decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj Updated 3Xs
Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:13 PM EDT

Apple has posted on its website, as ordered by the UK court, and upheld on appeal, a rather ungracious notice that Samsung did not copy Apple according to the UK court (but Apple adds it still thinks it does and other courts agree with it). I would like to show it to you, so you can see the kind of legal advice Apple is following, because what the UK court held was that nobody would imagine that a Samsung phone is an iPhone.

Apple did not provide you with a link to the order telling Apple to publish a notice on its websites either, so here it is. Ask yourself as you read it and then read Apple's notice if it followed the order's spirit or even its letter, except in the most strained way.

First, Apple tells what happened in the UK, but then it quotes the part of the order that said how Samsung's products are not "as cool", which isn't what the court told Apple to say, adding that there was no injunction ordered. Samsung had asked for an injunction stopping Apple from claiming that Samsung was copying, telling the court that after Samsung's victory in the UK, what Apple said was contrary to the ruling. Apple had said right afterward, "It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and the iPad. This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual property." That is exactly what the UK court had just ruled Samsung had not done.

But the court felt cautious about whether it had jurisdiction to order an injunction and also whether it was appropriate to do so pending appeal, plus the freedom of speech issue. The end result is that what Samsung thought they would do, they did. I doubt anyone, even Samsung, imagined Apple would do it inside the notice itself but it has, adding this final paragraph:

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.
What has happened to Apple? This, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you see yourself as being in a Holy War and listen only to your lawyers, who probably keep telling you that this will work out well in the end for you. (Cf. SCO Group.)

But lawyers are not skilled in brands, in PR, and nobody with enough clout is telling Apple, I gather, with sufficient authority that it's behaving like a brat. Talk about "not as cool". What has happened to Apple? Do you still feel like buying their products when you read something like this? I don't. I'd be ashamed to take it out of my bag in public. And I'll tell you exactly why: it's not all right with me for a corporation to publicly show disrespect to a court of law, and that's how I view this event.

Here's what Samsung asked the court to order Apple to put on its website:

"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (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 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink]."

The defendant shall arrange for the following notice to be published in The Financial Times; the Daily Mail; The Guardian; Mobile Magazine; and T3 magazine: "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (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 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink]."

And here's why the court decided it should issue an order to put the notice on Apple's UK website and pay to put the notice in newspapers:
45. 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.

46. In terms of policy, I accept that 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. The 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. However, that purpose is also the fundamental purpose and the reason for the court's declaratory jurisdiction. Samsung have the benefit of that public declaration.

47. Is there a sufficient reason in this case to use the court's injunctive power to compel the rights holder to put a statement on its home page and to pay for an advertisement in the newspapers? It seems to me that an important element in this case is the evidence that I have been shown from Mr. Stone's witness statement of specific commercial harm caused to Samsung as a result of Apple's assertions.

48. I also bear in mind the question of freedom of speech under Article 10. It seems to me that that question is very different in the context of the order I am now being asked to make than it was in the previous case. The reason for that, apart from anything else, is that the order that I am making as far as freedom of speech is concerned is precisely the same as the order which the court can make under Article 15 of the Enforcement Directive.

49. Mr. Hacon, in summary, makes three points. First of all, he says Apple are not making the assertion any more. Second, he says that nothing in the order in relation to the newspapers is something that Samsung could not do for itself. They are big boys and they can pay for advertisements in newspapers. Third, Mr. Hacon refers to prejudice to Apple that would be caused by putting a statement on their website. Essentially the argument is that by putting a reference to Samsung on Apple's website, that risks diverting sales to Samsung so that Samsung essentially are getting free advertising from Apple.

50. As to the first point, I need to consider what Apple are saying now. I have cited one example that has been said by Mr. Hely on Apple's behalf since the judgment was handed down.

51. In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, but to many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing.

