Slashdot Mirror
Apple Posts Non-Apology To Samsung
We recently discussed news of a UK court ruling in which the judge decided Apple must publicly acknowledge that Samsung's Galaxy Tab did not infringe upon the iPad's design, both on the Apple website and in several publications. The acknowledgement has now been posted, and it's anything but apologetic. It states the court's ruling, helpfully referring to "Apple's registered design No. 000018607-0001," and quotes the judges words as an advertisement. The judge wrote, "The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool." They go on to mention German and U.S. cases which found in Apple's favor. Apple's statement concludes, "So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."
..they required an acknowledgement of design differences. The danger for Apple is that such a public acknowledgement could spill over into other jurisdictions and affect suits there. Therefore, they've made it as highly specifically technical and narrow to their lawyers' interpretation of the judge's order as possible. Whether or not the court will agree is another matter, and if the court disagrees, how the judge feels about it could mean anything from tweaking the wording to being found in contempt.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Heh. Not sure if Samsung prefers to have this up or down :)
...like what they'd do to NORMAL people when we spit in the face of the judge with our restitution... likely to happen? Nope. Sad, really. They really really deserve it.
..being Apple. This is just what they do best: spin everything for good PR, forgetting the technical part.
Apple, keeping it classy /s
I really hope the UK has the equivalent of 'contempt of court' and throws the book at those arrogant jerks at Apple.
I further hope the blowback from their attempted patent-armageddon against the rest of the smartphone industry costs them manyfold what they've attempted to extort from others. I only wish I'd never introduced my wife to Apple, and helped her climb the Linux learning curve instead. I hate the idea of giving those would-be monopolists a single penny.
Judges generally don't like it at all when people try to skirt around their rulings by barely acknowledging the letter while flagrantly disregarding the spirit.
Apple is just begging for a contempt citation here.
Apple will just throw more money at it.
Mr. America walk on by your schools that do not teach Mr. America walk on by the minds that won't be reached
Court ordered apologies are stupid. Good for Apple to show contempt for them. Doesn't make their patent good. Their patents are still stupid.
I was under the impression that the statement had to be on the front page of the web site? I don't even see a link to it on their UK home page.
I have the hiccups.
Well nice to know that Apple is still behaving like a spoiled child. It isn't enough to dominate the market, it is important to be unrepentant bully.
Apple using extremely selective quotes from the judge to spend the whole 'apology' badmouthing Samsung is questionable enough but the section at the bottom is basically saying "but ignore this judge, These two courts are more important and found them guilty". That's going to piss the judge off, judges never like their authority being undermined.
The judgment wasn't cast iron law, it doesn't matter if you follow it to the letter if the judge clearly believes you're not following the spirit of a judgement. The judge clearly would not have wanted Apple to give the impression that the judge endorsed Apple's products.
It was three Appeal judges. This sort of thing really is a mistake where they are concerned, and I imagine they will be contacting one another about it on their Blackberries. If Apple now goes to the UK Supreme Court, they will not be very popular.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
What was expected? This is the company that complains when they win.
About a week ago.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3194259&cid=41692165
Apple will definitely go down this road.
The judge gave clear language on how to display the apology, but not on what the apology should entail.
Something like:
"We apologize for implying that any Samsung product was as sleek or as easy to use as the (link to ipad page)Apple iPad.(\link)"
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Apple.. you just wait until my patent on coolness gets approved
All I can think is, if they both lose, everyone wins.
So I guess I care a bit.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
It reads like a child saying sorry :) this has got to reach the news along with the follow case.
I think Microsoft would have written a 10,000 word apology which read like a EULA. Every bit unread after the first title.
Hey This post is just like every Apple product ever made. Not even close to first, but billed as such by the company and all the fanboners.
My rough take on this, and one Apple should probably absorb globally, is that legal cases are what they are. If you are going to cry publicly that others are not following the 'law' - you don't really gain much from then being a jackass in cases where its been found you are wrong. Why now should Samsung behave in result of a ruling? If all make mockey of the process, then where does it lead.
No, Apple need to be pulled back in court and to be hammered. Double hammered. And then hammered some more. Seems a deliberate and stupid attempt to deviate from the nature and spirit of the ruling laid down on them. This isn't marketing. This is a legal case. Trying to unleash the marketing idiots on it is a mistake, and is erroneous.
Jobs in his younger days - pretty much stated that he stole everything, every idea, every good design and so on - as far as he could. Thats why he went to Xerox Parc and was so taken with a GUI - the same as Paul Allen - 'one day every computer will use that' - Its sad that in the end - he failed to understand that anyone imitating their work is in a way paying a form of homage to them - and their early spirit. And later it seems legalese and not innovation has become the guiding light. Somewhere - someone got lost.
Where would Apple be if Xerox (parc) had walked up to early Apple and crushed them in a court case. Where would the innovation be. Its too simplistic really - but you get the point.
We`re all equal
The judges ruling clearly states:
As a result of his second judgment, Judge Birss ordered that:
Within seven days of the date of this Order [18th July 2012] [Apple] shall at its own expense (a) post in a font size no smaller than Arial 11pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this order on the homepage of its UK website ... as specified in Schedule 1 to this Order, together with a hyperlink to the Judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 9th July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on [Apple's] websites for a period of six months from the date of this order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no smaller than Arial 14pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine.
And
The material part of the notice specified in Schedule 1 reads:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given]
The judge specifically spelled out what Apple was suppose to post. Apple didn't follow these instruction by attaching all the other cruft to the ad therefore they haven't fulfilled the court order.
Try fucking with the judge and you and your solicitor are in DEEP SHIT.
No, he was proactively copied in look and feel of his first post by TWX. TWX then just made is post less cool, so that it would be differentiated. Look at all those extra words.. is that an adverb?! It's a mockery of the simplicity of AC's post.
And this, Apple fanboys, is how Apple will treat you if you ever (consciously or unconsciously) cross Apple's road. Or if Apple decides to cross your road.
With contempt.
Draw rounded rectangle on your iPad? Forbidden. Make a successful iOS app? Apple will copy it, and reject your app from the app store.
It doesn't matter how many iDevices you own, Apple will bite you in the end. And it will make everybody believe that you were the bad guy.
So please, for your own sake and for ours, get off the bandwagon while you still can.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
In the Tracy Kidder book, "The Soul of a New Machine", he documents a year or so with the engineering team designing a new computer. Time pressure... long hours... high tension... and finally one of the engineers called one of the others an asshole.
The project manager called the fellow into the office & explained that we all need to be able to work with each other... yadda yadda.... and you must apologize to him.
The fellow left the office, approached the other engineer and said, "I'm sorry you're an asshole".
Sure, this looks like mockery to us unrobed and unwigged. But look at it from the Judges PoV: they know that one or both litigants will hate them. Part of the job. What judges dislike is being overturned on appeal -- especially if they've "gone too far" (rather than missing facts).
Apple has just seriously impaired any appeal: They've spent alot of money to voluntarily quote the ruling -- they must agree with it, or at least that [foundational] part. Apple can plead compliance with the order, but not with respect to the material chosen. That was entirely their own choosing.
The law grinds fine, and it is not unusual to have things work out completely the opposite of knee-jerk first appearances. Life, too. I expect the UK justices will close ranks and not reward bad behaviour.
So, who should the judge jail, Apple's CEO?
...but something about the "fuck you, everyone" wording of that message made me never want to buy another Apple product, ever.
Union flag, unless Apple's web server is hosted in a floating datacentre somewhere in the Atlantic.
Post a link on the front page, People click it and read this "non-apology". If Apple gets called to court to change it, they do, but they don't change the link on the front page, so people who frequent their page see the link and assume its the same link, never see the real apology. If a judge was smart he would make the entirety of this was posted on the front page to make sure people saw it.
Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
And, just like an Apple product, you can't edit it!
Good thing for all the case wasn't tried in an Italian court, they would have found Apple guilty of voodoo and causing a small gnome dancing on Samsung's spleen to put Samsung's bodily humours out of balance.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
"So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have..."
...been far more open to bribery, we mean persuasion, yes persuasion. And we don't really need the UK market, it's too small and their populace gets upset about corporations evading, I mean avoiding, legally avoiding, tax.
My family is slightly infested with lawyers, and my observation can easily be verified. If you have evidence of judicial corruption it is your duty to lay it before the CPS - there are rare cases of judicial corruption and they get prosecuted.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Apple was told to acknowledge the court's decision.
Rather than acknowledge *WHAT* the court decided, however, all Apple really did was acknowledge *THAT* the court had decided it, and then specifically spelled out what it was that the court decided. I'm not entirely sure that a mere recitation of what all the court had decided, since this is spelled out in the court decision that is linked to anyways, could reasonably be interpreted as an actual acknowledgement of it.
