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 …
"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.
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.
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.
(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
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.
"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.
"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
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.
>"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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,
Well, Idiocracy was a typical mediocre Hollywood cliche-ridden film that failed to make the best use of the underlying idea.
So, the fact it was a failure at the box office in the USA actually suggests some intelligence and calling it epic suggests you're a fucking idiot.
I think that maybe slagging off the film Idiocracy for failing at the box office has a certain amount fo irony to it. I, for one, enjoyed the film. As visions for the future go, it is firmly in the 'lighthearted comedy', rather than 'Bladerunner' camp. Calling it 'epic' is pushing it a bit (for one it isn't over 3 hours long), but criticising it in the way you are kind of misses the point.
Maybe the reason the film didn't do very well in the US is that it indults brainded unthinking morons, exactly the people who tend to make up the audience of 'successful' hollywood films. Maybe such people aren't really predisposed to understand satire. As I said; irony.
This post has been deleted by its author
Well at least you can tell from reading it that the order really rattled them and they have put it up through gritted teeth.
It's nice to think that they are actually having a bit of a tantrum about it.
In reality it doesn't matter how many people actually see it, I think it's good enough to know that Apple had to do it and hated doing it (and also many layers of management were involved in hating it)
I'm detecting a bit of problem here - is an object cool if it described as being so by someone as uncool as a judge?
"My iPad Mini's cool because a high court judge said it was" [ignoring the ongoing spec deficiencies or otherwise of said object]
And does anyone cool use the word 'cool' any more? Not having ever been cool, I wouldn't know.
"Screw the Brits" is this a typo? I think you mean "Screw the blind" as they're the only ones who may - unfortunately - not see Samsung copied their stuff from Apple.
Not even the court admitted that much if you read the decision. They made it very clear it was all about infringing design patents and not about copying.
How crushing, that is how crushing it must be for a fanboi to resort to using Bing. maybe you are using it for the maps (I know I am)
It is rather funny, that my digitalspy posts are ranked higher that my self-centred and depressing blogs. But I think this is slightly off topic from the fact that Apple has failed in the UK courts wishes and no amount of name calling will ever make it seem like they have followed the judgement. Sometimes you just have to accept that even the great Apple slips up from time to time, and this is one of those times.
Crushing to use Bing? How tragic. I keep a good rotation of search engines to try them out, Google Search results are too crowded with rubbish these days, even when logged out and packing adblock and ghostery. Most times it just links to wikipedia, which is far from being a reliable, or in Google speak "high quality" source anyway.
I'd say only the faithful or those who don't know better stick to it.
Last week I was on DuckDuckGo which is still the best so far and strangely ranks different from Bing.
As for Apple failing UK court's wishes, that's merely your opinion. From my reading of the appeal court's statement, Apple's page says what it should. Law is not a science so it's natural different people will have different opinions. Your immediate reaction of calling me "blinkered" is quite a shallow argument to that discussion.
Anyway look forward to the newspaper ads in Arial 14.
Ok, I admit it, I went and looked at the blog. I wondered how Google had screwed him/her.
What I found was someone who ordered something online, asked for it to be sent to the wrong address and then complained thst it didn't arrive. Then the other posts get even worse. So much sadness
"I think you can lead a perfectly happy and healthy existence - while maintaining a healthy distrust, if not outright dislike for ethically questionable large corporations."
I guess so, if keep your money under the mattress, make your own transporation system and access the internet from the library. (god forbid buying computers, ALL tech manufacturers are ethically questionable)
Actually scratch that, the Internet is controlled by very large - ethically questionable - corporations. Better stick to amateur radio.
"the Internet is controlled by very large - ethically questionable - corporations."
You Sir, are misinformed and delusional.
"ALL tech manufacturers are ethically questionable"
yes those nice charity people that make the Pi are indeed.....oh hang on, see above.
"Better stick to amateur radio"
Or amateur commentarding
"the Internet is controlled by very large - ethically questionable - corporations."
You Sir, are misinformed and delusional."
Oh really? Let's see. ICANN and Verisign for starters? All Tier 1 carriers?
