Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents The Courts Apple

Apple Must Publicly Post That Samsung Did Not Copy iPad 278

Posted by Soulskill
from the wearing-a-sign-in-public dept.
microcars writes "A judge in the U.K. has ordered Apple to post a notice on its website and in British newspapers alerting people to a ruling that Samsung Electronics Co. didn't copy designs for the iPad. This is the same Judge who ruled earlier that Samsung's Galaxy Tab was not as cool as Apple's iPad."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Must Publicly Post That Samsung Did Not Copy iPad

Comments Filter:
  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @03:36PM (#40689449)

    I wouldn't mind seeing this happen to a few more patent trolls. Not only should the U.S. adopt a European style "loser pays" system for cases like this, but a "loser has to publicly admit he's an ass" policy wouldn't hurt either.

    • by Krishnoid (984597) * on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @03:40PM (#40689489) Journal
      This is the Internet age [bash.org], after all.
      • And we can expect (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @03:52PM (#40689613) Journal
        We can expect that Apple will wriggle to avoid doing this in any meaningful way. What's the smallest size ad they can place? What's the smallest typeface? Do all elements need equal prominance?
        They'd likely put a huge ad saying "Buy Apple iPad, the judge said it's cool" in a large font with the "Samsung did not copy" message in a tiny font in a corner of the ad (maybe even upside-down text). They'll go as far as they think they can while avoiding a contempt finding.
        • by Ynot_82 (1023749) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @03:56PM (#40689679)

          I think the media coverage alone of this story will do all the work
          Apple cannot control that
          I think what Apple actually does to comply with this will be largely irrelevant when it's being talked about on the news.

          • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @04:42PM (#40690201) Homepage

            But like the climategate thing, people aren't interested in hearing that the accusers were wrong in the end. The damage is done. This judge is probably attempting to undo the damage by forcing the damagers to make the statement. It is not enough that a judge makes the statement. It has to come from Apple -- the accuser, the damager. Even so, people won't be inclined to believe as that requires people to change their beliefs and there is a very long and significant list of things that people will change before they change their beliefs.

            • Re:And we can expect (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Ynot_82 (1023749) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @04:52PM (#40690327)

              This is all over the front pages of the major UK news outlets
              People know about this, regardless of what Apple put on their website

              • Re:And we can expect (Score:4, Interesting)

                by Divebus (860563) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @07:41PM (#40692165)

                One way to spin it: "OUR MISTAKE! Sorry, but the Samsung tablet is NOTHING like the iPad. Nothing at all. If you can find any similarities in the two products, they would merely be a coincidence. That's what we get for buying components from Samsung. Who knew they were already going to make a tablet and we're just using their parts? That's why the parts were so cheap - they were already making them. It was us who was late to the game. Besides, it's a COMPLETELY different shape than the iPad. Totally different. The Galaxy Tab is actually more similar to the other dozen counterfeit iPads... er... original tablet ideas independently developed a year or two later on the market today."

                I spent over a year in Korea and they fucking copy EVERYTHING. Ever notice how the entire lineup of Hyundai copycat cars make you do a double take? There's one that looks like a BMW, a Mercedes, a Jaguar, a Bentley... you name it, they copy it. I almost bought a beautiful camera in Yongsan for an unbelievable price until I double checked the real spelling of Hasselblad. Korea is home to the finest counterfeit luxury goods in the world. No surprise here. Move along.

                • by Kartu (1490911)

                  Besides, it's a COMPLETELY different shape than the iPad.

                  And they don't stop at copying rectangular tablets (rare shape indeed) they even dare to make rectangular TVs!
                  And those TVs don't have rathor sharp edges either!
                  How shameless of them...

        • by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @04:11PM (#40689841) Homepage

          It isn't just some newspaper ads:

          Now, Birss says Apple must post a notice to its UK website that outlines the July 9 decision, and the notice must remain on the site for six months. ... Unsurprisingly, Apple's lawyer in the case, Richard Hacon, pushed back on the order by arguing that Apple would essentially be forced to advertise for Samsung. "No company likes to refer to a rival on its website," ...

          http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/judge-to-apple-tell-uk-consumers-samsung-didnt-infringe-on-ipad-design/ [arstechnica.com]

          The Streisand effect was designed in California too, correct?

        • by Gr8Apes (679165)

          Apple could spin this in interesting ways:

          Buy the iPad, certified cooler and better than the lesser Samsung Galaxy Tablet by no less than his royal honor UK Judge Numbnuts himself. (note: the Galaxy, being obviously inferior as determined by UK law, is at best a poor wanna be copy of the wondrous iPad, so buy the best: iPad)

          There - all done, admitted it wasn't a copy, and get some good PR to boot. I'm sure the UK judge won't approve.