52. As to Mr. Hacon's second point, it is true that Samsung can pay for advertisements themselves, but I do not agree that the only point of an order requiring a party to put an advert in a newspaper is about who pays for the advert. That argument would also apply to the order made under Article 15 itself. It seems to me that an important part of what is going on under Article 15, which would apply just as much in this case, is that it is the person in question, in this case Apple, who are being required to put these advertisements in the newspaper, it is not just about who pays for it.

53. As to the third point, the prejudice to Apple, I must say I seriously doubt there will be any real diversion of sales but I cannot rule it out and that would be potentially prejudicial to Apple.

54. However, it seems to me here that the fact of Apple's statements after trial and the fact of the harm caused by similar assertions to Samsung in the past is a matter which balances that prejudice. I recognise that these are two different prejudices to Samsung and to Apple and in many ways they are not comparable but it seems to me nevertheless to some extent that one does cancel and balance against the other.

That's the part of the order that Apple not only ignored but undercut with its ignoble notice.

Here's what the appeals court said the notice should be, for only one month, and they allowed it to be a link on the home page with the notice on an internal, linked to page. Here's the wording it proposed:

85. I turn to the form of the publicity order. No more than that which is proportionate is necessary. As regards the newspaper publicity we had no complaint about the detail of that and, subject to the wording, I would affirm Judge Birss's order. As regards publicity on the Apple home web page, Mr Carr realistically recognised that Apple had a genuine interest in keeping it uncluttered. 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.

86. As regards the period for which the link should appear, Mr Carr recognised that a one month period would probably suffice. So I think it should be required for a month from the date the order of this Court is made. But for the fact that Apple have agreed to obtain discharge of the order of the Oberlandesgericht I would have considered a longer period necessary.

87. 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.

Here is what Apple posted instead, in full:
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.

Update 2: That's not quite untrue, but it's not exactly the whole story either. Here is what the judge in the UK wrote about the German case:
6. This dispute is being litigated between the parties in other countries. The validity case is before OHIM. In Germany the first instance court in Düsseldorf held that the Galaxy tablets infringed the design but on appeal the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal decided there was no infringement. However the German court did grant an injunction on the Samsung tablets on a different basis under German unfair competition law. In the Netherlands Apple lost at first instance and on appeal. Both the German and Dutch proceedings are preliminary proceedings. It was not disputed that Apple has the right to start full infringement proceedings in those countries and that the preliminary decisions are not binding. This action is the first substantive hearing in the Community of the issue of infringement.
Emphasis added. As for the US jury, that's not exactly untrue, what Apple wrote, but it's not the full story either. Here's the US jury's verdict form [PDF]. The jury did not find that Samsung's Galaxy 10.1 infringed the design patent that the UK court was talking about. From the judge's order in the UK, here's what that case was about:
This action concerns Community Registered Design No. 000181607-0001. The design belongs to the defendant (Apple). Among the named designers are Sir Jonathan Ive and Steve Jobs. The claimant (Samsung) seeks a declaration that three of its Galaxy tablet computers (the Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7) do not infringe.
And that is what Samsung established to the UK court's satisfaction. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is exactly the one that the judge in the US case had said probably did infringe but which the jury found, after the trial, did *not* infringe (see page 7 of the form). So the US court did not contradict the UK ruling, as Apple implies, although the same jury found other things infringed. So is what Apple said true? It's as true as some things a used car salesman might say. True as far as it goes. But not all you need to know to come to a correct conclusion. - End Update 2.]

Now, Apple took two paragraphs from the order, but they left some things out that are in the order in between those two paragraphs. I notice Apple gave us only the tiniest clue that they'd left material out, the quotation marks, something only folks taught grammar by their grannies, like me, would likely even notice. Let me fill in the blanks they left out, so you are not misled:

68. The products making up the design corpus are not purely functional designs like engine parts. Although the informed user in this case will be a person interested in the functioning of the products concerned, how they work and their performance, the informed user in this case is someone interested in the aesthetics. How a product looks matters to the informed user.

