Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

Hallelua someone has some common sense! In your face Apple! You CANNOT patent an oblong with rounded corners! In white or Black!

I can't wait to see the adverts, and only in America it get's awarded billions for sheer bias incompetence!

Don't get me wrong, Samsung are arrogant and copied some of Apple's software designs, but when it comes to a shape I find it laughable money grabbing cannot innovate ban the competition from sale I want the monopoly and not give anyone a choice...

Also a quick Google will tell you the court of appeal IS the highest Apple can go bar the House of Lords or the Queen..

It lost, it deserved to lose, move on.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha! Damn, what a cool and humiliating verdict... in the spirit of that thing when sex offenders have to go around the neighborhood and disclose their status. Apple's lawyers probably rolled in there smelling victory already, but ended up having their asses handed to them by a guy in a funny wig. Very Pythonesque.
 
Apple apologizing to Samsung is a good start

but it's not enough. It's time for some judge to make Apple apologize to all people for their abuse of patent and judicial systems.
 
Oletros said:
I give up. Yes, the judge has ruled that Samsung doesn't infringes a community design because Samsung tablets are not cool.

Happy? Have a good day, I won't waste more time arguing with a wall like you
Click to expand...

Really, *I'm* the 'wall' because *you're* arguing a position directly contrary to the document which has been quoted by several people (including myself) in this very thread?

Congratulations... You're number two.
 
lilo777 said:
but it's not enough. It's time for some judge to make Apple apologize to all people for their abuse of patent and judicial systems.
Click to expand...
More importantly it's time to encourage all manner of American authorities to grow a spine. Corporations are practically running the show now and take more or less for granted that everyone in government will bend to their will like overcooked spaghetti. "We wanna patent rectangles with rounded corners. Get it done." "Yes massa!" Environmental laws are practically non-existent compared to the EU because nobody dares implement them, let alone enforce them.

From my side of the pond the US is starting to look like anarcho-capitalism has replaced democracy. Now the companies are trying to dictate the election, threatening to lay people off in droves if Obama wins.
 
Cool, all we need now is a few more judges to roll their eyes at Apple, them to f-off and maybe we can get back to innovation and competition instead of hearing about law suits over and over again.
 
1_ipad-2-vs-galaxy-tab-10.1.jpg


Galaxy Tab.
Judged not as cool as the iPad to be considered a copy.​
 
KnightWRX said:
Why don't you read the ruling and find out :

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

It is based on multiple articles of different Acts and on case law established prior to this decision.
Click to expand...

Apple is not an infringer...

. 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.
Click to expand...

Or as the judge says...

The first question I need to decide is whether I have jurisdiction to make such an order. It is clear that there is no legislative basis in the Community Design Regulation or in the IP Enforcement Directive (Council Directive 2004/48) for such an order.
Click to expand...
 
Technarchy said:
Apple is not an infringer...



Or as the judge says...
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm not understanding - which *IS* possible. But if the verdict was that Samsung didn't infringe and Apple went ahead and stated publicly that, in essence, they had- then Apple is "guilty" of falsely presenting the courts findings. So Apple is an infringer.

Someone can correct me.

----------
perealb said:
Hmm. yeah - with a link to the judgment, of course.
Click to expand...

So you just showed how little you know about the ruling and that you clearly haven't read this thread. The details of specifically WHAT Apple has to do has been posted a few times. And they can't do anything remotely like what you suggest. Go back and read.
 
Technarchy said:
Or as the judge says...
Click to expand...

You missed off the last bit on your "selected" cut and paste, I've added it for you.

The first question I need to decide is whether I have jurisdiction to make such an order. It is clear that there is no legislative basis in the Community Design Regulation or in the IP Enforcement Directive (Council Directive 2004/48) for such an order. However, Samsung submit that the court has jurisdiction to make such an order pursuant to section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. That is essentially a provision which says that the court may grant injunctions when it is just and convenient to do so.
 
daveathall said:
You missed off the last bit of your selected cut and paste, I've added it for you.

The first question I need to decide is whether I have jurisdiction to make such an order. It is clear that there is no legislative basis in the Community Design Regulation or in the IP Enforcement Directive (Council Directive 2004/48) for such an order. However, Samsung submit that the court has jurisdiction to make such an order pursuant to section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. That is essentially a provision which says that the court may grant injunctions when it is just and convenient to do so.
Click to expand...

Well that was certainly "convenient" editing, now wasn't it ;)
 
samcraig said:
Maybe I'm not understanding - which *IS* possible. But if the verdict was that Samsung didn't infringe and Apple went ahead and stated publicly that, in essence, they had- then Apple is "guilty" of falsely presenting the courts findings. So Apple is an infringer.

Someone can correct me.
Click to expand...

You are quite correct...

Samsung also point out that after the judgment in this case was handed down Apple said: (I will quote what has been called the Hely statement):

"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."

Samsung submits that read in context this statement is another assertion by Apple that SEUK's acts in relation to the Samsung tablets constitute an infringe of the registered design. They contend that the fact that the statement was made after judgment indicates the need for an injunction to be granted in order that the court's grant of declaratory relief in this case is not frustrated.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back