Slashdot Mirror
Apple Must Publicly Post That Samsung Did Not Copy iPad
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."
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?
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.
You'll find the notice right before the equivalent of the Obituary section or a couple pages from the back of the first section.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This is the Internet age, after all.
I could see how Apple could turn this around to their benefit.
"Samsung did not copy design from the iPad for the Galaxy Tab. The iPad is WAY cooler! Even the judge thinks so."
I wonder what this'll do for other cases where Apple is bending Samsung over for the same exact thing.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
We can expect that Apple will wriggle to avoid doing this in any meaningful way. What's the smallest size ad they can place? What's the smallest typeface? Do all elements need equal prominance?
They'd likely put a huge ad saying "Buy Apple iPad, the judge said it's cool" in a large font with the "Samsung did not copy" message in a tiny font in a corner of the ad (maybe even upside-down text). They'll go as far as they think they can while avoiding a contempt finding.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
The punch line is in TFA (emphasis added):
Birss said in his July 9 ruling that Samsung’s tablets were unlikely to be confused with the iPad because they are “not as cool.” He declined today to grant Samsung’s bid for an injunction blocking Apple from making public statements that the Galaxy infringed its design rights.
“They are entitled to their opinion,” he said.
It looks like they have to run the ads, but they can still say Samsung copied them.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
How about a system something like this:
If you file a frivolous patent case against a competitor and lose, you must advertise for the said product on your website for X time period, give a public statement/apology AND you must also pay the defendant's legal expenses.
Maybe something like that would deter more patent trolling?
Put the notice in 2pt font.
At the bottom of the page.
White text on white background.
dotted font.
wingdings.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Samsung said in their statement: "Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited."
Apple is like the #1 enemy in the tech industry. I remember that ad from years ago with all those drone-like people in front of the screen obeying their overlord. Well, can't people see that that's exactly what Apple and its users are like now?
Apart from publicity/shame, nothing much. UK laws don't apply there any way, even though they should adopt a very similar approach to these mindless cases.
It would have been better if the judge could have
1. specified it to be the FRONT page (or default page) associated with the iPad.
2. made Apple disclose the many instances where their products have been "copies" (some would say refinements) of other existing products just to ram home the point of them being hypocritical asses
Samsung devices will be required to contain a warning: "This device contains technology that Her Majesty's Courts have determined is not as cool as an iPad."
And Apple will post a precise statement, "In the United Kingdom, the Court has determined that Samsung Galaxy Tab does not copy the iPad. In other jurisdictions (list), an opposing judgement has been rendered."
It will be posted publicly.
In a public cellar.
With no stairs.
In the dark.
In the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
Maybe not. Citibank screwed something up in Japan -- not sure what, some violation of information disclosure laws -- and it was on the main page for three months -- you had to click a little box acknowledging you'd read it before you could access your account. Hopefully this will be something similar.
Samsung copied the PADD, not the iPad. (See: LCARS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCARS )
Yes they made a rectangle without a shiny back and wrote Samsung on it just like the iPad. Then they installed Android, that well known Apple OS. Then they put an SD card slot in it just like Apple did. Oh wait.
but I always read the "cooler" as positively dripping in sarcasm.
Yes, but if you have public documentation of "No this product doesn't infringe on ours" on their website...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
>>>Samsung did, in fact, copy the iPad
Provide proof please
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I doubt he's ever heard of it. In the UK, no, and I really mean no, US car has the slightest cool factor whatsoever. The coolest judgemobile ever was Scott's bicycle at the Scott enquiry (into illegal arms sales to Iraq).
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Judge: "Apologize to that lady you called fat!"
Apple: "I'm sorry you're fat."
He declined today to grant Samsung’s bid for an injunction blocking Apple from making public statements that the Galaxy infringed its design rights.
So they can still say the Galaxy infringed on their design. They only have to put it on their website for the UK only and they'll probably turn it around and say something along the lines of court confirming their product is cooler which is hardly detrimental to their image.
So I'm failing to see how they've been shamed.
You need to get off the meds, or get on them if you are off. Samsung didn't copy Apple at all. The design pre-dates the iPad with about a decade. Only someone with their heads up Steve Jobs' ass would consider it copying the iPad.
In the US,
Wrong jurisdiction.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
I was responding to a specific post calling for this to be adopted in the US, not responding to the original article, so your response doesn't really apply. I know the original article is about the UK, which doesn't follow our Constitution.
RTFA, apparently, they did not.
I don't believe the tablet in question had an SD card slot (in fact that was one of my reasons for not buying it)
that said, the different aspect ratio, which forced a different shape to the device, the different buttons, the different back, the word SAMSUNG on the bezel and back, the different operating system with completely different interface using a completely different home screen look sort of gave me a slight hint that it may not be an iPad...
Do they have to stand in the corner, too?
Zing! One in a row.
UK picks its judges from the pool of headmasters, do they?
Hey, what?
Apple should just post "We admit Samsung just faceplant level failed to copy the iPad." :-D
Oh, pow!
Well in that case, there have been plenty of shaming punishments here in the US, but the person can decide shaming or jail time.
This was the first one to pop up on google.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/shame-punishments-judge-orders-ponytail_n_1627010.html
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
At this point a court decision is not proof of anything except having a good legal team.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Read the post he was responding to.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Apple could just tell the UK to Fsk off. The Queen would be pissed. Or maybe she would smuggle in her gadget fix?
"We're legally obligated to inform you that the courts have found that the Galaxy Tab is not as cool as the iPad, and also found by the courts to not be an iPad substitute."
Yeah, sure. All current tablets are copied, at least in part, from the iPad. Because is someone has a successful product, you'll want to do something similar.
Apple copied from others. We all copy each other. This way, things evolve. We learn from each other.
Yes it was. It was called a Palm Pilot.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
...you must install iTunes and the following optional QuickTime components: X, Y, Z, Q, ...
Sorry, it looks like your platform is not supported. Please try again with the latest version of Mac OS X or Windows.
Samsung copied the PADD, not the iPad. (See: LCARS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCARS )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MessagePad
That was a real product whereas the PADD in STNG was a prop made out of plastic and/or wood.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The Israeli edition of Swine-herders digest is a well known publication, and Chinese a popular language. How can you say we didn't follow the court order?
Honestly, other than amount of real estate, it seems to me Apple is probably more powerful and influential than the UK government. If I were Apple, (and bear in mind as I write this that I despise almost everything about Apple, especially their sycophantic cult of fan-boys and fan-girls who would buy a bag of flaming dog shit if it had a shiny Apple logo on it,) could and should tell the UK government to fuck off. Stop selling all products and stop all support for UK users, and tell them "hey, eliminate your idiotic, bullshit, anachronistic joke of a government, and we'll consider returning." The judge DID have a point that no-one who is a technology aficionado would confuse the two despite the tremendous similarity. Samsung CLEARLY copied Apple, but the fact that such a thing would give Apple cause to pursue legal remedies is the problem.
For Apple to be able to claim something like "we invented the finger swipe, so no one else can use it," would be rather like one car maker suing another for copying their "control direction with a wheel" interface, or insisting no one else can put the throttle control on a spring, or locate it in front of the feet, or that no one else can place the gas on the right, brake in the center, clutch on the left... competition is AIDED by standardization of interface, so you DON'T have to learn each different device's control layout... imagine if every car that wasn't say... a Ford had a gas pedal that had no spring, (because FMC had patented a spring-return variable throttle control,) so you had to put your foot in a stirrup so when you want to slow down, you have to pull the fuel-flow-control lever BACK using your foot.
That's the world Apple wants. If they add a third headphone jack to the iPad, they don't want anyone else to be able to do it, not realizing that they should just be content leading the pack. They don't realize that the reality is, that you may just not be able to recoup your investment in making an ultra slick interface, no matter what you do, so rather than try to bludgeon people with the legal system, you simply acknowledge that you can only afford to make the interface so slick, orrrr... reconcile yourself to having people avail themselves of your interface. Apple's approach of course has been, and will probably remain bludgeoning. That's sad. There are better uses for the court's time, whatever court that is.
Finally, Apple has a reason for using Adobe Flash.
Translation: In a society where there are private institutions which wield enormous power and influence—vastly more than any person, and increasingly exceeding that of even the most organized public institutions—and they use that power and influence to ends that are harmful, whether objectively or subjectively, the people who are affected should refrain from comment which might besmirch these powerful institutions, and should instead volunteer to suffer a life of arbitrary self-denial and misery. It is inappropriate for a person to present their thoughts to others about undesired attributes of this mode of commerce; it is, after all, an arrangement which those people are evicted from by virtue of having such thoughts. We must pay fealty, stay silent, or become unpersons.
There was a time Apple ran an ad campaign anchored on the slogan "Think Different". The irony, even then, was that Apple systems tended to be less configurable than mass market computers produced by the partners of the Wintel duopoly. So Apple users tended to Think Alike.
That's really the crux of the issue. It's much easier for someone else to do all the engineering and hard work it takes to create an experience that nobody ever had - and copy it at a fraction of the cost. That goes for "Hassalblad" cameras and "Rolodex" watches. They've got no skin in the game except the expense of pulling molds off the original. In the US, they arrest people for having Louis Vuitton or Gucci knockoff hand bags. By that measure, Samsung qualifies. So does Hyundai but we can't see past the acquisition price. No doubt, they make really good ripoffs,but we bear (or submerge) the guilt of ripping off the originator when we buy it. Of course it's a good value, even if it lasts half as long.
I wanted new shoes over there and the local shoe shop in Itaewon handed me a Sears catalog. A real one. I pointed to the shoes I wanted and they had them custom made the NEXT DAY for 10% of the Sears price. Can't resist supporting that.
I have that Top Gear episode. Love that series. The real one.
Most of the stuff on
(show ipad)
iPad
(show Chinese mob waiting in front of Apple Store to open)
Want
(show samsung tablet, it looks exactly the same)
Not a copy. Somebody forgot the cool.
Again.
(show deserted generic electronics store)
Do not want
(show ipad)
iPad
I don't think they arrest you for owning knock offs, they go after you for manufacturing and selling them
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
While we're on the subject of copying and law can the US please post a notice stating that their legal system was a copy of the UK's but they have been busy changing it for 200 years and it no longer infringes. Right under the HOLLYWOOD sign would be a good place.
You do realise that Top Gear is aimed at skilled working/lower middle class don't you? The only lawyer I know who drives a Ford (for the rest think Audi/BMW/Merc/Porsche/Aston Martin/Lexus) is one of my kids, and that's because they live in an area of London which, while very fashionable, is a target for thieves of up-market cars, and the Ford garage is a few hundred metres away.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Yeah, just like all current books are copied, at least in part, from the Bible.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
To make the experience of "A tablet that doesn't have sharp corners and is in a pad-of-paper-like format" that nobody ever had.
Please.
Show us where the engineering to produce this experience is and how hard that work was.
Uhm.. No. Because they're not.
But most books are inspired by earlier books. Robinson Crusoe is probably a better contender for a book that all books are copied from, since the concept of realistic fiction didn't really exist before then
Correct.
Most of the stuff on
Don't you mean, Global Climate Disruptive Uncertainty Heisenberg Principle of Precautionary Direct Action for the Projection of Greed and Sin on Human Species by Modelling of Chaos within Envelope of Creative Statistical Subjective Robust Confidence of Future Scenario-as-Predicion Caveat Reality?
ok I actually bored myself writing that. you point stands, it's already politically dead, the rest is just slow backtracking.
I work in automotive and somebody thinking that roughly repeating vehicle design is the same as stealing "all the engineering" makes me laugh.
Compare VW Caddy to Renault Kangoo, who "stole" from whom, eh?
Did any company sue the other? Why not? (I guess you think South Korea is wild east where nobody protects wester IP, well, we are talking about two EU manufacturers) Why didn't they sue each other for "stealing"?
Not saying it happened, but just because someone ruled against Apple, doesn't mean they stopped being bought. It unlikely, though not impossible, that Samsung can buy a judge of their own.
Really, that's all Lawyers are in these cases, marketing for judges. Spend the most and you win them over, hence why the little guy tends to lose.
>Therefor, Congress cannot pass a law granting the courts the power to compel speech, because compelling speech is equally an abridgement of free speech just as much as censoring free speech.
But limited censorship IS allowed by the US constitution and IS in fact regularly exercised by both the legislature and the courts. For example in a libel case if the publisher is found guilty, it would not be unusual for the courts to require that they print a retraction.
In a slander case, they could order an apology.
There are severe limits on compelled speech (just like there is on restricting speech) but it is certainly allowed. In this case the court has effectively determined that since apple's lost the court case, their PUBLIC accusations of copying amount to slander, and ordered them to apologize and retract the slanderous statement.
I can't imagine any reason a court in the USA couldn't do the same. Granted your libel and slander laws are more liberal and actually wining a case of libel and slander is harder but if it's won - this is exactly the kind of thing that would happen.
A more interesting question is whether a US court can in the results of a trial sentence you for a further charge as a RESULT of the outcome even though you were never charged with it in the original proceedings (be it a civil or criminal charge). I believe they can in fact do so and testifying that you committed a crime can have you sentenced for it in the same trial but I could be wrong.
Even that is not a certainty however as we don't even KNOW that this finding WAS tacked on - it's not unusual for companies when sued to claim slander in the other party and Samsung may well have included that as part of their counter-claim - in which case this judge just found Apple guilty of it and is now ordering a pretty standard restitution.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Thing is, they'd don't arrest you or confiscate "copies" or "rip-offs". That's the whole point of Apple filing design patents or whatever they've got. The situation you're talking about are counterfeits. Very different. Samsung isn't labelling their device "Apple" or even "Appel" and trying to pass it off as one of Cupertino's own.
Aside from certain design patents and the appropriate trademarks, there's very little protection against rip-offs. In fact, if you got to most any Drug or Discount store, you'll often find the store brands, right next to the national brands and featuring very similar packaging. Maybe a little blatent, sure, but not illegal. And not what Samsung was doing.
On the other hand, they seem to have moved well past Apple's designs, and shown they're more than capable of making something not only different but better. I have a Samsung-made Galaxy Nexus Phone, and it's much nicer looking than an iPhone. No chrome (had enough of that in the '61 T-Bird I owned in college) and no big stupid button on the front. Also, much better screen.
Apple's pretty much copying the other guys these days on the OS side of things, and it's only a matter of time before they follow Samsung and the others into 4+" phones and 7" tablets. And don't be surprised to see them sued back for doing just that. And that'll be just as stupid as the Apple lawsuits were, but that's the thing you build when you let lawyers run the country :-)
-Dave Haynie
Err... 2012 is the hottest year (so far) on record. Again. Well, ok... 2010 was the hottest on record, globally... tied with 2005. Also the 34th consecutive year with temps above the 20th century average. 2011 was 0.12C cooler, so yeah, in a very small and statistically meaningless way, things are getting cooler -- if you're writing this from 2011.
-Dave Haynie
Forget the company itself apologizing. I want the Apple "geniuses" to publicly apologize for being pompous asses. Seeing tears would be a bonus.
I have that Top Gear episode. Love that series. The real one.
You mean the one that wasn't copied in another country for 1/10th the price...?
Newspapers have been ordered to print retractions, so apparently the answer is "yes".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That would be interesting if you had any evidence to back up what sounds like unjustified spleen.
Your evidence?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Let me Google that for you:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/02/feds-in-nj-26-arrests-made-in-325-million-counterfeit-goods-operation/
http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/03/suspects-arrested-in-counterfeit-purse-operation/
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/14950996/2011/06/21/3-accused-of-selling-counterfeit-nikes-gucci?clienttype=printable
http://gucci.ezinemark.com/replica-gucci-handbags-low-quality-product-for-fashion-7d35cb4db7aa.html
Mostly about selling, but "...you could get yourself arrested, if you are spotted buying counterfeits."
This is only America, you know.
Most of the stuff on
Ah, that does make a difference. Quite a significant difference.
You made it sound as if there were people patrolling the streets of $CITY$, inspecting random handbags (those companies make hand bags? I don't waste attention on fashion.) and arresting people who'd brought a counterfeit.
Arresting people with stocks of counterfeit X, who are trying to sell them, happens all over the world. Mostly it's intelligence-led policing (i.e. "grasses", "snouts" and "informants"), but they do inspect shops, street markets etc too. Depends on your police's local priorities too ; I'd guess America has more urgent concerns like the gun-nuts roaming the streets.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Apparently they don't worry much about the gun nuts. Surprising in Colorado that nobody returned fire.
I wish I could find a reference to this, but I read a newspaper article long ago about a guy in Italy who boarded a city bus and drew a gun on the driver trying to rob him. Eleven out of the seventeen people on the bus drew pistols and shot the guy. If anyone has guns, everyone should.
Most of the stuff on
Sounds pretty implausible to me. In fact, on analysis,it sounds extremely implausible. Eleven people shooting at one perp at the front of the bus ... would mean multiple shooters firing past the ears of other shooters in front of them. So, in the almost incredible circumstance that you did get that many people on one bus who had guns, then most of them had no training in how to use guns, and were willing to trust their shooting to hit a guy multiple yards away, while shooting past innocent other people. That's pretty damned scary when you think about it. Well I find it scary.
Is the count of gunmen credible? I suppose if the perp was stupid enough to try robbing a bus that was taking the night shift of policemen away from a central police station ... just about credible. If the police are allowed to take their weapons home with them, which they're certainly not in this country.
Maybe the people of Colorado are not as lethally-inclined as the gun-nuts claim they are.
Or, equally credible - people in the movie house who had weapons, panicked when the bullets started flying (after all, how many people actually have the experience of being under fire from a machine gun?) and by the time they'd remembered that they had a gun, the perp was gone.
Regardless, well done in your work for the Canadian tourist board ; you've certainly left me with a clear impression of how dangerous America is to visit.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Well, this is only Slashdot where everyone gets to pick which parts they wish to believe and berate the rest. That was a real newspaper article about the time I was in High School (1970-ish). I don't care if you don't believe it.
Denver is/was (some dispute with the State Courts) an "open carry" municipality, meaning you can have a gun strapped to your side as long as it's not concealed. All of that is in flux with the courts, so I don't know in what condition that rule is in currently (I don't live there). Colorado apparently leaves it up to the municipalities to post on specific establishments whether a firearm is legal (establishments which serve alcohol etc).
America isn't any more dangerous than most places. More people are killed by a lot of other things every year than guns. Nobody says we should ban cars on the road, even though there are about 30,000 deaths a year because of them. I saw a stat that said more people are killed by pigs every year than guns - but the bacon is worth the risk.
Most of the stuff on
Not any more dangerous, the likelihood of being shot in the US is 10X more per capita than in Australia. Gawd, talk about uninformed!
You're wasting time quoting facts to denialists, they are faith based idiots who no amount of evidence will convince.
the likelihood of being shot in the US is 10X more per capita than in Australia.
Gawd, talk about bending facts around!
Population of Australia as of 23 July 2012 at 01:47:58 PM (Canberra time): 22,678,733
Population of USA as of 23 July 2012 at 11:48:59 PM EST: 314,004,363
Seeing as there are 13.845 time as many capitas in the US as there are in Australia, it seems it's MORE likely to be shot (per capita) in Australia than the US.
Thanks for playing. Please try again.
Most of the stuff on
Here... let me help you with the speculation:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8502957/smaller-risk-of-getting-shot-in-australia
There are no references in the article to substantiate their claim of being 15x more likely to get shot in the US than Australia, but seeing as they "made a sharp turn away from the gun culture in 1996", Australia must have been a mighty rough place at one time. It's still almost a rounding error away from the claimed US "getting shot" per capita rate today.
You know, nobody is happy with any of this. Who has the lowest crime rate anywhere? Switzerland.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/why-switzerland-has-the-lowest-crime-rate-in-the-world.html
Mexico has a high rate of deaths by gunfire, higher than the US, even though all guns are illegal in Mexico. Banning guns nationally isn't really working out for them.
It appears that armed citizens have a higher survival rate than disarmed citizens left as victims to those who follow no laws. Singapore has a low crime rate due to their system of immediate corporal punishment for offenses which Americans would receive a parole sentence. Anyone who opens fire during a crime and is caught is quickly tried and executed in Singapore. Same goes for narcotics offenders. That doesn't happen in the US, so here we are with gun toting criminals on the street in some places.
Bottom line is I agree with the dangers of getting shot in the US, but more than half of the death rate by gunfire is people shooting themselves in the head. The other consideration is regional if you're filtering by intentional homicide. The largest danger comes from a small sliver of regions and subcultures within the US. If you walk into a narcotics driven badland, you're more likely to be harmed.
Here's a "List of countries by intentional homicide rate": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
Murder Capital of the US is the DIstrict of Columbia. It's just 10 square miles of the US (out of 3.79 million) and practically all of the deaths are narcotics related. I've lived right outside of DC for 35 years and work in DC. Know it well. I've never heard gunfire. Must be because the crack houses are the old solid masonry row houses. So, 0.000264% of the US is the most dangerous. Next is Puerto Rico (3435 square miles or 0.00214% of the US) and below that is Louisiana. Most of the crime in Louisiana is centered on four cities. I won't speculate here why their crime rate is high because... hmmm... I can't even say that. Those three areas of the US, one of which isn't even on the mainland, make up for a huge chunk of the overall statistic leaving the rest of the US relatively safe - except for a few areas rife with narcotics traffic. The Northern Territory of Australia is worse than about half of the US. Even New Jersey is safer than the Northern Territory.
Ok, enough.
Most of the stuff on
errata: I said DC is 10 square miles. That's incorrect. It's actually a square 10 miles on a side, a large chunk of which was eventually returned to Virginia long ago. DC is 68.3 square miles which makes it 0.00179% of the US land area.
Most of the stuff on