"yes those nice charity people that make the Pi are indeed"
If by "people" who make the Pi you mean Broadcom you may want to look into their ethical background. I wouldn't call soldering some third party chips to a circuit board "making" the Pi, since the Pi wouldn't exist without Broadcom - it's their recipe.
Oh really? Let's see. ICANN and Verisign for starters? All Tier 1 carriers?
ICANN you can make an argument for wrt the custom domain name fiasco (only rich people could buy them). what has verisign done so wrong?
As for the Pi, Yes Broadcom have had ethical issues. Why does that rule them out for being a supplier for Pi chips? it just isnt feasable to scrutinize at that level, especially for bedroom manufacturers that the Pi manufactureres started off as.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Congratulation to them for their excellent marketing, but marketing a product well doesn't preclude others being able to produce and market similar products."
Indeed - or to be precise, the near entirely of the media gave them vast amounts of free advertising, even before it was announced (remember iStale?), let alone released. Followed up by loads of companies providing "apps" for their websites or services, only for the minority of ipad users, and not more popular platforms like Android, Symbian, or indeed Windows desktop.
The only Android tablets to have an coverage at all have been the more recent Kindle Fire and Nexus 7, and that's pretty much only followed on after they turned out to sell millions.
"I don't understand why these court cases don't involve samsung wheeling in a trolley full of junk they bought off ebay that has the same features as the iPad but was made 5 years earlier."
Possibly refused as evidence, for whatever barmy reason?
but marketing a product well doesn't preclude others being able to produce and market similar products
Wasn't t that why in summing up in the US case Apple's legal team pointed out that HTC, RIM, Nokia, Sony Ericsson, and everyone else under the sun hadn't copied them? That their similar products were different.
It was just Samsung, and it was just certain models.
It was not all manufacturers and not all smartphones/tablets.
My Nokia 5800 had rounded corners.
Yes, Nokia may have gone for a different design with the Lumia models, but so what - the point is, why should they be forced to do so? Indeed, perhaps they did so out of fear of litigation from Apple.
Plus when you consider the falling success of RIM, HTC and Nokia, compared to the amazing success of Samsung lately, I'm not convinced by the argument of "It's okay to not be allowed to use this basic design feature that existed years before Apple came to the party late, those other companies are doing just fine, honest!"
It took me a while to find the link, and I use the internet all day long (almost true, I browse at work when I am meant to be doing something productive.0
I digress, but then again so do Apple, it's as if they are sticking two fingers up at the UK courts. The last paragraph has me "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." Which is in the process of appeal (they failed to add)
And this, which totally gets me spitting "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."
What I thought especially took the piss in the statement was :
"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"
Since even that jury didn't find the tab infringing at all, and as such the injunction on it was lifted. This is totally irrelevant spin (or reality distortion). Not that I expect that result to stand at all come Dec.
How big a hand does the model holding the iThing mini in the photo have? I can comfortably hold my Nexus 7 like that, but I'm a 6'2" bloke with pretty big hands. The Mini is 16mm wider than the Nexus 7, so I suspect I couldn't hold it comfortably like that - the bod holding it must be a giant! And I think it'll be very difficult for someone with smallish, normal hands to hold it that way.
Naughty, naughty Apple, suggesting it's minier than it actually is.
They are asked to declare it to the world or just UK that Samsung didn't copy Apple -- Check
Rulings from other countries suggest otherwise --- True --- Check
What's wrong?
I am glad to see them protecting their product to this extent against products from some asiatic company whose bosses were three times pardoned for crimes by South Korean presidents simply because they generate gso much $ for the country.
The court never demanded an apology, it demanded a notice that Apple had acknowledged the court's decision.
From the text:
"Apple itself must (having created the confusion) make the position clear: that it acknowledges that the court has decided that these Samsung products do not infringe its registered design"
Half of the space was taken up by quotes from a judge saying how cool the iPad is..
Then the closing paragraph is all about how stupid the UK courts are.
I would say that this is definitely not complying with the judgement. I hope they get their ass thoroughly kicked for this rubbish.
The UK case and decision was not about copying, it was about infridgment of registered designs. The judges themselves made that very clear in their observations:
"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law."
"So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products."
So copying or not was not at stake.
