backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by ritualm.. on Oct 29 at 8:56 AM


  (Source: Android Authority)
However, Apple made sure to highlight a few facts in its favor

As ordered, Apple posted a notice on its UK website saying that Samsung didn't copy the iPad.

A recent UK court ruling ordered Apple to post an apology to Samsung on its website, saying that the South Korean electronics maker didn't steal the designs of the iPad after all. Apple has complied, but with a snarky tone that made sure to highlight a few facts in Apple's favor.

For instance, Apple made sure to note that a German court ruling did find Samsung in violation of copying its patents, and of course, Apple mentioned its August win in the United States where Samsung was ordered to pay $1.05 billion in damages.

Apple even injected the fact that the UK judge thought Apple's designs were cooler than Samsung's.

Here's Apple's full note below, but you can also find it on its UK site here:

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.
 
The Apple-Samsung patent war began in April 2011 when Apple claimed Samsung was an "iPhone, iPad copycat." More specifically, Apple said Samsung's Galaxy S 4G, Epic 4G and Nexus smartphones infringed on Apple's patents. 
 
Apple worked pretty hard to ban Samsung's smartphones and tablets around the world, and successfully accomplished this in countries like Germany and Australia. Samsung launched a few lawsuits of its own regarding 3G patents, and was also able to lift the ban on its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia in December 2011. However, Samsung wasn't so lucky in Germany, where the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is still banned.


Back in August, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California reached an unfavorable verdict for Samsung, saying that the South Korean electronics maker was guilty of violating technology patents. In other words, most of Samsung's smartphones and tablets in question were found guilt of copying Apple's iPhone and iPad designs. It was ordered to pay $1.05 billion in damages to Apple.

Earlier this week, Samsung Display decided to cut ties with Apple, saying it will no longer ship LCDs to Apple next year. Its LCD shipments to Apple have been cut more and more over time due to Apple wanting huge discounts.

However, just yesterday, an ITC judge in the U.S. ruled that Samsung violated four Apple patents, including
the flat front face with wider borders at the top and bottom, the lozenge-shaped speaker about the display screen; the translucent images for applications displayed on the screen, and the device's ability to detect when a headset is plugged in.

Source: iMore



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not an apology
By themaster08 on 10/26/2012 11:45:03 AM , Rating: 5
This is not an apology. It's merely informing us of the ruling in the UK, as well as in other courts.




RE: Not an apology
By DrChemist on 10/26/2012 12:33:12 PM , Rating: 5
I agree. Samsung should sue for contempt of court as it merely just posted pieces of the judges statements and did not comply one bit. In fact by making numerous statements as to it being wrong in other parts of the world is enough grounds to do so. I hope they get sued and the UK courts force them to write the words out in BOLD "I AM SORRY SAMSUNG FOR SUING YOU AND TRYING TO BAN YOUR PRODUCTS. YOU DID NOT COPY OUR PRODUCTS AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING COMPETITION". Everyone knows 90+% of their patents are null and void do to overreaching and prior art. Hopefully the USPTO will start invalidating them as they are finally starting to do. This will go the way of the OS Patent wars in the early to mid 90s and everyone will be booted and told to shut up and make a competitive product and stop whining.


RE: Not an apology
By testerguy on 10/26/2012 12:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
Apple was not ordered to apologise.

Apple was ordered to publicly acknowledge the verdict and that Samsung had been found not to be infringing.

This, they did.


RE: Not an apology
By GulWestfale on 10/26/2012 1:27:30 PM , Rating: 3
by acknowledging that the judge found samsung's product to "less cool" than apple's, and by only posting those statements to its site, apple is inferring that they sued samsung because apple sees their products as equally cool.
i think this should be highlighted by samsung.


RE: Not an apology
By BZDTemp on 10/26/2012 2:06:06 PM , Rating: 4
On the same time Apple also showed once again how dickish they are.

Firstly they hid the link to the info page among a bunch of other small hardly use links on the site. It's hardly unexpected but it is also showing a lack of style. Secondly there is the text on the info page itself - I simply can not imagine it being anymore lame.

Apple may think they are being clever but in my view they just underlined how evil and self righteous a company Apple is.


RE: Not an apology
By zerocks on 10/26/2012 7:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
It barely even reads as that, if you've read the whole thing it really leaves you thinking nothing of what they were supposed to correct..
Apple was told to "correct the damaging impression" and they have most certainly not done that.


RE: Not an apology
By mi1400 on 10/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: Not an apology
By someguy123 on 10/28/2012 7:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
They were ordered to set the record straight on infringement.

Instead what they posted essentially implies that the infringement claim was denied due to "coolness". Instead of acknowledging that the device didn't infringe the entire thing implies that the case was lost due to coolness, or that the judge was an idiot with no basis other than subjective taste.

I wonder what that judge thinks about this.


RE: Not an apology
By bupkus on 10/26/2012 2:02:37 PM , Rating: 1
Apple forgot to include the following--

Disclaimer: Not responsible for the opinions of the UK courts who have not the slightest understanding of the laws as properly interpreted by the courts of northern California.

Home town ftw!


RE: Not an apology
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/26/2012 2:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
Sarcasm?


RE: Not an apology
By bupkus on 10/26/2012 5:23:38 PM , Rating: 4
Yep


RE: Not an apology
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/26/2012 7:03:48 PM , Rating: 2
Just checking :)


RE: Not an apology
By bupkus on 10/26/2012 5:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for the confusion. I am of the belief the more subtle the sarcasm the more humor.

Consider-- A public disclaimer in the execution of a court declared admonition makes little sense unless as sarcasm towards Apple for turning that court decision into an admonition right back at that court.
I consider this act by Apple as Contempt of Court not requiring a third party to engage in a lawsuit.

We shall see if the appointed judge acts to preserve the dignity of that court or if he just knuckles under.


RE: Not an apology
By Shadowself on 10/27/2012 1:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
People need to remember that the UK court ruling stated that Samsung got the right to approve or disapprove the public statement. Samsung did not get edit rights, i.e., they didn't get the right to edit whatever Apple proposed. However, Samsung did get a right to reject whatever Apple proposed to publish.

My guess (and it is only a guess because I have no inside information about this) is that Apple proposed wording that was worse for Samsung than this; then after a few rounds of back and forth, Samsung approved this version. I find it difficult to believe that this is the first version that was presented to Samsung for approval and they OK'd it.


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki