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

[Bernardus88]

Yes we've only been practicing it for around a thousand years.

Agreed, I think some people should look at their own legal system with its faults before they start telling other countries that theirs are flawed.

All legal systems have flaws, all are trade-offs, all are run by fallible people, that's why there are layers of appeal courts. If Apple think they have a case, appeal it.

 

[itr81]

Things that come out this case just seems petty. Almost like the judge took it too personal. I'm almost waiting for Apple to sue the uk gov over this case. Then next Apple will says we are closing up shop in the uk just because..(which will never happen because all companies need money even if they have to bury their pride at times).

 

[Oletros]

Things that come out this case just seems petty. Almost like the judge took it too personal. I'm almost waiting for Apple to sue the uk gov over this case. Then next Apple will says we are closing up shop in the uk just because..(which will never happen because all companies need money even if they have to bury their pride at times).

And exactly how they can sue the UK government?

 

[iEvolution]

In the UK, Samsung filed pro-actively seeing how Apple was filing everywhere else in the EU. That way, they got to choose the venue instead of being stuck in another "Dusseldorf" (pro-plaintiff court).

It was a strategic decision. So really, Apple wouldn't have had to pay Samsung's legal fees if they hadn't clowned around with a court order.

Oh I see my bad, thanks for the 411.

 

[JGowan]

I'm honestly all sick of this Samsung, HTC, lawsuits and bullcrap.

Honestly, Apple's probably been in a ton of lawsuits (both ways) -- it's just they weren't this high profile that the world wasn't really all up in the business of reporting on it. Now that Apple is the BIGGEST company in the world, it's so much more "important".

 

[econgeek]

This just goes to show how much of a joke the courts in the UK are.

It is bad enough that this judge exceeded all reasonableness by demanding that Apple post falsehoods to its website.

But to then claim that Apple was being "False or misleading" for quoting the judge himself?

Shows him to be a man of no integrity. Which means he really shouldn't be a judge, and when a judge commits crimes like this (and this is a crime) they should be punished with life in prison.

Shameful.

But of course, the dishonest apple haters are pretending like apple did something wrong....yet this is what they do no matter what apple does.

 

[samcraig]

I see you don't know much about the case. If you want to have integrity - you'll learn more about the case and the judgements before posting such a ridiculous rant.

This just goes to show how much of a joke the courts in the UK are.

It is bad enough that this judge exceeded all reasonableness by demanding that Apple post falsehoods to its website.

But to then claim that Apple was being "False or misleading" for quoting the judge himself?

Shows him to be a man of no integrity. Which means he really shouldn't be a judge, and when a judge commits crimes like this (and this is a crime) they should be punished with life in prison.

Shameful.

But of course, the dishonest apple haters are pretending like apple did something wrong....yet this is what they do no matter what apple does.

 

[Renzatic]

But of course, the dishonest apple haters are pretending like apple did something wrong....yet this is what they do no matter what apple does.

Why everyone gotta pick on Apple? WHY DON'T YOU ALL JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE? THEY DO NOTHING WRONG CEPT INNOVATE AND CHANGE THE WORLD! WHY U HATE SUCCESS?

 

[TrikieD]

This just goes to show how much of a joke the courts in the UK are.

Your opinion. Let's see how accurate the rest of your statements are.

It is bad enough that this judge exceeded all reasonableness by demanding that Apple post falsehoods to its website.

The judges required Apple to correct the misleading statements they had made after the original ruling in Samsung's favor. Which statements were they required to make that were falsehoods?

But to then claim that Apple was being "False or misleading" for quoting the judge himself?

They didn't "claim" Apple made false statements. They proved it. With examples. Where are yours?

Shows him to be a man of no integrity. Which means he really shouldn't be a judge, and when a judge commits crimes like this (and this is a crime) they should be punished with life in prison.

I may have lost count but so far there have been at least four judges of various ranks involved in this. Are they all without integrity?

Shameful.

Accusing several senior judges of "crimes without any evidence sounds more "shameful" to me.

But of course, the dishonest apple haters are pretending like apple did something wrong....yet this is what they do no matter what apple does.

Apple did do something wrong. At least twice. That was proven in two different courts.

By the way, this was all typed on my Mac. Try this idea for size. It really is possible to like Apple products but still think Apple were wrong.