I guess it remains to be seen if that sort of thing will satisfy a UK judge. Also, I'm pretty sure that's not 14 pt text (14 pixels, yes, but not 14pt).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This really is an Apple style acknowledgement of fault - I'm reminded on when some iPods were found to be carrying a Windows malware, which then infected some PCs...
http://www.apple.com/support/windowsvirus/
Key quote (emphasis mine): "We recently discovered that a small number - less than 1% - of the Video iPods available for purchase after September 12, 2006, left our contract manufacturer carrying the Windows RavMonE.exe virus. This known virus affects only Windows computers, and up to date anti-virus software which is included with most Windows computers should detect and remove it. So far we have seen less than 25 reports concerning this problem. The iPod nano, iPod shuffle and Mac OS X are not affected, and all Video iPods now shipping are virus free. As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it."
They do have chutzpah.
Samsung should thank Apple for assuming Apple's customers are so retarded as to mistake an Android phone or tablet for an iPhone or iPad.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
nt
Not exactly prominently displayed on their website. You can find it, but only if you're looking for it.
"But the apology WAS on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find it."
"That's the apology department."
"With a torch."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the apology didn't you?"
"Yes," said Samsung, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Mountain Lion'.
What did you expect from Apple, an admission of wrongdoing? This is the company that said for decades that their computers are immune to viruses, even while they had half a million infected computers. This is the company that released a phone with the antennas that jam each other, and their response was: you're not supposed to hold it. This is the company that said PC's are Profusely Complicated and released a product called PowerPC.
A lot of people still don't see it... in their eyes Apple can do no wrong. Give me a break, if you still don't see it ... go away.
No, you missed his point, I do believe. What he's saying is that if someone else had the Idea, you shouldn't be able to patent the Idea and prevent other people from making money by using that Idea.
Make money? Sure you can make money. Go right ahead. But enough with this bullhucky about "I had the idea of a more or less rectangular device that has curves on it" that Apple has pulled in the last few months. Because that, my friend, is complete and utter idiocy.
Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
This is what you get when you expect corporations to behave as people.
dreaded scurrilous bit-twiddler from Oklahoma
The only thing I see that Apple didn't do was actually put it on their UK home page. They only put a link to the statement there.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Which is not, one might note, actually on the homepage of their UK website (which is one of its EU websites), which homepage contains neither the notice required by the order to be placed "on the home pages of its EU websites", nor the link to the judgement required to be placed as part of that notice, but does contain a link which says it is to a "Samsung/Apple UK Judgement" which links instead to the page linked in TFS, which contains the notice text, link to the judgement, and then a bunch of other Apple commentary. It seems to me that the bigger deal than them adding the additional language after the notice text is the fact that they haven't done what the order required, which is placing the notice on the homepage of their EU websites. And since the order specifically references the use of hyperlinks within the notice, it seems that the order is quite clear in distinguishing where content is placed vs. where hyperlinks to content are placed, so placing a hyperlink to a page containing the notice where they are required by the order to place the notice itself is nonresponsive.
It doesn't, but not for the reason you are arguing. The content is compliant, since the order specifies the exact text that is required to be placed, and doesn't restrict placing other text with it, and that text is there, and is the first non-heading text on the page.
The placement of the notice fails to comply with the order, however; it required that the notice be placed on the homepages of all of Apple's EU sites, in a specified typeface and size. What has actually been placed on the homepages of their EU sites is the much smaller text in the footer of the page reading "Apple/Samsung UK Legal Judgement", which is a hyperlink to the page containing the required notice and other text.
That much is correct.
No, the judge told them to place a specific notice (with the exact wording specified in the order, and a hyperlink to the judgement specified in a particular place), with specific text font and size. Which is the first non-title text actually on the page, and appears to use the correct font and size. So the content of the notice page is probably compliant -- nothing in the order directs them not to have other content on the page the notice is placed on. The "acknowledge that Samsung didn't infringe" is the kind of things news sites characterizing the order described it as, not what the actual order requires.
However, the order also specifies which pages the notice has to be placed on: and the specified pages are the hompages of Apple's EU sites. On their UK site, at least -- and I suspect the same is true elsewhere -- the only thing related to the notice on the homepage of the site is smaller text reading "Apple/Samsung UK Legal Judgement" in the page footer, which is a hyperlink to the page linked from TFS. The text required by the order to be placed on the homepage of Apple's EU sites is not present, either in the required font and size or otherwise.
Apple is what M$ was 10 years ago for /. current demographics - Evil Satan that can do no right.
As someone who has been on /. longer than that (and around technology of any kind even longer) - all I can say is "this too shall pass".
