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.
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."
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?
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?
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'.
...and watch the judge fine them for contempt of court.
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.
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!!!
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."
In the US,
Wrong jurisdiction.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
"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."
...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.
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?
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.
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.
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"?