Feeds

back to article APPLE: SCREW YOU, BRITS, everyone else says Samsung copied us

Apple has complied with a UK court order by admitting on its website that Samsung's Galaxy Tab did not rip off the patented iPad design. High Court Judge Birss had instructed Apple to publish a statement online and in print after ruling that the South Korean electronics giant had not infringed Cupertino's patent. The statement …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Called it

But then again, I think we all did now didn't we?

I wonder if Samsung will take it back to court with a claim that they failed to meet the orders requirements.

49
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: Called it

Or maybe they'll piss the judge off enough for him to pull them up for contempt of court ... especially the bit about the court in Germany which he specifically commented on in his own ruling

79
2
Silver badge

Re: Called it

"Or maybe they'll piss the judge off enough for him to pull them up for contempt of court"

I think they are treading a very fine line. They are just about complying with the letter of the ruling, maybe.

Whether or not it is legally "contempt of court", they are showing contempt for the court.

61
6
WTF?

Re: Called it

Apple really left me speechless when I read that this morning - I expected some tiny text link to a terse statement of the facts of the court decision. What I didn't expect was the... frankly childish statement they posted up instead. It's like telling a child to say sorry for hurting someone, and them saying "I'm sorry you thought I hurt you... but my mate Fred said that he thought I didn't hurt you at all so there"

Contempt of court or not I would be incredibly surprised if this is the end of the story; I can't see any judge standing for this sort of behaviour. As Dr Mouse says, they are definitely showing contempt of the courts.

70
11
Stop

Re: Called it

In what way are they showing contempt for the court? They're complying exactly with the ridiculous demand the court imposed.

What other cases have ever had this requirement?

Recently Dyson was involved in a bitter public dispute with Vax, with Dyson claiming Vax had copied its designs. This was widely commented in design media (unfortunately design doesn't warrant the same wide public interest that tech does)

Dyson eventually lost on appeals court, however Dyson was never ask to publish anything. Why Apple? It's ridiculous.

14
120
Silver badge

Re: Called it

"They're complying exactly with the ridiculous demand the court imposed."

Whether you, or Apple, or anybody else thinks it is ridiculous, it is what the court have told them to do. By making it obvious how much they disagree within the court-mandated post, they are showing contempt for the courts decision.

75
5
Bronze badge
Coat

Re: Called it

They should've linked to goatse instead of the actual rulings.

5
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: Called it

They did what the court told them to do.

The court can't forbid them from adding other relevant facts and quoting the court itself.

9
56
Silver badge

Re: Called it

>"I think they are treading a very fine line. They are just about complying with the letter of the ruling, maybe."

Isn't doing precisely this that lawyers are paid to do?

>"...design doesn't warrant the same wide public interest that tech does... ...Dyson was never ask to publish >anything. Why Apple? "

Haven't you just answer your own question? The court ruled Apple had to make this statement in the national media only beacuse the case had previously had so much attention in the press. The judge felt this was proportional.

15
0

Re: Called it

"They should've linked to goatse instead of the actual rulings"

That, or Rickrolled em'

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Called it

"Haven't you just answer your own question? The court ruled Apple had to make this statement in the national media only beacuse the case had previously had so much attention in the press. The judge felt this was proportional."

But it's obvious that the court final decision also got a lot of attention in the general press, so why the extra - unheard of - requirement? Apple isn't responsible for what the media chooses to pay or not pay attention these days.

Sorry it makes no sense at all, and neither does the judges' opinion of what makes something "cool" or not. The whole thing was a pathetic joke.

4
45
Anonymous Coward

Re: Called it

I'm guessing it would be because the perceived loss to Samsung would be far greater since it was covered in the national media.

8
1
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: Called it

Looks contemptuous to me.

So while the UK court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognised that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung wilfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

Using "recognised" is perhaps key (and more so when set against "did not find" ), suggesting it being a matter of fact there was copying and suggesting the court returned the wrong judgement.

It could have been phrased far more neutrally so, given it wasn't, it can be argued they were striving to show the UK court as wrong and being contemptuous of its judgement.

51
2
FAIL

Re: Called it

The bit I didn't get was apple are saying "Judge says samsung is not cool, we are, they didn't copy us"

but then in the next breath seem to say

"Everybody else ruled in our favor so they "the uk" is wrong and they must have copied us" - so are apple saying samsung are also cool?? - if its a copy it must also be cool surely?

