Coppermine Stats
Photo Albums
• Albums: 308
• Pictures: 2452 · Views: 824587 · Votes: 1316
· Comments: 86
|
There is some hope in the UK after all ...Discussions run-amok, innane banter it all goes here
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Dimitri Super Member
Joined: Nov 25, 2005 Posts: 5946
|
Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:19 pm Post subject: There is some hope in the UK after all ... |
|
Quote:: |
The latest order has been published now by the UK court that ordered Apple to place a notice on its website and in newspapers and magazines stating that the court had found that Samsung had not copied Apple's design patent. Since Apple did not comply with the order in its estimation, adding materials that were not ordered and in addition were "false", the judges ordered Apple to pay Samsung's lawyers' fees on an indemnity basis, and they add some public humiliation: |
Quote:: |
31. As to the costs (lawyers' fees) to be awarded against Apple, we concluded that they should be on an indemnity basis. Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, "standard" basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple's conduct warranted such an order.
31. Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple. |
Quote:: |
Here's what the judges thought was false, essentially that what Apple added to the notice conflated issues that are not the same: |
Quote:: |
20. Even if that were not so, it cannot be legitimate to break up the ordered notice with false material. And the matter added was indeed false. Before introducing the quotes from HHJ Birss it begins:
Quote:: |
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products. |
But the Judge was not comparing "the Apple and Samsung products." There is not and has never been any Apple product in accordance with the registered design. Apple's statement would clearly be taken by ordinary readers and journalists to be a reference to a real Apple product, the iPad. By this statement Apple was fostering the false notion that the case was about the iPad. And that the Samsung product was "not as cool" as the iPad.
21. I turn to the last paragraph. I do not think the order as made precluded any addition to the required notice if that addition had been true and did not undermine the effect of the required notice. But I do consider that adding false and misleading material was illegitimate. For by adding such material the context of the required notice is altered so that it will be understood differently.
22. Here what Apple added was false and misleading. I turn to analyse it. The first sentence reads:
Quote:: |
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. |
That is false in the following ways:
(a) "Regarding the same patent." No patent of any kind has been involved in Germany or here, still less "the same patent."
(b) As regards the Community Registered Design, the German Courts held that neither the Galaxy 10.1 nor the 8.9 infringed it. As to the 7.7 there was for a short while a German provisional order holding that it infringed. Whether there was a jurisdiction to make that order is very doubtful for the reasons given in my earlier judgment but in any event the order had been (or should have been) discharged by the time the Contested Notice was published.
(c) There is a finding and injunction, limited to Germany alone, that the 10.1 and 8.9 infringe German unfair competition law. But the statement is likely to be read as of more general application.
23. The second sentence reads:
Quote:: |
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. |
That is misleading by omission. For the US jury specifically rejected Apple's claim that the US design patent corresponding to the Community Design in issue here was infringed. The average reader would think that the UK decision was at odds with that in the US. Far from that being so, it was in accordance with it.
24. The third sentence reads:
Quote:: |
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 wilfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad. |
This is calculated to produce huge confusion. The false innuendo is that the UK court came to a different conclusion about copying, which is not true for the UK court did not form any view about copying. There is a further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true.
25. The reality is that wherever Apple has sued on this registered design or its counterpart, it has ultimately failed. It may or may not have other intellectual property rights which are infringed. Indeed the same may be true the other way round for in some countries Samsung are suing Apple. But none of that has got anything to do with the registered design asserted by Apple in Europe. Apple's additions to the ordered notice clearly muddied the water and the message obviously intended to be conveyed by it. |
www.groklaw.net/articl...9130213229
Dimitri
_________________ A thousand hills, but no birds in flight, ten thousand paths, with no people's tracks. A lonely boat, a straw-hatted old man, fishing alone in the cold river snow. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
slimjim Super Member
Joined: May 16, 2009 Posts: 8314 Location: Fort Worth TX
|
Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:27 pm Post subject: Re: There is some hope in the UK after all ... |
|
I've had both. They are distinctly different. I have learned that I like the Samsung better.
_________________ "To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth." - Theodore Roosevelt
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MacD Super Member
Joined: Apr 08, 2011 Posts: 1052 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:56 pm Post subject: Re: There is some hope in the UK after all ... |
|
My wife has an Ipad and I have the Galaxy 10.1. They are different enough for your average two year old to see they are not the same. My biggest problem with Apple is they want to entrap you with their technology so you have to use their servicex for music etc. In my opinion this is restraint of trade and since they control access to content it may even impact freedom of speech, concience and association. There will never be an Apple product in my future unless they open up content access.
_________________ La a'Blair s'math n Cairdean
(Friends are good on the day of battle) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 7 Hours
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|