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.
UK Judge Rules Apple Must Publish Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple has been doing a lot of libel in their cases against Samsung though. They have been accusing them of "blatant copying" in the press. Would you rather they pay damages ? If anything, this is a slap on the wrist type punishement, and only applies in the UK.
The notice:
"Apple alleged that Samsung copied the design of iPad. In deciding against Apple, the judge said that the Samsung product did not copy the iPad because it was "not as cool." We agree on the latter point."
"Apple alleged that Samsung copied the design of iPad. In deciding against Apple, the judge said that the Samsung product did not copy the iPad because it was "not as cool." We agree on the latter point."
I think you're having trouble with the logic; that post didn't suggest there should be only one maker of tablets.
Exactly. Perhaps the judge is part of the borg robot drone collective.
P.S. The judge must be blind. Apple should post this - "Samsung did not copy Apple" proof:
http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/kr14a/samsung_have_not_copied_apple_here_is_the_proof/
Care to prove that libel accusation? Seems to me Apple been very careful not to say anything that could be construed as libel, even by an overzealous lawyer. I agree with Apple on the blatant copying, btw, it's simply not something that is legally problematic for Samsung because of prior examples of similar designs.
jW
Thats civilised society in action for you! People and corporations need to be accountable for their actions.
I see this article was published at 9:37am Pacific. I gave them the tip at 8:55am almost live with the Bloomberg scoop. This seems to be one of those stories that stayed about the same from start to finish without any major corrections along the way.
Interesting to have a non-monetary relief order. Specific performance.
Rocketman
Interesting to have a non-monetary relief order. Specific performance.
Rocketman
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the Judge's ruling, but I do appreciate the enforcing of an appeasement if your claim is ultimately proved unfounded.
Regardless of the outcome, just the mere action of publicly accusing a competitor of copying can do a lot of damage to their reputation - something that can't easily be fixed with a monetary settlement.
Knowing that you might have to eat a little bit of humble pie if the case doesn't go your way could actually stop some of this "lawyer first, questions second" litigation that seems to be the norm lately.
Regardless of the outcome, just the mere action of publicly accusing a competitor of copying can do a lot of damage to their reputation - something that can't easily be fixed with a monetary settlement.
Knowing that you might have to eat a little bit of humble pie if the case doesn't go your way could actually stop some of this "lawyer first, questions second" litigation that seems to be the norm lately.
Did Samsung countersue for "libel"?
I don't know the UK legal system that well, but to win such a lawsuit in the United States, you'd have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung did copy Apple and that it was illegal for them to do so. As I read the judge's explanation for finding for Samsung, it was basically that if Samsung did copy, they did a poor enough job that it wasn't proven. That's the judge's job to make that call, cool.
That does not make it false that there are elements in the Samsung tablet that clearly were inspired by iOS, and definitely does not make it false that Apple believes there was wholesale copying. The judge is ordering Apple to make what it believes is a false statement.
Now, nuance is everything. If the specifics of the order are that Apple must publish notices that Samsung was determined in court not to have violated Apple's patents, that is a true statement. But even then, requiring Apple to essentially advertise Samsung on its website seems inappropriate.
And there are ways to do that - this is not one of them. I wouldn't want a judge to rule this way on any company unless this was a specific case concerning libel - of which this is not.
Ok Apple...here is what you post...
"Samsung did not copy the iPad. Ruling clearly states that the iPad is much 'too cool' to be confused for a Samsung device. Better luck next time Samsung."
"Samsung did not copy the iPad. Ruling clearly states that the iPad is much 'too cool' to be confused for a Samsung device. Better luck next time Samsung."
Gee...
Ask for somethuing harder next time. Tim Cook and Steve Jobs have been on record in many interviews about "copying" while responding to questions about the lawsuits.
You agree with Apple on something you say they never said... interesting.
And while you and Apple may agree, it seems the judge in this case doesn't.
Lol I bet Apple will include that 'not as cool as iPad' somewhere in their mandatory notice..
And they can legally prove it's true... I don't see why they wouldn't want to point that out
Since it was stated in open court by a Judge it is a matter of public record so I can see no way they could be prevented from repeating it