Apple told us it had no comment on the matter
and went off to sulk in the corner...
Apple was told to apologise properly to Samsung by three British judges at the UK Court of Appeals this morning. Judge Robin Jacob reprimanded Apple for putting up an "incorrect" and "non-compliant" statement about the patent lawsuit and said it had 48 hours to publish a better one. In line with a court order from July, Apple …
The thing that gets me is that they wanted to try to blag two weeks without having ANY notice up there.
I think the judges were pretty reasonable and patient in their comments. In their shoes, I'd have had the court officer's hold the lawyer's mouth open while I relieved myself into it.
"Actually, the judges are pompous self righteous fuckwits. They are modifying their original judgement without due process, and their original order was verging on ultra vires in the first place. Rather to full of their own importance." - AC, at 1940 GMT.
I have not appeared in an English courtroom, but as an American lawyer (put that sharp object down, sir!), I tend to agree with the general sentiment of the first sentence here in application to the judiciary universally. I can tell you that as to the second sentence you have no idea what you are talking about. The third sentence is considered as informative as "water is wet" where I practice. I'd say overall your comment is pretty much what could be expected from an ill-informed corporate apologist.
There really is no doubt the judge(s) had the power and authority to do what they did, and under the fact presented it is not surprising that they exercised that power and authority.
By the way: Tossup between "Judge Jacob said: I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," and "Apple's original statement was not considered to be robust" for biggest LOL.
Maybe a bit off topic but you started it. Americans seem to have a problem with British beer.
It's not served "warm" it served like red wine, as a wine buff would say chambré.
Do you stick your vintage Chateau Lafite in the fridge before serving too?
When I was in the Yukon last Feb our server apologised that she'd not got a chilled Bottle of Yukon Brewing's "Lead Dog" - and do you know, it was as good as a British craft brewery beer. When it's minus 20 outside I really don't want my stomach reduced to the same temperature. I have to say that having taken a purely academic interest in sampling US micro brewery products this year their only fault is US obesession with chilling everything. That is necessary with your mass market beers, the low temperature helps conceal the unpleasant taste but I urge you to try your own craft beers unchilled, they are great. A have had to revise my opinion that all american beer is garbage, there are some US micro breweries producing truly excellent brews.
"I was expecting a little more in the shape of a contempt of court charge. Maybe they decided to give them one last chance to get it right before hitting them with that."
Courts are busy places that have better things to do than mess around with time-wasting Apple antics. They aimed for a simple solution, rather than hit Apple with something that they'd undoubtedly appeal/contest/whine about.
Simples, this is Apple's last chance to get it right. If they screw it up again:
1. Find them in Contempt of Court.
2. As part of that Contempt of Court finding, they must pay Samsung's legal fees (if they aren't already required to do so), and any costs to the court for any appeals taken after this last directive including but not limited to, paperwork costs, court recorder, bailiff, and presiding judge salaries.
3. Interest on said costs to be calculated at standard American Credit Card rates, beginning 24 hours after this order was issued.
Which would have been great if they'd written it properly. Sure Samsung could have linked to it, but basically no-one would have noticed. However, now they've dicked about like this, not only do they look bloody stupid, but they've also made front-page news, looking bloody stupid...
That's what's called a legal and PR Ooops! And because of the way Apple normally behave, enormously amusing.
From the the BBC:
Lord Justice Longmore told Mr Beloff: "We are just amazed that you cannot put the right notice up at the same time as you take the other one down."
Sir Robin Jacob added: "I would like to see the head of Apple [Tim Cook] make an affidavit about why that is such a technical difficulty for the Apple company."
Though I'd have altered it somewhat:
"I suggest that if you're having difficulty posting a notice within 24 hours, that you draw on the expertise of your army of 'geniuses'. If their collective power is insufficient to answer it in that time frame I suggest we meet up here again next week under the auspices of the trade descriptions act. Also if you're unable to draft a response in that timeframe I'll be happy to create it for you."
"If I were the judge I'd have been tempted to hold them and their lawyer in contempt right there."
Apple couldn't have been far away from contempt. I reckon if they try a similar stunt the second time they'd definitly cop a contempt charge.
The 14 day thing is hilarious - Apple, the biggest tech company in the world (by $$$), leader in innovation are so crap at websites they can't put something on their website in 14 days???
What an insult to the judges intelligence - its like they are begging for a contempt charge.
"What an insult to the judges intelligence - its like they are begging for a contempt charge." - Chet Mannly @ 20:43
I feel you there, but what really surprised me was that the judges were aware that such a change COULD be made within one day. I know a lot of judges that would have simply accepted Apple's representation because they didn't know any better.
"Apple couldn't have been far away from contempt. I reckon if they try a similar stunt the second time they'd definitly cop a contempt charge."
The only question is how hard the judge will come down on them. How exactly does one go about punishing a Body Corporate which is in contempt of court?
> If I were the judge I'd have been tempted to hold them and their lawyer in contempt right there.
Quite. They should have thrown the Apple rep into a cell for contempt and left him there until Apple changed their notice. I expect Apple would have found that they could edit a webpage in 14 minutes, rather than 14 days.
There are two logical possibilities I can see with the 14 day request.
The first is that Apple want to have their legal department find another, more subtle way to word the statement without admitting they were wrong, working through legalities to push the order to it's limits. This could quite easily take their legal team 14 days, whereas 48 hours will force them to just comply with the order (or risk another trip back to court).
The second is that the bureaucracy within Apple requires so many checks and sign-offs that it really does take that long to comply if they follow company procedure.
I think the first is most likely.
"They should have thrown the Apple rep into a cell for contempt and left him there until Apple changed their notice. I expect Apple would have found that they could edit a webpage in 14 minutes, rather than 14 days."
I hate to break this, but it's worth far more to Apple for them to have no statement on their site for 14 days than it costs to pay a lawyer to sit in jail for that amount of time. They'd have been delighted at being offered such an option.
"I hate to break this, but it's worth far more to Apple for them to have no statement on their site for 14 days than it costs to pay a lawyer to sit in jail for that amount of time. They'd have been delighted at being offered such an option."
I think it would be fitting if Apple's senior exec were held at Her Majesty's pleasure for the time it takes to put up the correct notice. That might focus Apple's minds a little.
Or not: It would also put the future of said execs in the hands of their workers...
"I hate to break this, but it's worth far more to Apple for them to have no statement on their site for 14 days than it costs to pay a lawyer to sit in jail for that amount of time. They'd have been delighted at being offered such an option."
Ah, by Apple rep I meant whichever Apple staffer got sent along for the day. I'm sure m'learned friends know how to keep themselves out of the cells.
If Apple are planning to turn up to the next hearing with an excuse rather than a compliant web page and a fulsome apology it would be refreshing for the court to require it to be presented in person by the senior Apple UK exec. Who should pack a toothbrush.
I saw that "sad" apology on the Apple website a few days ago and was wondering what the judges thought about it and if they would take further action. Now they say it "takes 2 weeks" to change it? for Apple ? Give me a break Apple - and you better stop bullying the judges around otherwise who knows what is going to happen next. Maybe the court should take the entire apple.co.uk domain down until they comply. I am beginning to really hate Apple's bully tactics!
They could take down the apple.co.uk domain, but it wouldn't make any difference as Apple have only had ownership of it since just recently. all it does it redirect to apple.com/uk which is where everyone has been going for the uk apple site for many, many years. I doubt many people really realise apple.co.uk now points to Apple. 90% of people probably just use google and click through without even looking at the URL, so again, wouldn't make any difference if the UK domain was taken down, the .com domain is always going to be the number one result on google's search results
"They could take down the apple.co.uk domain, but it wouldn't make any difference as Apple have only had ownership of it since just recently. all it does it redirect to apple.com/uk which is where everyone has been going for the uk apple site for many, many years. I doubt many people really realise apple.co.uk now points to Apple."
If that is the case just block the entire apple.com domain in the entire UK!....
"Happens all the time anytime that Andrew or Lewis post a story."
Many stories from Lewis and Andrew are comment pieces, or editorialised, only showing one side of the story, thus people tend to give their own comments in return in the "comments" section (when a comments section is avaliable). And, to be fair, Lewis and Andrew's stories deal with a single side of a select number of issues - global warming, nukes, copyright theft, weapons. A quick look at other stories by Anna Leach shows a large variety of issues and topics (many, such as the multicoloured tarantula story from about a day ago, don't mention apple at all - so I'm not quite sure what you were hoping to achieve with this comparison?!).
