Apple told to rewrite "Samsung didn't copy", post on front page until Dec 14th
engadget.com
engadget.com
In spite of this, Apple continued to assert, broadly and widely, that Samsung's tablet computers did in fact constitute blatant copying of Apple's design and was therefore wrongful.
Therefore, Samsung went to the court trying to get an injunction barring Apple from making such claims because the claims were causing commercial harm to Samsung within the UK and thereby were negating the effect of the judgment won by Samsung.
Alternatively, Samsung sought a publication order requiring Apple to publicize the fact of the judgment on a long list of Apple websites as well as in certain financial publications. The idea of this order was to clear the confusion created by Apple's continued claims of illegal copying notwithstanding that it had lost on this issue in the UK courts.
The judge hearing the follow-up proceeding issued a very thoughtful ruling (found here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html) that in fact denied Samsung's request for an injunction against Apple's being able to claim illegal copying. The judge acknowledged the inherent unfairness of barring a party that had lost in a court proceeding from contesting the ruling and from publicly claiming that the ruling was wrong. It thus agreed with Apple that Apple should not be muzzled in asserting its legal right to speak.
The judge then turned to the more limited request made by Samsung for the publication order and described it as follows: "Samsung say that, notwithstanding the fact that Apple have lost this case, they continue to assert that Samsung infringes and that the damage that was caused and has been described there continues to apply. Accordingly, Samsung seek orders that I should require Apple to put on their websites and to put in certain newspapers references to this judgment and a statement that the court has found that the Samsung Galaxy tablets do not infringe." The judge went on to say that he believed "there is a useful purpose in a clear public statement that a product alleged by a rights holder to infringe those rights does not infringe," reasoning that "[t]he more frequently and the more loudly a rights holder has asserted infringement, the more useful it is to have a clear public statement to the contrary."
So, the whole point of the order was to ensure that Apple made a clear public statement to the effect that a UK court had ruled that the Galaxy Tab did not infringe Apple's registered design. Nothing in the order prevented Apple from continuing to assert that it was right and that the UK decision was wrong. Apple had full scope to make these assertions as and when it wanted and has obviously been making them freely.
At the same time, Apple was required to make the clear public statement called for by the follow-on order. Apple appealed this follow-on order and lost. It therefore had exhausted its remedies within the relevant court system and was left with the requirement that it comply.
That is when it purportedly complied by placing a teeny link buried at the bottom of its UK home page that linked to a text that, within the disclosure itself, bombarded the reader with all the reasons why Samsung really did infringe notwithstanding the UK judgment that had been rendered against Apple.
A few thoughts:
1. This conduct by Apple did not merely violate the "spirit" of the order. It clearly violated the order itself. Where Apple had been ordered to make a clear public statement publicizing the fact of the UK judgment, Apple had in fact offered up an obscure link to a statement full of argumentative statements aimed at creating obvious doubt about the question of non-infringement.
2. Apple did this in a context where the order had given it free scope to argue all it liked about its free speech rights to contest the original judgment and to continue claiming infringement on grounds that it disagreed with that judgment. Instead of accepting the order on its terms, Apple went way out of its way to undercut the limited disclosure that it had been required to make.
3. Lawyers say, "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered," meaning that when a litigant gets too greedy, it risks having its legal proceeding go badly wrong. Apple had been given a reasonable accommodation by the court addressing its legitimate concerns but it was not content to settle for that. It wanted to do nothing that might acknowledge that Samsung had legitimate issues as well - issues that had been found valid by a UK court and affirmed on appeal. Therefore, Apple decided to respond in a way it deemed clever, in effect defying the judicial authorities who had ruled against it.
4. We can each judge for ourselves whether this was smart or not. My view is that it is conduct unbecoming of lawyers (and of Apple as the principal in the case) and, indeed, is an outrageous affront to judicial authority. Courts and judges are not always right but, when they rule against you and you exhaust your appeals, you had better comply. If you think you are above the law in the sense that you need not comply, you will regret it. Those of us who are mere mortals need to live by these rules. So too does Apple.
He proposed that instead of requiring the notice to be on the web page itself, it would be sufficient if there were a link provided from that to the notice. There are some links already provided. All that need be added is a link entitled " Samsung/Apple UK judgment." I think that would be appropriate and proportionate.
