Yes, Apple, You Have To Tell The UK Public That Samsung Didn't Copy You
from the silver-lining:-you're-still-cooler dept
While Apple won its big case (so far) against Samsung in the US, over in the UK it was the exact opposite, with the judge telling Apple that it needed to run advertisements saying that Samsung didn't copy Apple's products. The silver lining for Apple: part of the judge's reasoning was that Samsung's products just weren't "cool," while Apple's were. Either way, Apple fought back and argued that it shouldn't have to advertise that Samsung didn't copy Apple -- and, in fact, tried again to convince the court that, no, really, of course Samsung copied it.It appears that strategy has failed, as the judges handling the appeal have refused to overturn the original ruling, saying that it was important that Apple clear up confusion that might occur among the public:
"The acknowledgment must come from the horse's mouth," they said. "Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely."While I find the ruling amusing, I'm really not sure that it makes sense. I find Apple's attacks on Samsung silly and counterproductive, but forcing it to advertise that Samsung didn't copy Apple may go too far in compelling a company to say things.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, copies, patents, uk
Companies: apple, samsung
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn't describe Apple as the horse's mouth. I'd describe them as the other end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They filed a suit and consequently lost; so be it. If they filed a false suit then impose a fine, reimburse the defendant, revoke the patent, whatever, but I don't really see where any "justice" is being served by forcing Apple to advertise the ruling of the court.
Although, forcing a con-artist to admit they're just trying to rip people off might get them to stop wasting their money on useless crap.
If they really wanted to do something original, they could buy out the press already telling everyone about the court order to tell everyone about the court's ruling and make them still turn a profit - now that's "innovation."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here is what Apple did: File a patent lawsuit, make huge stink about it publicly, damage the reputation of a competitor, then lose.
It seems a very just remedy that Apple now should have to publicly advertise that Samsung did not copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If they win, they get billions - if they loose, take out an ad. Does that sound like justice to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words Apple have been blabbering and screaming to the media and anyone who will listen that Samsung Copied the iPad" when they instead in the UK (and elsewhere) took Samsung to task over the alleged infringement of a registered design (think design patent for those in USA)
This was absolutely wrongful on Apple's behalf and highly misleading to state "copy" in context with the iPad.
Therefore Apple need to pay the piper by making the public aware that Apple wrongfully and fraudulently misled them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I still think South Korea had the best ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Though it seems that statement and Apple's usage of it to be granted the Oberlandesgericht order has made them even more responsible for making this court [at 78 to 88] not only enforce the original order for publicity but to change it to reflect the current state of things.
It was originally: It is now Personally I think Apple got what they deserved, especially if you look at what they tried to do to Samsung elsewhere in regards to publicity orders etc. The court was generous actually.
Though Samsung's behaviour hasn't been any better in some respects.
awww you missed me? well As I tell my wife.. Keep working on it and your aim will surely improve ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Cheers :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So from a legal point of view, it is still open whether Samsung copied iPad. And Samsung may well have. And that would be legal, insofar as the Ipad is not protected by the patent, or the court (by its own admission) either admitted that it was not covered, or did not even attempt to determine whether it was covered.
And it might even be a healthy and good thing for technology to progress by copying, as long as the copying is legal. Samsung could even assert this.
In this context -- that the issue of copying was not addressed by the court -- why shouldn't Apple have the right to continue to claim that it was copied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also on the point of copying the Appeals judge (who looks at it all de novo even) talks about how Apple wanted scope creep on their design so that any further interations were also a part of the original design registration/patent. Which leads one to posit that they are talking about any copying of anything they think MIGHT occur ever. The Judge placed them on notice about this methodology
Therefore even copying is ok in this context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(1) According to the opinion of the court, the iPad may not be patent protected, because in the opinion of the court Apple may have built a slightly different device. In any case the court has no opinion. Therefore it may be legal to copy the iPad.
(2) In the opinion of the court, the Ipad is cooler than the copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As for your point #2, since this court looked at everything de novo (afresh) they don't have to say one is "cooler" than the other, in fact the judges state they have no opinion on it either way, and reading between the lines, the appeals court is NOT happy with that original obiter wording from HHJ Birss either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do agree that IP is mostly useless and should mostly be abolished, under very limited circumstances it might be good but, by and large, its purpose is to promote income inequality and stifle innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amused.
Simply put, the judge acted inappropriately. Maybe it's just me, (I'm no expert in British Law) but I don't see how that helps either company. I mean you have Apple having to advertise for Samsung saying Samsung didn't copy. However, at the same time the judge made it particularly public fashion that in his opinion, Samsung was a weak product. I'm quite surprised Samsung hasn't grasped the fact that they got humiliated as much as Apple would have in advertising for them.
I like South Korea's ruling inbthe matter best. Everybody's infringement canceled each other out and in South Korea, that ruling was with prejudice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amused.
Otherwise, Apple could just repeat this behavior as part of marketing strategy. Sue while expecting to lose, make huge public noise quoting court documents, lose lawsuit, no harm no foul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amused.
Not that this isn't the first time Apple's done something like this. During the Galaxy Nexus hearings to determine if it would banned from being sold, Apple went out of their way to email and fax documents to retailers effectively saying, "It's illegal! Stop selling it! Now!" Despite the fact that it wasn't and they were still in the process of determining whether there would be an import/sales ban.
It was only after several tech sites heard about this (and received documentation from various retailers) that Apple quit doing that, but only after being called out for doing that in the first place.
Apple is a company that firmly believes in "do what I say, not what I do".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amused.
Either way both companies suffer from the verdict. Yes, Apple needed to be punished for its stupidity in the matter, but does that make it right for a judge or magistrate to act as this one did? It's quite clear it could have been handled better so it would not humiliate a major South East Asian company such as Samsung. But no, the judge said "It's a far cooler product," and thus severely risking Samsung's reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possibly related context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Possibly related context
If you'll forgive me for employing a hyperbolic technique that's usually used by the trolls here - imagine someone on trial accused of pedophilia. The victims parents take every opportunity in every interview and public speech to state that the defendant is a pedophile.
Then some crucial evidence comes out that the defendant actually did not commit the crime after all. The parents and child are still victims, but that doesn't negate the damage they've done to the reputation of the accused (who is now also a victim).
Therefore it would be fair for the judge to order them to publicly retract their earlier statements (whilst they work on finding the real perp). After all they should have waited until the trial was over before making public statements as "fact".
This has been a problem in the UK recently and it is right to make Apple accountable for their vexatious PR stabs. What I'm really interested to know now is if Samsung gets to use the new UK disclaimer in their appeal in the US trial!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"at apple the best idea's just cannot be copied"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"OK, Samsung didn't copy our products... if they had maybe theirs would be as cool and innovative as ours are..."
BTW, I'm not a fan of Apple, just used to looking for the silver linings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2009, Oct 22: Nokia sues Apple over 10 patents.[6][7]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars#section_1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the USA, Samsung could now present this advertisement/confession from Apple and turn that ruling around...
Of course, not just in the USA. It could happen everywhere, where Apple sued Samsung over the design. Apple is forced to confes they've been wrong. Such a confession can be very valuable, when other courts recognize it as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It depends on how you frame the message
We have been told, very clearly, that the Samsung products are inferior.
You have our sincere apology for any confusion we have caused over who makes the best phones and tables.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It depends on how you frame the message
I use a Galaxy Tab, and a Galaxy S2 phone. I do have an iPod, as well.
Both companies make pretty cools stuff. I wish they would spend more money on R&D than legal though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lies and half-truths
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While U.K. law isn't binding on American courts, it certainly grants it a new argument in the lawsuits they are involved with against Apple and it could prove to be major hit for Apple, considering that they have a multitude of lawsuits aimed at Samsung.
Apple needs to realize that they do not have immunity from lawsuit judgments against their own company and the fact that they are also being forced to reveal potentially damaging sales data, such data that they don't even reveal to their stockholders, they are finding out that they are losing the fight.
Kudos to the U.K. court system for not bowing to Apple's side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or from the horse's ass's mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i want to see what apple prints its going to be great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fitting punishment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in the voice of that annoying kid from the Simpsons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
excellent solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
repeat after me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't going too far
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frivolous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great for apple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]