As you can see in the article, Anna contacted Apple for their side of the story, and they chose not to make a comment. Anna didn't decide what the courts should do, she reported what happened - which is what reporters are supposed to do. Just because Engadget never report on negtive Apple stories doesn't mean someone else has it in for Apple because they *do* report on the negative.
In most cases it actually would be a shocker if the "journos" actually did any work for themselves instead of just regurgitating other people's stories and press releases. Or even if they were to write in coherent English.
Lewis and Andrew are actually the exceptions, at least they have something to say. Of course there will always be people whose opinions differ.
It's telling that the 'rate this article' function has been removed... Did they not like the feedback they were getting?
The problem with article rating system was that people seemed confused as to its usage - articles that featured news that people didn't like got downvoted, and articles that had "good" news got upvotes - regardless of the quality of the reporting. If this was the original purpose, then it worked. The fact that it was removed indicated to my mind that people were voting for the wrong reasons.
I'm all for a journalist "saying something", as long as it's made known that the work is being editorialised, or is a comment.
As for regurgitating stories; many news comes from one source in tech (eg. profit/loss statements and R&D spending statements originate at a single point issued by the company - inevitably lots of outlets cover the same ground) and in tech, a lot of news tends to come from press releases because otherwise we simply wouldn't know about it - tech journo's can't exactly set up a hidden camera in the plains of the savannah to get a glimpse of the next ARM processors.
Ultimately, as long as the information in the article is accurate, and both sides of a story are given voice (or at least an attempt has been made to give both sides voice) then the story is at the very least worthy of being published.
wow are you all just samsung supporters or do they pay you five bucks to make an online astroturfing army like China's people's party? -- having lived in asia for years and just look around, how many things are copied, or rather, how many products are NOT copied, small and big. -- Samsung's own president or whatever was PARDONED 3 times by the south korean president for some pretty serious crime (pretty serious considering that gambling is forbidden in SouthKoera) Crimes that could/should have mounted up to 15 yrs behind bar.
but samsung just makes so much $ for the SK, they pardoned him. That's the kind of land you are looking at.
No shills here*. Just a lot of people who saw Apple acting like arseholes, and are now laughing because they've made themselves look simultaneously arrogant and stupid on the front pages.
As it happens there were plenty on this site supporting Apple's case against Samsung, and calling the Galaxy designs rip-offs of Apples'. And plenty disagreeing. I don't particularly care, although I really don't get the tablet ones, they're a completely different shape, due to the different screen aspect ratio.
*Spartacus' Law (a development of Godwin's):
At some point in any online technology discussion - some idiot, unable to accept that others may hold a different point of view, will accuse another poster of being a shill.
Although I've never seen anyone accuse everyone of being one before...
So what if the former chairman of Samsung's been done for gambling? The deceased boss of Apple is on record as having taken illegal drugs, spent most of the 1970's as a hippy with a hygiene problem (he was notorious for his body odour during his time at Atari), and abandoned his first wife along with a daughter that he denied fathering even after a DNA test showed otherwise. No wonder the company he foundedhas a culture that borders on the sociopathic.
I'm not going to downvote you, but if you really think any pointed comment here has any influence on Apple's corporate progress, or represents anything other than a relatively mild expression of preference for any possible number of characteristics (including the ones you obviously feel), or even possibly the opportunity to simply make a joke, you are sadly mistaken. And quite likely on the wrong website. Have a beer instead.
Because we all enjoy a healthy dose of schadenfreude since Apple kicked off the business war by litigation process.
I don't have a particular fave OS or product, but sick of hearing how I cannot buy something because Apple have patented a rectangle or the colour white or the letter i.
So yes, we're enjoying them get a kicking for once. They started it and now they're whining like a bitch when they don't get their own way. Beautiful.
while people just applaud when a particularly ARROGANT and MEGALOMANIAC mega-company gets a kick in the plump backside
btw, I think that MS, to take a biggie, wouldn't dream about pissing in the judge's plate like Apple did, it's so... immature and unprofessional, so much like, ryanair, so childish.
that said, Google is heading the same route, apple-aping.
I noticed that too - it didn't used to do that before they put the notice on. It always automatically defaulted to the UK.
By doing it this way, most of the visitors on to the site will never see the notice - how many people will change the country straight away. If you're looking for an ipad, you click ipad. Selecting the country is only relevent when you're in the store.
