Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 243 posts

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#101

Post by Karunamon »

vidarh wrote: post #81
metatronscube wrote: post #11

The UK legal system is a complete joke. Apple should consider using its considerable resources to take legal action with this demand and simply post " X is not as cool as Y" and leave it at that. I can not fathom why this has been pulled up, and would challenge the appeals court to explain why the original passage is non-compliant and if they cant give a reasonable answer I would be meeting them in court.

In this case the UK legal system is pretty much exactly like any other civilized legal system. The judge in this case is the court, and when he says the original passage doesn't comply with his order, by definition it does not comply with his order. If they choose to continue to fail to comply with this order, the people responsible finds themselves at risk of being found in contempt of court and jailed.

So a single person can perhaps issue an order and not be overruled or challenged in any way?

That hardly seems like a "civilized" legal system. In fact it sounds like something in a corrupt banana republic.

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#102

Post by Karunamon »

JasonFruit wrote: post #98
Karunamon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. It's still a copy. Whether they paid for access to it or not is irrelevant - it's still a copy of someone else's innovation.

I doubt a patent attorney would consider that irrelevant, and it's not irrelevant when you're discussing corporate conduct.

I don't mean legally, I meant in the "Apple is soooooo innovative" sense.

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#103

Post by michaelfeathers »

The article said that the judge ordered Apple to say that "Samsung did not copy their design." Apple, essentially, said that the court ruled that Samsung did not copy its design.

That is factually correct. I don't see how anyone can be compelled to make the former statement rather than the latter one.

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#104

Post by smackfu »

clarky07 wrote: post #84

This seems like BS to me. They put the judgement on their site, and then they put other things on THEIR site. As long as the put the piece they wanted them to put, they should be able to do anything else they want. If they think the statements made make for good marketing pieces, why shouldn't they be able to put them on their website. All this is besides the point that the UK is in the minority in their ruling, and…

The goal of the publicity order was to "dispel commercial uncertainty," not as punishment. If Apple publishes the required statement, but obscures it in a way that it doesn't meet the original goals, should the court really stand idly by?

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#106

Post by DannyBee »

Camillo wrote: post #54
DannyBee wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, most companies would react differently, actually. The vast majority of companies are not stupid enough to think it's "cute" to piss off a judge in a non-banana republic.

The UK is not a republic at all.

So then it does indeed fit into the non-(banana republic) category :P

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#107

Post by mkr-hn »

Karunamon wrote: post #102
JasonFruit wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt a patent attorney would consider that irrelevant, and it's not irrelevant when you're discussing corporate conduct.

I don't mean legally, I meant in the "Apple is soooooo innovative" sense.

It seems like most Apple acolytes have conceded that point.

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#108

Post by Sander_Marechal »

mkr-hn wrote: post #86
kingnothing wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company doesn't protect its intellectual property, it is liable to lose it. The only thing that's changed is now Apple is leading the market and is in a position where they need to fight these battles.

I thought that only applied to trademarks.

It does. The grand parent statement is exactly why folk like EFF, FSF and RMS dislike the term "Intellectual Property". It confuses thee very different types of law with each other (copyright, patents and trademark).

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#109

Post by michaelfeathers »

masnick wrote: post #28

Here's what Apple wrote -- somehow I'm guessing this isn't what the court had in mind. 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…

They presented the facts and they should be allowed to mention that other jurisdictions have other views of the matter. Does anyone think that they shouldn't be able to?

Re: Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th

#110

Post by jivatmanx »

bigfudge2 wrote: post #79
jivatmanx wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that the original Macintosh GUI was a blatant copy of Xerox PARC, created after Jobs and a team of developers visited the PARC research lab. I don't blame them for this because I simply don't believe any design patents are legitimate, but the hypocrisy is astounding.

How many times. Jobs paid for the IP from Xerox. Check your facts. There probably are things Apple have stolen over they years, but this wasn't one of them.

Xerox sued, but the case was dismissed without addressing the claims, because it was filed as the wrong type of case, in the wrong court.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-s...

Xerox did give Apple access to PARC, but see how that allows Apple to freely use any of their IP without compensation.

According to Xerox:

''The ruling does not mean Apple hasn't taken substantial portions of the Star and claimed them as their own,'' a statement issued by Xerox said. ''The court merely held, we believe erroneously, that Xerox does not have standing to present facts in support of our contention.''

Post reply on HN