 

[faroZ06]

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.

It's the biggest company in the world; of course it's going to be involved in the court.

----------

Well, I forgot exactly what the lawsuit was about a while ago, but now, I Googled it and found a picture of a Samsung tablet that Apple claims to be a copy of their design:

I have to say that I agree. It's clearly more than inspired by the iPad.

 

[AidenShaw]

it's not the biggest

It's the biggest company in the world; of course it's going to be involved in the court.

Let's get this right - Apple currently has the highest market cap for a publicly traded company.

This doesn't make it the biggest - it's actually not even in the top 100 of the Fortune 500. Apple is #111 on the latest list. it's #17 on the latest list. Even HP is bigger than Apple - HP is #10. Wal-Mart is three times larger than Apple.

It doesn't even make it the most valuable - just the most valuable publicly traded company. Some of the Asian and Middle Eastern companies are more valuable, but they're not public.

 

[samcraig]

Let's get this right - Apple currently has the highest market cap for a publicly traded company.

This doesn't make it the biggest - it's actually not even in the top 100 of the Fortune 500. Apple is #111 on the latest list.

It doesn't make it the most valuable - just the most valuable publicly traded company.

Go away AidenShaw - there's no need to present facts in these threads. You'll only confuse the natives

 

[TrikieD]

It's the biggest company in the world; of course it's going to be involved in the court.

----------

Well, I forgot exactly what the lawsuit was about a while ago, but now, I Googled it and found a picture of a Samsung tablet that Apple claims to be a copy of their design:

ImageImage

I have to say that I agree. It's clearly more than inspired by the iPad.

You can refresh your memory of what the original case and verdict were about at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html if you care to.

As far as your illustration though, perhaps para 189 covers it:

This case illustrates the importance of properly taking into account the informed user's knowledge and experience of the design corpus. When I first saw the Samsung products in this case I was struck by how similar they look to the Apple design when they are resting on a table. They look similar because they both have the same front screen. It stands out. However to the informed user (which at that stage I was not) these screens do not stand out to anything like the same extent. The front view of the Apple design takes its place amongst its kindred prior art. There is a clear family resemblance between the front of the Apple design and other members of that family (Flatron, Bloomberg 1 and 2, Ozolins, Showbox, Wacom). They are not identical to each other but they form a family. There are differences all over these products but the biggest differences between these various family members are at the back and sides. The user who is particularly observant and is informed about the design corpus reacts to the Apple design by recognising the front view as one of a familiar type. From the front both the Apple design and the Samsung tablets look like members of the same, pre-existing family. As a result, the significance of that similarity overall is much reduced and the informed user's attention to the differences at the back and sides will be enhanced considerably.

Another thought, you may or may not be right about whether the iPad inspired the Tab, but the case wasn't about that. It was about the Community Registered Design. In fact the judgement excluded the iPad as an example of the design. See para 8:

Apple did not contend that either of its famous iPad products should be used as concrete examples of the Apple design. Neither the original iPad nor the iPad 2 are identical to the design. Whether either of them is or is not within the scope of protection would be a matter of debate. To use either as an example of the Apple design would be to beg the question of the true scope of Apple's rights.

 

[skunnykart]

The first MacBook with that overall design came up in 2008. And it's not just about the metal case. It's about the whole thing. The flat keys, the layout of the keyboard, etc. The overall design feel that they are trying to copy.

Sony R&D > Apple

You can't see it in the picture, but the keyboard is also copied.
Sony travelled in a time machine. Saw what Apple "was" doing in 2008 and slavishly copied it.

 

[faroZ06]

Let's get this right - Apple currently has the highest market cap for a publicly traded company.

This doesn't make it the biggest - it's actually not even in the top 100 of the Fortune 500. Apple is #111 on the latest list. it's #17 on the latest list. Even HP is bigger than Apple - HP is #10. Wal-Mart is three times larger than Apple.

It doesn't even make it the most valuable - just the most valuable publicly traded company. Some of the Asian and Middle Eastern companies are more valuable, but they're not public.

Is revenue the defining factor when talking about company "size"? I always went by the value. Well, to be more clear, Apple is the most valuable publicly traded company in the world. Anyway, the point still stands. Apple is a huge company by any measurement.

