21–30 of 243 posts
Did the court seriously think ANY COMPANY would have reacted differently than Apple did? This is a childish and completely unproductive order. Fine Apple and be over with it if you think they did something wrong.
EDIT: The court case counted as negative publicity for Samsung and I don't think the court thought that a fine would counteract that publicity.
This attempt at being "clever" has definitely backfired on apple. If they had just done what was asked the first time, that would have been the end of it. Now it has to be dredged up and people will be reminded (again) that they lost the case. I find it hard to believe that their lawyers advised them that they would get away with something like this.
Instead they're going to have it on their home page for most of the Christmas shopping period.
Here's the original page: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/ It's basically "The UK court found Samsung non infringing, but said our products are great, and other courts found them infringing.". Far from an apology.
No court judgment ever said it had to be an apology. It was supposed to "to dispel commercial uncertainty". Looks as if Apple have exploited a loophole by adding to the judgment instead of simply posting it.
Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site – a claim that one judge said he "cannot believe".[1] Clearly the judge hasn't ever submitted an iOS app for review? And to people who don't understand why Apple are held to be in "non-compliance" despite copying verbatim the extract from the judgment: it was because of how "snarky" Apple were. - Saying their device is…
Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days to put a corrective statement on the site – a claim that one judge said he "cannot believe".[1] Clearly the judge hasn't ever submitted an iOS app for review? And to people who don't understand why Apple are held to be in "non-compliance" despite copying verbatim the extract from the judgment: it was because of how "snarky" Apple were. - Saying their device is…
That's also the part where they essentially say "This ruling is false"
From http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/:
Samsung / Apple UK judgment
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, 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 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:
"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The 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 informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
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.
Did the court seriously think ANY COMPANY would have reacted differently than Apple did? This is a childish and completely unproductive order. Fine Apple and be over with it if you think they did something wrong.
So you think a monetary fine is appropriate punishment for any type of corporate misbehaviour? EDIT: The court case counted as negative publicity for Samsung and I don't think the court thought that a fine would counteract that publicity.
The court cannot make Apple be sincere in an apology if Apple believes they are in the right. Just the same way Sally's Mother cannot make little Jimmy sincerely apologize for tattling on her daughter when she copied his homework, especially after the teacher already praised him for bringing it to her attention.
It's entirely possible to be punished for contempt of court to a much greater extent than the lesser offence. Deliberately choosing to behave in a childish manner and annoy a judge is a dangerous game to play and can be self-defeating. Apple's lawyers should have known this and should have advised them against it. It would have cost them nothing to comply with the ruling properly in the first place; they are now cutting their nose off to spite their face.