Apple tried to argue that it would take at least 14 days
to put a corrective statement on the site – a claim that
one judge said he "cannot believe".[1]
And to people who don't understand why Apple are held to be in "non-compliance" despite copying verbatim the extract from the judgment: it was because of how "snarky" Apple were.
- Saying their device is much more popular.
- Signing off by disregarding the purpose of the statement: "Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."
- Saying that Samsung's device is "not as cool".
- Not using the correct font size. (Although, I don't care about this point)
- Dedicating 80%~ of the statement to supporting their claims in other jurisdictions... and brushing past the verbatim copied statement.
Apple were ordered to factually represent the judgment in a statement issued on their website. They cherry picked quotes, out of context and attempted to create confusion in any readers, with the intention of misleading them as to the judges present ruling.
[1] : http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statementBut yeah this is some Grade-A bullshit. Either that or Apple is worse at the web than I thought (which is pretty bad considering iTunes Connect).
I guess the ridiculousness of this excuse is that the page already exists and would simply (I would think) be a matter of changing the page text. I wouldn't think this would require intensive site-wide testing, but I've been wrong on these thigns before.
I believe it's done for two reasons.
1). Suspense during their events 2). To keep people from buying the older devices that they are about to discontinue. No reason to have to field support calls for people wanting to cancel/return their newly purchased items.
That's also the part where they essentially say "This ruling is false"
If the incumbents at the time had behaved the way Apple is behaving now when Apple was in its infancy there would be no Apple today and we would all be the worse for it.
Only a few years ago I had a lot of respect for them as a company but they've pretty much burned it all away.
I don't blame them for this because I simply don't believe any design patents are legitimate, but the hypocrisy is astounding.
Ah, sarcasm.
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.''
It's easy to get lost in the law, though, so I'd love some specific citations that go the other way.
The original iPhone was banned in South Korea for two years. It seems that this was to give South Korean companies a chance to catch up.
Note - I do realize Apple should publicly take a stance on patent laws. I think they genuinely believe they are outdated.
Ever hear of being the bigger man? Encountering a child is no reason for an adult to act like a child.
Apple is the biggest corporation on the planet, and hence has more to lose than anyone else. There are literally trillions of dollars on the line. This while doing business in an intensely competitive space and relying on an incredibly powerful, but fragile, branding strategy.
I don't like it, but I get it. And it's fascinating to watch.
Saying Apple relies on a "branding strategy" denigrates several entire fields, particularly interaction design and supply chain management. You don't seem to realize that these are important domains of expertise that can confer immense advantages on companies that do them well.
No, I realize it. These strategies are open and replicable. Apple is great at them, but other companies are closing the gap. Supply chain means margins, and those are getting squeezed. Joe Public can get a product that's functionally like an iPhone for a similar or cheaper price, so the supply chain management ability isn't unique.
What they've done with the brand, on the other hand, is remarkable. Apple is a status symbol. You think "fanboyism" occurs only on hacker sites? Go to any forum anywhere and people are vehemently praising the company. It may be my opinion, but it's the most valuable thing they have, and why they protect it at all costs, up to and including disobeying orders and making sure people know that competitors aren't as cool.
Not really at all. The supply chain management allows them to get it to you for a similar price while achieving margins that other companies would kill to have even half of.
I would hate to think he approves of this level of immaturity, but if he does then he should go too.
Metaphors often (generally?) make poor arguments for why X does Y.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese, and all that.
In other words, the decay started by a few will quickly rot an entire batch, if the good and the bad are kept together too long.
Samsung is collateral damage.
I'd be worried too.
"Features" are a major part of the experience and was the more important part of my post. Your desire to focus on specs and attempt to dismiss my entire post goes to show the value of lumping "people like me" together and trying to pretend like the specs don't affect the experience. Here's an experience, day-in-and-day-out hearing about people complain about how crashy apps are in iOS.
At least you didn't try to claim that people don't notice a difference between $300 and $650.
I'm very happy to talk experience and features. I mean, come on, did you watch the 4.2 announcement video???
Every time someone has tried to hype an Android phone in a discussion I've been a part of, all they do is throw out a bunch of buzzwords and acronyms made up by companies like Samsung to try and market their phone. They don't even try and explain what these damn things are, much less why I should care about them. It seems the goal is to try and overwhelm me with the quantity of "features", even though, were I to actually buy this phone, I wouldn't even use most of the things they hyped.
So please, keep talking about spec lists. Just don't be surprised when not everyone buys into your hype.