APPLE WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE IN THE WORLD FOR THE LAST ITEM. IT WAS DISGUSTING AND BAD AND THOROUGHLY DISOBEDIENT AND PLEASE DON'T BOTHER TO PHONE UP BECAUSE WE KNOW IT WAS VERY TASTELESS, BUT THEY DIDN'T REALLY MEAN IT AND THEY DO ALL COME FROM BROKEN HOMES AND HAVE VERY UNHAPPY PERSONAL LIVES, ESPECIALLY ERIC.
I believe that's about as good as a certain nations apologies to all the countries it ruined due to colonialism so I'm not sure why the fandroids are butt-hurt.
Shame this came over the weekend. This will keep them up all night in their mother's basement polluting the net with the hate their use to mask their depression over their rubbish lives.
Sent from my innovative iPad
The iPhone/pod/pad IS a design of extreme simplicity both hard- & software!
I can give a 7 year old an iPhone and they will figure it out very rapidly (I have tried this).
Said 7 year old can figure out Meego/Harmatten or whatever it's called as well.
Today I had a Nokia N9 and a Lumia WP phone side by side. Hardware wise they are almost identical.
However, I, as a technically savvy person well versed in gadgetry was unable to come to grips with the WP in my 15 minutes of allotted time. Meego was no problem at all.
Now, I could RTFM for WP and maybe that would help. Or watch YouTube videos of how "innovative" and cool and smart WP is, but the bottom line is that after 10-15 minutes, I concluded WP was just so counter intuitive (for me) and just plain weird that I was not willing to spend more time on it.
My experience was a "test" by one of our staff who provided the Lumia & N9. He understands both deeply (as well as Android an iOS, that is his job), and he is testing how adults react when presented with WP. He stood and answered my questions, as I struggled to find my way around the interface and perform tasks.
His conclusion has been so far, that very few will give WP the time of day, much less spend money on it. Why? Read line 1 of this post.
It's not that the link on the home page is small, it's that some jolly clever responsive design always has it sitting under the fold. As you make your browser window larger, the image (currently of the iPad mini) grows. The footer is *always* off the bottom of the screen, and you always have to scroll down to see it - however big the page, and however high the resolution of the screen.
I may have got my court rulings mixed up, but didn't this one stipulate that the link had to be *above* the fold???
I think the ruling stated that the response had to be posted on the front page... not a link from the front page but on the front page itself. If that is the case then, ignoring the pathetic childish nature of the response, it is in contravention of the ruling and thus is in contempt...
Never in my wildest dreams did I think that computing would sink to this level of school yard tit for tat, here we have multi million pound, dollar, or whatever companies resorting to legal school yard language. Patent wars are verging on the ridiculous now and there will be no end in sight as far as I can see so I expect with each new gadget released to the public someone somewhere will cry foul and say they have copied this or that.
A court may order this company or that company to pay x amount of money then they will appeal and as seems to be the case in many litigations the only winners are lawyers, but will all this stifle future innovation in the fear of copyright lawyers finding some infringement somewhere? Who knows? But although I'm no technical expert the IPhone is not that much different now than from the original and Windows is still Windows with a pretty (well debatable in Windows 8) front end.
No doubt those of more far reaching technical knowledge will prove me wrong but not counting the internet there are many things I do today on Windows 7 that I could do in Windows 3.1, wished I'd kept those Windows 3.1 floppy discs now LOL.
Sorry Fanbois everywhere. Samsung cannot steal or copy that which is plainly obvious. There can be no such thing as a "design" patent for rounded corners because they are a plainly obvious requirement for anything that has to go in a pocket. This goes back to hip flasks before the 1800's and applies through anything made today. Just because it's on a so called smartphone does not matter, especially if it is a "design" because so many have gone there before. If anything, Apple are being disingenuous in applying for the "patent" to say the least.
I may be stupid - I possibly am - but my washing machine's got 'rounded corners'. So has every machine (with the notable exception of my razor) in my apartment. Even my cushion on the sofah has rounded corners.
Even my gilfriend has rounded corners 3 weeks out of 4.
I thought it was simply to be comfy, and not to cause one to spill blood all over your hands.
Sorry, folks, I'm missing something here. At least the UK judge seems to have a bit of a clue.
