I stand (sit) corrected. Still irrelevant though because there's no chance that the court will allow such a potential inflammatory response on Apple's website as a "punishment"
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I stand (sit) corrected. Still irrelevant though because there's no chance that the court will allow such a potential inflammatory response on Apple's website as a "punishment"
I whipped that up in about 30 seconds but I'm sure that with a few more minutes I could improve the layout and the composition.Yes. Exactly. The court that is reprimanding Apple is totally going to allow THAT as Apple's "ad"
The thread title states 'design', and so yes I can comment about if Samsung did copy Apple's iPad DESIGN.
I said nothing about Samsung copying the iPad - because the iPad was not the first tablet.
Did I mention in my post anywhere about Samsung infringing on Apple's patent(s)? No, I clearly stated that they copied the iPads design.
Copying = creating a similar or near identical. So how did you come to the assumption this is not about copying?
Apple has to link to the ruling.
That ruling.
The one that called the Samsung products thin, insubstantial and not as cool.
Let's hope they don't let Apple put their favourite bits in bold.
As I posted in another thread, the case wasn't about copying. It was whether or not there was an infringement of Apple's registered design.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750
Firstly, get your sayings correct. It's a picture paints a thousand words. Not image.
Overall, what do all the cases have in common? Apple wins in the US. Almost everywhere outside, they either lose out right, or the judgements get over turned on appeal.
Maybe it's Apple spending that $100bn on US judges?
"You're living in a fantasyland"
Hey, don't blame me. Blame the judge. He's the one who thinks Samsung's Tab is ... well, you get the picture.
I refer you to OllyW's post above. In the judge's own words, it was not about copying.
Exactly.
Seriously, some of the people here are beyond pathetic.
Did Samsung come to your house and rape your family?
Ohh I'm sorry I didn't realize tech companies are now sports teams that we root for.
Seriously you would think these angry people were the owners of Apple and Samsung.
I like the idea of Apple spinning it in a positive way and slamming the UK courts.
Take out an ad which shows the GTab in a state where it most closely resembles the iPad, side by side with an iPad.....so it looks like they are incredibly similar.
Then below it: "Samsung did not copy the iPad, according to the UK Court System" linking to the judgement.
It will satisfy the judgement, show how similar the devices are, and slam the UK court.
Take out an ad which shows the GTab in a state where it most closely resembles the iPad, side by side with an iPad.....so it looks like they are incredibly similar.
Then below it: "Samsung did not copy the iPad, according to the UK Court System" linking to the judgement.
It will satisfy the judgement, show how similar the devices are, and slam the UK court.
Ahh... so Apple registered "cool" as a design -- but since Samsung's design was as "cool" as the registered "cool" design -- they didn't infringe because they weren't as "cool" .... Got it, thanks.
btw: I don't care what the case was about, really. This is a business thing and I'm sure there are differences and nuances in laws in different places. To me, this is just one big pissing contest and I'm having fun pissing on all sides.
I *also* like the other rulings (forget where) -- where it said that the *****ty sales of the Samsung devices wasn't going to hurt/damage Apple in any way, therefore Samsung didn't "copy" (or whatever). Or, rather: Ya, you copied, but people still know that your POS isn't an iPad -- therefore, ya, sure, go ahead and sell your clone POS -- enjoy.
Scott
ps: This post may cause bewilderment in cyberspace (oh, and California).
It's nice to see them humbled a bit. They think their you know what doesn't stink.
This is as if someone were assaulted, took their assailant to court. Insufficient evidence the case is thrown out. So far seems bad but reasonable.
But then the court says the assault victim must public ally apologize to the assailant? If the victim really was assaulted, this is an extraordinarily hurtful ruling.
In apples case it shows anyone can rip off your design with little consequence. The required
burden of proof is a vague and very high bar.
Right - and you think this "ad" will be approved as adhering to the judgement?
Seriously? Or are you just having fun. Because sadly - I think some people genuinely think Apple can/will do whatever they want with the ad.
I still don't understand why a screen with a bezel around it and rounded corners can be patented. Isn't that to... basic...
Most monitors look physically alike, along with motherboards, ram, mice, keyboards, disk drives, you name it. Most competing computer components look alike and they aren't all based on a standard.
Many TVs also look very similar yet I don't see TV manufacturers squabbling along with cable boxes, speakers, headphones.
Its a screen with a bezel around it for gods sake!
It seems that because the tablet market is new that people think apple is entitled to more protection than other industries/components get.
Most monitors look physically alike, along with motherboards, ram, mice, keyboards, disk drives, you name it. Most competing computer components look alike and they aren't all based on a standard.
Many TVs also look very similar yet I don't see TV manufacturers squabbling along with cable boxes, speakers, headphones.
Its a screen with a bezel around it for gods sake!
It seems that because the tablet market is new that people think apple is entitled to more protection than other industries/components get.
I put two images, not two pictures. Technically they are a collection of pictures but are rendered on a computer and so is called an image. So my saying is correct for what I used it for.
Maybe they win in the US because Apple is a US company and so bring billions in to the US economy.
This is horrible. Apple really should appeal this all the way up the Supreme Court, and if they are as wrong and unjust as these little lower courts, then Apple should take it to the World Court and the UN.
Samsung did nothing original, they just started up their copying machine as soon as Apple ever innovates with new products. There is NO JUSTICE in England. Everybody there should be hanging there head's in SHAME!
Samsung did nothing original, they just started up their copying machine as soon as Apple ever innovates with new products. There is NO JUSTICE in England. Everybody there should be hanging there head's in SHAME!
Agree. Even if Apple paste a tiny link and buys tiny ads Samsung can buy full page ads or even run TV spots on this. Mind you they might not because the ruling actually had a judge saying that Samsung was just not a cool. But then again what does a judge know right?