A bit of Karma..... [Apple must run Did not Copy Ads in Britain]

[ScotiaBurrell]

this is why

"Apple’s lawyer said the company would appeal the July 9 decision and Judge Birss granted the company permission to take its case to the court of appeal."

[HarryT]

I'm afraid I fail to see how you can make a definitive statement it will be overturned, given that the appeal hasn't occurred yet.

[sadievan]

Originally Posted by PieOPah

You just know that they will manage to put a positive spin on the advert...

'Hey, the Samsung Tablet isn't as cool as the iPad - how could they have copied the design?'

Reminds me of the Samsung ad spoofing the iPhone



Carol

Edited: Tried to get it to show up in a uTube window like some do here but couldn't.

Edited: Did it. Yay

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by sadievan

Reminds me of the Samsung ad spoofing the iPhone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=FVkH9Hgvda4

Carol

Edited: Tried to get it to show up in a uTube window like some do here but couldn't.

See this part in the link -- FVkH9Hgvda4

Click the YouTube link, then copy/paste it between the inner brackets.

[sadievan]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

See this part in the link -- FVkH9Hgvda4

Click the YouTube link, then copy/paste it between the inner brackets.

Thanks. Just figured it out and posted as you were.

Now if only I can REMEMBER it.

Carol

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by sadievan

Thanks. Just figured it out and posted as you were.

Now if only I can REMEMBER it.

Carol

Now we have it three times and everyone will remember this video

[sadievan]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Now we have it three times and everyone will remember this video

I guess I should have deleted part of the quotes. My Bad.

I liked the ad, and I have an iPhone. Thought it was funny.

I think, might have been Harry, told me how to do the uTube video's before. Maybe now I'll remeber.

Carol

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by sadievan

I guess I should have deleted part of the quotes. My Bad.

I liked the ad, and I have an iPhone. Thought it was funny.

I think, might have been Harry, told me how to do the uTube video's before. Maybe now I'll remeber.

Carol

You need some REMEMBER lessons

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

[sadievan]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

You need some REMEMBER lessons

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I DO remember those. Used to like the 'Leader of the Pack', girl groups of the '60's.

Now I'm giving away my age.

Carol

Originally Posted by Blackadder

Is this like doing 100 lines for being naughty a school.
I must not tell lies

I wonder what the reasoning behind this ruling is. My first thought is that Apple was using the courts as a marketing tool. It brought negative publicity to Samsung during the case. If Apple won it would bring negative publicity to Samsung after the case. And if Apple lost, they would conveniently remain silent after the case (while Samsung would probably remain quiet because their devices are similar enough that some people wouldn't accept the ruling).

[Graham]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

I wonder what the reasoning behind this ruling is.

My understanding is that Apple came straight out of the court case and repeated their line about Samsung 'blatantly copying', in spite of the fact that the case had basically just ruled that they didn't.

Samsung complained that the constant repetition of this statement was commercially damaging to them. The judge said that Apple were entitled to express their opinion, but concurred that some redress was required to counteract what is effectively propoganda, given that the ruling was that no blatant copying had in fact taken place.

Graham

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Graham

My understanding is that Apple came straight out of the court case and repeated their line about Samsung 'blatantly copying', in spite of the fact that the case had basically just ruled that they didn't.

Samsung complained that the constant repetition of this statement was commercially damaging to them. The judge said that Apple were entitled to express their opinion, but concurred that some redress was required to counteract what is effectively propoganda, given that the ruling was that no blatant copying had in fact taken place.

Graham

I wonder if this is connected with the UK having stronger libel laws than the US.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I wonder if this is connected with the UK having stronger libel laws than the US.

I suspect it might have more to do with Apple's apparent contempt for the ruling of his court. If they don't post the ad then they probably are in line for a contempt of court ruling.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by OakdaleMike

Tubemonkey, I know it's a joke and one should never analyze jokes, but I wonder how long it took to set up the Sammy to look like that. That's sure not how it looks out of the box, nor how any normally-configured android device looks.

Funny, looks like many friends' Android smartphones except for having app icons only with no larger widget icons... guess it'd take me around three minutes max to have similar screen by deleting three widgets from homescreen and adding half a dozen apps... it's also not very far from my Galaxy II S straight out of the box...

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You'll have noted, I'm sure, that the judge ALSO said that the reason that Samsung weren't in violation was that the Tab wasn't as "cool" as the iPad. I'm sure that any "shame" Apple may feel will be more than assuaged by the fact that they can now claim "we're cooler than Samsung - the courts have said so!".

way toooo cooool for cats, Harry