Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Ordered to Alter Website Statement Acknowledging Samsung Galaxy Tab Did Not Infringe on iPad Design

lpoulain said:
No, it hasn't backfired. Apple made the statement they wanted to make, and got lots of mileage out of press reaction, blog commentary, etc. Mission accomplished. Now they will, I'm sure, issue a short direct statement in strict compliance with the judge's instruction. Good on Apple for clever manipulation of this absurd ruling!
Click to expand...

It probably hasn't backfired because no one really cares, but I'm sure the admonition by the court will get more attention in the media then the posting by Apple did.

But again, at the end of the day, no one really cares, Apple will still make billions, Samsung will still copy and make stupid commercials, and both will be highly successful at their businesses.
 
LMFAO, it takes Apple web devs two weeks to change some text on a webpage?

I'll tell you how to get them to change it overnight, find them in contempt of court and fine them £1 Million a day till it's fixed. I'll bet it won't take two weeks to fix it then.
 
eversonj90 said:
Let's just ignore the estimated £6bn made through UK sales?
The people they employ here?
The arrangements with UK mobile networks?
The services they supply?
The businesses they kit out?
The consumers that use their technology?

Oh ... their entire involvement in the UK economy?
Click to expand...

You mean the profit making activities they engage in?

Yes, Apple will stop all of that to get back at the UK.
 
A stupid ruling. Why did the judge leave the decision to Apple if the judge all ready knew what he wanted the apology to say ? Rather then complain when Apple came up with something the judge didn't like, maybe the judge should have given Apple the apology that was to be published.
 
Sue De Nimes said:
You mean the profit making activities they engage in?

Yes, Apple will stop all of that to get back at the UK.
Click to expand...

Spot on.

Why on earth would any business stop trading in a country due to something like this, that is just sheer stupidity.

The amount of money Apple would lose from pulling out of such a market will be much more (in both the short and long term) than if they just complied with the previous orders.
 
GadgetDon said:
I am indeed. And I would say the same had Apple won and Samsung been required to post a statement that they had copied Apple's designs.
Click to expand...

Good thing then no one was required to post a statement just because the other side won. You do understand that Apple actually did something after the ruling on the 9th to merit the 2nd ruling on the 18th about the advertisement right ?

It's a case of "They should have just kept their mouths shut". Samsung getting declared non-guilty of Design infringement is not what brought this requirement on to Apple. Read the ruling from the 18th to find out the actual reason Apple got into hot water and got asked to put the statement on their website :

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html

Here, let me make it easy for you :

Samsung also point out that after the judgment in this case was handed down Apple said: (I will quote what has been called the Hely statement):

"It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad. This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual property."

Samsung submits that read in context this statement is another assertion by Apple that SEUK's acts in relation to the Samsung tablets constitute an infringe of the registered design. They contend that the fact that the statement was made after judgment indicates the need for an injunction to be granted in order that the court's grant of declaratory relief in this case is not frustrated.
Click to expand...
 
Plutonius said:
A stupid ruling. Why did the judge leave the decision to Apple if the judge all ready knew what he wanted the apology to say ? Rather then complain when Apple came up with something the judge didn't like, maybe the judge should have given Apple the apology that was to be published.
Click to expand...

So, you have not read the ruling, do you?
 
NorEaster said:
Wow...comparing infringement to suffrage and slavery, you really do think Apple is that important to the world, don't you? Blinders much?
Click to expand...

Aw, c'mon, man!

I used extreme examples to illustrate the difference between "legal" and "right" because they're easy to visualize and understand.

It appears it's hard for you, but can you at least pretend I'm not an Kool Aid-drinkin', Crapple-loving, iSheep (or whatever else is going around these days) and focus on the actual argument I'm trying to make?

Do that first, then re-read my posts. Maybe then we can move this conversation along with something other than: "so you LOOOOVE Apple" stuff.

I've been talking about the law and an individual's (or entity's) response to it. You can replace Apple in my posts with any company you love. Maybe then we'll begin to communicate effectively.
 
KnightWRX said:
Original ruling about website publicity :

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html

Ruling denying Apple's appeal :

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
Click to expand...

I agree that Apple did something different than the judge intended, but it seems that they did what he ordered. I believe that they made the required statement and provided the required link. The judge did not order them to say nothing else in their post.

My interest in this and other Apple vs. Samsung trials is the extent to which the courts will protect the intellectual property that results from a company's investment of time and money. I think the world is better off when people and businesses are willing to invest in the creation of new things. I believe that those investments will only happen in an environment where the investors ownership is protected.

