On the bottom of the homepage:
"UK court decided that Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad".
and leave it at that.
"UK court decided that Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad".
and leave it at that.
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
+1 for this statement. Apple has become the 100 lb gorilla who thinks it can do what it wants. Lets hope for a nice juicy fine to get there attention. What apple got away with in the USA has no bearing on what happens in another country. Sure Samsung did do some copying and paying for it now. Tme for apple to follow court orders as well.
I no good they fighting. Samsung is smart company making chips, screens and maybe they coming with new design that everyone must have. Apple sould learning to work with companies and not being afraid of competition because it can only making their products better
Apple did not make a mockery of the judge's ruling His ruling simply was a mockery.
Actually, if you read the judgement (I did), it does not state specifically that only the judgement and link had to be posted and nothing else.
**If I missed it, please let me know**
By the way, I am not trying to defend Apple, but when it comes to judgements and legal terminology (I've had to deal with things like this with my company and legal agreements with other companies), these items must be completely specified or it leaves room for interpretation.
IE - Since the judge did not specifically state that only the judgement should be printed, it left the door open for apple to add other information.
Again, if I missed something in the language, please point it out to me.
Thanks!
That's how I interpret it (and I'm not in the law business), but the judge seems to think otherwise.
I think in the western world that the presumption is that we have free speech. The judges order in effect limits Apple's free speech in his jurisdiction as he is empowered to do. Apple interpreted the judges order to limit their free speech only to the extent that the judge outlined in his ruling, and no more.
Were I the judge, I would think myself at least partially responsible for Apple's posting being unsatisfactory. I would tell Apple they are not in compliance with the intention of my order, to fix the problem promptly, and that the 30 day clock doesn't start ticking until they convince me that they are in compliance.
The judges ruling from September 28 seems completely reasonable, but given the content of the ruling, I don't see why Apple is being asked to do anything more than simply correct the statement on their website to be more in compliance with the courts intention.
In the Judges ruling, as he's described how he's considered all the evidence, and is deciding what action to take he writes:
He goes on to write a bit later:
It's this mistaken impression that Apple was meant to correct with a post on their website. He writes:
Nowhere do I read anything that indicates to me what Apple did post on their website would not be in compliance with the judges order. They are not asked to agree with the court, only acknowledge that the court's ruling is binding. They posted the wording the judge proposed, but they still believed that they were wronged by Samsung and expressed that view in the post.
I think all parties involved should take a share of the blame, but I think Apple's council should have worked with the judges to find a a statement that the judge would accept that did not taste of humiliation to Apple.
In the Judges ruling, as he's described how he's considered all the evidence, and is deciding what action to take he writes:
How then does all of that affect the decision as to whether or not there should be a publicity order? The grant of such an order is not to punish the party concerned for its behaviour. Nor is it to make it grovel - simply to lose face. The test is whether there is a need to dispel commercial uncertainty.
He goes on to write a bit later:
A consumer might well think "I had better not buy a Samsung - maybe it's illegal and if I buy one it may not be supported". A customer (and I include its legal department) might well wonder whether, if it bought Samsung's 7.7 it might be in trouble before the German courts. Safest thing to do either way is not to buy.
It's this mistaken impression that Apple was meant to correct with a post on their website. He writes:
Apple itself must (having created the confusion) make the position clear: that it acknowledges that the court has decided that these Samsung products do not infringe its registered design. The acknowledgement must come from the horse's mouth. Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely.
Nowhere do I read anything that indicates to me what Apple did post on their website would not be in compliance with the judges order. They are not asked to agree with the court, only acknowledge that the court's ruling is binding. They posted the wording the judge proposed, but they still believed that they were wronged by Samsung and expressed that view in the post.
I think all parties involved should take a share of the blame, but I think Apple's council should have worked with the judges to find a a statement that the judge would accept that did not taste of humiliation to Apple.
Ups, so the judge would have to put in the trash his iPad?
----------
If you read the judgement it says exactly what to write and if any of the parties wants to change it they have to submit its text to the judges
If the media had completely lost interest in the case by the time of the verdict, so those who had read the early coverage of the trial would be unlikely to hear the verdict, that might be a justification for publicizing the verdict. But interest had not ebbed at all and the verdict was widely publicized.
BTW, I can conceive of situations where a verdict should be publicized. I just disagree with compelling the losing party to do the publicizing, either directly placing ads or on the losing party's property.
So if the judge had, say, demanded Apple pay $100K to the courts to be used to publicize the verdict or even pay Samsung $100K with the stipulation that it only be used to publicize the verdict, I might question whether it's needed in this case, but I wouldn't consider it a violation of the right of free speech.
It may seem like a distinction without a difference, requiring Apple to pay someone else to publicize a verdict or requiring Apple to publicize the verdict. But it's the difference between requiring someone to pay for the medical treatment of someone, or impressing the person into indentured servitude to care for them. In this case, requiring a payment is the courts fining the losing side to deal with the impact of the case (fining is something courts do all the time) as opposed to limiting the freedom of speech by compelling specific speech and banning speech in contravention of the official speech.
Its hilarious how people want to criticize judge but know nothing of UK laws. And some of you fools think UK court isn't as good as US court system. Arrogant much?
And you isheep can't avoid Samsung. I bet everyone of your i gadgets has at least 1 part made by Samsung.
I like both companies. Both companies make good tablets. apple doesnt own the right to be the only tablet maker. Apple didn't even make the first tablet .
Apple pissed off the judge. They were ordered to do something and they basically mocked his order.
And you isheep can't avoid Samsung. I bet everyone of your i gadgets has at least 1 part made by Samsung.
I like both companies. Both companies make good tablets. apple doesnt own the right to be the only tablet maker. Apple didn't even make the first tablet .
Apple pissed off the judge. They were ordered to do something and they basically mocked his order.
then stop buying Apple products.
Check out the macbook forums when a new product is released and see how people keep swapping their laptops until they get one with a samsung display or SDD due to them being better.
Ye - i cant wait until Apple stops using their superior parts so we are left with inferior products to the competition.
Link was posted about 2 dozen times already in the thread. This is the July 18th ruling, with Apple's quote, etc.. :
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/marku...s/2012/2049.html&query=Samsung&method=boolean
Amen!!! Apple is cool, no doubt no doubt but there comes moments in life when you have to act mature! You can't go for an interview with a torn fashion jeans and hoodie, right?
I won't hunt down the official ruling but this is the statement they're printing in a number of different magazines and newspapers (which I think is good enough):
Last edited:
There's the link right there in the advertisement you posted.
That's the court mandated text.
The judge's order specifically pointed out that Apple's comments about "copying" would likely be misinterpreted by the common person as meaning the design "infringed", which would make Samsung's product illegal and thus not so desirable.
Therefore the clear and stated intent of his advertisement order was to make Apple stop giving the impression that Samsung infringed on Apple's design, and THAT meant they must stop claiming it was a copy.
Apple ignored the intent of the order, when they added, "So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."
Note that the judge did not otherwise gag Apple. Apple could say, "We don't agree with this judgement."
TL;DR The original order specifically pointed out that using the phrase "copied" was tantamount to saying "infringed". In other words, don't say EITHER one.
(Personally, I don't blame Apple for trying. They have the right to feel the way they do, just as much as Samsung has the right to feel that certain shapes should not be patentable. But when legally told not to say something, then that's that. It's not wise to thumb your nose at a judge, anywhere in the world.)
Last edited:
And I'll add it's the simple case of Apple not respecting/following the spirit of the ruling.
The court wanted a straightforward message from Apple and provided the text.
Apple adding its "two cents" - commentary or other factual information went against the spirit of the ruling which was to make clear that Samsung did not infringe.
Which is why I can understand how some posters here enjoyed Apple's web page but find it hard to understand how they think it actually was in line or appropriate given the ruling.
Apple obviously caters to their audience
The court wanted a straightforward message from Apple and provided the text.
Apple adding its "two cents" - commentary or other factual information went against the spirit of the ruling which was to make clear that Samsung did not infringe.
Which is why I can understand how some posters here enjoyed Apple's web page but find it hard to understand how they think it actually was in line or appropriate given the ruling.
Apple obviously caters to their audience