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

[apolloa]

Would be ridiculously bad for the UK and the people living here.

How? You won't be able to buy or use Apple but will be able to use ll of it's competitors which will be filled with more competition.
It won't be bad at all apart from for Apple. Anyway if 'clowns' on here insist on posting such rubbish, they invite equally rubbish reply's.....

Because it would be MUCH worst for Apple then the UK. especially as the original post is written as such that it would be Apple's choice to quit the UK market.

 

[roadbloc]

They did what the court ordered.

Obviously not well enough otherwise there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Oletros]

How? You won't be able to buy or use Apple but will be able to use ll of it's competitors which will be filled with more competition.
It won't be bad at all apart from for Apple. Anyway if 'clowns' on here insist on posting such rubbish, they invite equally rubbish reply's.....

Because it would be MUCH worst for Apple then the UK. especially as the original post is written as such that it would be Apple's choice to quit the UK market.

Yap, abandoning the first european market would be a very good thing for Apple.

It is a great thing that Apple is not ruled by people like the OP

 

[wovel]

Alternatively they could grow up and simply upload the message they were ordered to post and it will all be done and dusted.

Seriously? The Judge is the one that should grow up.

 

[GadgetDon]

I also live in the UK and have never in my life heard that phrase.

It's a Dickens quote, from Oliver Twist. When Mr. Bumbled is told in court that "the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction", he replies "If the law supposes that, the law is an ass."

Of course, if said in the hearing of this judge, you'd probably be required to post advertisements saying that the law is not an ass.

 

[wovel]

One was a court order - one was an advertisement.

They are very different.

The Judge's ruling stated it was not as cool.

Matt

 

[samcraig]

It's funny that Samsung is getting bent out of shape because Apple quoted the judge saying, " Because it's simply not as cool" when Samsung's ad campaign for the Galaxy S3 is exactly that. "iPhone 5 is lame, the Galaxy S3 is way cooler". Oh well what you going to do, people always criticize the guy on top.

-Rusty

Only Samsung didn't make this request of Apple. The courts did.

I love the reading comprehension on this forum

 

[writingdevil]

Brilliant marketing on Apple's part. They've got everyone talking about this, and as the lyric goes "I don't care what you're saying, as along as it's about me." News organizations all over the world have picked up on this 'story" and by anyone reading the story, Apple has gotten it's point across, free. Apple doesn't care how it's looks, it was a dumb ruling to begin with. Tell me, what's the legal definition of "cool"? Isn't that a subjective term?? The judge erredand Apple is making him/her eat their words. And laughing all the way to the free publicity bank.

Exactly! It's funny how many sit-at-home legal and moral "oh, they didn't follow the orders" experts are going on and on today about this. Just can't make their post and go home, but come back six, seven eight times. This is exactly what Apple's shrewd move accomplished. People who would never click on a small legal link will now read about how big bad Apple took umbrage at a boneheaded decision by a judge, including the "not as cool" comment. You can't buy that kind of advertising.

 

[apolloa]

Yap, abandoning the first european market would be a very good thing for Apple.

It is a great thing that Apple is not ruled by people like the OP

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!

 

[PsudoPowerPoint]

Apple can say that Samsung tablets are not cool everywhere they want EXCEPT in the legal notice that the cour ordered them to put in their homepage

The wording of the judges ruling specifically say that the Samsung device is not as cool. The judge gave that as the reason that he had ruled that Samsung had not copied Apple. I don't see how Apple can be enjoined from using the judges own words in the written ruling in their court ordered "apology".

 

[fatboyslick]

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!

Ignorance is bliss, hey

 

[Oletros]

The wording of the judges ruling specifically say that the Samsung device is not as cool. The judge gave that as the reason that he had ruled that Samsung had not copied Apple. I don't see how Apple can be enjoined from using the judges own words in the written ruling in their court ordered "apology".

My God, why people don't read the fracking ruling before writing nonsense.

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

 

[racer1441]

Yes, it is

Then you market the crap out of that statement. It's in tv ads, print ads, quote it at the next keynote, etc.

Be legal where you need to be, but then beat everyone over the head with the quote.

 

[wovel]

The amount of fanboyish crap in here is astounding.

The facts are that Apple was ordered to put a message on their website specifying the outcome of the ruling and to state that Samsung did NOT copy their designs as they implied.

The message they posted, although amusing, was childish and not what they were ordered to do, thus the court is ordering them to change it.

Simple.

What part of the order do they miss or violate? Read the order and read their statement and tell me exactly what you think is wrong?

 

[thefourthpope]

You need a refresher course in democracy. It's the right of citizens, including those working for and managing corporations, to express disagreement with any action of any part of government - legislative, executive or judicial. No, that does not free them from obeying the legal directives, but they are allowed to state "the law is an ass" as their viewpoint directs. There may be forms and times of expression where it is an interference in the actions of government (if you stood up in the gallery at a trial and called the judge an idiot, you rightfully would be removed), but otherwise freedom of speech demands that you be able to call the judge an idiot on the courthouse steps.

