Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Court of Appeal Reprimands Apple Over Mandated Samsung Statement

Posted by timothy on from the no-no-use-this-petard-instead dept.

Macthorpe writes "In the UK, Apple were previously ordered to add a statement to their website stating that Samsung did not copy their designs, following a previous case where this was ruled by the UK courts. However, today the same court revealed that Apple's statement is not good enough. From the article: 'The acknowledgement put up last week, linked from the home page by a tiny link, was deemed to be "non-compliant" with the order that the court had made in October. The court has now ordered it to correct the statement – and the judges, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob, indicated that they were not pleased with Apple's failure to put a simpler statement on the site.' It appears the main objection is the statement is on a separate page and only linked from the hompage — and that the statement is buried in marketing blurb, and also put next to references to a case Apple won."

3 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Apples' response to the reprimand by EasyTarget · · Score: 5, Informative

    The fact that they were originally allowed to just put a link; abused this and are now required to put the text on the homepage, is what is known as a 'punishment'.

    Fanbois unfamiliar with the concept should think of it as being 'unfriended' by the court.

    --
    "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
  2. Re:Uh.... no. by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Informative

    based on the verbosity of what Apple is required to post

    What they're required to post (as distinct from what they chose to add) is this:

    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 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

    Sorry for breaking your browsers, y'all!

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  3. Re:Apple complied - whose being a baby now..the co by Applekid · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did you read the apology? It consisted of more than just the language of the court. It added an editorial pointing out how other courts found in their favor.

    Right up there with your mother telling you to apologize, and when you go up to do so, you say you're sorry and then follow it up with an 80's "NOT".

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino