Apple loses samsung copyright appeal . Has to advertise samsung did not copy the ipad

725032

Guest
Original poster
Aug 5, 2012
724
0
These newspaper and mag ads should be interesting;

Apple Loses Samsung Copyright Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld its judgement that, even though parts of the product look similar to Apple's iPad, the tablet does not infringe its rival's design.
Apple will now have to place prominent advertisements in several UK newspapers and magazines, explaining that Samsung did not copy the iPad.
The two companies are the world's leading smartphone makers are have been fighting over patents in courts around the world.
More follows...
 

cRuNcHiE

macrumors 6502a
Jan 2, 2007
752
27
Apple loses samsung copyright appeal . Has to advertise samsung did not copy the ipad

Apple has lost its appeal over a High Court decision that the Samsung Galaxy Tab does not infringe its copyright.

The Court of Appeal upheld its judgement that, even though parts of the product look similar to Apple's iPad, the tablet does not infringe its rival's design.

Apple will now have to place prominent advertisements in several UK newspapers and magazines, explaining that Samsung did not copy the iPad.
http://news.sky.com/story/999320/apple-loses-samsung-copyright-appeal
 

Tobias Funke

macrumors 6502a
Apr 3, 2012
628
61
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750

Also this report,

Samsung quote from it,

"We continue to believe that Apple was not the first to design a tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corners and that the origins of Apple's registered design features can be found in numerous examples of prior art.

"Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims in other countries based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited."
 

ReValveiT

macrumors regular
Sep 20, 2012
116
0
"Apple will now have to place prominent advertisements in several UK newspapers and magazines, explaining that Samsung did not copy the iPad"

Is that the modern day equivalent of having to wear a dunce cap?
 

sineplex

macrumors 6502
Aug 24, 2010
342
0
It's actually great advertising again. They will keep on saying 'copy... iPad...iPad...iPad'

They will not mention anything to do with the Galaxy Tab. The branding will not appear anywhere.

Then a barrage of 10 million iPad minis hit the streets.
 

blackbelter

macrumors member
Sep 17, 2012
86
0
It's actually great advertising again. They will keep on saying 'copy... iPad...iPad...iPad'

They will not mention anything to do with the Galaxy Tab. The branding will not appear anywhere.

Then a barrage of 10 million iPad minis hit the streets.
People are not as stupid as you think...
 

kot

macrumors regular
Sep 10, 2011
161
0
Ok, I see the "not cool as the iPad" part included somewhere in the text will do more harm than good for Samsung.
 

MonkeySee....

macrumors 68040
Sep 24, 2010
3,858
435
UK
They will have to be careful with their response because they could end up being charged with contempt of court if they don't take it seriously.
I'm sure they will take it seriously. But they can do it in a way that readers won't.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
They will have to be careful with their response because they could end up being charged with contempt of court if they don't take it seriously.
Didn't the UK Judge already also give them to actual text they have to print ? Apple can't spin their way out of this one.
 

the8thark

macrumors 68040
Apr 18, 2011
3,993
873
Proof the UK system of justice is flawed?
What's the point of having a trial when you can just have an appeal? We all know who copied who here. Apple should be allowed to appeal the appeal to get the right verdict. But yeah that'd go on forever as both sides would appeal for ever.

Looks like Apple unfairly got the short end of the stick here. And got a cruel and unusual punishment. Apple having to advertise a flat lie. But /sigh no justice system is perfect.
 

OllyW

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 11, 2005
17,069
6,418
The Black Country, England
We all know who copied who here.
The case wasn't about copying, it was whether there was an infringement of Apple's registered design.

One of the judges - who noted he owned an iPad himself - explained why Apple had lost the appeal in his ruling.

"Because this case (and parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about," wrote Sir Robin Jacob.

"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law."

"So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products."

Sir Robin noted that Samsung's decision to place its logo on the front of its devices distinguished them from Apple's registered design which said there should be "no ornamentation".

He also highlighted the fact that the sides of the iPad's design - which featured a "sharp edge" - were significantly different from those of the Galaxy Tabs.

In addition, Sir Robin wrote that Samsung's designs were "altogether busier" with a more varied use of colour on the devices' rear and their inclusion of a thicker section to house a camera.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying
Something I've been trying to explain here to no avail to a bunch of people : Patent infringement (be it design patents, utility patents, software patents, EU Community Design registrations) are not about copying. You can infringe patents without ever having copied anything froma anyone, and you can be non-infringing for things that while on the surface appear similar, do not infringe on the claim in the patent/design registration.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,329
7,414
Proof the UK system of justice is flawed?
What's the point of having a trial when you can just have an appeal? We all know who copied who here. Apple should be allowed to appeal the appeal to get the right verdict. But yeah that'd go on forever as both sides would appeal for ever.

Looks like Apple unfairly got the short end of the stick here. And got a cruel and unusual punishment. Apple having to advertise a flat lie. But /sigh no justice system is perfect.
The "right verdict" is now "the one Apple wants"?

But you've already shown a complete ignorance of how the law works by saying that appeals make the trial pointless.
 

smoledman

macrumors 68000
Oct 17, 2011
1,912
314
Microsoft is so stupid for not making a Surface Mini right off the bat. Apple will sell a trillion of those things. It will be the #1 Christmas present this year.
 

Similar threads

Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.