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

Apple Ordered to Pay All of Samsung's Court Costs in UK Tablet Design Dispute

KnightWRX said:
What copying ? Except for that verdict that's being contested in the states because of the foreman not understanding prior art rules or following jury instruction, they haven't been found guilty of any copying yet. ;)
Click to expand...

Don't you hate those pesky exceptions, like the truth? Now it appears your making your own facts up, that you claim to hold so dear. Your saying that court case does not count, just because its on appeal. For the time being, the ruling still stands.


Can you point to other decisions besides the California verdict ? If not, maybe my post was more factual than you'd like.
Click to expand...

Factual? Yet you want to bypass anything that goes against your own views.
 
TrikieD said:
Do you really believe that? To appeal a legal judgement you can't just say "you're wrong, I'm right, let's have another go." You have to state up-front what your complaint about the original trial was. You have to make a case. Then an appeal court rules on the case you've made. Please, please, please READ either the original judgement or the original appeal court judgement (they are very clear English) and then explain WHICH bit is wrong and WHY it is wrong.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant how the appeal process works. Of course it isn't a simple "let's have another go", yet what do you hear after every single lost verdict? "They'll appeal anyway". It's obvious that lawyers can figure out ways to appeal in almost every situation. Did we have a single patent case discussed here which wasn't appealed?
 
iBug2 said:
And that's why I think Apple played the cards a bit wrong. Since the court didn't have much issue with the "cool" statement, that's what Apple should have included in the first place and nothing else. Then the court wouldn't object on it, and Apple would have a statement from the court, which both followed the mandate, and also had a quirky way of saying that the court thought the iPad was cooler. It would have been the perfect balance of bad and good press together.
Click to expand...

I agree (or at least I don't disagree - I think the comment is taken a little out of context but whatever). Anyway, what you've suggested would have been the stylish thing to do. Instead Apple arguably came across as ungracious, untruthful and disrespectful of the courts that they are happy to appeal to themselves. I honestly don't see that as a "win".
 
TrikieD said:
Actually I think they probably did. As I understand things, the order was to make a statement correcting what the court saw as incorrect statements made by Apple previously. The aim was to remove ambiguity. It seems to have been adding references to the other cases which the appeal court saw as misleading and intended to give the impression that the UK judgement is inconsistent with others that upset them.
Click to expand...

I need to read up more on it, but yeah, you're probably right. Punishment might've been too strong a word to use. Still, punishment, mandate, order, or what have you, it's not something you want to try to play cute and push your luck with.

I've no idea. Perhaps it's tired?
Click to expand...

It damn well better not be. I only put it up last night. :mad:
 
iBug2 said:
It's irrelevant how the appeal process works. Of course it isn't a simple "let's have another go", yet what do you hear after every single lost verdict? "They'll appeal anyway". It's obvious that lawyers can figure out ways to appeal in almost every situation. Did we have a single patent case discussed here which wasn't appealed?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't bother quoting you whole post so I may have put your comment out of context. What you said was:

Poorly? Somewhat yes. There are tons of "smart ass" ways to mock a court without being misleading. If they worked harder I think they could have found a statement which both mocked the court and also wasn't something that the court could object to.

Is this behaviour unprofessional? I don't really see it much differently than appealing. After all, appealing is saying to the court "I know what you decided but I still think you are wrong".
Click to expand...

What I was commenting on was that to have an appeal you have to say what your grounds for believing the original court made a mistake are. I was contrasting that process - ie making a case to another court - with the idea of mocking the court because you disagree with them - but not saying why. So I was commenting on your "I don't really see it much differently than appealing" in the context of the preceeding paragraph.

----------
Renzatic said:
I need to read up more on it, but yeah, you're probably right. Punishment might've been too strong a word to use. Still, punishment, mandate, order, or what have you, it's not something you want to try to play cute and push your luck with.
Click to expand...

If you haven't already, have a read of the Appeal Court's judgement at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. It's not very long but really straightforward English and explains precisely why they agree with the original judgement.
 
linuxcooldude said:
Don't you hate those pesky exceptions, like the truth? Now it appears your making your own facts up, that you claim to hold so dear. Your saying that court case does not count, just because its on appeal. For the time being, the ruling still stands.




