“A judge in Britain is forcing Apple to publicly acknowledge that Samsung didn’t copy the iPad, according to a report by Bloomberg. A judge has ordered Apple to post a notice on its website and in British newspapers highlighting a recent ruling that Samsung didn’t copy the iPad. Apple must leave that notice up on its website for the next six months.” Apple can still appeal this decision, but I’m hoping it’ll be denied. This is just too hilarious not to go through.
Apple gets their own medicine. Now they are serving as Samsung PR
This is too awesome. It’s like making Apple wear a pointy hat.
Hopefully this is upheld.
Apple was just awarded a patent for disappearing scroll bar and boy, was I annoyed! But this decision brings happiness again hehe
I can’t wait to see what joke John Gruber is going to crack on this given that his blog is not biased at all.
Hm, ~”UK judge confirms: Samsung tablets inferior to iPad”? (you know such twist is possible… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe‘s_law )
I wonder how prominent the notice must be – maybe it will end up among the most cost-effective advertisement campaigns, for Samsung? (would be even better if, down the line, it turns out as the beginning of some larger trend, like UK consumers really recognizing and adopting Samsung/Android tablets)
I don’t think the notice will have much effect. They can probably write it in such a convoluted way that almost nobody will bother reading/understanding it.
Still, it’s going to be hilarious.
Unfortunately, if the previous Italian ruling about insurance is anything to go by (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/27/apple_italy/), this won’t be the full page Samsung advert you’re hoping for!
When the Italian courts required Apple to post a notice on its website, it was apparently covered by the highlighted link text you can (just about) see here:
http://twitpic.com/8c7dmx
It’d be great if the message had to be made really clearly, but as with newspaper retractions and corrections, they always seem to end up being a little disappointing!
I saw a similar article a few days ago and my reaction was complete and utter silence at the display of epic stupidity taking place. It is really getting to the point now that in the future Microsoft appears to be a lot more mature when it comes to matters of patents. Sure, people may not agree here when it comes to the royalties paid by Android vendors to Microsoft but at least Microsoft were willing to sit down and negotiate where as Apple is just banging their fists like a spoilt child demanding that Android to have 90% of its functionality stripped out.
I’ve always thought that Microsoft and Apple were very similar in douchbag behaviour but it appears that I was wrong. Where as Microsoft will invoke patents but negotiate to a settlement where as on the other hand we have Apple refusing to negotiate, refusing to even accept an offer where by the said technologies are licensed at a reasonable price with both sides coming out happy. I wish there was some way to force Apple to accept a court mandated licence – $1 per device with unlimited access to all Apple patented technologies. Such a settlement would ensure that in future Apple negotiates and comes to a settlement or otherwise a court settlement would be imposed upon them.
Edit: As a die hard Apple user this maybe my last Apple product. I can accept there will be cases where companies will accuses each other of patent violations but most will settle out of court, come to an agreement and the world moves on. Sorry but although I have no personal relationship it does make my cringe that I’m associated with such a pack of douchbags every time I turn on my Mac. For all the faults of Microsoft at least they’re mature and behaving like a mature company such as IBM and HP etc. Lenovo have some great computers (Thinkpad and Thinkstation) along with the Surface appearing soon – then couple that with Office 2013 and integration with the Microsoft cloud services, Apple is making it very difficult for someone like me to be a repeat purchaser of their products. Yes, I’d even jetison my iPhone in favour of a Windows Phone 8 device too.
Edited 2012-07-19 05:01 UTC
Unfortunately, MS might only continue with such a business strategy while their products are still struggling in the market. Any attempt by MS now to squeeze competitors out of the market would only suit Apple. Also, recently they have been using Nokia to do the dirty work of patent litigation. MS may change their strategy after their competing products does gain some significant ground or if Nokia does go under.
Don’t jump on new urban myths… Nokia was always defending its R&D, nothing new came out recently ( http://www.osnews.com/comments/26145 and comments showing it’s BS)
It’s not that I like this patent crap either, but if Apple didn’t patent the disappearing scroll bar, then someone else would and would sue them / try to block their products. The system is just a friggin’ mess. I’m fully aware the none of the big companies are trying to change it since they happen to be the only ones with enough money to abuse other companies (i.e. this helps keep small companies down because they can’t afford to play in this sandbox), but it isn’t specifically Apple.
