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

macs4nw said:
It wasn't about the shape.
Click to expand...

This particular court case actually _was_ about the shape. This registered one:
eu_design_small.png

In fact, a rounded rectangle was the very first item on Apple's claimed list of similarities:

  • i) A rectangular, biaxially symmetrical slab with four evenly, slightly rounded corners;
  • ii) A flat transparent surface without any ornamentation covering the entire front face of the device up to the rim;
  • iii) A very thin rim of constant width, surrounding and flush with the front transparent surface;
  • iv) A rectangular display screen surrounded by a plain border of generally constant width centred beneath the transparent surface;
  • v) A substantially flat rear surface which curves upwards at the sides and comes to meet the front surface at a crisp outer edge;
  • vi) A thin profile, the impression of which is emphasised by (v) above;
  • vii) Overall, a design of extreme simplicity without features which specify orientation.

Basically, the judge said that the front shape was nothing new, and thus the sides and rear were more important to the case. As Samsung's tablets were thinner and had a totally different back, he ruled that Samsung did not infringe.
 
kdarling said:
This particular court case actually _was_ about the shape. This registered one:
View attachment 370761

In fact, a rounded rectangle was the very first item on Apple's claimed list of similarities:

  • i) A rectangular, biaxially symmetrical slab with four evenly, slightly rounded corners;
  • ii) A flat transparent surface without any ornamentation covering the entire front face of the device up to the rim;
  • iii) A very thin rim of constant width, surrounding and flush with the front transparent surface;
  • iv) A rectangular display screen surrounded by a plain border of generally constant width centred beneath the transparent surface;
  • v) A substantially flat rear surface which curves upwards at the sides and comes to meet the front surface at a crisp outer edge;
  • vi) A thin profile, the impression of which is emphasised by (v) above;
  • vii) Overall, a design of extreme simplicity without features which specify orientation.

Basically, the judge said that the front shape was nothing new, and thus the side and rears were more important to the case. Samsung's tablets were thinner and had a totally different back. Thus he ruled that Samsung did not infringe.
Click to expand...

Apple did not, however, try to claim that it was the rounded rectangle that made it a copy, or that they had a patent on a rounded rectangle. It was the combination of the above factors that they felt led to the conclusion that it was a copy. Had any 2-3 of those factors not been present, it likely would not have been close enough for Apple to pursue that approach. It was not merely about the shape, and people like you and AidenShaw who try to reduce Apple's claims to the laughable and absurd idea that it was because it was a rounded rectangle make yourselves look foolish in the process.

jW
 
TheHateMachine said:
An Android device would not get me lost on my way to the hospital. I could die from this brain bleeding induced by spelling mistakes if I was using iOS 6!
Click to expand...

wow...im glad u didnt major in statistics mate :p

----------
Mal said:
Apple did not, however, try to claim that it was the rounded rectangle that made it a copy, or that they had a patent on a rounded rectangle. It was the combination of the above factors that they felt led to the conclusion that it was a copy. Had any 2-3 of those factors not been present, it likely would not have been close enough for Apple to pursue that approach. It was not merely about the shape, and people like you and AidenShaw who try to reduce Apple's claims to the laughable and absurd idea that it was because it was a rounded rectangle make yourselves look foolish in the process.

jW
Click to expand...

of course...media and trolls always pick up the most sensational bits to gain points...:(
why no one complains nokias new phones arent a copy? cause they arent! i just dont realise how stupid people and some tech journalists can be. being asian, i feel embarrassed in samsungs action to be honest. yes, i have probably become a fanboi over a year but surely samsung have great designers (look at their TVs!!) who could do much better that making similar copies. hope they realise they themselves are a big company and they can define their own style.
 
Mal said:
Apple did not, however, try to claim that it was the rounded rectangle that made it a copy, or that they had a patent on a rounded rectangle. It was the combination of the above factors that they felt led to the conclusion that it was a copy. Had any 2-3 of those factors not been present, it likely would not have been close enough for Apple to pursue that approach. It was not merely about the shape, and people like you and AidenShaw who try to reduce Apple's claims to the laughable and absurd idea that it was because it was a rounded rectangle make yourselves look foolish in the process.

jW
Click to expand...

I'm reading that list, seems to me they are claiming that any object that's a rectangle with rounded corners is infringing.

The Community Design Registration and US Design Patent D889 doesn't have any text though to indicate what exactly they are patenting, only the vague drawing.
 
Mal said:
Apple did not, however, try to claim that it was the rounded rectangle that made it a copy, or that they had a patent on a rounded rectangle.
Click to expand...

Nice strawman. I didn't say they did.

I said that Apple put a rounded rectangle at the top of their list of similarities for their claimed design shape. Not the flat front. Not the slim bezel.

