You claimed that the ruling "had nothing to do with not being cool enough". Section 190 (which I quoted in it's entirety) directly contradicts that claim.
It is not so hard to understand.
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
You claimed that the ruling "had nothing to do with not being cool enough". Section 190 (which I quoted in it's entirety) directly contradicts that claim.
It is not so hard to understand.
Based on the first post you made in this thread - I have to say your opinion of whether or not Samsung copied is irrelevant. And this ruling isn't about the case in question. This ruling is because after the courts issued a verdict, Apple went to the "airwaves" and, for lack of better term, slapped the court/judge in the face by contradicting the ruling. The court then slapped them with this requirement which Apple tried to appeal. They lost the appeal.
Of course - you're free to not like the fact that Apple lost the appeal.
----------
Do tell how they will do this. I'm FASCINATED
Yes, Apple winning the case wasn't that unexpected but it's a little bit suspect that the only court that rules in their favor just happens to be the one at their home turf, and come on, not a single one of their ridiculous patents invalidated!? Something was seriously messed up there.
If those 15 different phones were all POS, why would they sell at all? And having more models doesn't magically spawn new customers out of nowhere. They could very well be cannibalizing on each other which means the total combined total sales are still relevant. Furthermore, Apple doesn't only make one phone, there are currently three different models in production and on sale.
Also, the Galaxy SIII sales not only comes close to the iPhone...
I agree completely. The potential 'play' would be in adding references to the contents of the linked ruling *in addition*.
As I said, though, I don't think they'll do so.
----------
I can't say I'm familiar enough with the UK court systems to know whether that's actually the next level of appeals, but I'd be surprised if there were only two levels of appeal available in the UK.
Just guess, but maybe because it's a different jurisdiction?
Should they also mention the Japanese court, where Samsung was found not have infringed on Apple patents, or the Korean court where Apple was found to have infringed on Samsung patents, or the Dutch court where Apple's slide-to-lock was effectively laughed out of the courtroom with the judge's recommendation that it be stripped of protection across the EU?
And even if they were to comply with your request for selective inclusion of findings in other jurisdictions, you may want to keep in mind that even in the US the jury found that Samsung's Galaxy Tab did not infringe.
The ruling had nothing to do with the coolness and the 190 paragraphs doesn't contradict nothing.
The ruling is that Samsung doesn't infringes and they don't infringed because they are different not because they are not as cool.
Yep. Different cases, different countries, different laws. Getting differing results really shouldn't be as surprising as most people find it.
The math equivalent would be being surprised that 2+2=4, but 2*3=6!
Excellent decision from the UK courts.
----------
It is the only court in the land which they can appeal to as it is the only court in the land which is higher.
----------
It is the only court in the land which they can appeal to as it is the only court in the land which is higher.
Oh. You're funny. Can't read and don't know anything about the actual judgement - but you're a riot.
So, *now* you're claiming that section 190 *OF THE RULING* which specifically, and unequivocally, stated the Samsung tablet wasn't as cool as the iPad, "had nothing to do with the coolness"? And section 190 also doesn't contradict your claims that the ruling "had nothing to do with the coolness"?
Maybe you should try *reading* it?
I don't know that it's a given. Time and money - not to mention - don't they (the court) have the option of simply saying no - the verdict is the verdict?
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
Good.
Let Apple publicly apologize and Samsung, which has already discontinued this particular tablet, will gain by selling the Galaxy Note 10.1, Nexus 10, and other Galaxy Tab. Even those combined will not dent sales of the iPad and iPad Mini. They will cause people to pause for a moment before they buy the iPad though.
Now for Apple, lets get down to the good stuff - iMacs and Mac Minis coming out next week!
Let Apple publicly apologize and Samsung, which has already discontinued this particular tablet, will gain by selling the Galaxy Note 10.1, Nexus 10, and other Galaxy Tab. Even those combined will not dent sales of the iPad and iPad Mini. They will cause people to pause for a moment before they buy the iPad though.
Now for Apple, lets get down to the good stuff - iMacs and Mac Minis coming out next week!
I believe that the UK has a supreme court as well -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom
I hadn't realised the Law Lords had been replaced. You learn something new every day.
I hadn't realised the Law Lords had been replaced. You learn something new every day.
Personally - I think the CEOs of Apple and Samsung should just go thunderdome style. 2 men enter - one man leaves and be done with it.
Not a good day for judgements in Apple's favor...
http://www.zdnet.com/uk/us-judge-orders-apple-to-reveal-profit-margins-7000005999/?s_cid=e589
Lucy Koh just ordered Apple to reveal profit margins
http://www.zdnet.com/uk/us-judge-orders-apple-to-reveal-profit-margins-7000005999/?s_cid=e589
Lucy Koh just ordered Apple to reveal profit margins
That should be exactly what they should do, a little bit of sarcasm, proving a great point !