In UK, Apple Must Run Ad Apologizing to Samsung

sfcrazy writes "Apple has lost is appeal in a UK court against Samsung's Galaxy Tab. The court of appeals has upheld its previous judgment that Samsung did not infringe on any Apple design. According to the order Apple will have to run an ads in leading UK newspapers as well its own website stating that Samsung did not infringes its products. To ensure that the ad is visible the court also ordered that the text of the ad must not be in a font size smaller than Ariel 14. Apple will have to run the ad on its site for a period of one month."

Comments

The ruling itself

[ais523]

I just came here after finishing reading the ruling itself, [2012] EWCA Civ 1339. I find UK legalese rather easier to read than US legalese (not being a lawyer), and it's interestingly informal in some parts. It's also quite informative (the judges pointed out specifically which differences they found to be relevant, such as the iPad's registered design being intentionally symmetrical, and the Galaxy Tab having an obvious intended orientation due to the addition of the word "SAMSUNG").

Re:The ruling itself

[mvdwege]

I really like the observation that whether or not Samsung copied the iPad is immaterial, because the iPad does not conform to the registered design either.

Mart

If the verdict was the opposite...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and Samsung had to publicly apologize to Apple for something, would you still feel the same way you do now?

Just saying. Consider your own bias when responding to this.

Re:If the verdict was the opposite...

[mwvdlee]

Lets not forget which party started the lawsuit here.
You think it'd be fair for Apple to just be able to walk away after falsely (proven in court) accusing Samsung of patent infringement and causing negative publicity for Samsung?
If Apple could walk away freely, what would prevent Apple from filing court cases against every single competing product?

It's an issue of balance:
Scenario 1: "Banned from selling a product" vs. "Nothing changes"
Scenario 2: "Banned from selling a product" vs. "Public apology"

Which do you think is most fair?

It shouldn't be hard for Apple

[Chrisq]

I am not an Apple fan, but since the judge himsef said at that Samsung's devices were not as "cool" because they lacked Apple's "extreme simplicity" I think Apple can come up with an apology that will not hurt. I imagine they will apologise for "overestimating the Samsung device but now rightly see that it lacks the superiour design aspects of the iPad".

Re:Unique?

[Xest]

It's normal, it's just rare that you have a company quite as prominent as Apple making such an idiotic claim in the first place.

This sort of thing usually affects smaller fly by night companies that are basically either trying to increase marketshare by lying, or generally just trying to swindle customers, or troll competitors.

IIRC a relatively recent example though that was a bit more prominent was one of the UK's major supermarkets (Tesco I think?) being forced to advertise that their prices weren't whatever percentage cheaper they claimed they were than their competitors.

We do have somewhat of a culture of it generally though, every once in a while before a TV programme starts you will see a statement by the broadcaster apologising for something they broadcast that was unfair or incorrect because they'd been found to be lying/exagerating and creating a false impression about someone or something they were supposedly providing a factual documentary about. When they are forced to make such apologies they're generally forced to make them at the start/end of the same timeslot in which they made the original misrepresentation. So if they defame someone unfairly in prime time for example, then they'll be expected to publicly apologise in the same prime time slot.