6 ms·
Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.
- robgough 14y agoOff-hand this seems like a rather cruel and unusual punishment. Are there any previous examples of this sort of order?
- hell0_th3r3 14y ago1. this is UK law, not US 2. "cruel and unusual" has no meaningful definition for a corporation. is a $1 billion fine "cruel and unusual"?
- cryptoz 14y agoFrom wikipedia: > Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing punishment which is considered unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts on the condemned person You don't really think that an HTML page inflicts any kind of suffering or pain on someone, do you? First, I don't even think this is 'punishment': it appears to be more focused on clarifying the issue to the public and ensuring Apple doesn't try to twist the story. Secondly, there's absolutely no way it's cruel. It may be unusual, though, and I'm curious about that too.
- robgough 14y agoI'm sorry you took such offence at me using "cruel and unusual" as a turn of phrase, rather than to mean it's dictionary definition. I'll admit I'll happily use it in conversation - but perhaps I should have been more careful online where things are taken somewhat more literally. I do feel that forcing Apple to link to a competitor, and advertise for them, is a form of punishment though.
- natrius 14y agoThe phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" is typically used when someone is trying to argue that a punishment should be illegal. A legalistic reply should be expected.
- 286c8cb04bda 14y ago> I'm sorry you took such offence... You're sorry he took offence? That's a pretty passive-aggressive apology isn't it? You used the phrase wrong. He corrected you. I don't think you're allowed to claim any high ground here. > I do feel that forcing Apple to link to a competitor, and advertise for them, is a form of punishment though. That's supposed to be the whole point, I think.
- robgough 14y agoIt was quite genuine, I didn't mean to offend or upset. Lesson learnt! You don't mention this, but I didn't to edit my original post, as i'm not a big fan of editing post content - but rather adding as part of the conversation.
- capitao 14y ago> You used the phrase wrong. He corrected you. wow, really? that phrase is used all the time in a lax, colloquial manner, he didn't 'use it wrong' at all. why is everyone jumping to wikipedia over this? nothing better to do today?
- lmm 14y agoHe didn't "use the phrase wrong"; he communicated his meaning effectively. Dictionaries (of English; there is no acadamie anglaise) consist of observations, not rulings; if a dictionary disagrees with usage, it is the dictionary that is wrong.
- Samuel_Michon 14y ago“I'm sorry you took such offence” Fantastic, I'm a huge fan of the non-apology apology. Hearing or reading one always makes me smile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology
- dagar 14y agocorporations are people...
- mark_l_watson 14y agoSounds fair, considering. Apple's suit damaged Samsung, so this seems to me like fair payback.
- ChuckMcM 14y agoActually it sounds silly to me. Kind of like forcing a bully to stand up in class and say "Billy is not a poopy-face." The only good thing coming out of this whole patent-a-geddon period is real attention to how broken the system is.
- Steko 14y ago"Kind of like forcing a bully to stand up in class and say "Billy is not a poopy-face."" The problem with this analogy is that no one serious for a second has ever doubted that Samsung copied the ipad, the court has simply ruled the iPad design is too generic to make it a protected design. That tablets are like refrigerators and car and airplane shapes - fair game for copying.
- ChuckMcM 14y agoAnd the problem with your problem to my analogy is that if the court actually felt that way (that the tablets are fair game for copying because they are so generic) they would have simply invalidated with prejudice Apple's design patent(s) in the UK telling Apple to pay Samsung's court costs and legal fees and writing an opinion to that effect. Samsung could then take that (and the money they got back) and pursue similar sorts of decisions in other venues.
- Steko 14y agoIt's not a general patent on tablet shapes it's a registered design which covers the actual product itself. Which seems like a better system as outright product pirates will clearly run afoul wheras category copying the general shape etc. is allowed.
- FireBeyond 14y ago
- Loic 14y agoThis is very good because it will make companies think twice before going to court.
- ars 14y agoI can't wait to see just how much legalese and slanty writing they manage to include in the notice. Unless the Judge gives them the text, or requires them to negotiate it with Samsung.
