Well, that might damp down the patent shenigans a bit. I wonder if Apple will appeal, I would have thought so.
Apple must run a national ad campaign saying that Samsung did not copy them, a High Court judge ruled yesterday - according to this Bloomberg report and a draft court order seen by The Reg. Judge Birss of the Patents Court instructed Apple to run ads displaying the notice in newspapers and magazines including the Daily Mail, …
Northern Ireland's not in Britain, but it's in the UK.
Perhaps you should learn about your own country before having a go at the yanks.
And in any case, the legal system of England and Wales is different from those in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so the ruling probably applies only to England and Wales.
This post has been deleted by its author
What makes you think Apple products are expensive to run? Once you've got an iPad, for example, the only obligation is to pay for electricity to charge it which is about 84p a year.
How old are you? 12? Look around when you start work. You may be surprised how many rather good and innovative engineers are older than you. Think about it, idiot. Do you think Linus Torvalds or Tim Berners-lee (about 42 and 57 respectively) are still teenagers or lost their marbles the day they reached 21? Dreadful and unexpected; but the moving spirits behind UNIX, C, shell etc. are about 70, some even old enough to have died of old age, which you will not live long enough to see with your out-dated attitude.
No wonder the quality of young informatics types' code and design is so piss poor if you are that ignorant and rude. You are condemned to repeat the mistakes of your silly forbearers.
You're a idiot. Who said anything about him not being capable of doing the job? As for your example, fine engineers though they are do not exactly portray 'coolness' which was the point I made. Cool is just an arbitrary word assigned to things people think are good at the time and it is mostly the young who define it. Once you get a bit older you realise it doesn't matter a damn but when you were 18 were you desperate to be seen in the same clothes as your parents? Listening to the same music as your gran? Or were you like most people at that age who want to be seen to be different to the older generation, what you liked was cool and what they liked wasn't. Learn how to do critical thinking before mouthing off.
You're the idiot: Cool has nothing to do with age and is irrelevant to justice and anything except picking up a similarly vapid partner. As for music, I lsten to what I like, not what's "cool". Some is "cool" (as would be some liked by my grandparents if they were still alive) and other has been "cool" for upwards of 400 years and some is new and distinctly "uncool".
Justice is not about age. Being good at your job is not about age (except that older workers tend to be more experienced than youngefr ones).
So, idiot to even mention the judge's age as if that is even relevant. His experience and legal knowledge: those are relevant. As he has been appointed a judge, I think we can take those for granted in the British system.
Your personal feelings about Apple, Microsoft, Google or whatever are not relevant. "Cool", dispassionate evaluation of the arguments and facts is. For that, some maturity usually helps.
"Even better than a lot of young ones. Not so much or so many "substances" inhaled,injected or swallowed by the mature ones."
Speak for yourself.
I've personally stopped partying in the vicinity of youngsters, because they can't handle their drugs. And they're rubbish about discussing Crowley and Voltaire after a bong or two.
If they're forced to say something generic like "Samsung's Galaxy computers do not infringe Apple's registered designs" then it not only puts a stop of all other existing disputes, but also makes that new scroll bar patent which they're no doubt going to go legal with very awkward!
I assume they'll appeal and win though.
"That's what I thought, too. In any other case, worldwide, Samsung would just be able to point to the official Apple UK page and newspapers for an admission that they didn't copy Apple."
Nope. The judge has already stated in reaction to Apple's reaction that Apple are entitled to hold their opinion that it's copied, but in the eyes of the law it isn't. Just as GSK are holding by their opinion that Lucozade makes you run faster, despite the lack of evidence.
And it doesn't resolve any other cases. Laws vary by nation. If you read the Judgement in detail, you'll see that the Judge does reference court findings from Europe and the US that were placed before him, but noted that that was there, this is here, and he will hear the case on it's own merit not based on the choices of some American fangrrrl Judge, thankyouverymuch.
"Errmm - no it doesn't. In the UK only, it may set a precedent for a judge to consider, but each case will be judged on its own merits."
But in any other country Samsung's lawyer is simply going to point to their own UK website and say "Why does this say that Samsung aren't copying you ?". Sure they can say "because the UK court is wrong" but it doesn't take away from the fact that their own site has a statement opposing their other law-suits.
Of course, I expect Apple to wriggle a hell of a lot before they'll actually do this. Would they actually pull-out of the UK market before complying with this?
of course they wont pull out of the UK market, all that will happen is that for 6 months there will be a statement on the footer of the uk homepage (in a suitably small almost white font) saying samsung didn't copy them.
of course you will not get a chance to read it because after 1.1 seconds you will be redirected to an experimental welcome page that is being trialled for 6 months, of course this new page will not feature the statement since it is not the home page
The judge can't order Apple to change its corporate mind. The case-law implications in other jurisdictions would be the same, whether or not the judge had ordered the publicity. With respect to future Apple vs Samsung action, the publicity order is a non-issue.