Factual? Yet you want to bypass anything that goes against your own views.
Click to expand...

Read that verdict.

The community Design in question that the UK case was based on was not found to be infringing in the US case as well.

Hence, Apple's original statement that was posted was not factual and misleading.

So technically you are correct. Apple does have one major victory under it's belt. however, since the case is far from done, unlike this one which already went to appeals, its hard to say that the findings are conclusive and final.

However, The more and more that comes out from the California case, especially regards to the jury, the more and more it's looking that there might be yet another trial.

I just wish this would all end :(
 
good, they deserve it for being so childish

----------

and some of the arguments defending Apple are mind blowing
 
You think I'm ignoring the Apple california "victory" because I say there's a lot of questions about the jury ? No. I acknowledge the california victory, I just found a lot of issues in the verdict myself (in my opinion) and the more the post-trial motions are moving, the more I'm finding my initial impressions were picked up on by Samsung's counsel and Apple's counsel is light on answers.

Since the case is still going through appeals, I'll wait for it to be done before I call it an "Apple victory", already 1 patent was invalidated and that will reduce the damages going forward.

The U.K. trial is done and was appealed though, quite the different beast.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KnightWRX said:
You think I'm ignoring the Apple california "victory" because I say there's a lot of questions about the jury ? No. I acknowledge the california victory, I just found a lot of issues in the verdict myself (in my opinion) and the more the post-trial motions are moving, the more I'm finding my initial impressions were picked up on by Samsung's counsel and Apple's counsel is light on answers.

Since the case is still going through appeals, I'll wait for it to be done before I call it an "Apple victory", already 1 patent was invalidated and that will reduce the damages going forward.

The U.K. trial is done and was appealed though, quite the different beast.
Click to expand...

I was expecting an appeal no matter what side won. I'm waiting on the judges decision as there might be more evidence we are not aware about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
linuxcooldude said:
I was expecting an appeal no matter what side won. I'm waiting on the judges decision as there might be more evidence we are not aware about.
Click to expand...

If you read the motions and transcript from April/May, you'd know there's plenty more evidence that wasn't allowed by Judge Grewall, all of it pretty much on Samsung's side.

Samsung wasn't basically allowed to make a case for itself, wasn't allowed to present much prior art, nor its history of design showing they already had designs that "looked like" the iPhone all the way back in 2006, etc.. Right there, with the leak from July and the comments Samsung's counsel wrote in the justification letter, the appeal was a sure thing before the trial started.

Then the jury foreman had to open his mouth and give even more ammunition to Samsung.

My opinion at this point is that if I were Apple's counsel, I would be moving for a mistrial myself right there just to dispell the FUD.
 
KnightWRX said:
If you read the motions and transcript from April/May, you'd know there's plenty more evidence that wasn't allowed by Judge Grewall, all of it pretty much on Samsung's side.
Click to expand...

Coming off the top of my head some evidence was not allowed because Samsung did not submit it prior to the cut off date. Doing so would not allow Apple enough time for a proper defense against any evidence they may of entered at the last minute.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't always agree with the outcome of a trial. I do think they did copy too many elements of the iPhone and added it to their original Galaxy S design. After finally coming into their own, they don't seem to do this anymore, but the damage was already done. While now I don't think the Galaxy tab copied the iPad, it didn't help them duplicating the packaging material, or accessories that with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone taken note of who the judge was in the UK case?

Robin Jacob was a successful judge who retired at the compulsory age and took up a Professorship in intellectual property at University College, London.

However, he sits part time as a High Court especially to deal with difficult IP cases. It would be hard to find a man with a more brilliant mind in EU IP law.
 
iGrip said:
The only thing Apple can do now is to pull out completely from the British isles. Anything less is just a show of weakness.
Click to expand...

Oh please...they employ very little (hence contribute very little to the UK economy) and earn so much. It will be financial suicide. Apple gains substantially more by trading in Britain than the general UK public/govt do in return. if they do leave... My sentiments will be "Bon voyage, don't trip on your way out apple, you'd be replaced in a heartbeat"
 
Apple will learn. Even though Apple should have won the case (in my opinion), Apple will soon learn this war is not winnable. Apple has to just cut it's losses and try to move on. And just defend what they have to defend with the minimum of costs.