        • Often imitated, never duplicated!

        • by tlambert (566799) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @06:30PM (#40691515)

          ...you must install iTunes and the following optional QuickTime components: X, Y, Z, Q, ...

          Sorry, it looks like your platform is not supported. Please try again with the latest version of Mac OS X or Windows.

        • The Israeli edition of Swine-herders digest is a well known publication, and Chinese a popular language. How can you say we didn't follow the court order?
      • by ethanms (319039)

        This is the Internet age [bash.org], after all.

        HA!

        Content blocked per (My Company's) Policies

        User:
        (My Real Name and User Name)

        Reason:
        This URL is filtered per (My Company's) Policy for category: Tasteless.

        URL:
        http://bash.org/?201579 [bash.org]

        Please click on Helpdesk if you feel you should have access to this site.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojo @ w orld3.net> on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @04:23PM (#40689987) Homepage

      The reason Apple have to do this is because they tried to trash Samsung's name publicly. Apple is not being punished here, merely made to undo the wrong that they did.

      We have restorative justice, meaning the goal is always to put things back the way they were before the matter under consideration happened. Monetary damages are awarded based on lost income, and in cases like this where one party has damaged the other's reputation steps must be taken to restore it.

    • by sootman (158191) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @04:39PM (#40690155) Homepage Journal

      How does "loser pays" work when a little guy goes after a big company like Apple, Google, or Microsoft with a legitimate complaint but gets defeated because the big company was able to spend 100,000x more on their lawyers?

      • by Cederic (9623)

        The UK courts tend to award reasonable costs. If a complaint is sufficiently legitimate that it's seen as a sensible use of court time then it's quite likely that the judge just wouldn't award costs in that instance, or might award costs proportionate to the loser's own legal costs.

        Have a read of this:
        http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part44#IDADEICC [justice.gov.uk]

        I recall one instance where the winner has been told to pay the costs of the loser, but my Google Fu needs levelling up before I can

      • by steveha (103154) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @07:49PM (#40692253) Homepage

        How does "loser pays" work when a little guy goes after a big company like Apple, Google, or Microsoft with a legitimate complaint

        You are saying that $BIG_COMPANY can afford to hire $BIG_LAW_FIRM_A (or else has its own lawyers that are effectively its own big law firm). $LITTLE_GUY has no chance.

        But under "loser pays", $BIG_LAW_FIRM_B can take the case; since you stipulated that it is a legitimate complaint, odds are good that $BIG_LAW_FIRM_B will be paid by the loser ($BIG_COMPANY). $BIG_LAW_FIRM_B is not guaranteed to be paid but the odds are good, since they are as big as $BIG_LAW_FIRM_A and the complaint is legitimate. Contrast to the current situation in America, where $LITTLE_GUY cannot afford to pay any big law firm, so if any big law firm agrees to take his case, they are doing it knowing they won't get paid very much.

        So, you have brought up one of the major reasons why "loser pays" is better: the defense can automatically scale if needed to match the offense.

        The other major reason why "loser pays" is better: filing lawsuits without merit now actually costs money. Maybe $BIG_COMPANY doesn't even file the lawsuit against $LITTLE_GUY in the first place, which is an even better situation for $LITTLE_GUY than having a big law firm handling his defense.

        There, that's two ways that "loser pays" helps in the situation you describe.

        steveha

    • I don't see how it's that bad. The article says

      He declined today to grant Samsung’s bid for an injunction blocking Apple from making public statements that the Galaxy infringed its design rights.

      So they can still say the Galaxy infringed on their design. They only have to put it on their website for the UK only and they'll probably turn it around and say something along the lines of court confirming their product is cooler which is hardly detrimental to their image.

      So I'm failing to see how they've been shamed.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DCstewieG (824956)

      I may come off as an Apple apologist here but they aren't a patent troll. They have products that implement the patents in question as opposed to true trolls who produce nothing but lawsuits. At worst you could call them patent abusers, at best they're just playing the game.

      Wikipedia:

      Patent troll is a term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.

  • YES! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @03:38PM (#40689455) Homepage Journal

    One of my biggest issues with corporate culture is the ending to so many disputes where the misbehaving corporation "admits no fault" for the situation.

    They should always have to post a "we did wrong" letter after they get shown the door.