69. I find that the informed user in this case will consider the products side by side. These products are sold to the public in shops and on websites. There is nothing in this case to make a side by side comparison impractical or uncommon....

178. Having gone through the various features individually it is necessary to pull it all together and consider the overall impression of the Apple design on an informed user.

179. The way the seven features are written, four of them relate to the front of the product, the rear and sides are addressed in two ((v) and (vi)) and the overall position summed up in feature (vii). The front is important but there is a risk of overemphasis. The design is for an object which is hand held and therefore does not simply rest on a desk with its back invisible. The informed user, who is particularly observant, will pick up these objects and will look at the back.

180. In evidence Apple emphasised the way in which Samsung offered the tablets for sale on the internet, with more views of the front than of the back. I do not regard that evidence as having much to do with this case. The informed user will not simply look at images of these products on websites.

181. Viewed without the design corpus, the appearance of the front surface of the Apple design would be given significant importance but that significance is reduced by the presence of identical features in the design corpus. The Apple design has a relatively thin profile but not excessively so. If the product was roughly 25cm long (c.f. the Tab 10.1) it would be about 1.5cm thick, comparable to the thickness of a finger.

182. 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 overall impressions compared

183. I remind myself that the informed user is particularly observant, shows a relatively high degree of attention and in this case conducts a direct comparison between the products.

184. To my eye the most important similarities are as follows:

i) The view from the front is really very striking. The Galaxy tablets are not identical to the Apple design but they are very, very similar in this respect. The Samsung tablets use the very same screen, with a flat glass plate out to a very thin rim and a plain border under the glass.

ii) Also neither Apple nor Samsung have indicator lights or buttons on the front surface or obvious switches or fittings on the other surfaces. There are some subtle buttons on the edges of the Galaxy tablets but they do not contribute to the overall impression. There is an overall simplicity about the Samsung devices albeit not as extreme as the simplicity of the Apple design.

iii) The thinness enhancing effect of the sides creates the same impression. It causes both the Apple design and the Galaxy tablets to appear to float above the surface on which they rest. However the details of the side edges are not the same. The Apple design has a pronounced flat side face which the informed user would see clearly (and feel). It is absent from the Samsung tablets.

185. There are some minor differences but to my eye there are two major differences. The most important difference between the Samsung Galaxy tablets and the Apple design is the thinness of the Galaxy tablets. The next most significant difference is the detailing on the back of each of the tablets.

186. It is hard to appreciate relative thickness from drawings and photographs. A product made to the Apple design and of similar length would be about twice as thick as any of the Galaxy Tabs. The product to the Apple design will look thinner as a result of the side curves but the same visual effect on the edges of the Galaxy Tabs makes them look even thinner. Resting on a table side by side the surface of a product made to the Apple design will be noticeably above these tablets. To an informed user, the Galaxy tabs do not merely look like a thin version of the Apple design, they look like a different, thinner design of product.

187. The back of the Apple design is the place in which there are fewer constraints on design freedom (apart from being generally flat) and more variety in the design corpus. The curving of the rear surfaces of the Galaxy Tabs is a bit different from the Apple design but not significantly so. What strikes the informed user is the detailing on the back faces of the Samsung products. I will consider the Tab 7.7 since to my eye that has the least visually prominent detailing. If the Tab 7.7 does not infringe, then neither does the Tab 10.1 nor Tab 8.9. The informed user will see that in this product Samsung has exercised the available design freedom by having visible detailing on the rear of the articles. To have this sort of detail on the back would strike the informed user as unusual.

188. Are these two differences enough to overcome the similarity at the front and the similarity in overall shape? Apple submitted that the front face and overall shape are what matters because the informed user will principally spend his time looking at the front face and holding the object in his hand. I do not regard the overall shape as very significant but there is a very obvious visual similarity at the front. In my judgment the key to this case is the strength or significance of that similarity. As I have said the significance of the near identity of the front surfaces of these products is reduced to a degree by the existence of similar fronts in the design corpus. The question is – to what degree?

189. This case illustrates the importance of properly taking into account the informed user's knowledge and experience of the design corpus. When I first saw the Samsung products in this case I was struck by how similar they look to the Apple design when they are resting on a table. They look similar because they both have the same front screen. It stands out. However to the informed user (which at that stage I was not) these screens do not stand out to anything like the same extent. The front view of the Apple design takes its place amongst its kindred prior art. There is a clear family resemblance between the front of the Apple design and other members of that family (Flatron, Bloomberg 1 and 2, Ozolins, Showbox, Wacom). They are not identical to each other but they form a family. There are differences all over these products but the biggest differences between these various family members are at the back and sides. The user who is particularly observant and is informed about the design corpus reacts to the Apple design by recognising the front view as one of a familiar type. From the front both the Apple design and the Samsung tablets look like members of the same, pre-existing family. As a result, the significance of that similarity overall is much reduced and the informed user's attention to the differences at the back and sides will be enhanced considerably.

190. 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. The overall impression produced is different.

Conclusion

The Samsung tablets do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 000181607-0001.

In short, what the court really said was that nobody would imagine that a Samsung phone is an iPhone. Maybe if you look only at a picture of the front of the phone you might momentarily wonder which is which, but that's not how people decide to buy a phone, and there are sufficient differences overall that nobody would ever buy one thinking it was the other. And that means that Apple was pushing a stupid legal theory, one that the UK court didn't accept. Citing the California verdict by a jury accused of misconduct is surely the cherry on top of Apple's childish notice.

Really, what has happened to Apple? Litigation isn't like the good old days where you could brand only at events. It's all over the Internet, and you wouldn't be human if you didn't find Apple's disdainful "compliance" with the UK order graceless and unattractive.

Update: Or maybe this is the cherry on top. Here's the Apple UK home page in two parts. Can you find the notice?

They put it at the very bottom, next to the other things nobody much reads, terms of use and cookies policy.

Update 3: And now the UK judges have responded, according to Bloomberg News, by telling Apple to remove that notice and put up what they told it to say, plus an additional note that what it put up before was untrue:

Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges in a patent lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) for posting a notice on its website that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”

The U.K. Court of Appeal in London ordered Apple to remove the statement within 24 hours and place a new notice acknowledging the inaccurate comments. The Cupertino, California-based company was told by the same court last month to post the initial notice as part of a ruling that Samsung’s Galaxy tablets didn’t copy the design of Apple’s iPad.

“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.”

Maybe now all the media, and some lawyers, who thought what Apple did was so cute and smart will realize that it's not OK, it was never OK, and it never will be OK to disrespect a court order, even if you don't personally agree with it.

  


Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj Updated 3Xs | 555 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:17 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes docs here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:20 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mom's response to this
Authored by: tknarr on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:22 PM EDT

I can hear the response my Mom would've given if I'd done this as a kid: "I told you to apologize. Saying I told you to apologize is not the same thing as apologizing. Since you want to be that way, go out and get me a lilac switch.". Offering to go back and apologize at that point wouldn't save you, you'd made your choice about how you were going to handle it and now you would suffer the consequences of that choice. We kids quickly learned that of all the options, playing word games with Mom was never a good one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

German court verdict most likely invalid.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:35 PM EDT
As the judge in the UK court case said the case in Germany,
quoted by apple, should not have taken place. This is because
the case in the UK had already started and any result there
would be applicable across europe.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:42 PM EDT
I thought the US jury found the design of the iPad was not copied. Isn't
Apple's statement wrong:

"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."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple device burning party
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:44 PM EDT
PJ I suggest we go further and just grab our apple devices
and create a bonfire and throw all Apple products on the
bonfire..

Signed Fred Grott

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Apple complying with the court's order?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:47 PM EDT

Is Apple complying with the court's order?