So I say, they fail at logic.

I'm also pretty sure the Judge is going to get a bit annoyed too. From his point of view he can't let that statement go because if he did (just like me as a parent to my kids) the next time you give a judgement the defendant will 'bend the rules' when it comes to the punishment. I'd imagine his next step is to say "Right, you will publish the following statement on your homepage, and nothing else" - be told! It strikes me Apple have grown far too big for their boots and need a damn good slap down. Accept they bought the case, they lost (regardless of whether you and I agree with that, court rules thats it. Appeal, or accept it.) and they accept the consequences of that loss. If they'd have left alone none of this would have happened.

45
2

Re: Called it

if you read the ruling it clearly explains that due to the high profile of the case and the ambiguity of trial and appeal verdicts from other European states Apple's accusation has harmed the image of Samsung and their ability to sell their product. That is why they are required to make a public apology. Dyson are at an advantage that their case wasn't widely known, so there was no damage done to Vax's image.

10
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Called it

@dx

"In what way are they showing contempt for the court? "

Are you blind? That retina display doesn't seem to be paying for it's self.

23
4
Anonymous Coward

Contempt of court can typically be ruled for one of two reasons:

Either disobeying *or* disrespecting the court.

I'm not sure about how things work in the UK, but if this were done in the states the judges are, as I understand it, granted considerable latitude when ruling someone in contempt and "going off" on the smarmy party in a situation like this would not be unexpected. That's not to say that it necessarily would happen here... just that it could.

Given what I've read so far about this judge, I don't think it's a stretch to think that he will have some sort of response to this... specifically the reference to the completely contrary decision by the German courts.

16
1
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Called it

"In what way are they showing contempt for the court? They're complying exactly with the ridiculous demand the court imposed."

Errr...no, they're being weasels.

"What other cases have ever had this requirement?"

Aside from the fact that apologising should *need* to be legally stipulated, it doesn't really matter. It was the judge's ruling. Personally, I consider it a more 'adult' and reasonable judgement than just slapping down a fine, or similar.

24
1
FAIL

Re: Called it

I agree. The judge's opinion of "cool" is not a part of the Court Opinion - it is something called "dicta" and has no force for enforcement purposes; it quite literally is not a part of the ruling. On the other hand, the judge's perception that Apple had engaged in extra-judicial name-calling and media engagement so as to warrant the presentation of a correction is a part of the decision. It occurs relatively frequently when a party has introduced misleading or flat-out incorrect info in a perceived attempt to manipulate the court or the public. That part is not ridiculous or so very unusual. The unusual part is that Apple should have left itself open to such an order, a d then displayed such open passive-aggressiveness more common to a kindergarten schoolyard. When you play with the big boys you don't always get to make your own rules. That expectation is a fail.

13
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Called it

I'm waiting for the revised ruling now... something along the lines of:

"Apple is very sorry for behaving like a bunch of fucking children in dealing with your esteemed court system. Samsung did not copy us, and we apologize to both Samsung and the judge for our behavior in this matter." Full page ads, in 80pt bold Comic Sans, black text on white background, with no other images and text than Apple's logo and contact information. Requiring review and approval by the judge prior to printing.

36
1
FAIL

Re: Called it > obfuscation

No apology required. The judge states that he does not want Apple humiliated, just to publish the statement.

By putting all this extra nonsense about other courts, the UK courts decision is obfuscated.

I would hope that they made to remove the extra non-sense and have to statement sit on their front page for 12 months rather than 6.

8
1

Re: Called it

I don't recall the court order stating they had to agree with it so why should they? They obviously don't because they intended to win it.

2
11
Anonymous Coward

Re: jacobbe

"No apology required. The judge states that he does not want Apple humiliated, just to publish the statement."

No apology was required but I wouldn't be completely surprised if an apology, at least to the judge and court, was not included in the revised instruction. It's not a stretch to argue that Apple was disrespectful to the court's authority and borderline, if not outright, contemptuous. The only question here is how much offense the judge is taking to the situation... and we're all just guessing on that.

2
1
Ru
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Called it

"why the extra - unheard of - requirement?"

The requirement for the losing party in a court case to have to make a public apology in the national press might be unheard of by you, but it is by no means a unique occurrence in the UK, let alone the rest of the world.

