Apple Loses Appeal on UK Ruling Requiring Ads Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Infringe iPad Design

[MacRumors]

Back in early July, a UK court ruled that Samsung had not infringed upon the design of the iPad with its own Galaxy Tab device, with judge Colin Birss ruling that the Galaxy Tab was simply "not as cool" as the iPad. Roughly a week later, Birss ruled that Apple must publish advertisements on its website and in newspapers acknowledging that Samsung did not copy the iPad's design.

Apple quickly appealed the ruling and was granted a stay until that appeal could be heard.

BBC News now reports that Apple has lost its appeal and is now required to follow through on publishing its acknowledgments.

The US firm had previously been ordered to place a notice to that effect - with a link to the original judgement - on its website and place other adverts in the Daily Mail, Financial Times, T3 Magazine and other publications to "correct the damaging impression" that Samsung was a copycat.

The appeal judges decided not to overturn the decision on the basis that a related Apple design-rights battle in the German courts risked causing confusion in consumers' minds.

"The acknowledgment must come from the horse's mouth," they said. "Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely."

The appeals judges ruled that Apple could satisfy the posting requirement for its own website by including a small link entitled "Samsung/Apple judgement" on the site for a period of one month.

Apple can still appeal to the UK Supreme Court in an effort to have the publishing requirement overturned, but Reuters notes that Apple has given no indication of planning such an appeal.

Article Link: Apple Loses Appeal on UK Ruling Requiring Ads Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Infringe iPad Design

 

[KdParker]

can't win them all....

Can't wait to see the wording of the Ad

 

[samcraig]

Actually - the word "small" was never used in the article I read.

"However, they added that the move need not "clutter" Apple's homepage as it would only have to add a link entitled "Samsung/Apple judgement" for a one-month period."

 

[Tingler]

If I was Samsung, I'd probably be feeling more like a loser than a winner in this case.

 

[samcraig]

can't win them all....

Can wait to see the wording of the Ad

I'm pretty sure the Ad has to adhere to the courts requirements. Meaning - I wouldn't be looking for anything fun/interesting but rather straightforward and factual.

 

[the8thark]

As I posted in the original topic of this:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/16067476/

Proof the UK system of justice is flawed?
What's the point of having a trial when you can just have an appeal? We all know who copied who here. Apple should be allowed to appeal the appeal to get the right verdict. But yeah that'd go on forever as both sides would appeal for ever.

Looks like Apple unfairly got the short end of the stick here. And got a cruel and unusual punishment. Apple having to advertise a flat lie. But /sigh no justice system is perfect.

 

[Nungster]

can't win them all....

Can wait to see the wording of the Ad

Me neither! I got to bet it will also include the determination that the GTab is not AS COOL as the iPad. LAWLZ

 

[OllyW]

As I posted in the original topic of this:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/16067476/

You got it wrong in that thread too.

 

[samcraig]

If I was Samsung, I'd probably be feeling more like a loser than a winner in this case.

Just curious why? Apple is being forced to admit that Samsung didn't copy them. Something that they objected to. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. Samsung, I am sure, is pleased with the verdict. Why wouldn't they?

 

[ImageWrangler]

Apple was right about the phones but mostly wrong about this tablet, it's FUGLY and chunky looking, not aesthetically pleasing at all and plasticky, the OS looks all over the map as well, it's about as UNApple a product as a product could be. I'm guessing Apple just sued them "because we can" as a logic without really thinking it through.

 

[Tingler]

Just curious why? Apple is being forced to admit that Samsung didn't copy them. Something that they objected to. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. Samsung, I am sure, is pleased with the verdict. Why wouldn't they?

Because it is utterly humiliating. The whole thing.

 

[pensoftware]

"The Samsumg Galaxy Tab's original design is not as cool as ours. Ours is magical."

 

[samcraig]

Because it is utterly humiliating. The whole thing.

So you think Apple is excited about having to do this? I would think it's humiliating for them to be forced to admit something they don't want to.

 

[Rootus]

I think they should put up an advertisement with them side-by-side, using one of Samsung's own promotional pictures of their tablet which shows it most similar to the iPad, and then say "No, Samsung did not copy the iPad. Not at all." and leave it at that.

 

[reefoid]

Apple was right about the phones but mostly wrong about this tablet, it's FUGLY and chunky looking, not aesthetically pleasing at all and plasticky, the OS looks all over the map as well, it's about as UNApple a product as a product could be. I'm guessing Apple just sued them "because we can" as a logic without really thinking it through.

Actually, Apple didn't sue. Samsung wanted the court to rule on non-infringement, Apple then counter claimed.

 

[KnightWRX]

Because it is utterly humiliating. The whole thing.

Uh ? How is it humiliating that they were found non-guilty of design infringement and multiple counts of patent infringements exactly ?

 

[tbrinkma]

As I posted in the original topic of this:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/16067476/

Well, the appeal process exists because *sometimes*, despite the best, and most honorable, efforts of all parties involved results in the *wrong* decision. The number of appeals are limited, because each appeal is heard by a higher court. Eventually, you reach the highest court, and you can appeal no further. Or, as appears to be the case here, you get a clarification that allows you to live with the judgement even if you don't agree with it. (The clarification about just needing to add a *link* to the notice, rather than having the text embedded in the applicable pages.)

 

[HarryKeogh]

I'm sorry to hear this news.

 

[cxny]

sorry... except you did

 

[samcraig]

I'm going to state this again very clearly.

I have no idea why people think the announcement on Apple's site is going to be cheeky/snarky/etc. It's not like Apple is going to be able to write whatever they want. It would be incredibly surprising if the announcement didn't have to be first approved by the court who is mandating the announcement.

Reality vs fantasy folks.

 

[zorinlynx]

Thank the gods. This industry needs more competition. Not ridiculous patent lawsuits.

 

[iPhnoe]

If I was Samsung, I'd probably be feeling more like a loser than a winner in this case.

Nothing like letting your arch enemy run an ad for you. ^_^

 

[0815]

As long as they can put in that advertisement that the court decided that the Samsung product is not good enough to qualify as copy they are fine ....

 

[reefoid]

Well, the appeal process exists because *sometimes*, despite the best, and most honorable, efforts of all parties involved results in the *wrong* decision. The number of appeals are limited, because each appeal is heard by a higher court. Eventually, you reach the highest court, and you can appeal no further. Or, as appears to be the case here, you get a clarification that allows you to live with the judgement even if you don't agree with it. (The clarification about just needing to add a *link* to the notice, rather than having the text embedded in the applicable pages.)

True. And Apple could still appeal to the next higher court, the Supreme Court.

 

[tbrinkma]

Just curious why? Apple is being forced to admit that Samsung didn't copy them. Something that they objected to. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. Samsung, I am sure, is pleased with the verdict. Why wouldn't they?

Well, the wording of the court order declaring the design non-infringing specifically said the Samsung design wasn't as "cool" as the iPad's design. That's something to be a bit embarrassed about from Samsung's perspective.

I mean, *literally* in this case, the design wasn't infringing because it *wasn't cool enough*.