- kristopher 14y agoWhere would one put such a thing on one's website? The very top page for six months? As an aside, if Apple were to pronounce such a claim on it's website, what would that do to ongoing battles in other jurisdictions?
- Samuel_Michon 14y agoPresumably, Apple would only need to change the front pages of its UK websites (apple.co.uk and apple.com/uk).
- Samuel_Michon 14y agoOdd coincidence? Apple got its hands on Apple.co.uk just a week a go, after it had been owned by an illustration agency for years: http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/18/apple-takes-control-of-apple-co-uk-domain-name/ http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/18/apple-takes-control-of-a...
- chucknelson 14y agoDoes this ruling actually mean anything? Every time I see something like this I'm just waiting for an appeal to pop up. Or can this judgement not be appealed?
- bratsche 14y agoWasn't the original ruling basically saying, "It's not a copy of the iPad because it's not as cool"? You know if Apple really does have to put this notice on their website, they'll probably find a way to work that into the announcement.
- brittohalloran 14y agoYeah is there anything in the ruling about not being snarky? This could backfire on Samsung.
- ralfd 14y agoJumping straight to the comments right? ^^ Quotation: > Birss said in his July 9 ruling that Samsung’s tablets were unlikely to be confused with the iPad because they are “not as cool.”
- lumisota 14y ago"Samsung wasn't cool enough to copy us." - sounds good to me.
- briandear 14y agoI don't understand how anyone can root for Samsung given Korean chaebol's long history of blatantly ripping off everything. Any research into the history of Samsung, Daewoo, LG will reveal a long line if copied products. Of course most if these products were only sold within Korea specifically because they knew what try we're doing would never pass muster on the international stage. Samsung is a dirty company. Do a little research before just blindly assuming Apple did something wrong. Looking at the side-by-side images here: http://atomicsupersky.com/post/26275796849/on-the-samsung-galaxy-injunction http://atomicsupersky.com/post/26275796849/on-the-samsung-ga... should erase any doubt that Samsung blatantly ripped off Apple.
- tysonjennings 14y agoAnd Apple just dreamed up the idea of a smartphone out of thin air? What about the touch screen? Multi-touch? Gridded icons? Rectangles? Apple is an imitator, a marketer, and a polisher of other people's ideas. Little more. Your blind worship is shamefully ignorant. Exhibit a) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/LG_KE850_Prada_Hauptmen%C3%BC.jpg/200px-LG_KE850_Prada_Hauptmen%C3%BC.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/LG_... This preceded the first iPhone.
- Steko 14y agoSee here's the fundamental difference: Apple clearly differentiates their products. Samsung intentionally copies closely. No one serious would argue either of those points. That is why Samsung is the defendant in all these design cases and Apple has never had this problem no matter how many times Engadget ditto heads want to bring up Steve Jobs "great artists steal" quote. When the judge holds up an LG Prada and an iPhone, Apple's lawyers wouldn't have trouble saying which phone is made by their company.
- tysonjennings 14y agoBald assertions do not a non "Engadget dittohead" argument make. Apple has never produced a new product category. They take the innovations that came before and throw money and Steve Jobs/Jonny Ives taste at it. You are blind if you think that what Apple does is real innovation in the sense of what the actual producers of the cellphone did. Or the tablet for that matter. They haven't had a fresh idea since Woz built the Apple I out of a block of wood and a circuit board 40 years ago.
- siglesias 14y agoActually, nothing stops Apple from being passive aggressive: http://cl.ly/image/2C132X1u363x http://cl.ly/image/2C132X1u363x
- jkn 14y agoThis just shows that "black rectangle with rounded corners" is literally the only design aspect the iPad and Galaxy tab have in common.
- Terretta 14y agoOn the contrary, the entire presentation is virtually indistinguishable. http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/galaxy-tab-unboxing.png http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/galax...
