Hahahahahahaha that's hilarious, I wonder where they'll have to post it and how they'll word it.
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
This is interesting, because I doubt 1 in 1000 consumers of either device would be able to tell you that Apple had accused Samsung of copying the iPad. Furthermore, they don't give a crap. It's interesting fodder for the technorati and legal spheres including blogs like this. But consumers? Yeah, I doubt any have a clue what this is about.
There is only so many ways you can make a tablet. All this court action is ridiculous. Lawyers are the only winners. You cant buy a galaxy tab thinking it was an ipad and vice versa.
Sounds like the judge got paid by samsung under dat table! Samsung is known for their corruption all over asia! Thats how they do to be number 1 tv seller here in asia.
Also the new Samsung chargers have the USB cable coming in the side, so they don't stick out as far like the USB chargers on Apple.
Nevermind that Apple is shrinking it's adapter on the iPhone 5 to be similar in size to the current micro-USB on all the Samsung phones.
Um,
"The first mass-production device from a major manufacturer to incorporate PDMI is the Dell Streak, a 5" tablet device running the Android operating system version 1.6 through 2.2."
"This section's factual accuracy is disputed. (August 2011)"
I thought Apple came out with their connector type long before that...Just curious.
Presumably Apple has some freedom in how this message is displayed. For example, it could be done in the form of a snarky video featuring John Hodgman as iPad, and very uncool wannabe wearing the same outfit.
Again, I'm working off the story as reported here and elsewhere, the actual decision may have more nuance.
But the lawsuit was "Samsung violated our patents by copying these elements of our design and using these technologies which we have patented, and they are not legally allowed to do that". The judge listened to the evidence, and said that the evidence didn't show that to the burden of proof necessary, and the infamous "not as cool" line as an example of how they weren't close enough to have done so. Fair enough.
That's a long, long way from "Samsung didn't copy Apple". There are many forms of copying which might not hit the patents, there may have been other differences to override the copied parts, and (again the not as cool statement) Samsung may not have successfully copied Apple well enough to infringe. So (again based on the reporting we have seen) the judge is ordering Apple to affirmatively state something that the judge had not ruled was so. And the two venues both are legally significant (any future lawsuits in the UK or elsewhere will assuredly bring up that notice as "proof" that there was no copying) and potentially financially significant (how much do you think Samsung would pay to get what is essentially an ad for Samsung on Apple's website). The value of what Apple would be giving up would exceed reasonable legal fees, the normal form of "loser pays", and would not require Apple to make a statement it does not believe.
Now, again, sometimes things are lost in reporting, particularly the first rush. If the statement is just "Samsung was found not to have violated Apple's patents as alleged in a recent trial", that's different. It's factually true, goes no further than the legal decision, has no probative value beyond the decision itself. It still would be of great value to Samsung to have that on Apple's website and unless Apple has had on the UK website the allegations in the lawsuit (which I've never seen on the US website) seems inappropriate, but less wildly inappropriate than the simplified reported version.
Apple needs to apologize for what? The average joe 1) probably hasn't even heard about this and 2)could give a ***** less
----------
Probably why he lives in the USA.
Fat chance in hell Apple will write what the judge ordered on their website since it would negatively influence all of their patent infringement cases, which is what I'm sure the judge has in mind. I'd expect they'd pull all iPads out of the UK before being forced to do something so stupid and weirdly unprecedented.
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
It seems perhaps that's what the judge was hinting at.
"Samsung did not copy the iPad. They tried, but they failed. The Samsung tablet is not as cool as the iPad".
You are saying it Ok to steal designs from your customers?
Well first, you might be in the wrong thread. As I recall this one starts with "a UK judge has ruled .... that Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad. "
Second, I am saying your analogy stinks.
But third, your view of design is superficial. It neglects the fact that the sourced components are also designed, either jointly or by Samsung alone. This design of components, not just for aesthetics, but also cost and manufacturing is a constraint on the overall design of the tablet, so it would be unusual to see huge differences in design coming out of the same Samsung factory.
Moreover, protections provided by design patents are notoriously weak, whereas supplier contracts can be extraordinarily strong. So if Apple isn't bringing a contract suit, it means the Apple wasn't able to do without Samsung's technological prowess, and is instead needling after the fact in an attempt to protect their markets.
I especially like the one with the handlebar, very classy. I bet there's one out there with a cup holder.
You are correct, they are parts. But getting confused a little about the technology part. MB gives the specs to Hyundai, so they are MBs technology. Hyundai having the specs, changes it a little and puts it`s own brand with using all the research done by MB for years to come up with those specs.
****** ridiculous. Just cuz that judge doesn't think it was copied does not mean that Samsung actually didn't copy. It's his opinion and his opinion dose not need to be published in an ad from Apple.