Go watch the 4.2 announce and note how every feature is about enhancing the experience and adding core features that iOS will probably not seen any, anytime soon.
I mocked "Facebook integration" because it is mockable, that's what you're going to argue is "experience enhacning"? Android had it from it's very first release via Intents.
Again, I didn't even mention spec lists in that last post, you are really desperate to keep trying to attack me with that, aren't you? (Also, did you watch the iPhone 5 keynote, all it is is specs. Are you paying any attention to iOS and Android or are you just repeating stereotypes from 2 years ago?)
>Every time someone has tried to hype an Android phone in a discussion I've been a part of, all they do is throw out a bunch of buzzwords and acronyms made up by companies like Samsung to try and market their phone. They don't even try and explain what these damn things are, much less why I should care about them.
Vague. Ambiguous. Completely void of a single example. I can't even think of an acronym in Android that I could use as a feature. Also, what, now you admit that Android has features but you can't be bothered to learn what they are because iOS will never get it? Jesus.
Yes, ignore the other 4 paragraphs and then do the same thing you accused me of in the same sentence. You're a piece of work, have a good afternoon.
Yep from a blackberry clone to an underperforming iphone clone with some +1 features to a near parity iphone clone with some +1 features.
"iOS is basically the same experience except for major features like multitasking menu, notification menu, etc (and where did those come from)."
This is funny because to me the biggest feature in Android 4.2 that you're so excited about is the AirPlay clone. Over the last few years iOS has fundamentally rebuilt phone calling (Facetime), texting (iMessage) and the primary interaction ux (Siri). Where on earth have you been? How on earth do you call it "basically the same experience" when I can now just order the phone to do tasks like Montgomery Scott in Star Trek IV: The One with Whales?
what are you talking about? I'm very well aware of AirPlay and I'm not aware of a feature (introduced) in 4.2 that is even similar... I certainly have not mentioned any such feature today.
>when I can now just order the phone to do tasks like Montgomery Scott in Star Trek IV: The One with Whales?
Google Now has already leapfrogged it. I just got a card telling me there's traffic to meet up with my friend and a card reminding me my parts are arriving tomorrow in the mail.
I think you're dead wrong to characterize Android as being at "parity" with the iPhone, in fact that's absolutely down right absurd. Android can feature for feature match iOS and then go on for half a dozen more. Please let me know how that is inaccurate if you think it is.
Support for wireless display (Miracast)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history#Android...
It's described almost everywhere as AirPlay-esque functionality.
"Google Now has already leapfrogged it"
You: iOS hasn't changed in forever.
Me: example of radical changes in iOS recently.
You: Google did one of those too!
Instead of moving the goalposts just admit I was right and we can move on. I certainly don't contest the idea that Google has copied anything.
"Android can feature for feature match iOS and then go on for half a dozen more. Please let me know how that is inaccurate if you think it is."
Lists of features =/= parity in device or OS quality. If lists of features are so important why are the headline for every major Android update the claims that it's now lag free and it doesn't look like shit anymore? Seriously go back and look at what the main selling point of Froyo, Gingerbread, Honeycomb, ICS and Jellybean have been. The correct answers are performance, both, ui, both and performance. The headline feature isn't ever a feature, it's always "not sucking anymore."
And there's plenty of features that Android doesn't offer -- like regular OS updates to the vast majority of their users or LTE with both battery life and insane thinness. Or a superior media ecosystem around the world. Android devices are only now surpassing the graphics capabilities of chips Apple started shipping in March 2011.
Then again Apple has always been evolutionary.
I created an account just to be able to comment and try to downvote your comment.
What an exquisite example of fanboyism! Calling slimmer (but larger!) phone and a faster processor an innovation...
You do realize I'm talking about taking the panoramas, not just displaying them in Quicktime, right?
If we want to play this game, I remember my dad finding some trial-ware when I was a kid and we took a few photos and were able to stitch them, I had to have been in middle school. yikes, 8-10 years ago, anyway, my point wasn't that it's the first time a real human being has been able to take two photos and stick them together.
Because of Android.
The rise of Android is clearly showing that Apple products can no longer "speak for themselves" and Apple is feeling the pressure on all fronts, some that they used to have a 90% monopoly on (phones and 10' tablets) and some that they are joining late (7' tablets).
I see the proactive litigation as a move to delay the inevitable (iOS devices being relegated to sub 15% market share across the board, which they are on their way to).