It's a bitter pill to swallow. But the best Apple can so is always be ahead on the innovation front so the competitors/copiers/thieves are always one generation behind.

This is the price Apple has to pay. It's a victim of it's own success. Apple is the best in this arena and Samsung wants a slice of this success without really working as hard as Apple have for it. Apple just need to find another way to beat Samsung that does not involve court action. As no one really wins in Court. Apart from the lawyers.
 
the8thark said:
Apple will learn. Even though Apple should have won the case (in my opinion), Apple will soon learn this war is not winnable. Apple has to just cut it's losses and try to move on. And just defend what they have to defend with the minimum of costs.

It's a bitter pill to swallow. But the best Apple can so is always be ahead on the innovation front so the competitors/copiers/thieves are always one generation behind.

This is the price Apple has to pay. It's a victim of it's own success. Apple is the best in this arena and Samsung wants a slice of this success without really working as hard as Apple have for it. Apple just need to find another way to beat Samsung that does not involve court action. As no one really wins in Court. Apart from the lawyers.
Click to expand...

Agree with your premise but not all your points.

Samsung works very hard. To suggest they aren't working "as hard" as Apple is perhaps your bias. And that's fine to have. But I don't think it's an accurate portrayal. Both companies work VERY hard to produce their next best thing.
 
the8thark said:
Apple will learn. Even though Apple should have won the case (in my opinion), Apple will soon learn this war is not winnable. Apple has to just cut it's losses and try to move on. And just defend what they have to defend with the minimum of costs.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Out of interest, which of the judges conclusions do you disagree with and why?
 
linuxcooldude said:
Coming off the top of my head some evidence was not allowed because Samsung did not submit it prior to the cut off date. Doing so would not allow Apple enough time for a proper defense against any evidence they may of entered at the last minute.
Click to expand...

No evidence was submitted by samsung after the cut-off date.

It was submitted late in the process, but well within the timeframe alloted. It was rejected by the judge because the judge felt that at the lateness it was submitted, Apple would have insufficient time to submit further evidence and defence against the new evidence by Samsung.

Whether or not you agree with that ruling, morally or ethically is one thing. Just stating the fact that this is why the judge refused it. Not because samsung missed some cutoff date
 
LordVic said:
No evidence was submitted by samsung after the cut-off date.

It was submitted late in the process, but well within the timeframe alloted. It was rejected by the judge because the judge felt that at the lateness it was submitted, Apple would have insufficient time to submit further evidence and defence against the new evidence by Samsung.

Whether or not you agree with that ruling, morally or ethically is one thing. Just stating the fact that this is why the judge refused it. Not because samsung missed some cutoff date
Click to expand...

The dangers of the internet and forums is that things like this get perpetuated throughout the site and then people believe it as a fact without ever seeking their own source. Then when someone counters they are shocked and/or accusatory :)
 
the8thark said:
Apple just need to find another way to beat Samsung that does not involve court action.
Click to expand...

With Android phones outselling iPhones 75% to 15%, and the iPad steadily losing market share, that is easier said than done.
 
LordVic said:
No evidence was submitted by samsung after the cut-off date.

It was submitted late in the process, but well within the timeframe alloted. It was rejected by the judge because the judge felt that at the lateness it was submitted, Apple would have insufficient time to submit further evidence and defence against the new evidence by Samsung.

Whether or not you agree with that ruling, morally or ethically is one thing. Just stating the fact that this is why the judge refused it. Not because samsung missed some cutoff date
Click to expand...

It was submitted after the cut off date for submitting evidence, so its can't be within the timeframe allotted, that already passed.
 
uknowimright said:
no, LordVic is correct, next
Click to expand...

And the infamous F700 (and its related patent KR'895) have both been excluded because Samsung waited until after the court's deadline had passed to introduce them into evidence.
Click to expand...

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/16/why-would-apple-settle/

Now you may continue

The dangers of the internet and forums is that things like this get perpetuated throughout the site and then people believe it as a fact without ever seeking their own source. Then when someone counters they are shocked and/or accusatory
Click to expand...

Precisely why I don't use forum posters as my primary source for information.
 
Last edited:
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