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
"the registered design is not the same as the iPad." | 107 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Jacobs: "Apple's compliance with the newspaper advertisement order was lackadaisical"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 07:58 AM EST
Although it is a lesser matter than the dispute about what Apple did on its website, I have to record that Apple's compliance with the newspaper advertisement order was lackadaisical at best. The order required publication "in the earliest available issue" of the specified newspapers and magazines. I would have thought that self-evidently meant what it said – get the advertisements into each publication as soon as possible.

What Apple chose to do as regards the newspapers and magazines was less than that. Its Vice President Worldwide Marketing Communications said he understood the approach to be adopted was "to co-ordinate adverts across those publications in order to ensure the widest readership possible is exposed to the advert on the same day." That apparently meant to Apple so far as the newspapers were concerned the same day, but not the magazines which had longer lead times. Apple accordingly arranged for November 16th for all the newspapers. I note in passing that it is not said that November 16th was the earliest possible date even for just all the newspapers. I would be surprised if it were, given that our order was made on 18th October.

So there was self-evident non-compliance with the newspaper/magazine aspect of the publicity order. Apple did not contend otherwise. Its breach of that part of the order is clearly an additional factor justifying the indemnity costs order we made against Apple.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"There is not and has never been any Apple product in accordance with the registered design"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 08:06 AM EST
... Even if that were not so, it cannot be legitimate to break up the ordered notice with false material. And the matter added was indeed false. Before introducing the quotes from HHJ Birss it begins:

In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products. But the Judge was not comparing "the Apple and Samsung products." There is not and has never been any Apple product in accordance with the registered design. Apple's statement would clearly be taken by ordinary readers and journalists to be a reference to a real Apple product, the iPad. By this statement Apple was fostering the false notion that the case was about the iPad. And that the Samsung product was "not as cool" as the iPad.
Fascinating reading - the judgement goes on to detail exactly what Apple posted that was false, and why. Those judges sound *very* angry.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Fascinating! -- n/t
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 10:14 AM EST

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple's mea culpa: U.K. site posts apology, the new statement
Authored by: AlexWright on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 11:08 AM EST
As to the costs (lawyers' fees) to be awarded against Apple, we concluded that they should be on an indemnity basis. Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, "standard" basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple's conduct warranted such an order.

Apple's conduct warranted such an order. Ouch!

I suspect Apple will now try it's hardest to stay out of the UK court system.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Article Link
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 12:21 PM EST

Here ya are!

Linking to the newspicks page is an interesting choice... given the article will eventually filter off that page too :)

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Last sentence in the ruling: ROFL
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 12:50 PM EST

I love it:

I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.
I wonder if that was another shot across the bows!

I'd like to imagine what was not said following that:

    Because if it was typical, Apple is in for some very rough education!
:)

Too bad US Courts don't respond to such behavior along the same lines.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"the registered design is not the same as the iPad."
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 02:18 PM EST
>>There is not and has never been any Apple product in accordance
with the registered design. <<

Uhuh. If Apple's own product doesn't comply with their registered
design, what are they complaining about?

It didn't help Apple that the judge's father wrote the textbook on
Inherent Jurisdiction.

[ 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 )