It's entirely possible to be punished for contempt of court to a much greater extent than the lesser offence. Deliberately choosing to behave in a childish manner and annoy a judge is a dangerous game to play and can be self-defeating. Apple's lawyers should have known this and should have advised them against it. It would have cost them nothing to comply with the ruling properly in the first place; they are now cutting their nose off to spite their face.
If Apple is going all out with lawyers and legal prowness, instead of competiting with products, they need to get better at it.
If it is the former, I really must disagree with the notion that the legal system in the UK is in any way corrupt. Quite far from it, I think it is one of the things that we can be most proud of.
If it is the latter, may I suggest you either be more specific or more correct.
To bring this back to the parent discussion: Few would argue that Mr O'Dwyer has been unfairly treated with respect to the current law. Some do, however, argue that it is the extradition statute itself that is unfair, with Mr O'Dwyers case being an example. As a matter of interest, Theresa May has recently announced some changes to the extradition process following the results of the Baker Review. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/gary-mckinnon...)
(and I say "relatively" because of things like libel tourism and superinjunctions, both of which enable corruption to various degrees)
I have yet to hear a police brutality case where an coverup was fully prosecuted to the point where all police officer involved (and who did nothing) was sentenced. It just do not happen. By the time it gets out, it has become personal and political.
That actually comes under the letter of the law: http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/leg...
Not to detract from your overall point though, which is 100% correct.
TL;DR the link: Coins are only legal tender up to a certain amount. For example 21p in 1p's is not classed as legal tender.
(Is it only me who can only say "legal tender" in a scottish accent > "I think you'll find that's...")
Lets thank the comical Michael McIntyre for that!
Lock me up and throw away the key.
(Fortunately it was a self-checkout so no witnesses).
Also, paying for your groceries in that way (self-checkout) isn't discharging a debt as no debt was incurred: You could have decided not to pay and put the groceries back, after all.
---
while(moneyGotSoFar < targetMoneyToget)
{
// code to interface with hardware device which
// is taking in money
// NOTE: moneyGotInThisBurst would be told by the
// hardware device software
...
// some time out code. And exception handling if
// no cash entered
moneyGotSoFar += moneyGotInThisBurst;---
So point is, the developers may not think upfront of these kind of cases. And this case can be a boundary condition test case - May potentially test any array overflows. Or some looping done the wrong way. Or out of memory if it has been coded in Java(Oops. Sorry :-))
The reason for the laws surrounding debt is to prevent creditors from purposefully holding debtors in debt by refusing to accept their payments ('Oh, sorry, you HAVE to pay me in this form, so I'll refuse your payment and instead charge you an extra day of interest, etc.)
In what country are you referring to?
Instead they're going to have it on their home page for most of the Christmas shopping period.
Best if they'd just relax back into the big chair and be the adult.
On Apple's legal notice posted
“I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Judge Robin Jacob said today. “That is a plain breach of the order.”
“I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can’t put this on” their website, Jacob said. “I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given. This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?”
Apple just seems so slimy these days. I absolutely love many of their products but lately they seem quite meh.
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 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 judgement also describes the UK courts view on the US and German cases, which sheds even more light on why they were pissed of at this: Apple's wording might be technically true, but they're misleading the readers of the note the put up there too (e.g. they seem to try to imply the Galaxy Tab - which is what the UK case was about - was found infringing in the US case; it was not).
They are required to comply with a court order with a very clear intent: To rectify the false impression Apple had created that the Samsung Galaxy Tab infringed on UK law and might get banned from sale.
All the court is requiring is that Apple is not diluting that message by including other paragraphs that are at best irrelevant and at most directly misleading.
I am not following that law if I add "but the surgeon general is a stupid head" right after that. Or "but smoking is totally cool in Europe."
I have plenty of other avenues in which I can try to persuade people that the surgeon general is a mean poopy head that they should ignore.
It's insulting to pretend not to understand this, which is also how the judge feels.
They chose to take the proposed wording, chop it into two pieces, and inject their own paragraphs that are clearly intended to play up Apple and to downplay and dilute the purpose of the message and create doubt about whether or not there was copying by referring to other judgements, and on top that they are misrepresenting the court cases they mention:
The German court did not find that Samsung had carried out any infringing copying of their design. The US jury did NOT find the Samsung Galaxy Tab infringing. Apple's comment is technically correct, but they are on purpose clearly failing to mention that the judgement is mostly irrelevant to the UK case as it deals mainly with other products than the UK case (which only deals with the Galaxy Tab), and in the one instance where it is relevant, Samsung prevailed.