 

[hamkor04]

In the UK yes, but not in the states. It's a good rule that I wish they'd implement here (in the US).

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

----------

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.

I thing they loosing public respect too.

 

[AidenShaw]

Is revenue the defining factor when talking about company "size"?

Considering the long term prominence of the "Fortune 500", I would say "yes" that an unqualified size statement would refer to revenue. Clearly and simply. As their tag line says:

FORTUNE 500 Our annual ranking of America's largest corporations

...and they're ranked by revenue.

If you qualify it by "highest market cap" or "most employees" or other metrics, then you're not talking about revenue.

 

[KnightWRX]

It's clearly more than inspired by the iPad.

The Judge specifically states in the ruling that the case is not about whether or not Samsung copied the iPad. Feel free to read the ruling next time, or one of the millions of explanation posted in these numerous threads about just what this damn case was about.

 

[bbeagle]

Anyways, I know what Apple did wasn't necessarily in opposition to the court ruling handed down, but it seems like they purposely tried to make a mockery of the court. I just don't like grown adults acting this way.

It all depends on what side you're on. If you're a Samsung fan, you think Apple is acting childish. However, if the suit was in Apple's favor, and Samsung did the same thing, you would think Samsung 'had balls' to standup to a blatantly wrong court ruling, and you would love every minute of this.

Look at both sides here.

 

[KnightWRX]

It all depends on what side you're on. If you're a Samsung fan, you think Apple is acting childish. However, if the suit was in Apple's favor, and Samsung did the same thing, you would think Samsung 'had balls' to standup to a blatantly wrong court ruling, and you would love every minute of this.

Or if you're simply neutral, you think Apple acted in contempt of the court and got served by the Judge. Thrice. You'd also think that if Apple had won and Samsung pulled the same stunts, they'd also have acted in contempt of the court and would have deserved the same threatment. But in the US, where Samsung lost in the first instance, they didn't act like Apple did. They didn't issue confusing statements to the press, they said "we don't agree and we'll appeal" and that's what they are doing.

You know, the world and posters here aren't black or white. There are all sorts of shades of grey out there. In this instance, Apple lost the ruling, couldn't shut their mouths about "copying", got handed punishement, appealed, lost again, and instead of complying with the court orders, played some school yard antics.

In the end, they could've avoided all of this, first by shutting their mouths post ruling and simply stating they didn't agree and would appeal, and then by shutting their mouths and doing as they were told by the Appeal's court, barring a further appeal to a superior instance.

No one is above the law, not Samsung, not Apple.

 

[samcraig]

It all depends on what side you're on. If you're a Samsung fan, you think Apple is acting childish. However, if the suit was in Apple's favor, and Samsung did the same thing, you would think Samsung 'had balls' to standup to a blatantly wrong court ruling, and you would love every minute of this.

Look at both sides here.

No - what any company does that mocks a court is just plain stupid and a HUGE gamble. Even more so in the UK - where the courts do not like to be called out on.

Apple was childish. Or rather - they made a gross error in judgement/took a gamble on something they were most certainly going to lose. So perhaps childish is wrong. Reckless is more like it.

I can't speak for others - but if Samsung had done it - I'd be saying the same thing. Would I find it amusing yes. Just like I find it amusing that Apple posted it. But that doesn't prevent me from looking at it objectively and saying they were COMPLETELY wrong by doing so.

 

[token787]

It came right back to bite apple, this does not look good in no way, shape, or form. Bad Apple!!

 

[kdarling]

No - what any company does that mocks a court is just plain stupid and a HUGE gamble. Even more so in the UK - where the courts do not like to be called out on.

Personally, I think the UK court was remarkably restrained.

An American judge would've probably wanted someone from Apple up on contempt charges by now.

 

[AidenShaw]

Personally, I think the UK court was remarkably restrained.

An American judge would've probably wanted someone from Apple up on contempt charges by now.

...and rightly so.

----------

Go away AidenShaw - there's no need to present facts in these threads. You'll only confuse the natives

In "You'll only confuse the natives" your spell checker failed you.

You meant "You'll only confuse the naïves", I think.

 

[samcraig]

...and rightly so.

----------



In "You'll only confuse the natives" your spell checker failed you.

You meant "You'll only confuse the naïves", I think.

Touche'