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

[D-Dave]

If I were Apple, I would pay in pennies.

I'm looking forward to the day that Apple will no longer be a customer of Samsung. That would be a HUGE loss for Samsung.

More like a HUGE loss for us customers (as some of those components that Samsung delivers in our iDarlings are pretty damn good)

 

[wikus]

Anyone else notice so much of the apple news lately is about these legal games and fighting with their partners, suppliers, competitors.

Apple has really lost their ability to focus on product and would rather get into school-yard squabbles than focus on their business

Apple 2012 = Microsoft 1998.

Yeah, its too bad OS X has turned to crap since Snow Leopard. I refuse to get any later OS from Apple. Too many bugs, not enough optimization, way too much iPadification.

They've lost site and theyve definitely been on the decline for the last 2 years.

 

[bkushner]

Yeah, its too bad OS X has turned to crap since Snow Leopard. I refuse to get any later OS from Apple. Too many bugs, not enough optimization, way too much iPadification.

They've lost site and theyve definitely been on the decline for the last 2 years.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400311,00.asp

Your opinion versus PCmag. I'll go with Pc mag on this one.

 

[thekev]

Yeah, its too bad OS X has turned to crap since Snow Leopard. I refuse to get any later OS from Apple. Too many bugs, not enough optimization, way too much iPadification.

They've lost site and theyve definitely been on the decline for the last 2 years.

If it didn't refuse to release so much ram, I might not mind it. My issue is that 16GB of ram feels way too cramped at times. It obviously varies. For some stuff 8 was plenty with the ssd. It's just annoying that the OS doesn't want to release inactive memory at times even when I close every application and reopen something.

 

[thedragonden]

Lesson: Don't mess with a man in a wig.

SHENANIGANS!!!!!

 

[oliversl]

You could just show me the lie, but no.

Read more - and wear less of a tin foil hat.

 

[Tech198]

...

Read more - and wear less of a tin foil hat.

ok, but you know what that gets u...

"wear tin foil hats, you'll attract lightning"

SHENANIGANS!!!!!
Image

lol.

 

[samcraig]

You could just show me the lie, but no.

It's been discussed in this thread and others. So I didn't feel the need to do your research. And I sincerely doubt Samsung was favored for being an Olympic sponsor.

I never said you lied. I said you should wear less of a tin foil hat. And that means your post seemed to indicate you believe in some conspiracy against Apple.

I also said to read more. Which you should.

 

[kdarling]

I've read the original Apple statement and could not see any lies. So, what is this lie the judge is talking about?

It helps to understand what this particular trial was about (a 2004 case design registration, not the iPad). And what similar trial decisions have been made (even the recent US $1 billion jury found that Samsung's tablets had NOT infringed that case design registration).

Once clear on those points, then you can better read why the court was upset at Apple inserting misleading information into what originally was just a very plain court mandated notice:

Court:

Firstly I do not consider it was open to Apple to add matter in the middle of the notice we ordered to be published. A notice with such matter is simply not the notice ordered.

Even if that were not so, it cannot be legitimate to break up the ordered notice with false material. And the matter added was indeed false . Before introducing the quotes from HHJ Birss it begins:

"In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products."

But the Judge was not comparing "the Apple and Samsung products." There is not and has never been any Apple product in accordance with the registered design. Apple 's statement would clearly be taken by ordinary readers and journalists to be a reference to a real Apple product, the iPad. By this statement Apple was fostering the false notion that the case was about the iPad. And that the Samsung product was "not as cool" as the iPad.

I turn to the last paragraph. I do not think the order as made precluded any addition to the required notice if that addition had been true and did not undermine the effect of the required notice. But I do consider that adding false and misleading material was illegitimate. For by adding such material the context of the required notice is altered so that it will be understood differently.

Here what Apple added was false and misleading. I turn to analyse it. The first sentence reads:

"However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design."

That is false in the following ways:

(a) "Regarding the same patent." No patent of any kind has been involved in Germany or here, still less "the same patent."

(b) As regards the Community Registered Design, the German Courts held that neither the Galaxy 10.1 nor the 8.9 infringed it. As to the 7.7 there was for a short while a German provisional order holding that it infringed. Whether there was a jurisdiction to make that order is very doubtful for the reasons given in my earlier judgment but in any event the order had been (or should have been) discharged by the time the Contested Notice was published.

(c) There is a finding and injunction, limited to Germany alone, that the 10.1 and 8.9 infringe German unfair competition law. But the statement is likely to be read as of more general application.

The second sentence reads:

"A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc."

That is misleading by omission. For the US jury specifically rejected Apple's claim that the US design patent corresponding to the Community Design in issue here was infringed. The average reader would think that the UK decision was at odds with that in the US. Far from that being so, it was in accordance with it.

The third sentence reads:

"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 wilfully copied Apple 's far more popular iPad."

This is calculated to produce huge confusion. The false innuendo is that the UK court came to a different conclusion about copying, which is not true for the UK court did not form any view about copying. There is a further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true.

The reality is that wherever Apple has sued on this registered design or its counterpart, it has ultimately failed. It may or may not have other intellectual property rights which are infringed. Indeed the same may be true the other way round for in some countries Samsung are suing Apple . But none of that has got anything to do with the registered design asserted by Apple in Europe. Apple's additions to the ordered notice clearly muddied the water and the message obviously intended to be conveyed by it.

