liftedplane
Gold Member
Funny I talked to someone today whip wanted my business address, I asked if he had android and when he said no I told him to follow my directions not his iPhone.
Sent from my frozenly delicious razr maxx.
Apple Slapped by UK Court; Given 48 Hours to Rewrite Samsung 'Apology'
- Thread starter dgstorm
- Start date
Funny I talked to someone today whip wanted my business address, I asked if he had android and when he said no I told him to follow my directions not his iPhone.
Sent from my frozenly delicious razr maxx.
Escobar
Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 2
Bout time. Their first effort was pathetic and sickened me.
acousticshade
Active Member
Well this is one reason so many people are disgusted with Apple. Lack of sincerity, compassion & humility.
liftedplane
Gold Member
xPlatinum-Androidx
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2011
- Messages
- 153
- Reaction score
- 1
Hahaha those dumb applef*****s
Narsil
Silver Member
droidbionicmaster
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 467
- Reaction score
- 4
apple didn't give Samsung any apologies in that statement at all. It was more along the line's of them b****ing that they lost. Just like how they hire in china apple is made up of a bunch of 2 year old's
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Droid Forums
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Droid Forums
Snoking
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 714
- Reaction score
- 10
jaybogg
Member
I have been loosely following this case and finally read part of the Appeals Decision (2nd link in Apple's statement). Turns out Apple's statement is a "word for word" statement ordered by the appeals court, including links. There was no order for an apology. The reasoning for the statement, is to dispel any confusion concerning the rights of Samsung to legally market the 3 tablets in the EC. I too, was confused and thought that they could market them in some countries within the European Union and not others. This is not the case. The devices can be marketed in all countries.
It is very wordy, but I found that from paragraph 51 to the end to be interesting as that part discusses the reasoning behind upholding the original finding and why the order for Apple to issue a statement was upheld. Paraphrasing, it amounted to trying to counteract all the publicity given the German court's earlier ruling and the economic effect it is having on Samsung.
Additional Info:
Here's Apple's first statement that irked the judges as posted by DGSTORM on Oct 26:
Samsung / Apple UK judgment
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 Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat) (09 July 2012).
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:
"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."
"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 1339 (18 October 2012). There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
Here is the statement on their current homepage, complying to the judges order, even the 11 pt type size requirement and link to the statement itself:
On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement.
And finally, the statement itself, which is word for word what was ordered to be published by the court's order:
Samsung / Apple UK judgment
On 9 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 Community registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of
the High Court is available from Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat) (09 July 2012).
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available from Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 1339 (18 October 2012). There is no injunction in respect of the Community registered design in force anywhere in Europe
NOTICE that the court ordered "word for word" statements are included in the first statement, but buried in all the "fluff" added by Apple. The second release complies with the court order, "word for word", no more, no less.
It is very wordy, but I found that from paragraph 51 to the end to be interesting as that part discusses the reasoning behind upholding the original finding and why the order for Apple to issue a statement was upheld. Paraphrasing, it amounted to trying to counteract all the publicity given the German court's earlier ruling and the economic effect it is having on Samsung.
Additional Info:
Here's Apple's first statement that irked the judges as posted by DGSTORM on Oct 26:
Samsung / Apple UK judgment
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 Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat) (09 July 2012).
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:
"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."
"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 1339 (18 October 2012). There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.
Here is the statement on their current homepage, complying to the judges order, even the 11 pt type size requirement and link to the statement itself:
On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement.
And finally, the statement itself, which is word for word what was ordered to be published by the court's order:
Samsung / Apple UK judgment
On 9 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 Community registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of
the High Court is available from Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat) (09 July 2012).
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available from Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 1339 (18 October 2012). There is no injunction in respect of the Community registered design in force anywhere in Europe
NOTICE that the court ordered "word for word" statements are included in the first statement, but buried in all the "fluff" added by Apple. The second release complies with the court order, "word for word", no more, no less.
Last edited:
droidbionicmaster
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 467
- Reaction score
- 4
Snoking said:
Yes that is one now. Before it was not lol
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Droid Forums
has anyone else noticed that the UK site scales the image according to your resolution so that the "apology" is pushed off the bottom of the page?! If I were the judge I would hold them in contempt and fine them plenty of dollars (euros)!
UK site: Apple (United Kingdom)
US site: Apple
Apple is just showing their true colors more and more - reinforcing the negative feelings that people already have of them.
UK site: Apple (United Kingdom)
US site: Apple
Apple is just showing their true colors more and more - reinforcing the negative feelings that people already have of them.
acousticshade
Active Member
ROFL!!! It's amazing how 'innovative' Apple is being with their apology. Too bad they really don't do this so much with their products anymore.
Most reactions - Past 7 days
-
44 -
31 -
27 -
20 -
17 -
15 -
11 -
7 -
N
1
Similar threads
