Quote:
Originally Posted by afv011
I'm not sure the judge will approve of this, would be fun if they were to be found in contempt of court...
Source |
The purpose of the acknowledgement was to "correct the damaging impression" that Samsung had infringed Apple's design patent.
It's the last paragraph of Apple's statement, which, in extremely cleverly-worded English manages to distort the truth, and which risks contempt:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Apple statement
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.
|
Forbes' article best sums up what's wrong with the Apple statement:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...msung-apology/
Quote:
Both of these things stated are strictly true. A German court did so find. And Samsung did indeed lose in California. However, The jury in California decided that Samsung’s tablet did not breach the design patent. Various Samsung products breached various other patents: but not the tablet the design one. Note that Apple don’t say that it did: but a quick reading would give you the impression that that is at least what they are implying.
The German verdict is actually irrelevant. For that court shouldn’t have been hearing the case in the first place. Design patents (as opposed to technical ones) are European Union wide. A case concerning such an EU design patent should only be heard once (with subsequent appeals, sure) rather than fought 27 times, once in each country. Given that the case first appeared in the English courts (no, not the UK ones, we have one legal system for England and Wales, another for Scotland) then that’s the only EU court system that should consider the matter. With, as before, allowances for appeals up to the Court of Appeal (and, if anyone wants to take it that far, the Supreme Court and then the European Court).
That Apple statement is something of a masterpiece actually. Absolutely true in each and every word and sentence and rather misleading as a whole.
|
Graham