Whether it'll hurt Apple's sales remain to be seen. People do not like bully-boy companies, though to what extent this will tar Apple with that brush remains to be seen. Their Teflon coat is probably good for a while yet.
"Of course, I expect Apple to wriggle a hell of a lot before they'll actually do this. Would they actually pull-out of the UK market before complying with this?"
Would they? Please? PLEASE?
Personally I'd like to buy the Judge a pint for having the balls to say 'You've been naughty and now you have to say sorry - publicly' to Apple.
There's no fine that would be likely to be imposed that Apple could care about financially but given their image obsession this is probably a better/more fitting penalty anyway.
Will also give companies something to think about when they're bring what are essentially nonsense lawsuits designed to harass competitors and hinder their sales.
You're right - and the deeper you delve the worse it gets....many people think this is just about copying the ground-breaking rectangular display paradigm pioneered by Apple, but they couldn't be more wrong....
....a recent teardown has shown that the SoC, RAM and many components inside Samsung's offerings have been slavishly copied from those Apple use in their devices.
Perhaps Apple slavishly copied the placing of industry-standard Intel x86 processors, RAM, graphics cards and so on inside their laptops and PCs. In fact so slavishly, you could run Windows or Linux on them if you were sufficiently warped to want to do so. Perhaps you could run OS/2 on them and replace the front badge with PS/2 (you know, the IBM one) perhaps with a small "compatible" badge next to it, only it would run a little faster than the original.
As well as looking to some people like possibly "copying" all the other ARM licensees on their ARM gear. Lots of prior art if you want to look at it that way. I imagine they could well all use similar RAM. If Apple didn't want to look similar to the other licensees they would have licensed something else instead, like MIPS.
Incidentally maybe you should be careful of making such bold statements as "X copied Y". Maybe you will be the next person funding newspaper and web adverts ;)
This post has been deleted by its author
Post the court order with side by side pictures of each product "A" and "S" saying
"The court has determined that "S" is not a copy of "A" under UK law, and so ordered we publicise this finding. APPL herewith comply with this order and leave the consumer to form their own opinion"
See, easy peasy ...
No he can't but that's not what he's doing. He's not requiring Apple to say that Samsung products are good in anyway he's simply requiring them to state that Samsung haven't copied Apple's designs.
Aside from possibly issues of libel and/or false advertising due to unprovable or subjective claims, there's nothing to stop Apple posting on their website saying "Samsung did not copy Apple product design, but our product is better see this quote from a UK judge to prove it"
Still this is an awesome ruling, and I would certainly buy this judge a beer, hence the icon.
On dd/mm/yyyy we claimed that Samsung copied our iPad. This statement is incorrect. Sumsung did not copy
[list of features that iPad has and Galaxy Tab doesn']
In the Patent County Court in London, Judge [x] ruled that the iPad is much "cooler" than the Galaxy Tab.
We apologise to anyone who purchased the Galaxy Tax thinking they would get a copy of the iPad.
The penalty for ignoring a judgement is likely a lot harsher, potentially than this penalty, and could likely include fines for every day ignored plus a fine for contempt of court. Ultimately if fines aren't paid the courts have the power seize company assets and they'd still have to put the notice on their web page, etc, too.
Not that I'd expect that to stop them trying to cock around with the judgement anyway.
Apple is going to want to keep this story out of the media at all costs. If they haven't already launched an appeal then they probably won't. The notice on the website doesn't have to be very big or noticeable and infinitely more acceptable than being done for contempt.
While I found this INCREDIBLY funny, maybe the judge should have said "you have to stop these stupid frivolous law suits" because they're just stupid, especially Apple saying "Samsung copied our copyright of big black rectangle"
Hopefully they'll stop this legal BS now and everyone can get on with innovation rather than throwing their toys out of their prams!
why would the Judge say that? it's his job, why would he want to stop them from providing him with work to do for which he gets paid? Sure, the judge would probably get paid the same for any other trial, but surely these cases are much easier than other ones he could get given.
That'd be like Usain Bolt saying "all this running about malarkey, especially in the summer, it's just stupid isn't it?"
"Sure, the judge would probably get paid the same for any other trial, but surely these cases are much easier than other ones he could get given."
No you're right, actual proper crimes are very difficult to judge - I for one would much rather have all our judges tied up in the judging of frivilous patent lawsuits.
