Same goes for iPhone.

    Competition is good. Copying is bad.

    I wonder if the same can be applied to music and arts? Can a judge simply "state" that it wasn't copied well enough..?
     
  23. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    #23
    With style. If it comes to that.
     
  24. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    #24
    I don't think that is a healthy comparison. It is more like this: Mercedes-Benz comes up with a design, and some other company (say Hyundai) makes a car very similar to it. Don`t consider the engine and the wheels etc. That`s what I see with before and after iPad pictures. There are still processors, touch interfaces, rams but you see different designs.
     
  25. macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #25
    Ha Ha. At least UK judges have a little common sense. If you let other judges approve patent status on things as general as "touch based input for mobile phone" there is no ending to the litigation possible (and money and legal fees) The new gold mine is patent lawyer (used to be doctor/ real lawyer) at least until we pull our collective heads out of our asses.
     

Share This Page