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 Posts Notice to UK Site Acknowledging that Samsung Galaxy Tab Did Not Infringe on iPad Design Because "They are not as cool"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They were ordered to do it to clear up uncertainty:
"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."
"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"
So where have Apple not acknowledged that the High Court ruling in the UK was right? The first paragraph is the acknowledgement as recommended by the Judges of the CA whilst also confirming it has full enforcement across the EU.
I don't think there is any confusion when Apple state that the judgment has effect across the EU. That's all there is to it. It's clear in black and white. It doesn't matter what a German or US court says when you read this "That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012".
Most consumers could see that and a company's legal dept. as referenced by the Judges in the CA would be able to pick that point out very quickly.
How have Apple not complied to the said court order to be liable for contempt of court as some people here are suggesting?
Perhaps if the court thinks that Apple had to pout only what they have proposed and nothing more without telling ir the court
Pure petulance from Apple. It's not that hard to follow simple instructions, is it? There's not room for creative license with a court ordered punishment. Well maybe I can change it around a bit here and there make me look good. Nope, not up for discussion.
And to the Apple trolls all the silly +1 comments, especially concerning the Samsung patent infringement "win". Maybe you didn't notice that the USTPO began proceedings to invalidate Apple's patents used the $1 billion payout case. I'm sure there's a whole lot more of that to follow. The case is slowly unravelling. It was a ridiculous decision in the first place.
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/2...to-samsung-lawsuit-preliminarily-invalidated/
The "win" is being tarnished more and more, as more and more evidence and due diligence is being done on the case. I can see Samsung perhaps not paying out anything at all if the case is overturned and at worst a measly fraction of total punitive damages.
And to the Apple trolls all the silly +1 comments, especially concerning the Samsung patent infringement "win". Maybe you didn't notice that the USTPO began proceedings to invalidate Apple's patents used the $1 billion payout case. I'm sure there's a whole lot more of that to follow. The case is slowly unravelling. It was a ridiculous decision in the first place.
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/2...to-samsung-lawsuit-preliminarily-invalidated/
The "win" is being tarnished more and more, as more and more evidence and due diligence is being done on the case. I can see Samsung perhaps not paying out anything at all if the case is overturned and at worst a measly fraction of total punitive damages.
What a judge proposes isn't binding.
If you propose, it's a suggestion. The Judge suggested that statement, thus there would be no case of contempt (going down this approach).
You don't think that an ad where 3/4 of the copy is about how Samsung infringed and 1/4 dedicated to the ruling that it did not isn't confusing for a customer?
Let me put it another way - If Apple can say that Samsung devices causes customer confusion because they are "similar" - I think Samsung can argue easily that this ad does too.
----------
You keep missing the point that the whole reason that Apple was forced to do this was because they went against the court's ruling and bad mouthed Samsung. Do you really not see how that same judge would see this ad as antagonistic yet again? Do you not see it - or do you just not care. Because if you don't care, that's your opinion and you're entitled. But if you don't see it - well, I'm not sure how to respond.
Im actually happy they posted that, it is a slap on the Samsung face. No the other way round. I guess most people where expecting Apple to say "we are sorry Samsung! we beg you!".
Too bad.
Too bad.
If a customer is confused enough to believe that samedung did not copy apple's design, then this add should not be necessary for the aforementioned confused customer.
This add is meant to show who is the boss in the uk legal system, as ordered by that legal boss. Nothing more.
Contempt of Court is entirely different. AFAIK it wouldn't be Samsung pursuing that, it would be the state itself.
It's not 3/4. The first paragraph was recommended by a judge, so that one we can exclude. The Next two paragraphs are the /reasoning/ why Samsung don't infringe (click on the law report link, it's not even out of context). The 4th paragraph is then about the jurisdiction it applies to and whether it had been confirmed by an appellate court. It's only the last paragraph which is the dubious one. But again I would argue it's not contempt as they're well entitled to state fact, it's not saying that the UK judgment is wrong.
No, they were forced to do it for consumer certainty; not for 'badmouthing Samsung' or going against the Court. Again, click on the law report and read it for yourself; the CA sets out in detail why such order is now necessary. I've already pasted the CA reasoning; that's the ratio, you follow the ratio. The judges personal opinions are irrelevant at this stage.
You lost me when you typed samedung. Your opinion is pretty worthless to me since you can't discuss something like an adult.
Apple has done nothing to warrant such a loss. It's just Wall Street being idiots, which is nothing new when it comes to Apple. It's a great time to buy Apple stock.
I would say there is a case for confusion here. First they say the UK judgement applies across the EU (which it does), but then they bring the German judgement into it which contradicts the UK judgement. I would consider that confusing for the average consumer.
TBH, I thought the original order by the judge to run these was a bit harsh, but I'm amazed Apple have been allowed to run this in its present format. I wonder how Samsung feel about this?
Welcome to the lovely study of EU Law. Contradictions galore. Basically the consumer is going to get stuck between the complexity of EU law. Apple have every right to mention the legal verdict in Germany as it is entirely valid which is why IMO I'd eat my feet to see either Samsung or the Courts make any noises in relation to this post. It's just the implications of the actual verdict are complex. Maybe it's not confusing to me because I have knowledge of some of the law and have been following the case, and on second consideration if I was part of Apple's legal dept. I would have seriously considered omitting the final paragraph as I think even if you remove that paragraph it speaks volumes for Apple when you have a Judge in a court of law ruling that Samsung didn't copy because Apple had actually designed their iPad better than Samsung's Tab.
In relation to the second point: It was. As far as I can tell, if it wasn't for the German injunction granted then the CA would have ruled that the order to say Samsung didn't infringe on Apple's IP would not be necessary. It was only ruled that it needed to be done for clarification after the German case; which it does by claiming the UK judgment is binding across the whole of the EU.
but they are mudding the waters because the German injunction is only a preliminary injunction and the trial has not taken place
Apple put what they did about the German court (even though not accurate) because if they 100% concede that Samsung didn't copy the iPad then that has implications further down the road with lawsuits. They (I imagine) believe that it was a better risk to post it.
You've made that claim before. Read paragraph 190 of the judge's ruling. The judge's reasoning that Samsung didn't infringe the design patent *literally* included the assessment that the Samsung product wasn't as cool.
Another time, I have read the fracking paragraph, what it is false is the claim that they didn't infringe because it is not cool.
Got it?
Smart move by Apple. It was ridiculous they had to post anything on their site in the first place, but this just makes it great! Thanks to the UK judge giving Apple this opportunity!
Would be funny if Samsung had to post on their site how they lost 1+ Billion dollars to Apple for copying them.
Would be funny if Samsung had to post on their site how they lost 1+ Billion dollars to Apple for copying them.
I take it as a good sign that they are being peevish about this. Shows they still have the same passion for the brand that Steve did.
No matter how badly you want it to be false, it is still what the judge put in his ruling. The words are there. What exactly do you claim is false?