    • Re:YES! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Genda (560240) <marietNO@SPAMgot.net> on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @03:50PM (#40689597) Journal

      I find it particularly egregious when a corporation has committed a truly heinous act, like dumping toxic waste resulting in some number of deaths and injuries, and to keep face, they agree to settle out quickly (so the remaining survivors can get expensive medical care) on the agreement that they "Admit to no wrong doing", and nobody can talk about the atrocity they committed.

      Perhaps there will be a time when people place the value of human dignity above the value of personal wealth. Sadly, I'm not holding my breath.

    • One of my biggest issues with corporate culture is the ending to so many disputes where the misbehaving corporation "admits no fault" for the situation.

      They should always have to post a "we did wrong" letter after they get shown the door.

      Maybe selling ad space to publish "we did wrong" letters can be the new business model for newspapers? They can make it into a racket and charge exorbitant fees for 'our bad' space. Since the companies have been order to post the ad by the courts, they'll have to pay the fees. If they charge enough, they won't even need subscribers.

    • by DaveGod (703167)

      In fairness it's a reaction to a legal culture, and to a (much lesser) extent a media culture.

      It's mainly a legal check-box to prevent the settlement being a de-facto admission of guilt on anything anyone tries to sue them for that's possibly vaguely related.

  • You'll find the notice right before the equivalent of the Obituary section or a couple pages from the back of the first section.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by OldSport (2677879)
      Maybe not. Citibank screwed something up in Japan -- not sure what, some violation of information disclosure laws -- and it was on the main page for three months -- you had to click a little box acknowledging you'd read it before you could access your account. Hopefully this will be something similar.
  • Way cooler (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ant2 (252143) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @03:45PM (#40689537)

    I could see how Apple could turn this around to their benefit.

    "Samsung did not copy design from the iPad for the Galaxy Tab. The iPad is WAY cooler! Even the judge thinks so."

  • I wonder what this'll do for other cases where Apple is bending Samsung over for the same exact thing.

  • The punch line (Score:5, Informative)

    by OhHellWithIt (756826) * on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @03:52PM (#40689619) Journal

    The punch line is in TFA (emphasis added):

    Birss said in his July 9 ruling that Samsung’s tablets were unlikely to be confused with the iPad because they are “not as cool.” He declined today to grant Samsung’s bid for an injunction blocking Apple from making public statements that the Galaxy infringed its design rights.

    “They are entitled to their opinion,” he said.

    It looks like they have to run the ads, but they can still say Samsung copied them.

  • Idea? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    How about a system something like this:

    If you file a frivolous patent case against a competitor and lose, you must advertise for the said product on your website for X time period, give a public statement/apology AND you must also pay the defendant's legal expenses.

    Maybe something like that would deter more patent trolling?

  • Put the notice in 2pt font.
    At the bottom of the page.
    White text on white background.
    dotted font.
    wingdings.

  • by execthis (537150) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @03:56PM (#40689671)

    Samsung said in their statement: "Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited."

    Apple is like the #1 enemy in the tech industry. I remember that ad from years ago with all those drone-like people in front of the screen obeying their overlord. Well, can't people see that that's exactly what Apple and its users are like now?

  • Samsung devices will be required to contain a warning: "This device contains technology that Her Majesty's Courts have determined is not as cool as an iPad."

    And Apple will post a precise statement, "In the United Kingdom, the Court has determined that Samsung Galaxy Tab does not copy the iPad. In other jurisdictions (list), an opposing judgement has been rendered."

  • Publicly (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @04:05PM (#40689763)

    It will be posted publicly.
    In a public cellar.
    With no stairs.
    In the dark.
    In the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

  • Judge: "Apologize to that lady you called fat!"
    Apple: "I'm sorry you're fat."
  • Do they have to stand in the corner, too?

    Zing! One in a row.

    UK picks its judges from the pool of headmasters, do they?

    Hey, what?

    Apple should just post "We admit Samsung just faceplant level failed to copy the iPad." :-D

    Oh, pow!

  • Apple could just tell the UK to Fsk off. The Queen would be pissed. Or maybe she would smuggle in her gadget fix?

  • by maccodemonkey (1438585) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @05:43PM (#40690971)

    "We're legally obligated to inform you that the courts have found that the Galaxy Tab is not as cool as the iPad, and also found by the courts to not be an iPad substitute."

  • Finally (Score:4, Funny)

    by stephanruby (542433) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @09:40PM (#40693143)

    Finally, Apple has a reason for using Adobe Flash.

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.

Working...