Is it April 1st again?
What? You mean he was serious?!
I guess it is apt. Apple live by hype and free press gossip so it's fitting that when they are naughty they should be outed via the same route - and have to pay for it!
Who is this judge? I think he has a rare grasp on modern reality and it's quite refreshing.
In what world does implementing support for a filesystem consitute copying in the way Apple have been claiming about Samsung?
Of course, if MS were to list all relevant patents and who was licensing them it'd be a good thing. Every threat MS make to Android/Linux etc tends to be quite vague "You're infringing out patents" when they could be specific "You're infringing patent 12345". Of course specifics may allow people to work around the patent, so that's not particularly desirable.
Not sure how many people actually believe any MS advertising anyway, diehard fanboys aside. My personal favourite was the TCO comparison between RH and Windows, gauged in an arena where servers typically have a life of 5 years at most. MS championed the fact that their TCO broke even with RH at 6 years, whilst ignoring the fact that no-one at that level is likely to run a server for that long. Hell most are replaced at 3 if possible.
"Seems a really bizarre ruling. Is the judge trying to make a name for himself, simply making up punishments however he sees fit?"
Not really, Apple have been quite publicly claiming that Samsung ripped off the iPhone. He's now making them publicly admit/claim that they did not.
Why not just allow Samsung execs to visit Apples HQ and take a dump on as many cars as they wish?
I bet they'd love it, especially if Apple had to pay for flights as well! Can't forsee a situation where that might happen though.
"Seems a really bizarre ruling. Is the judge trying to make a name for himself, simply making up punishments however he sees fit?"
What, are you some sort of fanboi or just that clueless?
Didn't you ever see those magazines and newspapers that had to print, rather visibly, a big notice stating that "On such-and-such-a-day we reported that fake-celeb had and affair with rich-dude's 15 year old daughter. This has been found to be completely untrue and we apologise unreservedly for making up bull to sell more copies of our crappy waste-of-dead-tree"?
Well, this is the same sort of thing. Apple have made a lot of very public assertions about Samsung directly ripping off "their ideas" (I use scare quotes for I have a little stupid PDA thing from the '90s that has rounded corners, and stylus tap-drag to unlock has been around for ages, it's nothing new that a finger replaces the stylus; thus some form of prior art exists). Anyway, Apple said stuff in a highly visible manner. It was found to be unsubstantiated. Therefore Apple are being instructed to print retractions; because their (Apple's) activities can be seen as harmful and damaging to Samsung. In other words, in this case, the shoe is on the other foot.
" and stylus tap-drag to unlock has been around for ages, it's nothing new that a finger replaces the stylus; thus some form of prior art exists"
And surely in addition, any device with a touchscreen works with a finger, even if it comes with a stylus - thus the question of whether a user uses finger or stylus really is irrelevant. (Or were there devices that only detected touch from a stylus? I'm only aware of the resistive style touchscreens that respond to anything.)
I wrote something similar in the initial decision article but it's worth repeating.
This guy is a breath of fresh air for what is otherwise a stuffy, bland and forensic legal system. Remember he's the one that dealt with ACS Law and he practically drove them bankrupt with his decisions while setting a healthy precedent.
I just love how he goes beyond just the "letter of the law" to actually speak everyday language and pass judgements much wider than just the legal point in question at the time.
Could we have more of him?
The more I hear about this man, the more I want to buy him a beer. A well-educated, sensible judge making balanced and potentially far-reaching (in a good way) judgements. As others have said here, hopefully this will put the kybosh on this sort of frivolous anti-competitive nonsense in the future and tech companies can get on with making tech.
I'm just trying to work out what effect this judemeng could have on any potential future libel case brought by Samsung against Apple in the future. I seem to recall that the British libel laws basically say that if you publish a statement about a person/company anywhere in the world but that it is easily availble in the UK, then you can be prosecuted in the UK for libel (hence 'Libel Tourism'). Would Samsung now have a valid libel case against Apple if Apple persist in publishing claims that Samsung copied them, and those publications (for instance on the internet) are availble in the UK?
Of course, IANAL. Thank $deity.
This same judge was already ridiculed in the legal world following his landmark copyright decision that a red bus photo on a bridge infringes the copyright of other red bus photos on the same bridge, his "design not as cool as the iPad" statement just made matters worse and probably got him all sorts of wrong attention.
In light of this, this demand is a good move by him to save face. Everyone knows, himself included, that Apple will just pay a fine and not do this, so he gets his face saved and the UK economy gets a few extra bob along the way. Win-win.