In the meantime, I think Apple did the right thing. Take it on the personal level. Let's say you feel someone wronged you. You go to court, try to correct the wrong, and court decides against you and (in your opinion, adding insult to injury) requires you to apologize to the party that offended you. How do you feel? Can you offer an honest apology? Why would you? Regardless of whether you agree or don't agree Samsung copied Apple. For the record, while I am not a big fan of Apple policies, I *do* feel that most manufacturers, including Samsung, are copying them. In these things the devil is in the details, and *imho* these details are what make Apple products convenient and others (Samsung) are convenient mostly as far as they follow these same details. Feel free to disagree.
And of course no discussion of British legal system and apologies is complete without this, which I find extremely pertinent: :) Linking here because youtube is misbehaving at the moment)
http://movieclips.com/CDHXP-a-fish-called-wanda-movie-upside-down-apology/
(Now you can tell how old I am
That's assuming they still have the source.
If they'd even allow distribution of the binary under a suitable license, dedicated modders would disassemble the binary. Someone created source code for Super Mario Bros. for instance.
The decision was probably made with a statement like "Who in there right mind would want to play this when we have [latest rehash blockbuster]."
You're right that long copyright terms promote taking works out of print so as not to cannibalize sales of copies of new works.
I think everything that was bad about Microsoft's market defensiveness which made it 'the brand of squares' was also what pushed people to Apple. Now that Apple is the same if not worse, I would expect to see the trendy crowd leaving in their droves if they had somewhere to go.
Apple as a corporate brand looks like a cynical, egotistical, dominance protecting bullshit artist. I know, I know, it's all about the shareholders but it seems really at odds with their hipster marketing.
Within the next few years, there's space for a new 'fashion electronics' brand to replace Apple. I don't think that's going to be Nokia, Microsoft, RIM or Samsung but who knows.
I can agree with that entirely. While I do take issue with criticisms aimed at the content of the message, I fully agree that it appears Apple did not comply with the ruling by placing the content on their homepage.
These are not functional patents, they are design patents. The TV depictions, in terms of design/trade dress show that the design is not novel and as there are multiple such TV/movie examples, obvious.
If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
Does the slashdot crowd really believe this is about rectangular devices with curves?
Did they commission Mel Gibson to write the apology?
Does the slashdot crowd really believe this is about rectangular devices with curves?
The people that have looked at the design patent in question, yes.
commenting to undo accidental mod
This is not my sig.
It's not an "idea". It's a design. And the fact that Samsung's were different AT ALL is why Apple lost out. It would be total garbage if Ferrari were to make a new, super sleek car and then someone from Honda came along and just copied it outright and then sold it at a lower price point. So the design patent keeps that from happening - as it should. The same is true with smaller devices. Even electronic ones.
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
They didn't have to pt it on the home page. That ruling was changed on appeal
"The appeal judges decided not to overturn the decision on the basis that a related Apple design-rights battle in the German courts risked causing confusion in consumers' minds.
"The acknowledgment must come from the horse's mouth," they said. "Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely."
However, they added that the move need not "clutter" Apple's homepage as it would only have to add a link entitled "Samsung/Apple judgement" for a one-month period."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19989750
Watch those corners
All of the people that modded this down are confused. You think if someone actually invents a "flux capacitor" and makes it work that they shouldn't be able to patent it? Just because they saw something in a movie? People, that doesn't mean that it is off limits in terms of being invented. Having an idea and having actually invented something are two very different things.
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
HEMA is a dutch retailer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEMA_(store)
They like other retailers have had reasons to publish recall notices for products which turn out to be faulty, this is a legal recuirement. They usually are black and white with no pictures and tiny logos if the logo is even present. The ones for HEMA are in color, with clear logo and product image also in full color. They don't need to, but they do because... well, they care for their customers? That at least is the image this gives people. The company has an EXCELLENT reputation with most Dutch people. They sell a LOT of their own branded stuff and while it isn't premium quality it is cheap and reliable and if you have a problem just return it and get a full refund with no hassle.
They respect their customers and deal with laws as adults, obeying not just the letter (print recall notice) but the spirit (try your best to notify the customers they might have a faulty product).
Compared to Apples reputation... lying about European warranties (2 years vs 1 year that apple gives), false advertising and now this kind of childish stunt. It means any adult sees Apple as just plain pathetic. Childish. Petty. Immature.
Grow up Apple. All you have done by this is given ammo to apple haters to ridicule your fanboys with.
Had they produced a mature ad, only the fanboys would have wimpered and everyone else would have said "oh well at least they aren't sore losers".
Now they are the laughing stock of the world for throwing a temper tantrum. Only yuppies respect this kind of stuff and the like of Romney who likes to fire people. The rest of us want to live in a mature world were people and companies act with a bit of dignity.
Bad Apple now go to bed, no desert for you.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Not to play the UID game but it looks like I've probably been here a tad bit longer than you. I remember the glory days of MS bashing and the reasons for bashing were very different. People hated Windows because it crashed 200 times a day and any 8 year old with a DOS prompt could essentially "root" your box. MS also practiced extremely agressive anti-trust behavior.
Apple does none of the above. They just sue the piss out of competitors and act like arrogant jerks every chance they get. I'm not going to pass moral judgement on which of the two is worse but the reasons for the bashing are different and far more people here like Apple than they did MS in days long past.
I myself use Apple computers almost exclusively, even though I hate the company.
Was should have done, place ads on the facing page, showing/displaying:
Show the iPad and the Samsung table before and after iPad. See how they changed it to be like an iPad. Show the iPhone and the Samsung phones before and after. See how they changed them to be like an iPhone. Show the product packaging for the tables and phones. See how they changed them to be just like the Apple packaging. Show how the Samsung Chromebox looks like a Mac Mini with a black top. Show how the Samsung Ultrabooks look like a Apple Mac Book Air.
I don't own a Mac, an iPhone, S3 or Galaxy, etc.. Even I can tell that whatever design Apple had success with, Samsung copied. ----- Just do an image search asking if Samsung copied Apple and see the results.
Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
But by your logic, if I developed faster-than-light travel or instantaneous matter teleportation tomorrow, I would not be entitled to profit from it.
Nope - bad comparison. A better one would be you developing a FTL module when the tech is already readily available (and has been for a while), and then suing another company that is developing their own FTL module because theirs has a similar physical shape as yours, and its interface has similarities. It's retarted, serves no purpose, and stifles innovation.
You are confused. Apples patent is a DESIGN PATENT. What that device actually does or its purpose is not relevent. It could a kids toy, a piece of plastic, or a portable nuclear reactor that fits inside that design. If that design was shown before, it was prior art. The operation of the procut iside that design has completely different patents.
People have been building skyscapers for mixed office/business/condo use for years, many of them have design patents with them. The petent there is the design, not what is inside and the actual purpose of the building.
How many times do we have to beat this into the ground? You CAN get protection on design. This was not just about "rounded rectangles." All bottles share many characteristics, but try selling a soda in a curvy bottle that looks just like Coke's and see where that gets you. All cars share many characteristics, but Chevy can not make a car that looks just like a Mustang and Ford can not make a car that looks just like a Camaro. There are MANY ways to make a tablet that don't consist primarily of a black rectangle with parallel sides and a bezel of a certain width and with chrome trim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
It may or may not be bullshit but that's the law as it stands. There is a continuum between "totally different" and "virtually identical" and that's where the courts come in. Samsung COULD have played it safe and EASILY made products that look different from Apple's but instead they said "let's copy Apple as much as we can and take our chances."
http://allthingsd.com/20120806/iphone-caused-crisis-of-design-at-samsung-memo/
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Did anyone happen to notice the class name for the div that contains the "Samsung/Apple UK judgment" link?
It is sosumi. Wow. I wonder if the web editor will be held accountable for that.
If you don't see it "so sue me".
Quick note: you may want to see some of the other discussion in this thread, since it sounds like I quoted the wrong portion of the document. I apparently quoted Samsung's request for what Apple should be required to do. The judge's actual ruling was further down the document and didn't specify that it needed to be on the homepage. Mea culpa.
I'm not arguing that design patents shouldn't be allowed. All I meant is that the design patent that was asserted against Samsung really is just a rectangle with rounded corners. The only other elements that one could possibly argue are required by the design are what appear to be an LED and a connector of some kind, but it isn't all that clear what they are supposed to be.
Apple as a corporate brand looks like a cynical, egotistical, dominance protecting bullshit artist. I know, I know, it's all about the shareholders but it seems really at odds with their hipster marketing.
The hipsters and fanboys think that others are copying Apple and deserve to be sued.
I could have sworn the court case was not based around one single design patent.
The recent case in California also involved several utility patents. I don't remember offhand if there were any other design patents.
Annnd, it turns out I was wrong, since if you read further down in the ruling to point 57, it turns out that the judge didn't actually specify that it had to be on the home page. The part everyone is quoting is Samsung's requested terms as quoted by the judge, rather than the judge's actual ruling itself, which comes later in the document.
I find it hilarious that someone feels that a fictional depiction should be used as evidence that the actual manufacturer of a device should not be given credit.
apple patented a design, not an implementation. they didn't patent the processes used to manufacture the ipad or components of the ipad. they didn't patent some super-special piece of technology that made the ipad possible. they patented things like icon shapes, form factor, look & feel, gestures.
the things they patented are nothing more than the fictional depictions you see in the movies and TV.