Funny thing is, search for Samsung on Apple website and you are directed to http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ (same link as reported earlier). Open it and you are redirected to http://www.apple.com/uk/ , there is no apology or any trace of it.
That surely smells as contempt of court to me, although perhaps this is only because Apple webadmins are desperately trying to find an executive to sign off the new page (and his leave orders).
Working with blokes who are complete fanbois is very difficult...but then this comes up!
They still insist that Apple are right, and can do no wrong...and question how the courts can compel Apple to post this apology. It takes ALL my time to explain jurisdiction, and contempt of court....And still they don't understand!
Oh well....Looking forward to seeing what Apple put up instead!
*Big Brother because they're ALWAYS watching me!
"By now the fire was catching hold and the smell of melting plastic was plainly detectable, but the point of no return may well have been when Mr Carr produced an article from the highly respected online forum The Register (motto: "Biting the hand that feeds IT") commenting on the statement published by Apple,the headline of which read (or perhaps screamed) “APPLE: SCREW YOU, BRITS, everyone else says Samsung copied us….. But we will apologise because the judge said we had to”. While that in itself was not accurate (Apple was not required by the Court of Appeal to apologise) this probably simply confirmed the conclusions which the judges had already reached regarding the overall impression created by the statement. So a well-timed can of petrol, thrown on to the bonfire by Mr Carr, ensured that the nicely warming bonfire turned into a total conflagration."
If Judge Jacob was so flippant as to say "Samsung can't be infringing Apple's iPad design because it's not as cool", I don't see how he can complain when Apple post in their apology "Samsung doesn't infringe our patent with their tablet because the Judge says it's not as cool as our iPad".
I mean, he did say it didn't he. It's on record. Apple would be misleading their customers if they didn't point it out. What's his problem?
The problem, even if he did say it, was that it was in no way any part of the holding or ruling on the case. Such a simple thing, and so hard for some to understand. To say that anyone Apple would hire to represent them can't tell the difference between a casual remark and a decision from the bench would be an insult to the brain-dead. The judge also could have ordered a pastrami sandwich while off the record and it would have had no place in any description or analysis of the ruling. You guys are a pleasure to read - opinionated, bright, funny, well-rounded and full of unexpected knowledge in many areas, but boy, there sure are some klunkers that periodically slouch their way in. You don't have to agree, but at least try to pretend you thought about it first, if only to allow the rest of us to imagine that all that money for public education isn't going directly into the toilet.
I'm not sure what the problem is - Apple were ordered to put up the court ruling and they did
thats the first paragraph .
They then quote from the judgement against them - did they misquote the Judge ? Apparently not. Its the Judges statement and quite frankly this must have been the best lose that apple could have had - the Judge says how lovely Apple's stuff is and how Samsung's stuff isn't as cool and therefore not a close copy. Samsung must have been really happy when that ruling came down!
Surely if that is the Judges opinion on which he made his ruling then apple have the right to quote it alongside the verdict. Really, did anyone expect anything else.
as for the other paragraphs quoting their wins in other jurisdiction - cheeky but also truth.
Apples posting has to be the only funny thing in this whole patent fiasco
If Samsung had lost the case, been ordered to put this kind of statement on their website and pulled the same tricks - cherry-picked favourable comments from the judge, and a concluding paragraph that contradicts the outcome of the case, wouldn't they deserve a kicking from judges and commentards alike?
Of course - that is the point. This order was not a test of Apple's sense of humor, and certainly not a wish by any of the judges to exercise theirs (I believe American judges largely have their senses of humor surgically removed upon ascension to the bench), but an attempt to actually get a specific result. Apple quite intentionally showed that they did not believe they had to produce that result. That misapprehension has been corrected. I have no doubt that the judges quite honestly hope they will not have to go back for any additional correction. If so, there will be no happy campers.
"wouldn't they deserve a kicking from judges and commentards alike?"
Yup. And I'd have happily been there dishing it out.
It's not the fact that it's a particular tech company that annoys/excites me: It's the fact that they're wasting the fucking time of the court and ignoring the judgement of the Courts. As someone who generally respects the laws of the country, I find it pretty insulting. If I thumbed my nose at a Judgement, I wouldn't get away with it, so why should Apple arrogantly do so?
