View Single Post
Old 11-08-2012, 10:47 AM   #106
Sil_liS
Wizard
Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,692
Karma: 33379200
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daithi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by afv011 View Post
Here's the AD they ran on the papers. Dry as the desert, but at least it's "court-approved".
Now Apple's webpage shows the same text as the AD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN View Post
Yes, it was rather bizarre that they trusted Apple not to play childish games. The court should write the statement themselves, and specify the exact size, font specs, and position on the front page of Apple's website, as well as the exact date and time the statement must appear and the date and time when it is to be taken down. the court should also reserve the right to approve any of the other items that are to appear on Apple's website during that time to avoid that Apple displays any content contradicting the statement. What was the judge thinking that Apple would behave like responsible adults?
I don't know if you are just being sarcastic or not. Court of Appeal’s judgment:
Quote:
The Publicity Appeal
64. As a result of his second judgment, Judge Birss ordered that:
Within seven days of the date of this Order [18th July 2012] [Apple] shall at its own expense (a) post in a font size no smaller than Arial 11pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this order on the homepage of its UK website ... as specified in Schedule 1 to this Order, together with a hyperlink to the Judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 9th July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on [Apple's] websites for a period of six months from the date of this order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no smaller than Arial 14pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine.
65. The material part of the notice specified in Schedule 1 reads:
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]
There was another interesting thing in the judgement:
Quote:
4. So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products. The registered design is not the same as the design of the iPad. It is quite a lot different. For instance the iPad is a lot thinner, and has noticeably different curves on its sides. There may be other differences - even though I own one, I have not made a detailed comparison. Whether the iPad would fall within the scope of protection of the registered design is completely irrelevant. We are not deciding that one way or the other. This case must be decided as if the iPad never existed.
Sil_liS is offline   Reply With Quote