If you go to court you are legallybound to accept the decision of the court, within the appeals process of course. So while you can express all kinds of emotions about the judgements ("we are shocked", etc.) you are not allowed to criticise the court's judgement because to do so is to hold the court in contempt. Apple's legal counsel should be shot.
Yep, but one has to remember that "The Court" sounds like a gathering of Learned people, but in actual fact, it's only one bloke wearing silly clothes. Bit like wearing Rupert Bear trousers and fluffy shoes on a golf course - it seems to carry some sense of Power.
(OK, women can be 'the court', too.)
It does look like Apple have not obeyed the Court. The appeal judgement says :
(Quote)
Finally I should say something about the notice itself. We heard no discussion about that. Plainly Judge Birss's Schedule has been overtaken by events. Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given].
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
(/Quote)
If Apple or Samsung didn't submit any other proposal to the court, then the website text does not equal the notice proposed by the court.
Regardless of the ruling as it blows way past my head I did note that the UK judge said that his ruling cannot be overridden as it applies EU wide (or something like that). This is strange since if this applies to all EU member states then isn't Germany's ruling suppose to apply EU wide and was the court battle not there first.
I'm not in favour of Apple but from what I can see the UK has basically overridden a German court decision? So what's the point of the "cannot override" rule if member states do it anyway.
Doh! because the EU is one big circus show by the looks of things
I think the have invented a general form of blatant corporate legal disobedience, can anyone remember the sosumi notification sound which was basically a finger in the vertical direction for apple records.
I also seem to recall they invented a spinning beach ball to represent the passing of time, presumably because life's a beach.
Yes. They invented a floppy disc controller IC. And they may have had the idea of using the dead 6502 cycles to access the video memory, i.e. interleaved DMA. And they definitely invented the phone where you could interrupt an unwanted call simply by putting your finger on a gap between the aerials and then saying "sorry, lost signal".
Yes yes apple have made no real impact and have done nothing to move computing, mobile phones and tablet computers forward - what a load of steaming. No-one is saying 'they invented the phone' but they revolutionised it and made some big jumps forward, they did not invent the laptop but they have greatly improved on it. They are forcing the others to up their game - as it was they were just content with making 'just another laptop' or 'just another phone' - now they have to try and make something as good as Apple - but largely fail.
> they revolutionised it and made some big jumps forward,
Even if that is true - and I'm taking no position on that - any such improvement does not of itself mean that others may not make exactly the same improvements.
Apple may patent their own inventions. They may not patent someone else's inventions that they got working, although they might be able to patent the method by which they got them working.
Vic.
It makes no real difference the arguments and counter arguments on minutiae of legal bullshit. You know who really loses here?
Not Apple.
Not Samsung, Even in Germany,
It was you and me. We pay the lawyers and the legal fees in higher prices and reduced choice.
F**k it's not even funny anymore.
You only lose if you buy an Apple or Samsung product. When I upgraded my phone reently, it was a close run between the Samsung S3 and HTC One X. I went for the One X, because although the spec is virtually indentical to the Samsung phone*, it was over £100 cheaper. Why do you think that might be?
*It is worth noting that both android phones have a higher spec and lower price than the recent Apple offering. The isn't 'fandroidism', just a simple statement of fact.
It's always interesting to see the reaction. If this were just about any other company responding to the court with this SMUG, DOUCHEBAG ARROGANT answer, everyone would be screaming for contempt of court and the EU would be trying to figure out how to use this as a way to fine them a million euros a day. Because this is Apple, a fair number of you are giving Apple a free pass (as usual). It's time to wake up. Yes, Oracle is still the top evil out there (can't imagine this is changing anytime soon), but Apple is catching up.
Gee, I thought Google was #1 in evil having recently usurped Microsoft, and that Oracle was the other bad boy on the podium. I must have missed the memo, or perhaps your just wrong?
Apple are but an upstart in the global IT evil stakes since, though a big company, they do not have any monopoly (or monopoly like power) in any of their market areas.
Google, Microsoft & Oracle all wield MASSIVE power in their market areas and it shows. Apple is a pipsqueak which has struck a very lucrative niche and is defending it against the copyists. This is nothing like the behaviour of the Group of 3 on the podium of evil, each of which has the power to derail nation states!