Clearly Apple considers a rounded rectangle as important to their design. In the recent California trial, they presented expert testimony suggesting to Samsung that to avoid infringement, they could use "overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners."

Apple has also consistently argued in courts that a rounded rectangle is not functional, but one of the decorative elements that they can can include in their design patents/registrations.

That argument has not won any cases for them yet. On the contrary, including a rounded rectangle in the design claim list has seemed to work against them so far, both in court and in public reaction.

It was not merely about the shape,...
Click to expand...

No one has said it wasn't a combination. But it IS a combination that makes up a total shape of a slim, rounded rectangle with a flat face.

Ah, perhaps there's the disconnect. I consider the entire design to be a shape. Perhaps you thought I meant just the rounded rectangle?
 
kdarling said:
This particular court case actually _was_ about the shape. This registered one:
View attachment 370761

In fact, a rounded rectangle was the very first item on Apple's claimed list of similarities:

  • i) A rectangular, biaxially symmetrical slab with four evenly, slightly rounded corners;
  • ii) A flat transparent surface without any ornamentation covering the entire front face of the device up to the rim;
  • iii) A very thin rim of constant width, surrounding and flush with the front transparent surface;
  • iv) A rectangular display screen surrounded by a plain border of generally constant width centred beneath the transparent surface;
  • v) A substantially flat rear surface which curves upwards at the sides and comes to meet the front surface at a crisp outer edge;
  • vi) A thin profile, the impression of which is emphasised by (v) above;
  • vii) Overall, a design of extreme simplicity without features which specify orientation.

Basically, the judge said that the front shape was nothing new, and thus the sides and rear were more important to the case. As Samsung's tablets were thinner and had a totally different back, he ruled that Samsung did not infringe.
Click to expand...

It's funny that since the iPad doesn't match the second point and the original iPad doesn't match the fifth point either, this design patent doesn't describe the iPad. In other words, Apple is suing over a patent that hasn't been applied to an actual product and we have a special word for that ;)
 
thasan said:
of course...media and trolls always pick up the most sensational bits to gain points...:(
why no one complains nokias new phones arent a copy? cause they arent! i just dont realise how stupid people and some tech journalists can be. being asian, i feel embarrassed in samsungs action to be honest. yes, i have probably become a fanboi over a year but surely samsung have great designers (look at their TVs!!) who could do much better that making similar copies. hope they realise they themselves are a big company and they can define their own style.
Click to expand...

Cause MS <-> Apple pay royalties to each other.
 
For most part I believe such a ruling is BS. It's within Apple's legal right to file a suit to protect what it believes to be their IP.

There is nothing wrong with filing lawsuits - it would kind of defeat the purpose of the legal system if it was.

Any damage to their competitor that results either from injunctions or news of the lawsuit is solely on the hands of the court that ordered the injunction and the press that publicize the lawsuit before an outcome is determined. I don't see why Apple should be punished for the **** ups of others.

It's interesting that Apple isn't appealing the decision. I suppose while Jobs lost his temper and wishes "thermonuclear war", and he isn't around anymore, Tim Cook doesn't seem to give a crap.

Cook seems like a guy that makes decisions purely from a detached "cost/benefit analysis" perspective - the guy after all was Apple's COO. If I had to guess the reasoning is, continuing to appeal the lawsuit probably won't reverse the initial ruling and the penalty is fairly minor - Apple will just put the link in the small print, next to all the legal mumbo-jumbo that no one reads, and the "ad" will be written in verbose legal speak that will bored anyone who is not a lawyer to sleep. So why waste money.
 
Prallethrin said:
For most part I believe such a ruling is BS. It's within Apple's legal right to file a suit to protect what it believes to be their IP.

There is nothing wrong with filing lawsuits - it would kind of defeat the purpose of the legal system if it was.
Click to expand...

The ruling was not for filing a lawsuit, the ruling was because Apple still said that Samsung was slavishly copying them after Samsung not being found guilty of infringing Apple designs
 
Lennholm said:
It's funny that since the iPad doesn't match the second point and the original iPad doesn't match the fifth point either, this design patent doesn't describe the iPad. In other words, Apple is suing over a patent that hasn't been applied to an actual product and we have a special word for that ;)
Click to expand...

The UK Judge stated the same in his ruling.

----------
Prallethrin said:
For most part I believe such a ruling is BS. It's within Apple's legal right to file a suit to protect what it believes to be their IP.

There is nothing wrong with filing lawsuits - it would kind of defeat the purpose of the legal system if it was.
Click to expand...

Hum, this wasn't ruled on based on the fact that Samsung filed the pre-emptive lawsuit or that Apple defended in it. This is based on the fact that after the Judge ruled the Tabs non-infringing, Apple kept the media pressure and the "copying" angle, in contradiction of the verdict.

Not such a BS ruling in its context uh ? Next time, read the details before commenting with such vitriol.