"I'm not sure what the problem is - Apple were ordered to put up the court ruling and they did"
The Judgement also specified WHY Apple had to put up the ruling (to clear up confusion et al), which the statement is clearly in breach of: To the 'man in the street' it is not clear, and it appears to be saying that 'The English Court is wrong' and 'the judgement doesn't extend out of the UK, because Germany disagreed' (which is also wrong: It supersedes as a judgement).
When a Judge lays out his judgement and the reasoning and intention behind it, it's contempt of court to weasel-word around the first part while completely ignoring the intent. We don't use Civil Law in this country where 'it's what the book says': We use law as interpreted by a degree of common sodding sense (hard to credit sometimes, but essentially true). And common sense clearly shows that Apple were doing their best to making it clear that in the EU the Samsung device does not infringe on the Apple one.
Buying very expensive lawyers only gets you so far in the legal system. The biggest favour you can do yourself in Court is not pi$$ing of the Judge by wasting his time and lying your ass off to him: A lesson Apple clearly haven't learned.
Thanks for that - I hadn't seen it before. Interesting that Apple would make the representation that a sheet of paper that says applications for Android can be had at one location, and applications from Apple may be had at another, is accused of intentionally misleading a reader that the two are the same. Oh, I know that the argument really points to use of the term "AppStore" and that Apple accuses Amazon of trying to mislead consumers into believing that the service is the same in each location, but that's a very uphill battle. Refreshing to see a common-sense approach to such arguments. I have a feeling that Apple has much more to its argument than was presented in the article.
Apple did what I expected of them. Attempt to minimize the UK damage. The quoting of the judge was perfect. If the judge cannot issue a clearly stated order( as to eliminate confusion) then the judge should be replaced, or at least undergo remedial judicial order writing 101. I would have thought that Apple would have had an apology on the apple.co.uk site but that site would have no links to apple.com, but place a cookie one the user's computer so that when someone checked out apple.com after visiting apple.co.uk , they got a page full of acerbic digs at the UK justice system.
Final paragraph of the Apple/Samsung ruling on Apples' own website. F*ckwits! They are sooo gonna get the Judges backs up!
"However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."
Here's to a contempt of court charge.
Fanbois need not bother to reply. Your points are tainted by your emotional attachment. Sorry.
Eh? How is a statement of fact "contempt of court"?
Seriously, do you even have a clue how the law actually works in the UK? I suspect not.
Apple will have written that apology statement on the advice of their UK lawyers. If Apple's UK lawyers – who will be very expensive lawyers indeed – let this through, they presumably have a damned good reason for doing so. Not least, because that very paragraph highlights the inconsistency in how cases like these are tried around the world.
If IP law is to survive, it needs to adapt to changes in its context. Right now, the fact that Samsung can be fined $1bn+ in one country, while it's let off for being "uncool" in another, is really not helpful for global trade. It makes economies of scale much harder to achieve if you have to modify your product for random nation states.
It also means you need to retain an army of lawyers in every nation you intend to sell to. That's a lot of lawyers. Suddenly, your legal department becomes a major cost centre and that's bad for business.
Consider, too, that the original case was over Samsung devices running the 1.x and 2.x Android releases, not the current releases of that OS. Only a blind imbecile could claim that Android, back then, wasn't basically a flagrant knock-off of iOS.
Fundamentally, none of this litigation helps Apple. Some of it is simply legally-mandated (yes, it really is) IP protection, but there's clearly an element of politics here. They're highlighting major flaws in current legal systems the world over. When it takes longer than the product's entire shelf-life just to get your day in court, what's the bloody point of going through such motions? Apple had no chance of stopping Samsung's products being sold and they damned well knew it. So why go through the pantomime of a full court case?
That such legal disputes can drag on for so long in an industry known for rapid change is itself a major point of contention, but most of all, it reveals a number of major weaknesses in national legal systems: they're just not fit for purpose any longer. Major changes are needed.
Apple didn't start this tit-for-tat cycle of litigation. They could easily have settled out of court (or even just bought the plaintiff outright); they certainly have the money. That they haven't done so implies there's something else going on here.
This isn't business. It's politics.
> Suddenly, your legal department becomes a major cost centre and that's bad for business.
Seriously, have you just discovered that?
> Apple didn't start this tit-for-tat cycle of litigation. They could easily have settled out of court (or even just bought the plaintiff outright); they certainly have the money.
Wait, what? Apple buys Samsung what. The hell?
> This isn't business. It's politics.