- slavak 14y agohttp://www.singaporeclassifieds.org/wp-content/uploads/products_img/ipad-box-side.jpeg http://www.singaporeclassifieds.org/wp-content/uploads/produ... Because they are both white boxes with large pictures of the product on the front? Well color me outraged! I think anyone with any eye for design would agree the two boxes are sufficiently different to rule out the possibility that Samsung was trying to pass of as an iPad. (Not to mention the two prominent uses of the Samsung brand on the Tab packaging's front - as opposed to a logo-less shiny black rectangle on the iPad's.) I honestly don't understand where all these "Galaxy Tab is an iPad clone!" accusations are coming from. Is it a physically similar device? Yes, it is. But there's only so many ways you can design a minimal touch-based tablet. If you made a car that looked suspiciously like mine from the front I'd have a good reason to be pissed off. If you made a wood colored dinner table with 4 legs and a flat surface - probably not so much.
- Terretta 14y agoThe default screen on Nexus 7 is not mistakable. TouchWiz or Sense are not mistakable. This box shows a tablet configured to look like iOS, which isn't what I or most Android owners do with our Android tablets.
- peppertree 14y agoI love this judge - putting everyone back to their place. Samsung, stop trying to act cool, and Apple, STFU.
- Terretta 14y agoThis is not a disjunctive syllogism. If Apple could not prove that Samsung copied them, it does not follow that Samsung didn't copy them, just as if California couldn't prove that OJ did it, it doesn't follow that he didn't do it. This ruling, that Apple has to affirm something equally unproven, is bizarre.
- jack-r-abbit 14y agoBut, appeals aside, the court's ruling makes it so. You go to court hoping the system sides with you. If it does then you take your win and you move on. If it doesn't side with you, you can't just say, "Oh well... your ruling doesn't count." You gotta take it for what it is. If in the process of making your claim you have damaged the name of your opponent then it seems fair to me that you should have to do something about that. It kind of falls into the same thinking that the loser in a case can be made to pay for the winner's legal fees and what not.
- majormajor 14y agoI have heard that some areas have three-state legal systems, at least for certain types of cases, but that's not the case here. The ruling was "they do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design." Not "Apple has not proven that Samsung infringed." You don't have to agree with the ruling, but the legal ruling was a "false," not a "null." A "not guilty" verdict may arise due to a lack of evidence or a badly tried case, but legally it means the same thing as a "not guilty" that came about because the accusation was obviously untrue.
- Terretta 14y ago> The ruling was "they do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design." Essentially, that Samsung didn't copy them well. As I understand it, the judge also refused to stop Apple from saying Samsung did copy them, saying Apple was entitled to its opinion. Since the actual ruling is that Apple should note that Samsung's tablet doesn't legally infringe on Apple's registered designs, to your point, Apple's UK home page should just quote the judge: Home Page Headline: "They are not as cool" -- UK Judge Home Page Body: "The UK Courts require us to point out that Samsung's tablet does not have the same understated simplicity of our designs."
- kenster07 14y agoThere is a sense of justice here. They had this coming ever since Apple blatantly doctored those photos to make it seem the Samsung product look more like the Apple product than it really was, as if implying that they thought tech market was so incompetent that such a strategy could work.
- bdcravens 14y agoThis reminds of a kid who got totally destroyed in a fight: both eyes are swollen and black, his nose is broken and bleeding, he can barely talk through his swollen lip, and he has a chipped tooth. Then the teacher tells the other guy to apologize and shake your hand. You walk away thinking, "I showed him ..."
- mitchty 14y agoCan someone more versed with the British legal system explain the logic behind this? Coming from the perspective of an American it is a bit peculiar, but then again our own legal system isn't always rational. Just curious if this is common for a defendent to have to publish notices of case outcomes. I know there are a number of other consumer protection laws in the UK. That or pointing to something like popehat that has overall analysis would be nice too. Law stories tend to make me feel like I'm a fish out of water, especially when they are from other countries. Given that I know a contract lawyer and have finally gotten to a basic understanding of how some of that law works I have a bit more understanding of how common perception of the law differs from actual practice.
- Zenst 14y agoBasicly they have to make a public retraction for saying something that has been proven not to be true. Now Apple could do a public retraction along the lines of "Were so sorry Samsung for saying you copied the iPad, we know that is not so as yours is just not as cool as ours" or something like that. Probably wouldn;t be the best of moves but still viable.