And if they aren't will the court force them to comply?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Court's Response?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:51 PM EDT
Is this pushing things far enough to provoke a response from the court?

I am not a lawyer but I think courts have a very wide discretion on contempt of
court in the UK and very wide powers including imprisonment and unlimited fines.


It seems extremely foolish to put this sort of notice up both in reputational
terms and in legal terms. If Apple's lawyers have judged it correctly their may
be no immediate come back but if there is any similar future case then this will
certainly be drawn to the judges attention when deciding remedies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not necessarily legal advice...
Authored by: Shadow Wrought on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT
PJ-

I spent several years as a litigation paralegal in the Bay Area working on
intellectual property matters for high tech businesses. While I can certainly
understand laying the balme for this as listening to the lawyers, my
experience would indicate the opposite.

Lawyers are obligated to give their clients the best legal advice they can,
but they cannot always prevent their clients from doing something stupid. I
know because I watched, and I also witnessed the lengthes to which the
attorneys attempted to protect the clients from their own poor decisions.

If you look at Apple you will see, I believe, a culture of arrogance, control,
and secrecy. When has Apple ever admitted they were wrong?

This kis not to say that there are not law firms out there giving poor advice,
but I think an honest look at Apple's culture and decisions over the last
decade would seem to indicate that this is all on them.



---
"It's a summons." "What's a summons?" "It means summon's in trouble." -- Rocky
and Bullwinkle

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:00 PM EDT
It's actions like these which make me look at the Apple brand with disgust.

I was actually considering buying an Apple tablet, but this is not the kind of
company I want to support.

Probably Asus or Samsung will get my business. Anxiously waiting for October 29
(for the possible Nexus 10, 3G Nexus 7 revelations and price cuts for existing
Android tablets)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Definition of stupidity:
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT
Excercising contempt against a ruling where you've already appealed - and lost.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Correct me if I am wrong..
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT
But the fact that Apple have posted this means, I assume, that
they are not going to appeal to a higher court. As such does
this make the UK case the first legal battle between Apple and
Samsung where we have reached the end of the judicial process?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe the judge should have been more specific
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT
I mean, he should have put forth a one or two paragraph detail of what he'd like
Apple to publish.

After this, he should have gone further to say that nothing should be added to
this detail, save for the litigants, the date litigation started, the date of
judgment and appeal and nothing more...not even on any subsequent pages or media
outlets, in order to preserve the "spirit of the judgment."
How about that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT
Is this not a clear case of what we here call contempt of
court ?

Here in the U.K. we are famous for our Libel laws (in the
same way the US is famous for it's patent law :-)) if I was
Samsung I would be looking at these laws to see if they can
be used to negate any advantage Apple my gain through what
seems to be failing US Patent law.

And in Korea I would look at getting the government to make
a complaint to the W.T.O.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It is the system and how far they can push it.
Authored by: ChrixOne on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:17 PM EDT
" it's not all right with me for a corporation to publicly show disrespect
to a court of law, "

It is with me. That's because it is the legal system itself that encourages this
kind of empty, predatory litigation. The legislatures and executive
bureaucracies are for sale, and both Europe and the U.S. get the kind of law
they deserve. If one is part of what amounts to a criminal shake-down scheme one
must expect to catch a little mud every now and then from your disappointed
clients.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Meet the New Apple same as the Old Microsoft
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT
Well almost. Microsoft has an entrenched monopoly. Apple has a monopoly in
tablets at the moment, and still a lead in smartphones IIRC, but they are hardly
entrenched. Not like MS was entrenched in business. Which makes this all the
more stupid. It's like scoring a touchdown in the last five minutes of the game
when you are losing 42-0 and gloating about it.

It is the same behavior that Microsoft used to engage in that got TPJackson to
rule they should be broken up. I doubt Apple wiil be broken up, but I's sure the
judge will find some way to inflict just as much pain.