"This same judge was already ridiculed in the legal world following his landmark copyright decision that a red bus photo on a bridge infringes the copyright of other red bus photos on the same bridge"
In fairness, the defendant in that case tried to licence the original image, didn't like the cost, and went out to create their own copy of it, so it was really obvious where that was going ...
It seems a very odd order to me.
The instructions seem to have been made to recompense Samsung for reputation damage. If Apple had acted unreasonably, Samsung should have applied for a Summary Judgment at the beginning and high costs would have been ordered against Apple for unreasonable conduct.
This seems to be an attempt to recompense Samsung, in a non-financial manner, for something they have not complained about.
The foundation of justice in this country is that it is open and transparent. A judge cannot punish one side for what has been reported in the media in line with the concept of open justice. Making a court claim is itself not a cause of action for damage for reputation, especially if it goes to a full and final hearing.
The judge seems have stepped outside his remit, so I would expect an appeal to be successful.
While not nearly often enough, judicial bodies do occasionally treat overweening, mindless corporate greed with the humorous contempt it deserves. It's only odd if one forgets that, unlikely corporations, judges are human and potentially possessed of both a sense of humor and one of, well… justice. Which is sometimes poetic.
As so many of the comments on this article demonstrate, to take any of this at face value is a form of blindness, which among other symptoms, can be recognized by the complete failure to recognize wit.
In the US, it's been mostly forgotten that "corporation" is nothing more than an elaborate system of "walk/don't walk" signs elevated to the status of religion by the egregiously wealthy priests who most stand to benefit. In fact, it's an abstraction with no more intrinsic reality than manifest destiny or the white man's burden (and deserving of no more respect).
When children behave with mindless greed, responsible parents discipline them. Given that it's not possible to take a switch to Tim Cook's behind on YouTube, this is the next best thing. While it's much too little far too late and unlikely to have any significant impact, any attempt to teach the corporate machine that justice is not "whatever you can get away with" and that the judicial system should not be used for frivolous purpose is great thing.
Ugh, I hate how basically every consumer computer tech company has decided to adopt that annoying, manipulative Apple style of marketing. Slow, plodding speech, excessive use of hyperbolic adjectives like "beautiful" and "amazing", very calculated and forced hand movements, etc. etc.
does seem odd tbh.
firstly... wont this set precedent for lots of other things? the police try to prosecute someone for assault, he gets off on a technicality, the police have to plaster 'X did not commit murder' on their frontpage. for 6 months. for every crime they fail to succesfully prosecute.
secondly, how is it apples fault that the media have been promoting the 'S copied A' line? i havnt seen a direct announcement from apple saying it (outside of a patent infringement notice that is), so why are they being held accountable?
thirdly, retractions (Which is what this being sold as basically) are typically printed in one issue of a magazine, in an out of the way place that noone will spot. why so much harsher in this case?
fourthly... i find this hilarious, and will love to rub it in the face of various apple fanbois around the place. (ps. i own some apple stuff myself... doesnt automatically make you a fanboi :P)
>>the police try to prosecute someone for assault, he gets off on a technicality, the police have to plaster 'X did not commit murder' on their frontpage.
you missed a bit out...(much like apple tend to do)
'the police try to prosecute someone for assault, the police fake the evidence, hold an identity parade 250m away , but he gets off on a technicality, the police have to plaster 'X did not commit murder' on their frontpage'.
would be a better analogy
I assume the exact wording of the message will be very finely analysed by both sets of lawyers and the judge, but the judge can't say what the look and feel of Apple's home page will look like, or in the case of the printed ads,what other ad space apple chooses to buy.
I expect to see, a small perfectly legal message about Samsung on the apple home page, but the page will be make it look tongue in cheek / sarcastic.
As for the newspapers, I would expect to see a small ad advising 'we were wrong' etc, and the opposite page is a full page spread ridiculing small ad apologies...
I could easily post an ad saying I'm sorry, this man isn't an arse. And on the page opposite in massive letters ONLY JOKING. You could argue the 2 are separate posts and therefore unrelated...
Apple has been asked to print an apology to Samsung that Samsung likely will not want to see. Apple could take this opportunity to include quotes from the court's final decision, like:
***The ruling states that the iPad "design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."
The ruling also determined the difference with the Samsung tablet was "They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."
Therefore we apologize to Samsung for ever implying that they were able to duplicate the iPad.*** ;-)
And since the UK Judge kicked out a Samsung injunction enjoining Apple to stop claiming its competitor copied iPad in the Galaxy Tab, Apple should also add:
***Apple disagrees with the judgement, and strongly contends that Samsung has copied the design of our products. We will be appealing this decision.***
"Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited."
I liked a former contribution that someone else said about the people in Apple claiming that the Samsung design infringed Apples intelectual property.