You mean Apple selflessly highlights problems with the current IP regime? Well, some people believe there are aliens in US army fridges, so who knows?
Sean Timarco Baggaley:
Apple categorically DID start this tit-for-tat cycle; trying to pretend otherwise is just foolish.
As to the bald assertion that early Samsung Android devices were a knock off, (a) not really, but let's pretend they were, and (b) iOS is, itself, a collection of knock-offs of earlier work, including fundamentally AT&T's Unix: Unix was "knocked off" as BSD, which as "knocked off" as iOS.
That's the crux of all this: someone is trying to argue that there is some magic point before which copying is fine and indeed innovative (i.e. Apple's copying), and after which it isn't (i.e. anyone who copied Apple).
Sure, we all know that every single manufacturer of mobile devices looked at the iPhone and the iPad and said "Those are the ones to beat!". But so what? Doesn't every car manufacturer look at the competition and say something similar?
At the end of the day, you're conclusion is fundamentally backwards: this isn't politics, it's business using politics (and the legal system, and notably PR) to try to maintain a competitive advantage. Apple has made a strategic decision that their business model will be based on great PR, flashy products (with even more great PR), and vicious litigation specifically designed to intimidate and damage their rivals. We've seen this sort of behavior before (Hi, SCO).
So you say "Consider, too, that the original case was over Samsung devices running the 1.x and 2.x Android releases, not the current releases of that OS. Only a blind imbecile could claim that Android, back then, wasn't basically a flagrant knock-off of iOS"
About Apple Wikipedia says "The iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad run an operating system known as iOS (formerly iPhone OS). It is a variant of the same Darwin operating system core that is found in Mac OS X. Also included is the "Core Animation" software component from Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard. Together with the PowerVR hardware (and on the iPhone 3GS, OpenGL ES 2.0), it is responsible for the interface's motion graphics."
About Android Wikipedia says "Android consists of a kernel based on the Linux kernel 2.6 and Linux Kernel 3.x (Android 4.0 onwards), with middleware, libraries and APIs written in C and application software running on an application framework which includes Java-compatible libraries based on Apache Harmony. Android uses the Dalvik virtual machine with just-in-time compilation to run Dalvik dex-code (Dalvik Executable), which is usually translated from Java bytecode."
About you I say, see my earlier comment about Fanbois. Emotionally tainted by your attachment.
P.S. I do own a MacBook Pro and it is wonderful! However, I'm not blind to the charms of others and as a result I have a Samsung NP700 and it is wonderful! So, I have a foot in both camps. It's called balance.
Apple already has lots of lawyers and their costs are already well factored in Apple's financial operating model based on recent history.
As for understanding UK/EU law then it is you that shows the lack of knowledge. The Court ordered an action and specified how Apple were to comply. Apple chose not to, hence they lost and had to amend their website.
"He should make Apple use Flash as well"
Isn't that cruel and unusual punishment? Seriously, Flash really does need to be taken out and shot. (Not entirely the plaform's own fault, I know, but it does seem the worse offender lately for lousy McProgrammer types kludging bugs together to make something that maxes out the CPU just to achieve pointless visual gimmicks - putting it on the same level as Visual Basic...)
The print advert was in the FT today..
funnily enough it didn't have the extra bits, it was just as the judge ordered.. Now, I reckon this means someone has decided to run two different ones. Now why would you do that if you were confident of one? If that decision has been made, then doesn't that mean they knew of a problem, yet still were cheeky on the website ?
As for 'takes 14 days', well frankly it shouldn't take 48hrs either... Note how the website has changed anyway ( though the ruling is the same) and on the US site theres a ( no problem with this) link to Hurricane Sandy appeal fund.. Obviously that hasn't taken 14 days to do...
Of course the Apple statement was designed to confuse. They knew full well that the judge was sitting as an EU Community judge and his decision would be binding across the EU. To then reference the German decision which was made after this ruling is to obfuscate.
The judges have admonished the German ruling for not abiding by the sitting Community judge's decision. For Apple to make reference to the German decision and to also mention the US ruling (when one of the key the patents in question has been thrown out by the US patent office post jury result, that in turn will in all likelihood see the decision thrown out on appeal) is asinine, childish, but also not unexpected from Apple.