Mouse the Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | # ]

On the other hand.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 01:59 PM EDT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/26/samsung_q3_2012/

Samsung seem to be doing alright.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If the court doesn't act on this it means nobody ever has to follow a court order
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT
Surely they have to recognise that Apple have not complied
with the letter (and certainly not the spirit) of the order
the court has made.


There is nothing about the statement that would correct the
misapprehension that Samsung have copied, indeed quite the
reverse.

If it's contempt of court for a company, who ends up in
prison?

- Stevos

[ Reply to This | # ]

Headline shows bias...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:11 PM EDT
The headline:
<blockquote>Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool
Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj</blockquote>
clearly shows PJ's bias in this instance.

The ruling did not, in any way shape or form, ask for an apology to Samsung. It
asked for an *acknowledgement* of the ruling.

In fact, the first paragraph, and the paragraph following the quotes from the
original ruling, are *exactly* what the judge specifically required Apple to
publish.

If you're going to call someone out, you should be certain that they've actually
done what you're accusing them of.

This is especially true of your claim that they didn't include the required
link, which you should have known was false, because it's there (plain as day)
in the block quote where you show the full text of what Apple published.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT
    • Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:30 PM EDT
      • Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT
        • Outside their jurisdiction - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT
          • Ha Ha - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT
            • Ha Ha - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 07:20 PM EDT
              • Ha Ha - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 08:13 PM EDT
      • Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT
      • Localization - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 03:49 AM EDT
        • Localization - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT
          • Localization - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT
  • Headline shows bias... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 10:52 AM EDT
    Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:16 PM EDT
    The headline:
    Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj
    clearly shows PJ's bias in this instance. The ruling did not, in any way shape or form, ask for an apology to Samsung. It asked for an *acknowledgement* of the ruling. In fact, the first paragraph, and the paragraph following the quotes from the original ruling, are *exactly* what the judge specifically required Apple to publish. If you're going to call someone out, you should be certain that they've actually done what you're accusing them of. This is especially true of your claim that they didn't include the required link, which you should have known was false, because it's there (plain as day) in the block quote where you show the full text of what Apple published.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Re: Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj
    Authored by: rps on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:22 PM EDT
    It's interesting from a historical perspective as well as educational to watch
    as Groklaw chronicles the downward spiral and eventual self-inflicted demise of
    Apple Inc. No doubt there will be wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth as it
    were as this process unfolds. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    If Apple changed their name to Arrogant
    Authored by: kawabago on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
    Apple could change it's name to Arrogant and be even easier
    to recognize! Everyone will want to own an
    imbetterthanyouphone. The new phone will have a camera that
    always looks down at everyone.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    World Court anyone?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT
    When different district courts come to different decisions, the next step is to
    petition the Supreme Court.

    Given this you would think next stop for this is it should go to the World Court
    (I know that this isn't what the world court normally does, but if Apple can try
    to create new precedents, then why not Samsung)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    In Other News ...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT
    The World Press Seems to Agree With PJ

    Apple Posts 'Apology' to Samsung on U.K. Website... Well, sort of. pcmag.com

    Apple Issues Samsung Snarky Apology Letter On Its U.K. Website huffpost.com

    Leave it to Apple to transform a court-ordered apology into a rival-skewering piece of advertising. allthingsd

    Apple acknowledges Samsung UK patent loss in unapologetic advert telegraph.co.uk

    The Register's headline violates GL's posting rules, but the article text is quite moderate. theregister.co.uk

    Apple Posts Cheeky Non-Apology to Samsung in the UK Forbes

    APPLE: 'Dear Samsung, sorry you're not as cool heraldsun.com.au

    Apple's 'apology' to Samsung is a hoot tgdaily.com

    Just go to google-news and search apple samsung for more "Apple ... insults Samsung in apology", "Apple Posts Backhanded Apology", "spiteful non-apology", "Hilariously Backhanded Concession", "arm-twisted mea culpa", and on and on ...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I think it's good enough to know that Apple had to do it and hated doing it ...
    Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 04:05 PM EDT
    Comment on the register:


    "Rattled

    Well at least you can tell from reading it that the order really rattled them
    and they have put it up through gritted teeth.