Who here honestly thought that Apple would actually apologize to Samsung? Judging from the posts I've read so far, a lot more than I would have expected. Just goes to show you that iDevice and Mac owners aren't the only deluded people in the world.
You guys are awfully serious about this. The judge has a strong yet sophisticated sense of humor, and the ruling can be interpreted in multiple ways. I think a judgement that rules your product "cool" in writing is preferable over actually winning a petty case like this. Does anyone think the judge was unaware of the consequences of his wording, and how Apple can use it to its own benefit? And let's face it, Samsung et al do copy the success that they saw with Apple products like there's no tomorrow. If anything, the Apple posting is just and hilarious in many ways.
seriously? it's the difference between the design patent and a functional patent. apple patented the design / look / feel of the ipad, not the technology.
We have to beat into the ground until people admit making a rectangle with rounded corners is about the only way to make a tablet. It's not about someone stealing someone else's design.
Look - if there were lots of other ways to make a tablet PC that were not a rectangle with rounded corners, that would be fine.
The issue is not that there are protections on specific shapes or designs (that's another argument), the issue is that Apple tried to enforce these protections on a rectangle with round corners. Tablets basically can only be rectangles with round corners.
How many times do we have to beat this into the ground?
I can't think of a better way to diminish the popularity of Apple products, especially among their youthful followers, than by posting a quote from a middle-aged bureaucrat stating that they think Apple products are "cool". To paraphrase an old saying, "when all of the adults are getting in, it's time for the kids to get out"
This is typical Apple (Jobs) behaviour, and for me is a reason to stay as far from Apple crap as possible.. They claim others rip them even though they rip much MUCH more and seem to get away with it...
I don't think I'm confused. I know I'm not confused about what I said, but I suppose I could have misunderstood the OP. Scroll down a few comments or click on my name and see the other comment on this top and you'll see that I very clearly explained to someone else exactly what you just shared. It's two different topics. One is on design patents and the other is on what counts as "prior art" of a utility patent.
My comment (that you responded to) is a response to TWX's assertion that because something was shown in Star Trek or Back To The Future that it is somehow prior art (for a utility patent) - an absurd concept. If, however, TWX was actually discussing the design patent problems then he's still wrong and perhaps even more so than I originally thought. None of what was seen on Star Trek, etc was an exact copy of the iPad's design. And, as you no doubt know, design patents are extremely specific. So if the iPad was different than a Trek based handheld then it was just different... nothing else really to be said. Which explains why in this case the judge said, "Ummm... Apple, you do realize this Samsung device looks different in these certain ways, right? Good. Case dismissed. Now say you're sorry and go away."
Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're wrong about the meat of what you said... You just described design patents. I just think it was out of place, but that might be because we have two different interpretations of what the OP meant. Either way the OP was wrong and we've now iterated over all the things they COULD have meant (well, except plant patents but surely we can exclude that) and all the ways to correct their view no matter which one they actually meant... so good discussion I guess.
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
It may or may not be bullshit
Just a point of accuracy. It clearly is bullshit.
Apple has always been their fans and not the other way around. Originally Apple's fans were tinkerers and engineers, so Apple was all about that until the MCA, them artists were all about Apple so Apple was an artistic company devoted to making a better experience for the user. Then the damn iPod came along and ruined everything. Suddenly Apple's fans were a bunch of assholes who thought they were superior to everyone else because they all listened to the same awful noise they swore was music. Now it has become so horrible that every time I have to go into an Apple Store I feel like I am in an episode of a new Sartre TV show called "No Exit"
Feel free to browse my user profile and see what a massive fan I used to be of Apple but that was the old Apple. In August I bought a Samsung Series 7 Slate and I have had RTM on it since.
I now know what women who leave abusive relationships must feel like.
"I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!"
-Jennifer Saunders as Edina Monsoon
Seriously, troll mod for the parent comment? I'd be interested to know exactly what in that comment merited such a moderation, bearing in mind that "I disagree" is not a valid reason.
I enjoy watching AAPL plunge. I will enjoy it more if they plunge to $20 and go out of business. In such a case their headquarters should be demolished, razed, and then the earth salted where it once stood.
The hatred the average Slashdot neckbeard has for Microsoft is approximately 1/10th the hatred I have of Apple.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad. If Apple design a flux capacitor and make it look exactly like the one in the movie, then prevent others from also making one that looks like the one in the movie regardless of how the internals functioned, that would be stupid. Apple isn't suing over patents of how the flux capacitor works, they are suing over how it looks. And since there are previous examples of something which looks very similar, why should they get protection when clearly they don't have a unique, non-obvious idea?