Apple clearly did invest a lot into the development of iOS and the related hardware. Apple worked diligently to find legal protection for that investment. If this ruling is the best they can expect, I don't think they got much in the way of protection.

Unfortunately, I don't see this ruling as something that will encourage others to make the same ten year commitments, and $150M investment of capitol to crate the next world changing product.
 
karlwig said:
As most people here, I'm no lawyer. But anyone can see that Apple's "acknowledgement" was incredibly cocky, so I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...

How is it cocky to quote the judge and to say what other courts have decided? All they did was state facts about the situation.
 
Plutonius said:
A stupid ruling. Why did the judge leave the decision to Apple if the judge all ready knew what he wanted the apology to say ? Rather then complain when Apple came up with something the judge didn't like, maybe the judge should have given Apple the apology that was to be published.
Click to expand...

Apple was given a message to display and they displayed it.

The problem is that Apple added to the message to make reference to other cases around the world, in a cheeky manner, rather than just comply with the orders.
 
Judges have the power ...

Regardless of the merits of the Judge's most recent orders to Apple, it's best to note that judges have jail cells in which to put people for contempt of court, so it is wise not to piss them off.

As far as I can tell, most judges are self-important people with no sense of humor, and certainly none when it comes to them selves.
 
mac.ross said:
Spot on.

Why on earth would any business stop trading in a country due to something like this, that is just sheer stupidity.

The amount of money Apple would lose from pulling out of such a market will be much more (in both the short and long term) than if they just complied with the previous orders.
Click to expand...

You're right.

Instead, Apple should just INCREASE prices across the board in the UK only, by 10%. All thru the holiday season.

Then do as the court please. That would be the biggest **** you ever.
 
KnightWRX said:
Good thing then no one was required to post a statement just because the other side won. You do understand that Apple actually did something after the ruling on the 9th to merit the 2nd ruling on the 18th about the advertisement right ?

It's a case of "They should have just kept their mouths shut". Samsung getting declared non-guilty of Design infringement is not what brought this requirement on to Apple. Read the ruling from the 18th to find out the actual reason Apple got into hot water and got asked to put the statement on their website :

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html

Here, let me make it easy for you :
Click to expand...

So in the UK there is no right to say "The judge was wrong"? When interviewed about a judgement, the losing side is required to say "Oh, yes, we were completely wrong, and the fact that we'll be appealing the decision should in no way be meant to say that we have any disagreement with the infallible judge exercising his divine wisdom"?

Actually, the quotes you listed are more general, there can be blatant copying without technically infringing. If Samsung feels they've been libeled, let them sue for libel.
 
GadgetDon said:
So in the UK there is no right to say "The judge was wrong"? When interviewed about a judgement, the losing side is required to say "Oh, yes, we were completely wrong, and the fact that we'll be appealing the decision should in no way be meant to say that we have any disagreement with the infallible judge exercising his divine wisdom"?

Actually, the quotes you listed are more general, there can be blatant copying without technically infringing. If Samsung feels they've been libeled, let them sue for libel.
Click to expand...

In the UK there are laws against defamation. You can't make a negative comment about a third party after a court has judged your statement to be incorrect.
 
It's particularly awkward for Apple to have to do this since they won their lawsuits in the US and Germany. So they're being forced to say that Samsung did not copy them in the UK, but hop across the Atlantic Ocean and they're saying the exact opposite.
 
frega said:
You're right.

Instead, Apple should just INCREASE prices across the board in the UK only, by 10%. All thru the holiday season.

Then do as the court please. That would be the biggest **** you ever.
Click to expand...

Anything like that is petty and ridiculous and will only hurt sales for Apple.

They would certainly lose my business and I'd go for something else if they were to do that, even with a 15% higher-education discount.

I can't imagine many people happily paying for hardware with a 10% price increase because Apple are being childish.

The courts wouldn't care, it doesn't affect them in the slightest.
 
apolloa said:
I've seen the same remark posted across several forums, Apple should pull out of this country, that country etc, it makes me shudder to think these people live in our society, because we wouldn't have any businesses or corporations if they were all in charge!
Click to expand...

It could also cause the people to get rid of rule/decision-makers that make bone-headed decisions that affect them.

I for one would love more corporations that have built-in, unwavering (but ethically sound) principles. I think that is the spirit of the "pull-out" posts.

I concede that this is easier said than done, though.
 
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