Obviously Apple has bad legal advice. To toy with a simple order to make a declaration is idiotic.
The last ones we seen do that was SCO . And where are they now ? Apple is getting to be a bad brand. Children being used in factories , attacking everyone left and right in courts , that makes them look bad.
They look like bullies and no one likes a bully. The Peace and Love generation looks at them in contempt now. They lost their cool factor and ultimately following bad SCO type legal advice makes only one group of people happy : lawyers.
Apple needs a new board of directors . The present one is destroying their reputation.
Good legal advice would have simply be to do exactly the declaration the judge asked for with no added text.
If you think a many would have read that declaration and that it would have damaged Apple's reputation is simply counting on that people read these declarations : Noone cares ! They just skip the page .
Not complying with the court order is worse for Apple's reputation than what the declaration would have done.
Stupid legal advice . And stupid board for not complying to such a simple order.
> you will squirt that crap when someone invents warp drive and the transporter
If someone patents a working method for warp drive, then that will be fine.
If someone patents *any machine that effects warp drive*, then that will be invalid because of the vast amounts of prior art.
So it is with Apple - patents on things they have actually invented are fine. Attempting to patent the tablet computer is not, because of all the prior art. Most of the Apple patents we've seen lately fall into the latter category...
Vic.
If someone invents a warp drive, then we are in a greater deal of trouble, since such a device would allow for information to travel at faster than the speed of light, general relativity tells us that this violates causality and essentially allows time travel. Maybe then Apple could actually go back in time and patent things before other people had come up with the same ideas? A truly scary thought...
The fact that the court case in Germany should never have gone ahead, they started the action in the UK and jumped when things didn't look good. Not mention of the fact that germany rescinded the EU due to evidence tampering by Apple (never mind the fact that they did not have the legal right to as the UK case was the acting as the EU community court).
So if germany didn't pan out presumably they'd have jumped to the next country, Maybe teh netherlands? Oops, no their claim there was thrown out, no mention of that neither. Their statement suggests only the UK court decided against them, maybe they should keep a running scoreboard.
a thin rectangular slab with four slightly rounded corners, a screen that went to the rim of the device, and an "overall design of extreme simplicity"
http://www.reuels.com/reuels/Screen_Printing_Unit.html
is this the apple device in question... and when did they get into silk screen printing? (slightly rounded corners, to me a 2mm rad is slightly rounded... - scroll to the photo)
Is this exactly what Judge Birss intended? He saw that Apple and Samsung were both acting like spoiled brats. He could also see that Apple were in the wrong in this case, but didn't want to award anything to Samsung, because, lets face it, they are acting almost as bad themselves. So this is what he does:
1) Order Apple to make an apology.
2) Wait for Apple to make the apology and then do the equivalent of saying 'I had my fingers crossed, the Judge is stupid and so are Samsung'.
3) Find Apple in Contempt of court and punish them with a hefty fine (I really hope this does come to pass)
This way, neither Apple nor Samsung win, but a clear message is sent - stop acting like fucking children or you will be sent to the naughty step.
What else could they do? As a firm whose sole tactic is the distortion of reality, people start to believe that Apple invented a number of technologies, including, but not limited to, touch screens, rounded corners, even the idea of simplicity. This isn't a firm rewriting history, but a firm rewriting the present. The frustration is that real innovators, firms that actually had the vision, took the hit and invented the technology are forgotten. Perhaps this ruling is more damaging to Apple that we know... It might lower the distortion field for just long enough for people to wake up...
Reading through both decisions - referenced by Apple:
High Court: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html
Appeal Court: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
It is clear from the arguments presented that not only was there no design infringement but that no reasonable person could of honestly believed there was any grounds for the claims of infringements (which is what was also found in the Californian hearings in the USA). Which implies that Apple willfully embarged on this vexatious litigation.
I find it interesting that Apple in their apology deliberately muddy the waters around this specific case (ie. Samsung infringing Apple's registered design) by citing decisions that related to multiple issues, to try and imply that the UK court reached the wrong decision. Which would seem to support the view that apple's main motivation was vexatious.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
