Apple loses samsung copyright appeal . Has to advertise samsung did not copy the ipad

[725032]

These newspaper and mag ads should be interesting;

Apple Loses Samsung Copyright Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld its judgement that, even though parts of the product look similar to Apple's iPad, the tablet does not infringe its rival's design.
Apple will now have to place prominent advertisements in several UK newspapers and magazines, explaining that Samsung did not copy the iPad.
The two companies are the world's leading smartphone makers are have been fighting over patents in courts around the world.
More follows...

 

[cRuNcHiE]

Apple loses samsung copyright appeal . Has to advertise samsung did not copy the ipad

Apple has lost its appeal over a High Court decision that the Samsung Galaxy Tab does not infringe its copyright.

The Court of Appeal upheld its judgement that, even though parts of the product look similar to Apple's iPad, the tablet does not infringe its rival's design.

Apple will now have to place prominent advertisements in several UK newspapers and magazines, explaining that Samsung did not copy the iPad.

http://news.sky.com/story/999320/apple-loses-samsung-copyright-appeal

 

[Tobias Funke]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750

Also this report,

Samsung quote from it,

"We continue to believe that Apple was not the first to design a tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corners and that the origins of Apple's registered design features can be found in numerous examples of prior art.

"Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims in other countries based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited."

 

[ReValveiT]

"Apple will now have to place prominent advertisements in several UK newspapers and magazines, explaining that Samsung did not copy the iPad"

Is that the modern day equivalent of having to wear a dunce cap?

 

[sineplex]

It's actually great advertising again. They will keep on saying 'copy... iPad...iPad...iPad'

They will not mention anything to do with the Galaxy Tab. The branding will not appear anywhere.

Then a barrage of 10 million iPad minis hit the streets.

 

[blackbelter]

It's actually great advertising again. They will keep on saying 'copy... iPad...iPad...iPad'

They will not mention anything to do with the Galaxy Tab. The branding will not appear anywhere.

Then a barrage of 10 million iPad minis hit the streets.

People are not as stupid as you think...

 

[fhall1]

People are not as stupid as you think...

Yes they are....and they continue to prove it over and over.

 

[ChristianVirtual]

They can write in the text that it was payed from the 1bn $ they won in US

 

[kot]

Ok, I see the "not cool as the iPad" part included somewhere in the text will do more harm than good for Samsung.

 

[MonkeySee....]

Ridiculous outcome.

I'm sure Apple will spin it perfectly though.

 

[OllyW]

Ridiculous outcome.

I'm sure Apple will spin it perfectly though.

They will have to be careful with their response because they could end up being charged with contempt of court if they don't take it seriously.

 

[MonkeySee....]

They will have to be careful with their response because they could end up being charged with contempt of court if they don't take it seriously.

I'm sure they will take it seriously. But they can do it in a way that readers won't.

 

[LoloBond]

They can write in the text that it was payed from the 1bn $ they won in US

Samsung will never pay that...

 

[KnightWRX]

They will have to be careful with their response because they could end up being charged with contempt of court if they don't take it seriously.

Didn't the UK Judge already also give them to actual text they have to print ? Apple can't spin their way out of this one.

 

[the8thark]

Proof the UK system of justice is flawed?
What's the point of having a trial when you can just have an appeal? We all know who copied who here. Apple should be allowed to appeal the appeal to get the right verdict. But yeah that'd go on forever as both sides would appeal for ever.

Looks like Apple unfairly got the short end of the stick here. And got a cruel and unusual punishment. Apple having to advertise a flat lie. But /sigh no justice system is perfect.

 

[OllyW]

We all know who copied who here.

The case wasn't about copying, it was whether there was an infringement of Apple's registered design.

One of the judges - who noted he owned an iPad himself - explained why Apple had lost the appeal in his ruling.

"Because this case (and parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about," wrote Sir Robin Jacob.

"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law."

"So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products."

Sir Robin noted that Samsung's decision to place its logo on the front of its devices distinguished them from Apple's registered design which said there should be "no ornamentation".

He also highlighted the fact that the sides of the iPad's design - which featured a "sharp edge" - were significantly different from those of the Galaxy Tabs.

In addition, Sir Robin wrote that Samsung's designs were "altogether busier" with a more varied use of colour on the devices' rear and their inclusion of a thicker section to house a camera.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750

 

[KnightWRX]

Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying

Something I've been trying to explain here to no avail to a bunch of people : Patent infringement (be it design patents, utility patents, software patents, EU Community Design registrations) are not about copying. You can infringe patents without ever having copied anything froma anyone, and you can be non-infringing for things that while on the surface appear similar, do not infringe on the claim in the patent/design registration.

 

[725032]

I'm sure they will take it seriously. But they can do it in a way that readers won't.

Well well well... Welcome back

 

[MonkeySee....]

Well well well... Welcome back

Didn't go any where.

 

[725032]

Didn't go any where.

Good to hear. Hope you're good

 

[Michael Goff]

Proof the UK system of justice is flawed?
What's the point of having a trial when you can just have an appeal? We all know who copied who here. Apple should be allowed to appeal the appeal to get the right verdict. But yeah that'd go on forever as both sides would appeal for ever.

Looks like Apple unfairly got the short end of the stick here. And got a cruel and unusual punishment. Apple having to advertise a flat lie. But /sigh no justice system is perfect.

The "right verdict" is now "the one Apple wants"?

But you've already shown a complete ignorance of how the law works by saying that appeals make the trial pointless.

 

[roadbloc]

People are not as stupid as you think...

If this forum is anything to go by, I disagree. Some people are unbelievably stupid.

 

[smoledman]

Microsoft is so stupid for not making a Surface Mini right off the bat. Apple will sell a trillion of those things. It will be the #1 Christmas present this year.