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
That you can say that means you haven't looked at it.
Effectively, the underlying reason you can't sell a drink in a bottle "just like Coke's" is because you would be deceptively creating the fraudulent impression that the product you are offering is made by the Coca Cola company ... i.e. effectively a deceptive claim about who the manufacturer is, and what that thus implies (e.g. in terms of reputation of offered product).
There is no other valid basis on which to assert a 'design patent', so the only real question from a rights violation perspective would be if Samsumg were deliberately trying to pass their products off as Apple products to trick consumers. Given the products say "Samsung" instead of "Apple", I think this would be a highly dubious claim.
Patents in general are immoral and amount to a law against inventing.
Apple used to be an open company. Apple used to publish technical manuals, schematic diagrams, and source code for the firmware of the Apple I and ][ computers and the various peripherals. That would have been called Open Source had the term been in existence.
Since the Macintosh computer was introduced they've been going down the other path, publishing less and less information about their hardware and toolkits. By the time they transitioned through the Mac 128, 512, Plus, SE, SE-30 and Mac II lines into things like the LC series, Quadra, and iMacs they had lost all sense of sharing technical details of their hardware and encouraging people to develop add-on hardware and low-level software for it. Ever since iMacs they have been at the other end of the spectrum - an unassailable, unapproachable and most definitely Closed Source company. They take 30% of all sales through iTunes so that they can pay their lawyers to sue the crap out of everybody for everything, ensuring that they can continue to take 30% of all sales through iTunes.
I for one miss the Old Apple. I'm looking forward to the day where someone hands New Apple their heads and the door hits them on the arse on the way out.
The Federal Circuit outlined the "ordinary observer" test of design patent infringement in its en banc Egyptian Goddess decision. Here, the court fleshed-out that test with further details and nuances. Infringement of a design patent requires proof that an "ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing that the accused product is the same as the patented design." The hypothetical ordinary observer is considered to have knowledge of the prior art. Thus, "if the claimed design is close to the prior art designs, small differences between the accused design and the claimed design assume more importance to the eye of the hypothetical ordinary observer." "The ordinary observer test applies to the patented design in its entirety, as it is claimed. [Therefore, minor differences between a patented design and an accused article’s design cannot, and [do] not, prevent a finding of infringement.” (quoting Payless Shoesource and Litton Sys.).
The court again emphasized that the test considers the design as a whole and that the court should not use drawing details to create an infringement checklist because "concentration on small differences in isolation distract[s] from the overall impression of the claimed ornamental features." Rather, a better tool for determining infringement is a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the accused product.
On the facts of this case, the Federal Circuit found that the allegedly infringing shoes were "nearly identical" to the patented design. "If the claimed design and the accused designs were arrayed in matching colors and mixed up randomly, this court is not confident that an ordinary observer could properly restore them to their original order without very careful and prolonged effort. . . . [T]his court perceives that the accused products embody the overall effect of the ’789 design in sufficient detail and clarity to cause market confusion. Thus, the accused products infringe the ’789 design."
Now let's look at your comment:
If Apple design a flux capacitor and make it look exactly like the one in the movie... [they could not patent it]
And since there are previous examples of something which looks very similar... [they cannot patent it]
You're calling my argument bad? Please reread your own response. You actually tried to equate "exactly" and "very similar"! And my argument is bad?
Look, I said in my last post and i'll say it again here. You don't get a design patent for "very similar"! It is a extremely exact thing - or atleast a very, very, very, very, similar thing... to the point of being indistinguishable - just look at the shoe design patent link I provided. That's why the case was thrown out in favor of Samsung. The judge said "Apple, Samsung's design is different in these ways... it's not as cool. I can tell the difference and I don't think an ordinary observer would be fooled. Therefore no infringement." It's also why these other designs from the specifically mentioned TV shows / movies are NOT prior art... because you can look at a startrek tablet and then look at an ipad and easily discern one from the other.
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
The case you are making only makes sense if Chevy was claiming trade dress on using four wheels..or if Coke was claiming trade dress on having a bottle with a tapered neck. The heart of the issue is that what they are claiming as trade dress is the very basic of functional ergonomic aspects of a smart phone. There are not a lot of different ways to make a phone. The screen is a rectangle, and has a bezel to hold the glass in place.
