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

RE: LOL
By Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer on 10/26/2012 1:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Me too, so surely you take issue with how much Samsung ripped off the iPhone and iPad with their earlier devices?

Nope. I don't buy that argument at all. That was never what this was about. This was about Steve's insane crusade against Google and Android.
quote:
Me too, so surely you take issue with Samsung seeking to ban the iPhone 4S over 3G patents, and seeking to ban the iPhone 5 over LTE patents, especially given that those are FRAND?

I think if a crazy person comes up to you on the street and takes a swing, you are morally justified in hitting back.


RE: LOL
By testerguy on 10/26/12, Rating: -1
RE: LOL
By ritualm on 10/26/2012 6:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the person taking the swing is the person who rips off an entire product range, as numerous courts have found. Apple is the one hitting back.

Why innovate when it's cheaper to just copy? Steve Jobs himself said as much over this topic.

Why do you consider it perfectly acceptable for Apple to plagiarize the work of others and claim credit as their own, but intolerable whenever others do the same?

You are dense, and you are lying when you said you own neither Samsung nor Apple product.


RE: LOL
By testerguy on 10/27/2012 6:29:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why innovate when it's cheaper to just copy? Steve Jobs himself said as much over this topic.


There are two types of 'copying': Legal, and illegal.

Steve Jobs was talking about the former, which in any industry is the process of taking inspiration from other products but adding your value such that you don't infringe any of their designs or patents.

What Samsung did, is the latter, which is why now owe Apple $1bn in damages.

If Apple has infringed patents, feel free to show which ones? If not, it isn't plagiarism - by definition.

And don't try to tell me whether I'm lying or not about what I own, you illogical fool.


RE: LOL
By ritualm on 10/28/2012 6:23:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Steve Jobs was talking about the former, which in any industry is the process of taking inspiration from other products but adding your value such that you don't infringe any of their designs or patents.

Funny... Steve Jobs didn't walk his talk.

Samsung walked his talk and the result is $1-billion in phony fines. That's a nicer way of saying Apple extorted $1-billion from South Korea. Which, by the way, is illegal - yet Apple sees nothing wrong with trying to extract three times that amount.

Congrats on sending the wrong message to the world: imitators are rewarded, innovators are punished. Why innovate when you can simply copy with far less legal risk and cost?

You're a lying, illogical, brainwashed, delusional and homophobic sewage refuse. You call me a fool, yet this fool is smarter than you.

You're like Nicki Minaj - juvenile, uncool and unwise. Idiot and fat, best of both worlds huh?


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














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