    It's nice to think that they are actually having a bit of a tantrum about it.

    In reality it doesn't matter how many people actually see it, I think it's good
    enough to know that Apple had to do it and hated doing it (and also many layers
    of management were involved in hating it)"


    ----

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/26/apple_apologises_sort_of/

    NSFW headline warning :-)

    ---
    APPLE: [censored] YOU, BRITS, everyone else says Samsung copied us

    But we will apologise because the judge said we had to

    ---
    RMS: The 4 Freedoms
    0 run the program for any purpose
    1 study the source code and change it
    2 make copies and distribute them
    3 publish modified versions

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Cant wait to see the Newspaper apologies :-)
    Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
    ;-)

    ---
    RMS: The 4 Freedoms
    0 run the program for any purpose
    1 study the source code and change it
    2 make copies and distribute them
    3 publish modified versions

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Does Apple have a mascot?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT

    To take my Cindy Lou Who quote a step further:

    Imagine:

      Take the scene where the Grinch gets all excited and Cindy Lou suggests he needs a time out
      Replace the Grinch with the Apple Mascot
      Have the Mascot say something like "We've been told to say Samsung did not infringe but we still say Samsung did!" - quite energetically of course with the pause for breath to match the Grinch.
      Don't change a thing about Ciny Lou's response about the time out.
      Post it on Youtube!
    Value: Priceless!

    IANAL, but I'd think such would fall into the fair use provisioning of Copyright Law.

    RAS

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I think the judge will ask them back in for a chat and a cup of tea... then
    Authored by: GriffMG on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 05:29 PM EDT
    ask them a few questions and tell them to print 'exactly this...' or I will hold
    you in comtempt - for which the fine is unlimited.

    'did I make myself clear?'

    ---
    Keep B-) ing

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Who cares about the judge
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 05:59 PM EDT
    Perhaps I've missed something, but everyone is talking about how the
    court might react. What about ordinary people? I'm sure the Apple fanboys
    are delighted, but everyone else will see this as Apple acting like a 4 year
    old and be disgusted. I predict this will cost Apple more than any judgement
    the court might impose.

    (Written on my iPhone while I wait for the Samsung Chromebook I just
    ordered to arrive.)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 06:32 PM EDT
    “It's all over the Internet, and you wouldn't be human if you didn't find
    Apple's
    disdainful "compliance" with the UK order graceless and
    unattractive.”

    Wouldn’t be human because I disagree with you? Because I found the court’s
    order graceless and unattractive? Because I think that Apple’s solution to this

    disdainful “court order” is actually pretty funny, and I’m not so invested in
    either
    a foreign court or local corporation that I would feel guilt just pulling my
    laptop
    out of my bag in public?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    European Community-wide judgement
    Authored by: TJ on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 07:39 PM EDT
    The UK judge is requiring them to post a statement that would have effects outside the UK.

    And it does. The Judge was sitting in his role as a European Community Design Judge and at issue was Apple's assertion that their European Community Design right had been infringed.

    This judgement is also superior to the the recent local German court's finding.

    A registered Community design is a monopoly right for the appearance of the whole or part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and materials of the product or its ornamentation. Applications are filed at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM). Approved Community designs cover all 25 member states of the European Union.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    finding the notice on the Apple web site
    Authored by: IANALitj on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 01:41 AM EDT
    I have (with PJ's help) found the notice on the Apple web site.

    I do not now see the notice in the Apple site map. It is neither listed in the
    extensive list of the contents of the site, nor -- as with the Site Map itself
    and a few other items on the next to last line, and the "Terms of Use"
    and a few additional items on the very last line -- as links at the bottom of
    the Site Map page.

