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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 10:14 AM EST |
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|