"Just how much intelect does it take to design a rectagle with a single on button?"
It's like patenting the generic design of the typical house brick.
... because a decade of "tablets" by a plethora of manufacturers were singularly lacking in this design aspect.
Aside from some notable exceptions (the Sony wedge, the Xoom with the capped corners and a few others) tablet manufacturers today seem to have settled more or less on the iPad design. Some have even chosen the exact same radius for the curved corners of their products (1:infinity probability). It is certainly not a given that tablets have to look like the iPad, but Apple have shown that this form factor along with many many other elements combined make a viable consumer product - so the copycat manufacturers without the time or skill to do advanced industrial design, move into the market and copy. This is true in many many markets, not just consumer electronics.
The only question is whether the law allows Apple to protect their design and trade dress against the most blatant copiers. It seems that Apple is willing to ask that question of the courts, because they (and I think everyone with no dog in the fight) recognise that Samsung et. al. have sailed very close to the wind. The laws exist to afford protection, so the lawmakers must have considered those protections desirable. Commentards on The Register might view it differently, but that's completely irrelevant.
I must have missed that decade of non-rectangular tablets. What a shame, a world of triangular and oval screens would be quite interesting, even if completely pointless and unusable for a computer.
"but Apple have shown that this form factor along with many many other elements combined make a viable consumer product - so the copycat manufacturers without the time or skill to do advanced industrial design, move into the market and copy."
Yes, clearly it takes great skill to think to make a tablet (which has on it not much more than a screen) the same shape as a computer screen. Obviously no one would have thought that a rectangle would be the best way to make a viable consumer product. I mean: TV - rectangle; monitor - rectangle; phone - rectangle. I can see why most people would be confused as to what form a tablet screen should take. I'm glad we have Apple to help us out.
"The laws exist to afford protection, so the lawmakers must have considered those protections desirable. Commentards on The Register might view it differently"
Um, the law has ruled that Samsung didn't copy. But you're the one here commenting, trying to argue different...
I can't really belive that someone allowed Apple to patent some of the things they did anyway. They basically patented the shape of a rectagle for fks sake. It isn't innovative and certainly not protection worthy. That would have been like giving Dell a patent on Square monitors. Patently crap.
From what I read nothing stops Apple from making public statements saying the Galaxy infringed on their design oh and they can now say the court says their product is cooler.
Seems pretty stupid all around and this is old news.
Surely there must be something far more interesting happening in the world of Linux. Oh that's right it's hard to get cheap & easy web hits from real stories so I guess we'll have to put up with the gossip rag-like stories that everyone else reported well over a day ago.
It's good for civil society to regularly bitch slap corporate behemoths in the face, if only "to encourage the others."
Anyone who doubts this should look closely at the US, whose government has over the past half century become a wholly owned corporate subsidiary - little more than craven middle management lording it over a nation of servants indentured to health care and drugged on mass media, where law is whatever the egregiously wealthy find convenient.
not sure about this one, my mac book has lasted 6 years is running the latest OS ( next one won't work) and has never needed tinkering with to work. compared to the 2 dell laptops my wife has had ( both now defunct) which required continual pampering, it seems like quire doo value.
But then my time has significant value to me.
Of course Samsung copied, and in detail. Of course iPad looks "obvious" in retrospect - that's what's Apple's minimal design is all about. But it was not obvious before Apple showed the world. There had been tablets for years, but very few people actually wanted them.
The judge has explicitly allowed Apple to continue asserting that Samsung copied iPad. He believes it to be a matter of opinion, which Apple has the right to express. But he wants Apple to point out to consumers that under English law, sale of Samsung's product has not been compromised by Apple's well publicised litigation.
Of course his real motivation in this olympic year was to remind the world of Monty Python.
Samsung are guilty as fook..... it's in their DNA
Nice Samsung store with ..... wait a minute Apple app icons plastered on the wall....
Sod lets copy the charger design too....
Hmm this charging cable looks familiar....
Don't you know sarcasm when it hits you you daft twat.
Considering how much you troll ANY story with Apple in the title, I have come to the the following conclusion about you.
You've got a real boner about Apple and really want some Apple kit, probably an iPhone, but can't afford one. But hang on in there. Get yourself another paper round and those pennies will soon add up and you will be able to get one.
"the slavish and obvious copying by Samsung"
Cut the bull! YOU CAN NOT COPY A FKING RECTANGLE!
Your unswaying belief that Apple invented the tablet is to COMPLETELY IGNORE all that has gone before.
Sorry, you can't change history, Apple was not first, get over the fact and stop advocating LIES.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020