Slashdot Mirror
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."
Britannia rules!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
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").
(1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
The apology message will render like wingding symbols for most...
the court forgot to specify that Apple could not use the same text & background colours!
Apple did win a concession: they were originally ordered to have it on the web site for 6 months, this was reduced to 1 month.
This is awesome, but I'd never expect this in a million years
this needs to happen in the US as well.
Next Steve Ballmer needs to apologize to Linux Tovalds for calling his works a "virus"
So, it would look like the Slashdot logo?
Crap, it ate my first comment.... ok, trying again.
I am curious, if anyone knows, how common of a stipulation is this in the UK? This is the first I have heard about such a thing. If it is not common (which I suspect) I wonder what made this particular case worthy of it... did the judge hate Apple? Did Samsung have someone with political clout in their pocket?
While it was high profile and fed into the technie anti-Apple attitude, this really was not an outrageous case by a long shot. If nothing else it was a trial between equals, two companies that had the experience and resources to go through with it.. neither is really all that deserving of a special apology or shaming. Where are the court mandated apologies from transnationals that use their armies of lawyers to crush smaller opponents by bankrupting them with legal costs? Where are the court mandated apologies from patent trolls that prey on companies too small to even have a legal team and have to 'settle' to be left alone? Where are the apologies from companies that use local political leverage to twist the laws around their business and make the environment inhospitable to competition? Seems there is a long list of apologies that should happen before this joke.
Maybe it's the font of the Little Mermaid?
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?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The court should have specified the size in relation to other important elements on the web page.
It must be the larger of:
1. at least half the size of the largest headlines, Apple branding, or product names
2. twice the size of the smallest headlines, Apple branding, or product names
That sort of specification helps eliminate creative interpretations of the court's order.
Of course if the court considers its order to have been violated, there can always be sanctions. A just sanction would be to re-impose the requirement of running the ad, all over again from the start, with new conditions attached. Oh, and pay the court a fine that doubles each day until the new ad meets the court's orders. Now how long do you want to play creative interpretation with the court's orders?
In short, courts don't generally take kindly to creative interpretation of their orders. We'll see how creative Apple wants to be with the "Aerial 14 point font". Just run the ad and get it over with.
Yes, your honor, but that DIV element had a zoom CSS rule applied. I hope that would go about as well as: Your honor! I wasn't texting while driving, I was updating my facebook status about these new shoes I just bought!
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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".
"The judge actually criticized Samsung's design by stating that they 'do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design.'"
Ever since the first iPods became popular I haven't understood this obsession with simplicity. I do get it that there are more non-geeks than geeks out there and that the non-geeks don't want to have to work to learn how to use anything. Still.. I want my stuff to actually do something, doesn't everyone? How can it be easier to accomplish a task of a certain complexity with fewer and fewer controls? For example, going back to MP3 players, if I want to pick a playlist from my music collection of just the songs I am in the mood for at this time how do I do this with just one rotating control? I'm guessing what is really happening is that people have a low expectation of what their devices should do but also don't have the imagination to realize that expectation is low
What I really don't get is that the rest of the industry just tries to copy it rather than attack it. Yes, Apple has a huge market of simplicity hungry people with money to spend. Guess what... imitate that simplicity, through copying or through your own desings and you still aren't Apple! Nobody is going to out Apple Apple because even if you do the inertia is all Apple's anyway.
Instead, why hasn't anybody tried building the market for non simlistic devices? I can imagine there being some pretty great marketing campaign opportunities in that. For example.. how about a commercial where a hipster looking guy is showing off his shiny new car with it's sexy extreme simplicity elegance to his friends and the girl he obviously wants to impress. It's so simple, there is just one button. He presses the button and the car promply crashes because there is no wheel to steer it! At the end you hear an announcer say "Android - because it's not TOO simple" or some similar but more polished tag line.
"We're Sorry. We thought that Samsung had copied our patented design, but according to a ruling by a court of law, Samsung's devices have been found to not be cool enough to be considered copies of ours. We sincerely apologize to Samsung and their uncool products." In 32 point font on the front page.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
They can only do that by using the redefined meaning of the word "copy".
If Apple does something, it, by definition, is original. They cannot be copying. If you accuse them of it, you obviously do not know what the word means.
If you are a competitor, you are copying their stuff. If you say you are not because you were using the idea 10 years before Apple did, you still do not correctly understand the word.
Copying means doing anything that may affect their profits - nothing else. You could make a spherical phone with 32 hexagonal buttons, a crescent shaped screen, had a UI based on Lcars and Apple would still sue for copying you if it was faster, cheaper and easier to use and outsold them.
The more traditional meaning of "copying" is being phased out by apple now then?
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.