Apple is free to question the judgement, but doing so by diluting the effect of the very message the judges ordered them to put in place is at best a stupid mistake, at worst wilful attempt at doing an endrun around the court. The only reason they got away with this as lightly as they did is because the judges can't prove it wasn't someone just being stupid. So they've given Apple another chance and given them more rope - if Apple tries this stunt again, someone will be in serious personal trouble.
I think is okay to have Apple announce the court's judgement, but they should not be required to lead customers to believe that they agree with it.
It is pretty clear that this is not a problem under US law either: All kinds of legal requirements exist to add specific notices to various products, for example.
> but it should not be required to lead customers to believe that they agree with it.
There is nothing in the proposed wording that implies Apples agreement. In fact, the very purpose is to announce the verdict of a court case where Apple very obviously argued for the opposite result.
The proposed wording starts "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled". There's no implication that Apple agrees anywhere.
Should cigarette companies be allowed to write their own diatribe under the "Surgeon General's Warning" label? Cigarette companies definitely don't agree that smoking causes cancer, so why not post a rant about how <Country X> has not yet declared smoking dangerous so the UK is wrong?
http://www.law.arizona.edu/faculty/FacultyPubs/Documents/whi...
(See page 8.)
Do you also admonish American parents who tell their child to say they are sorry for an infraction?
If Apple doesn't want to comply with laws, they shouldn't operate in those countries.
That said, it was obvious they'd get chewed out for this from when they posted it (if you know anything about UK law). It's okay to be smug and they would have probably gotten away with everything except the very last paragraph.
The last paragraph was completely unnecessary, and now they're facing the consequences of their hubris.
http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/
It's basically "The UK court found Samsung non infringing, but said our products are great, and other courts found them infringing.". Far from an apology.
Looks as if Apple have exploited a loophole by adding to the judgment instead of simply posting it.
I wonder if the judge could have added a clause requiring Apple to submit the statement to him for review first.
What they were asked to publish is roughly the first and fifth paragraphs of what they actually published. They added four other paragraphs.
Points 87 and 88 of the appeal judgement here say what they should have published:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
Which is:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, 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 [link given].
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on (date). A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link [link given]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
Contrast with what they actually published: http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsu...
If there is any wrong doing, it is the people who post links to one aggregator (like engadget) on another (like HN).
I guess in the HN case it is likely because of the url dupe filter.
Engadget (and similar sites) are just parasites that extract every ounce of value from someone else's work, stuff it full of SEO spam and hope they do it fast enough to usurp the traffic too.
I do agree that they shouldn't be submitted though!
EDIT: The court case counted as negative publicity for Samsung and I don't think the court thought that a fine would counteract that publicity.
The court cannot make Apple be sincere in an apology if Apple believes they are in the right. Just the same way Sally's Mother cannot make little Jimmy sincerely apologize for tattling on her daughter when she copied his homework, especially after the teacher already praised him for bringing it to her attention.
Your analogy is deeply flawed. Apple had a choice as to whether to bring this matter before the courts and UK judge has no vested interest in protecting Samsung. There is no 'teacher' figure in this case; no more objective person involved in the case than the UK judge.
If Apple had no respect for the court's opinion, they should not have brought the lawsuit. In bringing the suit against Samsung into that court, they have effectively asked the court to pass judgement and agreed to respect and abide by the decision. The entire problem is that whoever is in charge at Apple believes they are in the right and that the court is wrong; the statement shows a lack of respect for the court and therefore is, in a way, a challenge to the court's authority. This is the judge's way of reminding them that they should respect the verdict and comply with it.
The only resolutions to this are Apple complies fully, or stops operating in the UK. The UK court system woud much rather get rid of Apple from the UK than allow a challenge to their authority to stand, and Apple would rather continue to operate in the UK than flounce out over a matter like this and lose the UK (and potentially the EU) market. Apple should have folded before, and should definitely fold now. The longer this silly game goes on, the more they have to lose.
That is to say, it'll be a hard time getting Apple to believe they were in the wrong because a different court has already said their accusations are correct.
It's hard (unreasonable?) for someone to admit guilt when many others are shouting that they are in the right.
Since Apple is quite happy to see judges' will be done when Apple wins, their statement in defeat was not at all classy.
