Apple Must Publicly Post That Samsung Did Not Copy iPad

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Must Publicly Post That Samsung Did Not Copy iPad

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @07:36AM from the wearing-a-sign-in-public dept.

microcars writes "A judge in the U.K. has ordered Apple to post a notice on its website and in British newspapers alerting people to a ruling that Samsung Electronics Co. didn't copy designs for the iPad. This is the same Judge who ruled earlier that Samsung's Galaxy Tab was not as cool as Apple's iPad."

15 of 278 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

A patent troll public shaming. Interesting by crazyjj · 2012-07-18 07:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

I wouldn't mind seeing this happen to a few more patent trolls. Not only should the U.S. adopt a European style "loser pays" system for cases like this, but a "loser has to publicly admit he's an ass" policy wouldn't hurt either.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
1. Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting by crazyjj · 2012-07-18 07:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  hey protect their own innovations to an extent they deem reasonable
  I'm pretty sure they didn't "innovate" a rectangle with rounded corners.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
2. Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting by ewanm89 · 2012-07-18 08:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So which lawsuit did Google initiate? Plenty where suits have been bought against Google. I don't know of any where Google was the initiator.
3. Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting by oakgrove · 2012-07-18 08:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They protect their own innovations to an extent they deem reasonable.
  What innovations? Apple is an imitator, marketer, and polisher of other people's products. Did they invent the cellphone? Did they invent tablets? Did they invent mp3 players, touch screens, gridded icons, rounded corners or anything else of substance? Have they ever actually created a new product category? The best people can say is that Samsung imitated an imitator. At best.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
4. Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting by AmiMoJo · 2012-07-18 08:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The reason Apple have to do this is because they tried to trash Samsung's name publicly. Apple is not being punished here, merely made to undo the wrong that they did.
  We have restorative justice, meaning the goal is always to put things back the way they were before the matter under consideration happened. Monetary damages are awarded based on lost income, and in cases like this where one party has damaged the other's reputation steps must be taken to restore it.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting by sootman · 2012-07-18 08:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How does "loser pays" work when a little guy goes after a big company like Apple, Google, or Microsoft with a legitimate complaint but gets defeated because the big company was able to spend 100,000x more on their lawyers?
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
6. Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting by OWJones · 2012-07-18 08:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  By "in the middle of" you mean "not yet in control of and had no power over," right?
7. Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting by dyingtolive · 2012-07-18 09:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That was a very lengthy way to type "I'm incapible of performing research on products before buying them."
  
  Did you also buy a coupe expecting to be able to fit your kids in the backseat?
  
  "Well... I mean... it's a car! It SHOULD have a backseat, right? Someone should do something to protect me from this! DERP!"
  
  --
  Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
8. Re:A patent troll public shaming. Interesting by jo_ham · 2012-07-18 11:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The point is not whether or not Apple was legally right in doing this. The point is they were assholes for doing so. And I don't like doing business with corporations that are not nice.
  No, the point (as put forth by the OP) was that Apple patented rounded corners, and meant "method patent", which is not what Apple did.
  The point wasn't anywhere near whether Apple was being an asshole about it - yes, they were - the whole lawsuit has got way out of hand, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't correct false statements.
YES! by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-18 07:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

One of my biggest issues with corporate culture is the ending to so many disputes where the misbehaving corporation "admits no fault" for the situation.
They should always have to post a "we did wrong" letter after they get shown the door.
1. Re:YES! by Genda · 2012-07-18 07:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I find it particularly egregious when a corporation has committed a truly heinous act, like dumping toxic waste resulting in some number of deaths and injuries, and to keep face, they agree to settle out quickly (so the remaining survivors can get expensive medical care) on the agreement that they "Admit to no wrong doing", and nobody can talk about the atrocity they committed.
  Perhaps there will be a time when people place the value of human dignity above the value of personal wealth. Sadly, I'm not holding my breath.
2. Re:YES! by StripedCow · 2012-07-18 09:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This is incorrect. A person in a group behaves fundamentally differently than individually.
  A good example is when you're walking on the street and meet a bunch of streetkids. There is a bigger chance they will harass you as a group, then if you met them individually. Why? Because in the latter case, they can't hide behind the group.
  Same with corporations. People can have personal benefit for doing something "bad", and cleanse their souls by assuming somebody else (or the whole company) will be held responsible.
  Hence it is stupid to identify or even compare corporations with individuals.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Re:And we can expect by Ynot_82 · 2012-07-18 07:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the media coverage alone of this story will do all the work
Apple cannot control that
I think what Apple actually does to comply with this will be largely irrelevant when it's being talked about on the news.
Re:And we can expect by anagama · 2012-07-18 08:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

It isn't just some newspaper ads:

Now, Birss says Apple must post a notice to its UK website that outlines the July 9 decision, and the notice must remain on the site for six months. ... Unsurprisingly, Apple's lawyer in the case, Richard Hacon, pushed back on the order by arguing that Apple would essentially be forced to advertise for Samsung. "No company likes to refer to a rival on its website," ...
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/judge-to-apple-tell-uk-consumers-samsung-didnt-infringe-on-ipad-design/
The Streisand effect was designed in California too, correct?

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:And we can expect by erroneus · 2012-07-18 08:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

But like the climategate thing, people aren't interested in hearing that the accusers were wrong in the end. The damage is done. This judge is probably attempting to undo the damage by forcing the damagers to make the statement. It is not enough that a judge makes the statement. It has to come from Apple -- the accuser, the damager. Even so, people won't be inclined to believe as that requires people to change their beliefs and there is a very long and significant list of things that people will change before they change their beliefs.