There are distinctions between citizens and corporations just like there are distinctions within "freedom of speech". Freedom of speech is not universal, even within the united states. And once you start trying to claim _international_ freedom of speech? That's just not a claim you can make.

 

[PaulChowHK]

Apple making a mistake. This is going to be posting on many websites and they being silly is going to be seen by so many more people. If they just doing what court says this going away faster. Now people in UK know Apple thinking they bigger than the law

 

[618537]

How? You won't be able to buy or use Apple but will be able to use ll of it's competitors which will be filled with more competition.
It won't be bad at all apart from for Apple. Anyway if 'clowns' on here insist on posting such rubbish, they invite equally rubbish reply's.....

Because it would be MUCH worst for Apple then the UK. especially as the original post is written as such that it would be Apple's choice to quit the UK market.

Because Apple doesn't prevent the competition (unless there's a gross breach of copyright). The more competition there is the harder companies work to develop the very best and latest.

Having Apple as an option for consumers and businesses increases the range of available products, opens up serious options in the market and supports the economy.

Besides how are MPs supposed to upgrade to the latest iPads if they get banned? Why would they want a Samsung product... "They're not as cool". I'd rather MPs spent my tax paying on "cool" things.

 

[Oletros]

What part of the order do they miss or violate?

It is only a guess, but perhaps the part where the court said what to write in the legal note?

Read the order and read their statement and tell me exactly what you think is wrong?

Do you actually have read the ruling?

 

[thefourthpope]

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!

Some people (at least initially, and maybe even long term) would be happier without international corporations

 

[glynhughes]

No one likes a petulant smart-arse. British judges least of all.

And for Apple to say it takes 2 weeks to put the right statement up on the web just compounds the feeling of apple being a sulky teen that can't cope with being caught out.

Then again, when a certain CEO popped his clogs a while back it took ages for apple to put an announcement on its homepage didn't it?

 

[garylapointe]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought Apple was making a mockery of the judge's ruling in the current "apology".

I felt that way a little too.

BUT, I also felt they were not violating what they were told to do. It appears they posted everything they were required to, they just posted a little more too

I'll give a little blame to the judge for giving them the "not as cool" quote...

Gary

 

[GadgetDon]

There are distinctions between citizens and corporations just like there are distinctions within "freedom of speech". Freedom of speech is not universal, even within the united states. And once you start trying to claim _international_ freedom of speech? That's just not a claim you can make.

Freedom of speech is universal. There are some governments that suppress it (unfortunately, sometimes even done by the United States) but freedom of speech is not a privilege granted by the government, it is an inherent right in all people. Including the people who have joined together in the form of a corporation.

I am not saying that Apple does not have to obey the ruling. I am not saying that the ruling is illegal under UK law (though it should be). I am saying that the ruling is wrong, immoral, and a slap in the face of all free people.

 

[ChazUK]

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!

Next up: "Apple should buy the U.K and shut it down"

Surprised not to have seen that said yet given the posting history here.

 

[mac.ross]

What part of the order do they miss or violate? Read the order and read their statement and tell me exactly what you think is wrong?

"85.I turn to the form of the publicity order. No more than that which is proportionate is necessary. As regards the newspaper publicity we had no complaint about the detail of that and, subject to the wording, I would affirm Judge Birss's order. As regards publicity on the Apple home web page, Mr Carr realistically recognised that Apple had a genuine interest in keeping it uncluttered. He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled "Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate. "

87.Finally I should say something about the notice itself. We heard no discussion about that. Plainly Judge Birss's Schedule has been overtaken by events. Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following: "

"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given].

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe."

The judge decided that the ruling, rather than be made to put on the front page (which was deemed a bit over the top) it would be put on it's own page with a title.

Rather than put the specified text, Apple decided to edit it and essentially tried to downplay the court by mentioning the other rulings (which the court ruled on the side of Apple) even though they were completely irrelevant.

Essentially, they were ordered to post a specific message, tried to be cheeky about what they posted, the judge, understandably, isn't happy.

 

[apolloa]

Because Apple doesn't prevent the competition (unless there's a gross breach of copyright). The more competition there is the harder companies work to develop the very best and latest.

Having Apple as an option for consumers and businesses increases the range of available products, opens up serious options in the market and supports the economy.

Besides how are MPs supposed to upgrade to the latest iPads if they get banned? Why would they want a Samsung product... "They're not as cool". I'd rather MPs spent my tax paying on "cool" things.

You so overanalysed my comment. I also don't think MP's use iPads, they aren't that clever!
I would rather not have Apple if it's idea of competition is to abuse the worlds law systems to muscle it's share of the markets rather then try to innovate.

Point being the last keynote, make an iPad 2 shrunken down, and then having to resort to stating how much better it was then your competitors products on the stage, just to ensure people ignore the obvious short falls of their own product. Nothing to do with law sure, but it highlighted how Apple has changed it's attitude towards it's competitors and how they compete with them. Arrogant.