The vast majority of companies are not stupid enough to think it's "cute" to piss off a judge in a non-banana republic.
Having them pay a fine would have not changed anything, Apple has no money problem and they often do it in purpose, name a device and than pay if it breaks some trademark or whatever.
I think the judge understood this and wanted to teach them a lesson of humility, which Apple didn't get and showed once again that they think they are more clever and over the rules. But the reality is that the judge has the power and is not a stupid, and I bet he doesn't like to be treated like one.
Supposedly, in the UK, Apple pays a £50/day fine rather than posting the required no-smoking signs in the windows of their stores. (I mention this as another example.)
http://blog.lewisking.net/post/318110435/apple-store-madness
[1] http://blog.lewisking.net/post/318110435/apple-store-madness
[2] http://simonmorley.co.uk/2010/08/13/worlds-busiest-apple-sto...
The problem with money is that Apple has a lot of it, and thus making them pay for realistic (as oppose to punitive) damages is not a disincentive to further poor behaviour. It just becomes a cost of doing business.
Patent claims are civil, and have fines or other gentle punishments attached.
Contempt of court is criminal, and people do get sent to jail for it.
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sneaky-restauran...
It would be literally complying: The text would be there to be read, anyway.
Apple is pulling the Edison maneuver to protect their rapidly dwindling monopoly on mobile consumer hardware - and they will lose because Tesla (aka Android) is better for both the industry and consumers.
Android is open, Android is iOS equivalent, Android is cheap, Android is backed by the rest of the world's electronic mobile manufacturers. Apple can't win - the world is now chasing their profits with ravenous rage and hundreds of billions of dollars in invested capital. They will be commoditized because all they sell, and all they have ever sold, was glass with a grey backs. The only thing that protected Apple - really protected them was iOS. Those apps made Apple. And the openness of Android will commoditize them.
Apple can shock elephants (ban tablets) and write false accusations about the merits of AC (Samsung sucks) all they want - it doesn't change the fact that their monopoly in mobile hardware is in a terminal and rapid death spiral.
Samsung made Apple. And Samsung will destroy them for the fundamental reason that style can and will be copied vociferously for the betterment of the consumer, but the substance behind it cannot.
Glass with grey backs are commodity. Market saturation is imminent. Competitive equivalence has occured.
That is factually correct. I don't see how anyone can be compelled to make the former statement rather than the latter one.
You don't get to flout a court ruling by continuing to behave the same way, only with a disclaimer that says, "Well, the judge said we're wrong, but screw him."
So they were asked to publish a statement of fact on their own site and in several newspapers. But they added extra stuff to the end, thus changing the tone and context.
I'm trying to find out what they were originally asked to print so we can compare to what they actually did.
edit: Point 87 of the judgement here says what they were supposed to publish: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, 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 [link given].
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe."
This is not an apology. It's a publication of the facts, as determined by a court of law.
In the US, slander and libel are both illegal, as is defamation, etc. Part of the judicial process is to determine the facts of the case. After the facts are determined and the defendant is acquitted, the plaintiff can't keep publicly affirming the defendant's guilt without risking consequences. This is completely precedented.
Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them. In this case, Apple acted as if they had already won by prematurely advertising a victory ('Samsung copied us!'), so they're being required to retract that.
(Typical disclaimers of UK vs US law and IANAL apply, though my point is that this would not be unusual or unreasonable if it had happened in the US).
Devil's Advocate -- Can they mention decisions in other jurisdictions and the fact that they don't agree with the court?
No, because those jurisdictions aren't relevant once the court has already made a ruling for its own jurisdiction.
> the fact that they don't agree with the court?
There's nothing to 'disagree' about. As far as the court is concerned, once it's made a ruling, it's determined the facts, and you can't disagree with their facts. There's nothing to appeal in an acquittal (because of double-jeopardy), so the courts have had their final word on the matter.
This is a civil case, but to use the analogy in a criminal case: once the defendant in a murder trail has been acquitted, the prosecutor can't continue to say, "The court has determined the facts, but I have a different opinion."
All this is besides the point that the UK is in the minority in their ruling, and the US case did a pretty good job of showing that Samsung did in fact copy Apple, and said so many times in internal communications.
makes a note to avoid reading such threads in the future
These articles are our "Brad and Angelina" equivalents.
Context counts for a lot.
It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or reviewed before publication.
