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
Good grief.
Reading that it's hard to see who exactly is being punished here....
Perhaps because he has formatted it to sound like the conclusion is because of the coolness when it isn't
It's not odd considering the conditions in which this was issued. The Judge issued a non-infringement ruling for Samsung. Apple then commented on this ruling, still claiming Samsung copied their design. The Judge, furious about Apple's contempt of his ruling and their continued media campaign, issued an order forcing Apple to put up this message.
If Apple didn't want to publicly apologize, they just had to shut their mouths and stop calling Samsung copycats in the UK as soon as the ruling was made.
The apology order was not issued over the actual ruling/issue. It was Apple who were in contempt.
Here is the full text of the ruling: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
The more I read, the more it looks like poor case management by Apple in the first instance. The judges didn't even think the iPad itself fit the registered design.
However, it also limits what Apple has to say in their ad: it is not proven that Samsung did not copy the iPad. There was no comparison made between the two. What has been proven is that Samsung did not infringe on a design that Apple registered. The actual released iPad product is no part of this case whatsoever.
EDIT: The registered design was filed in 2004. It looks quite a lot like that white plastic iMac-style iPad prototype we saw in the California case (this one). It was always doubtful Apple would prevail on this.
Sir Robin Jacob said:
The more I read, the more it looks like poor case management by Apple in the first instance. The judges didn't even think the iPad itself fit the registered design.
However, it also limits what Apple has to say in their ad: it is not proven that Samsung did not copy the iPad. There was no comparison made between the two. What has been proven is that Samsung did not infringe on a design that Apple registered. The actual released iPad product is no part of this case whatsoever.
EDIT: The registered design was filed in 2004. It looks quite a lot like that white plastic iMac-style iPad prototype we saw in the California case (this one). It was always doubtful Apple would prevail on this.
Last edited:
No, wrong in that you thought the case was about copying when it was actually a ruling on whether or not there was an infringement of Apple's registered design.
Though I will keep my opinion on this whole issue, what you wrote makes sense. Thank you.
Three cheers for Samsung! We want more cloning, less innovation, and less choice!
Let Samsung play it safe and continue to stick as closely to Apple as they can (rather than doing their own thing like Microsoft). The consumer wins! Because who wants choice and variety? What we want in the market is a bunch of very similar products!
Yeah, because things like the Galaxy Note and Note 10.1 with side-by-side apps and other cool innovations are such clones of Apple's... uh... side-by... no wait, Apple doesn't have that... Apple's stylus with Wacom... no wait, Apple doesn't have that either.
Geez people drop it, Apple is not the sole industry innovator.
Heck, they are now being sued over Passbook, after being successfully sued over Visual Voice Mail, after successfully being sued for the iPod UI...
Well further - this action has more to do with Apple's pubic statements after the verdict than the case itself. The court (unless I'm mistaken) didn't take kindly to being contradicted.
Dear Samsung.
We were wrong about your design infringing on the iPad.
A UK court said it best when comparing your tablet to our iPad:
"[Samsung] do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool. The overall impression produced is different."
We couldn't agree more with their reasoning; so please accept our apology.
Peace,
Apple
We were wrong about your design infringing on the iPad.
A UK court said it best when comparing your tablet to our iPad:
"[Samsung] do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool. The overall impression produced is different."
We couldn't agree more with their reasoning; so please accept our apology.
Peace,
Apple
Well, it seems to be that Apple has specific text that they have to post. They could post something like that in a press release/statement but that could also be viewed as contempt. So the only thing they can do is hope that people research the case and read the order themselves which is unlikely.
Thanks. This really isn't so much about my belief on whether the verdict is appropriate or not. My comments are really about/aimed at those that think Apple can take this verdict and then post whatever they want. That was never going to happen because the whole reason this verdict came down in the first place was because they responded inappropriately to the original verdict.
Log out now. You're one of "those" people who either had severe reading comprehension issues or don't read threads. Both are displays of complete ignorance.
Indeed - I know I wouldn't read the case. If I'm interested in a phone or other device - I would read reviews - not court cases. Unless those cases have to do with safety or security issues.
Think Less
I now think less of the British courts then I did before. How does "cool" get into any of this? I would like to know from our British friends what it takes to violate these types of patients in the British Court System. I too have the same question, at times, of our court system. Why is this soooo hard? My eyes can tell me a lot about similarities. Why can't the courts see it too?
I now think less of the British courts then I did before. How does "cool" get into any of this? I would like to know from our British friends what it takes to violate these types of patients in the British Court System. I too have the same question, at times, of our court system. Why is this soooo hard? My eyes can tell me a lot about similarities. Why can't the courts see it too?
Indeed, I dunno why people keep thinking Apple has any freedom, when it's spelled out in the original July ruling that they don't :
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html
It's all been spelled out for them already. They have no freedom to choose. And it must be displayed on every EU site Apple owns.
I now think less of the British courts then I did before. How does "cool" get into any of this? I would like to know from our British friends what it takes to violate these types of patients in the British Court System. I too have the same question, at times, of our court system. Why is this soooo hard? My eyes can tell me a lot about similarities. Why can't the courts see it too?
I just posted a link to the full text of the ruling (post: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/16069390/).
Actually, I think it's a pretty sound judgement. Apple just didn't manage the case well enough.
Wait...
The sentence, "They are not as cool." has "nothing to do with the coolness"?
Or are you switching to some other sentence in there, because that one kills your original claim that the ruling had nothing to do with coolness.
My God, the judge has said they are not as cool but he has not ruled that Samsung tablets don't infringe the Design Patent because they are not cool enough
It is not so hard to understand.
Don't assume to know what I thought. Cause in this case you are assuming wrong. I know what this case is about. As do you. Next time ask before you assume incorrectly.
There is (potentially) a (very) little room for 'play' in the ruling, such as also including snippets of the ruling, or footnotes pointing to those sections, in addition to the specifically required bock of text and link. I don't suspect Apple will take try to advantage of it, though. For precisely the reason that it might annoy the court.
Sorry, but you posted this so I assumed you thought the judgement was wrong because Samsung had copied Apple.
The only "play" I see reading that order is the [insert hyperlink] part and that seems pretty clear they shouldn't mess with the anchor tag to try to be "snarky".
Seems pretty clear they are to display the text the court provided.