Apple's snarky Samsung post not good enough for British judge

[HotelUser]

I would expect our PM has more bigger issues to deal with than giving a crap about Apple and Samsung crying over each other.

sarcastic statement is sarcastic.

[xxMATTGxx]

sarcastic statement is sarcastic.

Deal with it but just being honest. But if that's what happens in Canada than fair do's.

[HotelUser]

Deal with it but just being honest. But if that's what happens in Canada than fair do's.

Nothing for me to deal with, it's people in Britain who are being manipulated by the government because some folks will see the statement on Apple's website and assume it's an Apple backed statement, when in actuality it's actually not even the opinion of Apple in the first place.

[Tomm]

I've not read into much detail regarding this but it does not really have anything to do with that. Firstly, this has nothing to do with the government. In fact the judge expressly said there is no legislation that would require Apple to publish anything if they lost. However, he did make reference to a EU IP Enforcement Directive that enables the applicant in a IP infringement case to request, if they win the case, that the infringer publish information about the case:

"Member States shall ensure that, in legal proceedings instituted for infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may order, at the request of the applicant and at the expense of the infringer, appropriate measures for the dissemination of the information concerning the decision, including displaying the decision and publishing it in full or in part. Member States may provide for other additional publicity measures which are appropriate to the particular circumstances, including prominent advertising."

But this does not directly apply to a situation where the applicant loses the case. Therefore the judge used his powers under the senior courts act: "The High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so."

The court of appeal upheld the judge's right to grant the publicity order under this section.

Also the reason the judge issued the order, which was also upheld by the court of appeal, is due to the fact that customers might be confused by what has been published by the media. Read what the judge in the court of appeal said:

But I have come to the firm conclusion that such an order is necessary now. The decision of the Oberlandesgericht received much publicity. What was the ordinary consumer, or the marketing department of a potential Samsung customer to make of it? On the one hand the media said Samsung had won, on the other the media were saying that Apple had a German Europe-wide injunction. Real commercial uncertainty was thereby created. A consumer might well think "I had better not buy a Samsung - maybe it's illegal and if I buy one it may not be supported". A customer (and I include its legal department) might well wonder whether, if it bought Samsung's 7.7 it might be in trouble before the German courts. Safest thing to do either way is not to buy.


Of course our decision fully understood actually lifts the fog that the cloud of litigation concerning the alleged infringement of the Apple registered design by the Samsung Galaxy 10.1, 8.9 and 7.7 tablets must have created. And doubtless the decision will be widely publicised. But media reports now, given the uncertainty created by the conflicting reports of the past, are not enough. Another lot of media reports, reporting more or less accurately that Samsung have not only finally won but been vindicated on appeal may not be enough to disperse all the fog. It is now necessary to make assurance doubly so. Apple itself must (having created the confusion) make the position clear: that it acknowledges that the court has decided that these Samsung products do not infringe its registered design. The acknowledgement must come from the horse's mouth. Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely.

So even if you disagree with a corporation's opinion they're not allowed to have one of their own, and it's perfectly fine for any government to tell a publicly owned company that not only are they not allowed to talk about their opinion, but that they have to broadcast the exact opinion of the government instead?

[xxMATTGxx]

Nothing for me to deal with, it's people in Britain who are being manipulated by the government because some folks will see the statement on Apple's website and assume it's an Apple backed statement, when in actuality it's actually not even the opinion of Apple in the first place.

Justice/Legal System - Why do you even keep mentioning the government? What have Apple been made to do is a lot better for both companies compared to other countries. Even ones closer to your home.

[GommeInc]

I did wonder when Apple was going to get in trouble. I like how the Apple lawyer said "They didn't think there was a problem." Yeah, sure... Turning a court decision into a self-glorification statement wouldn't cause problems?

The opinion of the Court is final, if they say Samsung did not infringe Apple's patent then it should be taken as fact. What Apple did was turn a court decision into a snarky self-glorification comment on their website, pretty much humiliating the Court in the process. They shouldn't of referred to other Court decisions stating how Samsung somehow violated their patents, because that's simply not how law works and is just putting a court-on-court battle because they simply cannot accept people buy these phones and can tell the difference between an SII from an iPhone.

It's a win for common sense. The consumer gets to keep using and buying clearly favourable and popular products from both companies, and all Apple has to do is acknowledge they were wrong for once, and leave the room with their tail in between their legs. Samsung has already been called "uncool", so it's hardly one sided. If they couldn't do something so simple then they should be pleased the Court didn't outright ban some Apple goods in the UK, unlike a certain biased country with a biased court which did ban popular products, hindering consumer choice. The decision seems to of made a statement industry wise, the UK court doesn't give a damn about restrictive, stupid patents.