Apple complied with the letter of the judgment and arguably the spirit of the judgment which was "not designed to punish" but rather "to dispel commercial uncertainty". It clearly states that Samsung's products were found not to infringe in England and Wales. Unambiguously. Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way?
Going on to provide nuance by quoting the original judge and including rulings from other jurisdictions doesn't negate that.
Apple have been foolish in getting the court's dander up, but they're not wrong.
No, it was pretty clear what message Apple were supposed to give, and that's a good enough ruling.
> "Billy, don't take cookies from the jar."
< munch munch "I didn't take them, they fell out when I held the jar upside down."
> "Don't touch the jar, then."
< munch munch "I did't touch the jar, I used a spoon."
> "Stay 5 meters away from the jar at all times."
< munch munch "I did stay away! I just convinced my brother to get them for me."
Et cetera. With lawyers involved, this kind of process can go on indefinitely. At some point, you have to stop adjusting the rules and call them out on obvious disobedience.
The judgement included a proposed wording with the introduction "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following". Apple might think that gives them carte blanche to write what they think, but I can guarantee you that no British lawyer would think a wording like that means anything than that they should thread _very_ carefully if deviating from it without consent from the court and/or private agreement with the other party.
> Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way?
No, but we can read the rest of the text where they tried to confuse the matter again by misrepresenting rulings from other courts. E.g. the German court did not find infringing copying. The US jury explicitly found the Galaxy Tab (which is what the UK court case and the notice is about) non-infringing.
It clearly and blatantly has a purpose that is at odds with the spirit of the judgement.
They made what could have been a publicly boring notice buried in the page footer a spectacle.
"Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following: On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, 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 [link given]. That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe. In the result I would dismiss both appeals but vary the publicity order as indicated or in such other way as may be agreed or settled by further argument. I would hope that any such argument (and any other consequential) arguments can be resolved by written submissions"
Apple trying to pull a fast one by saying "The court of appeals says we should tell you that Samsung didn't copy us" was never going to fly.
So when Apple issues a statement that says "Court X ordered us to tell you that Samsung didn't copy us, but Court Y did say they copied us." then it's not really following the intent of dispelling their claim
The case taught to law students is that of the prostitutes soliciting from their windows. The law stated that they could not solicit "in" the streets. The judge in the case expanded this to solicit "to" the street, as the purpose was to prevent people being hassled when they walked down the street.
Similar principles apply to judgements: the point of the judgement was to mitigate the public perception that Samsung was copying Apple's designs. Saying "this judge says they didn't copy... but they really did" goes completely against the point of the judgement.
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.
That hardly seems like a "civilized" legal system. In fact it sounds like something in a corrupt banana republic.
But what metratonscube suggested was to ignore the court order and put up a message that is blatantly in violation of the order then fight them in court if they didn't come up with a reason to comply. Ignoring this court order would be straightforward contempt of court at this stage, and will result in substantially more severe sanctions than being told to put a modified message up.
And yes, this is how a civilized legal system handles it - every single European country, the US and most other countries in the world gives the judges (in this case a panel in the appeals court, so not just one) wide latitude in ensuring compliance with their orders. The failure to comply with a judge's legally issued order without specifically going to the court and asking for a stay pending an appal, is considered extremely serious exactly because the rule of law requires someone to be the arbiter, and if one party was able to get away with just ignoring what the judge orders them to, then the court has no ability to carry out it's duties.
Judges everywhere are always responsible for determining if you are compliant with their orders, and holding you accountable if not.
Not everything is appealable.
In every justice system, there is always someone who is "always right because they are last", not "last because they are always right".
For example, in the US, the supreme court judges also act as the highest individual judge in a given circuit court. This usually comes into play with stays of death penalty cases. The judges usually refer the petition to the full court, and the full court takes a vote. However, this is not required. The judge could simply deny/accept it. You would have no way to appeal this.
In other words, a third party judge should be able to judge compliance with the order, so it certainly would not be the case that if the original judge thinks something doesn't comply with his order that it necessarily doesn't comply.
"Finally I should say something about the notice itself. We heard no discussion about that. Plainly Judge Birss's Schedule has been overtaken by events. Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, 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 [link given].
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
In the result I would dismiss both appeals but vary the publicity order as indicated or in such other way as may be agreed or settled by further argument. I would hope that any such argument (and any other consequential) arguments can be resolved by written submissions.:"
If Apple thinks that "I would propose the following" means they're free to change the text as they please, they better fire their lawyer, especially given the preceding "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side".