13
1

Re: Called it

I suspect Apple were asked to print because they had made such a noise and gained so much publicity. This 'apology' has bought more publicity and not particularly positive coverage for Apple. Perhaps the court could bad all Apple imports until it was satisfied - but I suspect there is no need, other stories suggest that Samsung don't have too much to fear from Apple.

2
1
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Re: Called it

First, as others have stated, you comply with court orders, end of story. That's what courts are for, pending appeals.

Second, while I happen to own an Apple, rather than the Samsung gear, I applaud the judge's decision. This whole "booohooo they copied from us" thing is really annoying. Regardless whether it is Apple doing the complaining (often) or Samsung doing it (pretty often too).

The existing laws obviously do not preclude this kind of frivolous lawsuits, leaving it a question of how deep the pockets run for legal whining. Pretty deep in both cases, apparently.

Forcing the companies' having to 'fess up publicly when they are too frivolous is not a bad way to limit this type of behavior.

I don't know the Dyson vs. Vax facts, and unless it was a very frivolous lawsuit, I would see no reason to force a public disclosure - patent infringement cases CAN be grounded in reasonable facts, even when lost.

But I would posit that the "rounded corners" bit is as frivolous as they come and is only there because the law is lacking. Perhaps public opinion will limit this stuff.

11
0
Stop

Re: Called it

The issue is that Apple, and in some ways Samsung have been acting like Kids over these cases. All the judge has done is treated them like kids. An guess what Apple have just responded like Kids. It would be a good point now for Samsung to let the matter drop, otherwise the childish squabble will just continue.

Lets stop all this nonsense and let the courts concentrate on putting criminals away.

3
0

Re: Called it

2 Questions to answer your question.

What was the purpose of that exercise?

And what was the Spirit of the JUDGE'S DECREE.

If you are honest, you'll "get it".

If not, maybe you should join Apple.

You qualify.

I for one feel the JUDGE MUST uphold his original intent.

Must..

Sad, but Apple IS as a prior reader says. CHildish.

Problem is this child got it's start stealing XEROX goodies.

Apple got away with it.

And Apple hasn't looked back since.

Now the child has grown up. He's SPOILED. ARROGANT.

And an EGOMANIAC. They've even learned to cuddle up to

some EU JUDGES and temporarily get away with it.

5
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Called it @rogerpjr

"Problem is this child got it's start stealing XEROX goodies.

Apple got away with it.

And Apple hasn't looked back since."

As has been pointed out here a zillion times by others, Apple paid Xerox.

7
2
Silver badge

design doesn't warrant the same wide public interest that tech does

i wonder why?

oh yes cos its a load of old bollocks about what colour stuff is and how round the corners are that's why

7
1
Flame

Game Over for Apple

This will just be the first of many cases that will go against Apple. They are widely recognised as a "vexatious litigant" and will now have their specious claims laughed out of court.

I attended the first Californian case against Samsung, and the Jury were basically asked

"Who do you trust - Mom and apple pie or those slanty-eyed foreigners?".

The slack-jawed morons who were too stupid to avoid jury service voted in favour of the "American" company, notably ignoring the fact that Apple manufacture in China and create virtually no jobs for Americans.

Apple are now being sued by several companies. In all cases Apple are shown to have infringed patents, copied designs, and that there was "prior art" for ALL of Apple's "innovations". These cases should keep what's left of Apple in court for years. There are currently 40 - 50 injunctions to be served against Apple selling ANY of their products in several major territories.

Apple are the new Microsoft (and are equally corrupt)

15
1

Re: Called it

"I don't recall the court order stating they had to agree with it so why should they?"

They dont agree with it and thats natural. Slating the defendant and the UK courts (legally this is contempt of court) in that same requirement statement, where they could have just written it in a neutral tone, is asking for trouble. Its like a criminal insulting the victim and court in an interview after sentencing

7
0

Re: Called it

It's not like they had to apologise despite the fact so many people seem to be confused and think they have to. Which by the way is why you never take legal advice from anyone on the net. They can't even understand a basic ruling.

They had to acknowledge the ruling and they have. I suspect the high paid lawyers that almost certainly wrote that know a fair bit more than a bunch of angry fandroids on the register.

2
11
Silver badge

Re: Called it

The court told them to put paragraphs 1 and 5 up. The reason was that the initial Samsung ban got a lot of publicity, so this requirement was put in place so that people would know that it is safe to buy a Samsung slab, it will continue to be supported to normal Samsung standards and they won't risk any legal liabilities in using one.

3
0
LDS
Silver badge

Re: Called it

"Dyson eventually lost on appeals court, however Dyson was never ask to publish anything. Why Apple? It's ridiculous."

Exactly because that didn't get so much press coverage as Apple vs. Samsung did.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Called it

Well it's not like they are a real computer company anyway, having failed to set the PC or server world on fire, they drop the "computer" part from their name and concentrate on lawsuits as their main form of research.

Perhaps they aim to be like a certain US-based "hifi" company which likes to put its logo in big block letters everywhere.... - legal action after reviews, heavy marketing to susceptible types, short on down-to-earth tech details unlike their competitors, and ambitious pricing.

1
3
Headmaster

Re: Called it

"UK court"

The most contemptuous part is referring to a UK court, when this was a court of "England & Wales"; there's a different legal system in Scotland (and I don't know where NI fits in).

Their lawyers would know this, so perhaps the repost was written by marketeers?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Called it @Jean-Luc

"But I would posit that the "rounded corners" bit is as frivolous as they come and is only there because the law is lacking."

It was Samsung's lawyer that summaries the patent as being about 'rounded corners', and he's done a good job as that's what's stuck in the public consciousness.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Called it

Someone pointed out on this forum that Apple employs more computer chip designers than any other company. It sounded unlikely (but certainly possible given Apple's financial status) but if true, this would make your rant pretty well wrong.

0
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: Called it

> Apple employs more computer chip designers than any other company.

Apple employs more designers than Intel?

I doubt it...

Vic.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Called it

(a) Your quote is out of context.

(b) I also doubt it

(c) There is ample evidence that Apple have spent a lot of money building a non-trivial chip design group

http://www.pcworld.com/article/164149/apple_chips.html

http://news.yahoo.com/apple-hires-away-former-star-samsung-chip-designer-210747088.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-reducing-samsungs-role-in-chips-supply-2012-10-15

I cannot be bothered to do the research at this stage, my point was the OP was ranting and has a deluded idea of Apple and the engineering capabilities contained within the corporation

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Called it

Look at all of you fandroids getting off on this silly webpage. As much as I can see your resentment against Apple (truly biased!), this shouldnt of been processed through court in the first place. It makes Samsung, Apple and the courts look silly. Then it makes you fellow fandroids silly as you explode your heads and write your steamy blood all over the topic response page.

Take it easy, it's Monday morning folks.

0
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Called it

Almost certainly contempt of court. If the UK courts have any balls at all then Apple should find themselves on the wrong side of a vast fine. They could also find directors of any UK entity getting acquainted with some jail time.

1
0
FAIL

Re: Called it

@ AC 08.13

"Look at all of you fandroids getting off on this silly webpage. As much as I can see your resentment against Apple (truly biased!).... bla bla blollocksy bla..."

Spoken like a true fanboi....

0
0

Re: Called it

Did Dyson then go running to aneighbouring court and then smear Vax there and then have the gaul to boast about winning a case that legally should not have existed?

0
0
Thumb Down

Not in the spirit of the judgement?

If I recall, the Appeal judges said that this statement was necessary for clarity and to remove commercial uncertainty. Does this statement really reflect that? I am reasonably up to date on the legal comings and goings in this area and I still found it hard to parse.

just my opinion, but hopefully the court will revisit this and tell them to have a clearer stab at it.

43
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: Not in the spirit of the judgement?

Furthermore, the appeal judgement was critical of the German court judgement, also stating:

"Judge Birss was sitting as a Community design court… So his declaration of non-infringement was binding throughout the Community. It was not for a national court… to interfere with this Community wide jurisdiction and declaration," he said in the ruling.

Reading the Apple statement, this implication was the German decision is still relevant.

There seems to be a case for contempt of court here,

40
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Not in the spirit of the judgement?

I think the Germans would disagree with your claim that their decision is irrelevant.

3
33
Anonymous Coward

"I think the Germans would disagree"

In the UK the German decision *is* irrelevant.

FFS... You have heard the word "jurisdiction" before, haven't you?

21
1

Re: "I think the Germans would disagree"

The German decision is irrelevant as the UK court was ruling on behalf of the entire European Community (of course in more technical terms to that general effect) and the German court did not have the authority to override that judgement.

24
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.