High Court

 

[mojothemonkey]

It is political matter in US. So, they do whatever beneficial for them.
It is very sad

----------



I thing they loosing public respect too.

It is a "very political matter" in any country. That's how laws are made, unless you're living in a dictatorship: the political process. What's your point?

Not having to pay costs when you lose, while I feel is ON BALANCE the wrong way to go, has a lot of positive sides as well. For one thing, the average person would never be able to afford to sue, for example, Ford Motor Co., for fear that if they lost, they'd go bankrupt; hence allowing large corporations to operate without fear of reprisal.

It's not sad. It's just sub-optimal in it's current form.

 

[hamkor04]

It is a "very political matter" in any country. That's how laws are made, unless you're living in a dictatorship: the political process. What's your point?

Not having to pay costs when you lose, while I feel is ON BALANCE the wrong way to go, has a lot of positive sides as well. For one thing, the average person would never be able to afford to sue, for example, Ford Motor Co., for fear that if they lost, they'd go bankrupt; hence allowing large corporations to operate without fear of reprisal.

It's not sad. It's just sub-optimal in it's current form.

really????

 

[mojothemonkey]

yes, really. there are 2 sides to every issue.

Welcome to adulthood.

 

[oliversl]

I mean, the "lie" that Apple put in that press release. If it was a big blatant lie, you could just write it here in 5 words.

But not, you keep attacking my person, attack the quantity of words that I read, which you don't know, and don't show me the "Apple lie".

Nice work

It's been discussed in this thread and others. So I didn't feel the need to do your research. And I sincerely doubt Samsung was favored for being an Olympic sponsor.

I never said you lied. I said you should wear less of a tin foil hat. And that means your post seemed to indicate you believe in some conspiracy against Apple.

I also said to read more. Which you should.

----------

I cmd+F your quote and did not find the word "lie", sorry. Still no sign of that "lie" that Apple told the world.

It helps to understand what this particular trial was about (a 2004 case design registration, not the iPad). And what similar trial decisions have been made (even the recent US $1 billion jury found that Samsung's tablets had NOT infringed that case design registration).

Once clear on those points, then you can better read why the court was upset at Apple inserting misleading information into what originally was just a very plain court mandated notice:

 

[KnightWRX]

I cmd+F your quote and did not find the word "lie", sorry. Still no sign of that "lie" that Apple told the world.

Look, it's been explained to you time and time again. The message Apple put on their page said the UK court ruled something, "But other courts have found blah blah..." hinting that the UK court about the '607 registration was in contradiction to other decisions on the same IP.

No court, no where in the world, ever ruled that the Galaxy Tab infringed on the '607 registration or its US equivalent, D'889. That was lie. It's as simple as that. The court found that Apple was trying to falsefully mislead people in believing they had actual won a verdict with this IP when it was patently false. Aka, a lie.

If you still don't get it, it's ok. You don't matter. The court does and their ruling is that Apple now needs to pay Samsung's court fees.

 

[Oletros]

I mean, the "lie" that Apple put in that press release. If it was a big blatant lie, you could just write it here in 5 words.

But not, you keep attacking my person, attack the quantity of words that I read, which you don't know, and don't show me the "Apple lie".

If you're interested you can read the ruling and you will see why Apple was wrong in its first statement

 

[kdarling]

I cmd+F your quote and did not find the word "lie", sorry. Still no sign of that "lie" that Apple told the world.

Okay, it's possible that English is not your native language, so look for "misleading", "false" and "calculated to produce huge confusion".

Those are all polite ways of saying "that's a lie" or really close to one in the latter case.

PS. Please don't top post. This is not email. It's a discussion where people need to follow thoughts in the correct order. Thanks!

 

[oliversl]

You can translate lie to your language too, and you will see there is a big difference.

I'm not top posting or double posting, I just go to my inbox in the forums and reply to every message, one after another. Is there another way to answer?

Thanks!

Okay, it's possible that English is not your native language, so look for "misleading", "false" and "calculated to produce huge confusion".

Those are all polite ways of saying "that's a lie" or really close to one in the latter case.

PS. Please don't top post. This is not email. It's a discussion where people need to follow thoughts in the correct order. Thanks!

----------

The matter of fact is that you are the 1st one to say that Apple lie because it said that the Galaxy Tap infringed one of their patent.

Thanks.

P.D.: I just logged into MR forums and I'm replaying all the unread messages, sorry if this appears as a double post. How else should I answer? Answer 1 topic and then wait until someone reply another post and then post? oh no

Look, it's been explained to you time and time again. The message Apple put on their page said the UK court ruled something, "But other courts have found blah blah..." hinting that the UK court about the '607 registration was in contradiction to other decisions on the same IP.

No court, no where in the world, ever ruled that the Galaxy Tab infringed on the '607 registration or its US equivalent, D'889. That was lie. It's as simple as that. The court found that Apple was trying to falsefully mislead people in believing they had actual won a verdict with this IP when it was patently false. Aka, a lie.

If you still don't get it, it's ok. You don't matter. The court does and their ruling is that Apple now needs to pay Samsung's court fees.

----------

If I answer you this may looks like a double post.

Anyway, my point was that if a publication accuses you of lying and then you can not find that word in the text, then that article looks just biased.

If you're interested you can read the ruling and you will see why Apple was wrong in its first statement