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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
No it did not | 555 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple followed the court order
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 05:06 PM EDT
I see that Mr Jobs has been reanimated.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No it did not
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 09:31 PM EDT
Yes, in this corrupt and twisted world where lawyers turn the English language
into sausage it may be the case that, under the law, Apple's statment is
"truth." That just shows how immoral and corrupt the legal system has
become. In any real sense, any honest person would recognize that Apple's
statement is dishonest and that Apple did not obey the court's order.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 12:32 AM EDT
    • No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 06:19 AM EDT
    • Actually... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 02:51 PM EDT
      • Actually... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT
    • No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT
      • No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 08:41 PM EDT
    • Nonfunctional requirements - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 07:20 AM EDT
  • No it did not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 04:22 PM EDT
Apple followed the court order -- or not
Authored by: IANALitj on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 01:55 AM EDT
Whether or not Apple followed the court order is a question for the court that
made it (or some other court that considers the matter), if Samsung chooses to
raise the question.

The relevant provisions of the order are:

"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."

"88. 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."

There is therefore in 88 a provision for some latitude as to the phrasing of the
notice laid out in 87, and I have no knowledge whether that provision applies.

The notice as I read it on Apple's web site contains as its first paragraph text
similar to (but not identical to) the first paragraph specified in 87. The web
site notice has as its fifth paragraph text as in the second paragraph specified
in 87.

Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 6 of Apple's notice are Apple's innovation, not provided
for in the court order.

It seems obvious to me that if Apple had supplied several dozen paragraphs of
its own non-groveling text, it would not have been complying with the court
order, notwithstanding that it did also supply the two specified paragraphs.
Whether its interpolation of four paragraphs is offensive is a closer question.

I would hate to have my financial well-being or my personal liberty hinge on a
British judge's opinion as to whether Apple's notice complies with the order.

I note that as I read the Apple web site, the two required paragraphs occupy
four lines apiece, while the four interpolated paragraphs occupy 2, 5, 5 and 6
lines. The ratio is greater than two to one, in favor of Apple as against the
court order.

I shall leave it to others to judge whether Apple has complied with the typeface
requirement in the order ("no smaller than Arial 14pt").

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple followed the court order
Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
In talking about this notice the court says (amongst other things)

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.

In what way is this notice a clear declaration? By not making such a clear
declaration it appears on the face of it to be a flagrant flouting of a court
order and I expect the consequences to be severe, if they aren't I can see very
little reason for ever listening to a judge at all.

---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple failed to comply
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 29 2012 @ 11:36 AM EDT

The reasoning behind the order is that the general public would interpret
"copying" as infringement, and so claiming that Samsung copied Apple's
design implies infringement.

By compelling Apple to publicly state that there is no infringement, the courts
appeared to be intending Apple to undo the damage its claims of copying had
potentially caused.

Apple's statement continued to allege copying, even while acknowledging that
infringement had not occurred. This strikes me as contradicting the intent of
the court order.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )