No, writing more in the order broke it.
And please, at least read who wrote the order, the appealing judges were not the same as the "cool" judge.
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 Ordered to Alter Website Statement Acknowledging Samsung Galaxy Tab Did Not Infringe on iPad Design
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, writing more in the order broke it.
And please, at least read who wrote the order, the appealing judges were not the same as the "cool" judge.
You are truly delusional. Have you read the judgment, or are you basing your crazy ramblings on cherry-picked parts of it? You do realize the part you base your lunacy on is part of the decision which discusses the overall impression of the devices? According to Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 (specifically article 10), cited in the judgment, only devices which do not produce a different overall impression will infringe.
Not that I expect you to deal in facts over lunacy, nor that you would go back on your ridiculous lies about the judge using "no recognizable statute" in reaching this decision.
Absolutely part of the plan. Just as the fact that the iPad mini having Stereo Speakers was nowhere in the media event.
Amazon launches thousands of an add stating "No Stereo Speakers". Now we find out it is stereo, confirmed by Phil no less yesterday.
Now all those adds must be modified. Jeff must feel like an old toothbrush.
Oh well, at least it's a Cold Toothbrush.
It's The Art of War. Let the best strategy win.
The idiot is the judge. Whether or not he thought Samsung did or didn't copy he should never had made such a statement. Whether Apple is cool or not is opinion not fact.
Sorry, what I meant was "One can say many things about Apple"
----------
Hmm, you do know that we are talking about a court case outside the United States?
I was responding to a hypothetical of "how would you feel if a non-US company ignored a US court order. And expressing the opinion that such an order would be unconstitutional, and in any case mocking our courts, legislators, and executive branch leaders is a national sport.
If Apple is above the law, then so should Samsung or any other corporate entity. Are you suggesting that countries should not have laws that govern the behavior of corporations ? No IP laws, no tax laws, nothing at all to prevent corporations from abusing either citizens or other corporations ?
Corporatism, the new form of government.
Don't mix one specific incompetent judge with the legal system of a country.
NOTE: Here's the adequate proof about the judge's incompetence -- with the recent ruling, his original intention was obviously to have the text of the ad follow exactly the specified wording, NOTHING MORE, nothing less. He was obviously unable to realize this intention has to be explicitly stated in the ruling. Come on, he was writing a court ruling! All legal things MUST be as explicit as possible! He does not even understand this very basic rule about laws!
----------
The legal system is the legal system. One specific judge does not represent the whole legal system.
Executing a court order is to follow whatever the order states explicitly, don't mix it with reading the mind of the judge.
The ruling was specific. Apple was to use the court mandated suggestion or to submit a modified or different version. It's right there in the ruling :
How can it be clearer ? The Judge proposes text and if the different parties don't agree, they are free to submit their own.
Obviously, Apple failed to submit their "modifications" or else they wouldn't have drawn the ire of the court for their little shenanigan.
There was no incompetence in the judgement. You disagreeing with it does not make it incompetent.
Less IS More.
What most of us on here are trying to get you to understand.... We don't care what the ruling was. The ruling was absolutely idiotic. Anybody with a brain can see for themselves that Samsung has copied Apple in design features. And you can't argue that "Apples design is too simple and minimalistic", which you cannot patend. The fact that they arrived at that design first, means that everyone else out there copied this simple design.
What most of us on here are trying to get you to understand.... We don't care what the ruling was. The ruling was absolutely idiotic. Anybody with a brain can see for themselves that Samsung has copied Apple in design features. And you can't argue that "Apples design is too simple and minimalistic", which you cannot patend. The fact that they arrived at that design first, means that everyone else out there copied this simple design.
There were 4 judges involved in all in the UK court. What specific judge are you talking about ? The original judge that ruled the case or the 3 that ruled on the appeal by Apple ?
For the particular IP discussed here (infringement of designs for tablets by the Galaxy Tab line-up), Apple lost in the US as much as anywhere else (except Dusseldorf, where they obtained a preliminary injunction and the trial still has yet to be heard).
Remember folks : the jury ruled that the Galaxy Tab line-up does not infringe US Design patent D'889.
Fair enough, you don't care about the law or the legal aspects of a court ruling, but keep commenting like a village idiotl
Sure there was, but as it stands, they did not find the Tabs to infringe D'889. We'll see if Apple appeals that and what comes out of it.
What most of us on here are trying to get you to understand.... We don't care what the ruling was. The ruling was absolutely idiotic. Anybody with a brain can see for themselves that Samsung has copied Apple in design features. And you can't argue that "Apples design is too simple and minimalistic", which you cannot patend. The fact that they arrived at that design first, means that everyone else out there copied this simple design.