[Tomm]

How does this statement, that the judge ordered, look like it has anything to do with Apple's opinion?

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 [link given]

That is just a statement of fact.

Nothing for me to deal with, it's people in Britain who are being manipulated by the government because some folks will see the statement on Apple's website and assume it's an Apple backed statement, when in actuality it's actually not even the opinion of Apple in the first place.

[HotelUser]

How does this statement, that the judge ordered, look like it has anything to do with Apple's opinion?



That is just a statement of fact.

Because Apple got into trouble for also posting other paragraphs which essentially disagreed with the court's opinion.

I did wonder when Apple was going to get in trouble. I like how the Apple lawyer said "They didn't think there was a problem." Yeah, sure... Turning a court decision into a self-glorification statement wouldn't cause problems?

The opinion of the Court is final, if they say Samsung did not infringe Apple's patent then it should be taken as fact. What Apple did was turn a court decision into a snarky self-glorification comment on their website, pretty much humiliating the Court in the process. They shouldn't of referred to other Court decisions stating how Samsung somehow violated their patents, because that's simply not how law works and is just putting a court-on-court battle because they simply cannot accept people buy these phones and can tell the difference between an SII from an iPhone.

It's a win for common sense. The consumer gets to keep using and buying clearly favourable and popular products from both companies, and all Apple has to do is acknowledge they were wrong for once, and leave the room with their tail in between their legs. Samsung has already been called "uncool", so it's hardly one sided. If they couldn't do something so simple then they should be pleased the Court didn't outright ban some Apple goods in the UK, unlike a certain biased country with a biased court which did ban popular products, hindering consumer choice. The decision seems to of made a statement industry wise, the UK court doesn't give a damn about restrictive, stupid patents.

Apple obviously knew this would displease the court (which is awesome because the court's idea to do this was stupid imo), and Apple didn't reject the court's decision. Apple lost and cannot collect money from Samsung. They shouldn't have to broadcast the court's opinions all over their website, and suppress their own opinions on their own website.

Justice System - Why do you even keep mentioning the government? What have Apple been made to do is a lot better for both companies compared to other countries. Even ones closer to your home.

I just said David Cameron could talk to a judge, and I mentioned your supreme court...

I've not read into much detail regarding this but it does not really have anything to do with that. Firstly, this has nothing to do with the government. In fact the judge expressly said there is no legislation that would require Apple to publish anything if they lost. However, he did make reference to a EU IP Enforcement Directive that enables the applicant in a IP infringement case to request, if they win the case, that the infringer publish information about the case:



But this does not directly apply to a situation where the applicant loses the case. Therefore the judge used his powers under the senior courts act: "The High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so."

The court of appeal upheld the judge's right to grant the publicity order under this section.

Also the reason the judge issued the order, which was also upheld by the court of appeal, is due to the fact that customers might be confused by what has been published by the media. Read what the judge in the court of appeal said:

Based off your first post then, it's legal to force a corporate to make a statement which goes against their own opinion because their opinion isn't the right opinion? What really bothers me is that Apple were told to revise their statement because it included that they essentially disagreed with what they had to post. I'm concerned about that. By this law, it's as if opinions become matter of fact. If the courts determined that Samsung did not infringe then that ruling is fine with me. Telling the company what to post on their website concerns me, and I am gravely concerned that in forcing the corporation to post a statement to appease the court, that such statement cannot contain any additional conjectures of the company victimized by the ruling. Since when has it been illegal to broadcast your opinion.

As for what you said about why such rulings occur, I also believe that's unfair to the corporation victimized by this unjust ruling. Apple don't control the media no more than the government should. All the media outlets didn't all agree with Apple and paint Samsung as evil so why does it make sense for the legal system to bully Apple into posting opinions Apple doesn't believe in, and then telling Apple that they're not allowed to post their own opinion along with what they were forced to post :S

[xxMATTGxx]

Why does he need to talk to the judge? What the judge has done is fair and there is nothing wrong with it.

[HotelUser]

Why does he need to talk to the judge? What the judge has done is fair and there is nothing wrong with it.

sarcastic statement is sarcastic.

I was joking saying that maybe if David Cameron doesn't like what the media are saying about the Conservative party, that he could go ask a judge to tell media websites to talk about how good the Conservative party is. It's a joke about David Cameron and the Conservative party, but I'm glad to see you didn't take it too seriously, or literally...