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

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

In the UK case, Apple sued Samsung for patent infringement. Apple lost and was required to notify consumers of this fact. The suit wasn't about misleading statements at all.

If that were correct we would hear about all losing court cases in newspaper ads. This is different, Apple gave Samsung a bad reputation (copycats), and it turned out it was unfounded; it could be considered libel. Hence, they have to repair the damage done.

Too bad the same common sense does not apply to all courts.

[kennyc]

I think I'm going to get a Samsung phone just in support of them and their battle against evil.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I don't think think it's wrong at all, but it is different, and I'm curious about *why* this particular remedy was ordered in this particular case. There has to be more to it than Company X brought a suit and lost.

Apple came straight out of the court and continued to state its standard line about "this kind of blatant copying is wrong". Samsung objected, pointing out that the ruling had been that there was no blatant copying, and that continued repetition of this line in the context of court cases with Samsung was damaging.

The judge said that Apple were entitled to their opinion, but that they should run the ads to correct the impression that they had fostered that Samsung were guilty of blatant copying.

Graham

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I think I'm going to get a Samsung phone just in support of them and their battle against evil.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Graham

Apple came straight out of the court and continued to state its standard line about "this kind of blatant copying is wrong". Samsung objected, pointing out that the ruling had been that there was no blatant copying, and that continued repetition of this line in the context of court cases with Samsung was damaging.

The judge said that Apple were entitled to their opinion, but that they should run the ads to correct the impression that they had fostered that Samsung were guilty of blatant copying.

Graham

Looks like they have been let off the hook until after they lose their appeal:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...copy-ipad.html

They claim "irreparable harm" if they are forced to comply. It seems to me they are setting up a Samsung claim for damages for the irreparable harm to Samsung from the false allegations of copying.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Apple has been granted a stay on an embarassing ruling that called for the company to issue a statement on its UK website admitting that Samsung did not copy the iPad's design. Just over a week ago, Judge Colin Birss ordered Apple to make the admission both online (where it would need to remain visible for six months) and in a number of British newspapers, but a London court today ruled in favor of delaying such a public shaming until Apple has the chance to argue its appeal in October.

theverge

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Didn't do it yet, but may still today. The only thing stopping me is that in comparing my DroidX with the Galaxy S III the Galaxy screen is much much dimmer... My understanding is that they did it on purpose in order to conserve battery life, which is incredibly longer than my Droid....

[kennyc]

And from CNN / Wired yesterday:

The Apple versus Samsung patent showdown explained

By David Kravets, Wired
July 27, 2012 -- Updated 1603 GMT (0003 HKT) | Filed under: Mobile
Apple is accusing Samsung of theft of intellectual property based on its smartphone's design and scrolling technology.
Apple is accusing Samsung of theft of intellectual property based on its smartphone's design and scrolling technology.

(Wired) -- Did Apple rip off Samsung's intellectual property to create the iPhone, or did Samsung pilfer Apple's patents when it took on the iPad and iPhone with a slew of mobile devices and tablets?

Those are the burning questions at issue in the biggest trial so far in the ongoing worldwide mobile phone patent war that's broken out between Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Samsung, HTC, Motorola and others.

Apple and Samsung, both competitors and business partners, have been jousting over the issue for more than a year, in what's really a proxy war between Apple and Google. But after 1,400 court docket entries, on Monday, in a San Jose, California, federal court, a nine-member jury is expected to be chosen to resolve the dispute in a highly anticipated patent and anti-trust trial.

At stake is billions of dollars in penalties, possible bans on imports of flagship consumer gadgets, and even whether Samsung will remain the world's foremost electronics producer of smartphones. Apple intends to push for more injunctions blocking the U.S. sale of the South Korea-based company's phones and tablets that are powered by Google's Android operating system.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh has already blocked the Galaxy Nexus, the flagship Google phone, from being sold in the United States, but the decision has been stayed on appeal. Apple claims the Galaxy Nexus infringes its patents via "the core voice and search functionality within Android." Koh also blocked the U.S. sale of Samsung's initial iPad rivals, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 -- as has Germany, on the grounds it resembles the iPad too closely. (However, a British judge disagreed, saying the Tab was "not as cool" as the iPad.)
....

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/27/te...ial/index.html

and:
Apple v. Samsung: 5 Surprising Reveals in Latest Court Documents
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/...-monday-trial/

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Didn't do it yet, but may still today. The only thing stopping me is that in comparing my DroidX with the Galaxy S III the Galaxy screen is much much dimmer... My understanding is that they did it on purpose in order to conserve battery life, which is incredibly longer than my Droid....

Now I did it. Loving it so far.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Didn't do it yet, but may still today. The only thing stopping me is that in comparing my DroidX with the Galaxy S III the Galaxy screen is much much dimmer... My understanding is that they did it on purpose in order to conserve battery life, which is incredibly longer than my Droid....

So, I suppose that users (device "owners"!) can't be trusted with doing battery life brightness tradeoffs for themselves.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Looks like they have been let off the hook until after they lose their appeal:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...copy-ipad.html

They claim "irreparable harm" if they are forced to comply. It seems to me they are setting up a Samsung claim for damages for the irreparable harm to Samsung from the false allegations of copying.

Yes, they got a stay, but the word is already out and the laugh is on Apple. Even if they eventually get this overturned and don't have to run the ads, people will remember this ruling. At least those who read the news.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

So, I suppose that users (device "owners"!) can't be trusted with doing battery life brightness tradeoffs for themselves.

Well, except that now that I've had the SIII a few days, the actual batter usage seems about on par with the DroidX - despite the "claims" when looking at the specs of "incredibly greater" usage and standby time.

And now the trial is Under Way. This is a good article that delves into some of the detail of the battle between Apple and Samsung:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19022935

[twobob]

I read it all. I'm still confused. When did judges know ANYTHING about COOL?



And when did it become the basis for rulings?

Stop the system, I would like to get off...

When the rule of law becomes the plaything of corporate marketing strategies and a forced advertisement is the outcome? Crikey.



Da EyePADD - Itz got Lectrolites!

shameful. bang their head together. Or is that illegal now?

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by afv011

Yes, they got a stay, but the word is already out and the laugh is on Apple. Even if they eventually get this overturned and don't have to run the ads, people will remember this ruling. At least those who read the news.

Didn't get overturned. Apple lost the appeal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750

Full text of judgement: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

[Barty]

This is a stupid ruling. Of course Samsung copied apple. Just look at the phones pre iPhone and post iPhone. You can argue apple can't sue them for copying, because every successful product is going to get copied! And you can argue the patent system is broken, you can argue apple is scummy for trying to kill competition in court, but to deny Samsung copied them is patently stupid.