Prallethrin said:
It's interesting that Apple isn't appealing the decision.
Click to expand...

They did appeal the decision and lost. The title of the thread has the word appeal at the 3rd position. :confused:

Wow, you really were in a hurry to bash Tim at the expense of Steve there...
 
The legal background in forcing Apple to publish the decision

For those wondering how/why they judge could do what he did, his order forcing Apple to post the trial outcome quoted the following law (among others):

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

Publication of Judicial Decisions, Recital 27, 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...

Although this is usually used to force an infringer to publish details, there was also precedent to force the loser in an infringement case to do the same. Therefore the law allowed forcing Apple to publicize the decision at their own expense.

Even so, the judge commented that he was leaning towards not requiring Apple to run the ads.... but changed his mind when Apple continued to try to confuse the public.

Note that even though the judge ordered Apple to publicize the decision, he refused to otherwise gag them, on the grounds of freedom of speech. So they can say what they want, but that doesn't also mean they won't suffer consequences if they continue to publish statements contrary to his decision.
 
MacDav said:
Wow! I was joking. I found the previous poster a little on the defensive side saying in effect "How dare you say I drink warm beer". "I've never had a warm beer in my life and none of my friends have either." So I asked "what about driving on the left side of the street" as a joke. Sorry... you blokes on the "Island Nation" are a little touchy I guess. By the way...I've had plenty of warm beer in my time, and I don't live on an "Island Nation". Have a nice day. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well I would suggest that the onus is on you to make it seem as though you are joking. Since more than one person took you seriously, you need to look at how you post online to prevent that from happening again.
 
GorgonPhone said:
or you could install the tomtom app for iphone and be just fine..lolol:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Depends - maybe he has a hospital locator app which uses Map Kit. You know - because you can't change the default app that other apps use for their data?

Why do people keep forgetting this point? Is it that they forget - or they have no way of defending it?
 
samcraig said:
Depends - maybe he has a hospital locator app which uses Map Kit. You know - because you can't change the default app that other apps use for their data?

Why do people keep forgetting this point? Is it that they forget - or they have no way of defending it?
Click to expand...

Probably a little bit of ignorance and some of the last point. :D
 
samcraig said:
Depends - maybe he has a hospital locator app which uses Map Kit. You know - because you can't change the default app that other apps use for their data?

Why do people keep forgetting this point? Is it that they forget - or they have no way of defending it?
Click to expand...

oh yeah and maybe he can enter the address into tomtom. cause he has no hands,..

anyway.. this is all why i dont use and IOS device unless it is jail broken
 
coffeemadmanUK said:
Well I would suggest that the onus is on you to make it seem as though you are joking. Since more than one person took you seriously, you need to look at how you post online to prevent that from happening again.
Click to expand...

Take a hike pal. You need to have a serious look at your own personal insecurity and defensiveness. I will say whatever I damn well please, and you have nothing to say in the matter. Go on now, move along. :rolleyes:
 
slughead said:
Even Steve Wozniak said the American Ruling was bogus. Now the UK courts agree. American courts with moronic American jurors got it wrong.
Click to expand...

2 things :

1- The UK ruling was pronounced in July, ahead of the American trial.
2- The UK and US ruling are the same concerning the IP they have in common : Samsung does not infringe Apple's Designs.
 
iPhone=girly said:
It's amazing how Americans protect their overpriced, inferior "domestic" products.
Is paying hundreds of dollars for a 2nd rate product like the iPhone really worth being nationalistic over?
Click to expand...

Well, I definitely don't see the iPhone as a second rate product! :apple:

However I become increasingly irritated by the (usually) American response of "I can say what I like goddammit!!" when nobody has said they cannot say what they like. It's confusing - you don't get the message that someone is trying to convey and tell them that they aren't coming across in the manner to which they apparently want to, and their response is some passive-agressive "I can say what I like/I am an American and we have the 2nd Amendment" crap, like I'm somehow curtailing their freedoms.

Interestingly it tends to happen online exclusively - hiding behind their computer screens.
 
coffeemadmanUK said:
Well, I definitely don't see the iPhone as a second rate product! :apple:

However I become increasingly irritated by the (usually) American response of "I can say what I like goddammit!!" when nobody has said they cannot say what they like. It's confusing - you don't get the message that someone is trying to convey and tell them that they aren't coming across in the manner to which they apparently want to, and their response is some passive-agressive "I can say what I like/I am an American and we have the 2nd Amendment" crap, like I'm somehow curtailing their freedoms.

Interestingly it tends to happen online exclusively - hiding behind their computer screens.
Click to expand...

Oh don't worry, now that Apple is replacing Samsung with 2nd and 3rd rate Korean/Japanese junk tech, the iPhone's redeeming feature of having mostly high quality Samsung technology is gone.

I hope you enjoy talking to tech service.
 
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