The British judgment made no sense. The effectively said that because the Samsung was clunky even though it had a resemblance to the iPad it did not infringe on Apples design because it wasn't as "cool". Passing off similar looking but poorly functional goods is a technique often used in an attempt to avoid infringement of design copyright and it is usually effectively prosecuted. Street markets are full of such junk. Apple should appeal to the European court . They will win.
No, they'd lose.
Actually, I'm wrong, such an appeal wouldn't even be considered because there is no European court that does that.
You'll notice that Apple haven't appealed and they've had a long time to do so, because their lawyers also know this.
Samsung did not infringe the design in question. It's the end of the line. And no, it wasn't because the Apple product was "cooler", it was simply because Samsung's devices don't look like the registered design. Different shape, different buttons etc.
There is still other IP that they are each accused of infringing, but this one is proven and closed.
Let it lie or we are all f***ed, to put it mildly.
"The British judgment made no sense. The effectively said that because the Samsung was clunky even though it had a resemblance to the iPad it did not infringe on Apples design because it wasn't as "cool"."
That's not what it said at all. Read the actual judgement, instead of cherry-picked media snippets.
Also, it wasn't a 'British' judgement.
...I'd actually like Apple to withdraw from the UK market in protest. Literally take their toys and go home.
I do use some iDevices, and obviously consider future ones (though I skipped the iPhone 5 and iPad 4 / mini) but I also like popcorn and so would love to see the fallout of that action. It'd be interesting to see whether the government would take some action to retain Apple here; the judgement does seem to be excessive compared to previous examples of similar failed litigations.
Sorry to the word we've been such a**holes, suing other companies over stupid things. We see now since we've lost cases in EU, Asia and Mexico that we are in the wrong. We won't sue over stupid things anymore. Go ahead and make rectangular phones with rounded edges, and make phones with icons, its fine we didn't invent them.
While we're here we're so sorry about our mishaps with our phones, Antennagate was our fault, we screwed up. Maps the me the CEO Tim Cook, I told people at apple to let it out sooner than it should have been. We're also sorry about Siri that it doesn't work like in the commercials, we'll take the ads down. Sorry we made the back of earlier iphones out of glass, they broke easily and scratched and sorry the new one scratches as well, and sorry about the iphone 5 camera.
We also stole the notification center from Android, we're glad they haven't sued us. We've stole numerous other things, lets let bygones be bygones.
The mac vs PC commercials were a lie, a spin to get more people to buy apple products. We feel mac OS is no better or worse than Windows.
We'll try and do better, and we'll try and care more about our customers. We know they are people and it was wrong to take advantage of them like we have. We'll make better products to show we are worthy to our fans and to show non-fans we can be nice and not evil.
Please forgive us, I the CEO got drunk with power and I see the error my ways.
As of 11:30 (according to my nuclear powered clock) the UK Apple website has no apology at all now.
Having had some experience of courts (both sides) I can say that the Judges will go spare if their wishes get flouted. This will be phrased somewhat more modestly and carefully, but Contempt of Court is a fucking serious offence, newspaper editors tread a very fine line making sure they keep out of jail at times, but they know the score. Marketing twats at Apple may be all gung-ho but their lawyers WILL be advising these hipsters not to stick a finger up at the court as they will be hauled up and, if they don't drop their trousers quickly and take one for Apple, will be sent down for a few days. You do not piss the judges off.
This is so much fun. I really, really want Apple to defy the law and not do what the judges want.
Just looked at the decision by the CoA and paragraphs 85 - 87 make interesting reading. These paragraphs lay out the nature of the publicity order. Apple has, so far, failed to comply with the order. Look on their website and you will see that quite clearly.
Also, paragraph 78 is equally interesting as it deals with the EU wide actions and agreements that Apple had made in respect but had failed to follow through.
I'm expecting yet more downvotes but the truth is the truth.
From the Apple website (date/time as of this post):
"On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement."
Dunno 'bout you, but I don't see an apology, just a statement that the last ramble wasn't what the court wanted... skating on thin ice, no?
I'm very proud of our judges, and that's a rare thing!
Not only have they acted with speed and knowledge in this case, but they also created the argument that Apple is cool and Samsung not cool. Amazingly Apple decided to fight that judgement rather than accepting it and enjoying the comparison.
Apple UK website now automatically resizes itself to push the statement off the home screen. Technical way of complying with the judge whilst not complying. Challenge to UK law - US technical letter of law applies or UK common law test applies?
Story appearing in Reddit
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019