The ruling is important, because even if you can "this is like the other", that's different from the legal question of "Did this product infringe on this patent". There's a long history of modifying designs to get around patents, trademarks, and so forth, sometimes called "rubbing off the serial numbers".
Which does mean "Samsung copied Apple" and "Samsung did not infringe upon Apple's patents" could both be true. (And of course in other cases, it's possible to not be copying but still wind up infringing on a patent - coming up with your own idea independently without being aware of a patent does not protect you from being found guilty of infringement.)
Unless you know UK patent law, know the specifics of the patent argued in the case and the evidence provided to the court, you don't know if the judgement was accurate or not, and I for one am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. My contention all along has been the tyrannical "publicity" requirement.
Hehe, even it was funny and basically Apple did what court said, court will never say they did a "mistake" with a statement they did, so they just order Apple again to change the statement. Well, I think after that people will even more ignore the statement, because it's all one big MASQUERADE! Even I'm not preoccupied to any of mentioned companies - I've to say: "Shame on you, Samsung!". They know, they've copied, they get apology as court ordered and now this...
think the COOL judge should rule Samsung the same treat by asking them too to post at their homepage saying:
"...we are not infringe iPad design because our Galaxy Tab is NOT AS COOL as iPad..."
it'd be fair...and the judgement not seems too bias or at least not looks to be bias.
"...we are not infringe iPad design because our Galaxy Tab is NOT AS COOL as iPad..."
it'd be fair...and the judgement not seems too bias or at least not looks to be bias.
Actually, I feel this is the retarded part. It's within Apple's right to bring a lawsuit against a competitor if they think they have a case - win or lose.
Any "damage" to Samsung's reputation resulting from the lawsuit is the fault of the court (when they issued the injunction) and mostly the media (who ran their mouth even before the case has been concluded).
Why Apple has to pay for their sins, I have no idea.
A stupid statement from a stupid judge, I'm so glad Apple are sticking it to them, it's as silly as the court order is. I hope they keep it going as the judge looks as guilty as Samsung does.
What a shame tho, it so looks like the end for Apples run of sucess , with Samsung & Google now selling more than double phones, I hate Samsung even more now and will never buy a product from them again, dam thieves . Sooner Apple can not rely on them for parts the better.
What a shame tho, it so looks like the end for Apples run of sucess , with Samsung & Google now selling more than double phones, I hate Samsung even more now and will never buy a product from them again, dam thieves . Sooner Apple can not rely on them for parts the better.
Because again, for the hundredth time, Apple is not being made to fix "damage" brought on by the lawsuit. If it had ended after the July 9th verdict and went into appeal for the verdict, none of this would have been required of Apple.
Read the July 18th ruling. It's all spelled out. Apple opened their mouths to the media and kept the pressure after Samsung was declared non-infringing. The Judge didn't take lightly to his verdict being ignored.
All Apple had to do was keep their mouths shut until appeals, stick to facts.
Whether or not you agree with the Judges' decision, nobody (including Apple) is above the law. They will comply one way or another because they have no choice. The Judge can issue stinging fines and/or hold the executive officers of the UK company in contempt of court and simply put them in prison until they comply. Just issue a proper apology and move on. I doubt many people will even bother to read it anyway.
I assume that the judges in the UK are generally well educated, articulate, and accustomed to being very precise with their language. So I disagree with your statement that the judge couldn't be any clearer. I don't interpret the words you've quoted in the same way that you do, and it's likely that Apple and their council didn't either (unless you think they were so blinded by spite that they deliberately flaunted a judges ruling). The judge could have, but did not indicate "that the page with the announcement was to be used exclusively for the approved announcement and nothing else". He probably should have added that "Apple was not allowed to express dissatisfaction with the ruling, discuss similar cases from other jurisdictions, or make any further mention of Samsung's "copying" anywhere on the affected websites".
In other parts of the ruling the judge was very very specific, going so far as to indicate the exact font and font size to be used (although he failed to consider the possibility of a black font on black background option). So I think it's surprising that he was not clearer and more detailed about the core part of the announcement.
Really?
Much like Ford copied Mercedes Dialmer Benz in making the car?
Karl Benz, the German mechanical engineer who designed and in 1885 built the world's first practical automobile, and Henry Ford, who improved the assembly line for automobile manufacturing and invented a car transmission mechanism, and others.
So technically Ford copied Chrysler as Chrysler was part of the Dialmer Autogroup which consisted of Mercedes, and others.
Much like Ford copied Mercedes Dialmer Benz in making the car?
Karl Benz, the German mechanical engineer who designed and in 1885 built the world's first practical automobile, and Henry Ford, who improved the assembly line for automobile manufacturing and invented a car transmission mechanism, and others.
So technically Ford copied Chrysler as Chrysler was part of the Dialmer Autogroup which consisted of Mercedes, and others.