    The purpose of the site map is just this sort of search. Putting something on
    the web site but omitting it from the site map arguably amounts to hiding it.

    If this state of affairs continues (and in a sense, Apple is on notice of this
    lapse from the time this post becomes public) I would think that this might be
    just one more element for Samsung to bring to the attention of the judge
    considering a contempt charge in due course. (It will be interesting to see who
    would be charged. If there is a contempt proceeding, it will be interesting in
    many other respects as well.)

    I hope that Samsung (and its counsel) read Groklaw. It would not surprise me if
    neither Apple nor its counsel do.

    The disclaimer in my username applies to the British courts as well as to my
    present location.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Libel?
    Authored by: jmc on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 05:55 AM EDT
    Although I think the English libel laws should be reformed and there is a bill
    going through Parliament to do that, the current law still applies until it has
    been passed.

    Under the current law (and there's nothing in the new bill to change that) the
    onus of proof is clearly on the Defendant.

    So if Samsung sued Apple would have to prove that Samsung "wilfully
    copied" their tablet, Samsung wouldn't have to prove they didn't (although
    Judge Birss' opinion would help).

    And - although this is going to be changed in the Defamation Bill - it would be
    before a jury. Alas in the UK it is contempt to interview jury members so we
    wouldn't have that excitement.

    I think Apple will live to regret their action in a very big way.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Libel? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT
    • Libel? - Authored by: soronlin on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 05:52 AM EDT
    German unfair competition law
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 12:15 PM EDT
    Which part of "German unfair competition law" did Samsung break to
    cause the injunction?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Apple followed the court order
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 03:32 PM EDT
    Apple followed the court order.

    And it told the truth.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj Updated 2Xs
    Authored by: jcbarlow on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 02:19 AM EDT
    Apple's arrogance will be rewarded appropriately. See this analysis on semiaccurate.com

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I guess Apple hasn't realized Germany is part of the European union
    Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 07:55 AM EDT
    "That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by
    the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012."

    "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."

    Perhaps more problems with Apple Maps? ;-)

    ---
    The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
    advised.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    German french and other regional sites
    Authored by: HenchmenResource on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 01:20 PM EDT
    Perhaps I missed something but reading the order listed in the second paragraph (for reference here it is again) the court ordered that the notice needed to be placed on multiple regional versions of Apple's website including the German and French sites. I selected a handful of the other sites and the notice only seems to appear on the UK site. Did I miss something and that part of the order was changed to only apply to the UK site? I guess it could be taking Apple some time to get it translated, especially if they are reluctant to use Google Translate (couldn't resist), but it appears to me that they are defying the order by not placing a link to the notice on the other sites in the order.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Apple's "We're Not A Bit Sorry" Bratty and Not Cool Notice That Samsung Didn't Copy ~pj Updated 2Xs
    Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT
    Perhaps, instead of getting into the whole free speech and
    "advertising for your competitor" issues, the judge should
    have just decided: Apple, you wronged Samsung with this
    lawsuit and your public statements. My job is to make whole
    the wronged party. Therefore, you are ordered to compensate
    Samsung for the damage to their reputation and brand. US$2.0
    Billion aught to do it. Payable net 10 days or interest
    accrues 1%/month, compounded. Have a nice day.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A simple solution
    Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT
    In addition to slapping Apple with contempt, the judge should write the precise
    wording he wants Apple to publish. That exact wording should be in black on a
    white background, in a large non-decorative font, and be the only thing to
    appear on Apple's home page apart from a "proceed to the rest of the
    site" link at the bottom in a small font - a similar size and position to
    the link they currently use for the apology.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Apple's "We're Wholly Original in our Designs"
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 07:48 PM EDT
    Apple has proven their striking originality by introducing
    a 7" tablet. Nobody else thought of such a form factor in
    the entire history of civilization. If anybody else does
    introduce such a product, Apple will sue the copycat in
    Cupertino, and surely deserves to win. After all, Apple
    is just protecting its intellectual property.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )