I would highly recommend that you actually read the ruling : http://www.bailii.
org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html
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.
Importantly : "There is not and has never been
any Apple product in accordance with the registered design."
As
such this case was never about did Samsung copy Apple, it was always about did
Samsung infringe on Apple's registered design. So the courts have not said
"It's OK to copy", they've said "This Samsung device did not copy that
which is directly protected by this registered design"
The whole thing
around this judgement and Apple as the plaintiff being sanctioned revolves
around the UK concept that it should not be possible to sue someone out of
existence if they didn't do something wrong. Apple lost the case, they
therefore have to foot the bill, and have to put right the incorrect (as decided
by the court) propaganda that they generated over this issue. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