There are MANY ways to make a tablet that don't consist primarily of a black rectangle with parallel sides and a bezel of a certain width and with chrome trim
Sure it could be a round tablet.. so I suppose Ford could make round cars, but they wouldn't fit on the road any better than a web page would fit in a round tablet. The rectangle is the only obvious choice for the shape of a tablet. That is why every fictional tablet, prior to the advent of real tablets, were rectangular. That is what is known as "obviousness".
The problem people have with what apple is doing is not because they are trying to protect their brilliant invention of the rectangular tablet, but because they are simply using their recently acquired wealth to attempt to stifle any potential competition.
once more into the breach
I'm not arguing that design patents shouldn't be allowed. All I meant is that the design patent that was asserted against Samsung really is just a rectangle with rounded corners. The only other elements that one could possibly argue are required by the design are what appear to be an LED and a connector of some kind, but it isn't all that clear what they are supposed to be.
Rectangles are two-dimensional, yes? The design patent showed a three-dimensional design. Therefore, by definition, it wasn't "really just a rectangle with rounded corners". The law doesn't disregard the features you're ignoring.
Which is not, one might note, actually on the homepage of their UK website (which is one of its EU websites), which homepage contains neither the notice required by the order to be placed "on the home pages of its EU websites", nor the link to the judgement required to be placed as part of that notice, but does contain a link which says it is to a "Samsung/Apple UK Judgement" which links instead to the page linked in TFS, which contains the notice text, link to the judgement, and then a bunch of other Apple commentary. It seems to me that the bigger deal than them adding the additional language after the notice text is the fact that they haven't done what the order required, which is placing the notice on the homepage of their EU websites. And since the order specifically references the use of hyperlinks within the notice, it seems that the order is quite clear in distinguishing where content is placed vs. where hyperlinks to content are placed, so placing a hyperlink to a page containing the notice where they are required by the order to place the notice itself is nonresponsive.
You would be right, going by the original decision, but the UK appeals court modified it to say that Apple could put a link on their home page, acknowledging that requiring the statement itself on their home page would adversely affect the design of the page.
The judge specifically spelled out what Apple was suppose to post.
And Apple posted exactly that.
Apple didn't follow these instruction by attaching all the other cruft to the ad therefore they haven't fulfilled the court order.
On the contrary, nothing in the order said "Apple, you have to post this and only this," or "Apple, you may not post anything other than this." You may argue that they haven't followed the spirit of the instructions, but they certainly complied with the explicit instructions.
Okay, fine, a rectangular prism with rounded corners.
Do Samsung's tablets have an LED and a connector in exactly the same place as shown in the design patent? Was it ever brought up in any of the trials?
Okay, fine, a rectangular prism with rounded corners.
Does the center figure here look like an iPad? Would a reasonable observer, looking at that figure and the figures in the design patent say, "gosh, I can't tell them apart." No. You're still ignoring features in the design patent.
Look, as long as you keep saying "well, it's essentially this" rather than "the design patent shows this, and this, and this," you're going to be disregarding features, by definition.
Have you looked at the design patent? I've already mentioned all of the identifying features that I've been able to get from it. If there's something you think that I'm missing, feel free to say so.
Have you looked at the design patent? I've already mentioned all of the identifying features that I've been able to get from it. If there's something you think that I'm missing, feel free to say so.
Corner radius, front aspect ratio, depth to width ratio, curvature of the back, bezel size, bezel orientation, screen placement, etc., etc. Honestly, it would be tough to verbally describe all of the features of a design, just like it would be tough to verbally describe a painting in full and complete detail. The proper comparison is a visual one - hold up the design patent, hold up that rounded rectangular prism I sent you, and see if you can tell them apart. I bet you can.
I'm not arguing that design patents shouldn't be allowed.
I'll do it. Design patents shouldn't be allowed. They're the bastard child of trademarks and patents. The justification given for their existence seems to be that they help prevent customer confusion, but that's the domain trademark protection, not patent protection.
So the choice is either (1) run the publicity "as indicated" or (2) "as may be agreed or settled" between the parties. I do not imagine that Samsung had agreed to, or settled with the notice Apple put up on their site at the moment. The only possible notice compliant with the court order would, therefore, be "as indicated" by Sir Robin Jacob. He indicated in the preceding paragraph 87: "... Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
Apple should have put up a notice with this text (which is "as indicated" by the court). If you freely add or subtract paragraphs from the text ordered by the court, you are not complying with the court order. I do not suppose Judge Birss intended his "not as cool" passages to be quoted and used in the manner Apple did.
Are you seriously that stupid?
I know you're probably a shill... but I'll reply anyway.
We're not talking about thinkpads looking the same. We're talking about the design patent for a rectangle with rounded corners being absurd.
That's obnoxious, horrible, litigation from apple.
That is all.