In terms of thinking Microsoft is more mature: Were you too young to follow the antitrust lawsuits and why they were happening? Combining dominant market position with incompatible networking / file formats / APIs, forced bundling of their OS, wholesale theft of technologies, etc. doesn’t strike me as the example I’d use. The government has them on a tight(er) leash today. If Apple had a 90+% ownership of smartphones / PCs / whatever, you’d be more likely to see the government step in – they get somewhat freer reign because they’re not by any definition in a monopoly position.
Anyway, I saw this ruling and thought it was a joke: The backs of the devices are distinguishable. Really? That’s from a supposedly educated judge?
mrstep,
Your right, the patent system sucks.
“Anyway, I saw this ruling and thought it was a joke: The backs of the devices are distinguishable. Really? That’s from a supposedly educated judge?”
I didn’t see that actual claim, per say. He said it wasn’t copied, not “the backs of devices are distinguishable”. Take for example two brands of toilet paper, they may not be distinguishable, but being so generic there’s no implication they were “copied” either.
If you took a dozen product designers in seclusion, and had them develop tablet form factors given the same specs, I bet you as many as half of them would be indistinguishable from the back without some kind of additional differential marking. But so what? Generic designs shouldn’t be exclusive. Apple likes “simplicity”, but that often happens to also be very generic looking as well. There’d have to be something truly unique to warrant giving it any kind of protection, frankly it’d have to be more complex than anything apple has put out in the tablet space.
Ugh, actually I wish that the authorities would enforce that particular patent so that Ubuntu is forced to stop using those ridiculous disappearing scroll bars by default on their desktop OS!
Unless the decree requires specific language, I imagine that this is likely to hurt Samsung more than Apple. Something like
The courts agree Samsung Galaxy is less cool and inferior to iPad. Samsung too incompetent to copy.
When Samsung objects, Apple will simply point out that they are are merely complying with the courts.
Negative advertising is also illegal, btw.
That, and it would almost certainly result in “contempt of court” charges, and encourage judges in future trials to be a lot harsher in their treatment of Apple.
Edited 2012-07-18 22:47 UTC
I don’t think this is true. I believe the standard in most countries is whether its false, deceptive, and/or misleading. For example, I’d say the “I’m a PC, I’m a Mac” campaign was a negative ad campaign in the commercial context. Negative ad campaigns in the political context are way too common. But, political ads I believe are regulated differently than commercial ads.
Who knows, the output could be anything.
What about this:
http://twitpic.com/a93gn3
Samsung does not copy our design.
Look carefully:
On one hand, a high-powered tablet made ^aEUR<^aEUR
The other, a square photo frame with a weak and outdated OS.
Thank you Samsung for making better tablets than ours.
…that’s what you get for being a f*cking annoying little twerp, Apple! I love this piece of good news!
<ad>
Judge says “Samsung didn’t copy the iPad due to it being
Inferior to the iPad”
Actually, I don’t mind Apple being told to do this, they took Samsung to court and have stopped them selling their products due to what seem to be unfounded accusations. I think all companies that try this tactic should be made to do this. It’s one way to get rid of this silly patent system!!!!
This is a win for the Anti – Patent system more than a win for Samsung I think, but still a win for Samsung…
I love Apple products, and I find this hilarious! I think other stupid court cases should also be dealt with in a similar fashion, hit each company where it hurts, they all have too much money to worry about fines… Something cruel and/or unusual is definitely the way to go.
I don’t think will be either or loss for Apple or a gain for Samsung… No one is retarded enough to go go shopping for an iPad and end up with some android thing
“No one is retarded enough to go go shopping for an iPad and end up with some android thing”
It depends. many apple customers probably don’t realise what apple are doing. Putting a court notice on apple’s website could be sufficiently embarrassing for apple such that they’ll reconsider their offensive lawsuit strategy. I think that’s really the intent here, not to give samsung free advertising.
But even then you’d be surprised the number of Apple customers who don’t even go to the Apple website – they go into their local Vodafone, Harvey Norman or JB Hifi (I’m in New Zealand), get the talking head behind the counter to give the 5 minute sales pitch then walk out of the shop a few grand lighter on the wallet. What they really need to do is force Apple to pay for Samsung’s legal costs then force Apple to licence all Apple patents to Samsung at a flat price of $1million per year – send a clear message that if a settle cannot be reached like mature adults then one will be imposed upon them from above.
So I decided to check them out a bit, pasted the names into Wiki – turns out they’re both Australian. How much of New Zealand is in New Zealand?
;p
(for a second there I tried to do inflection of NZ, kinda like what happens with “Icelandic” – this doesn’t seem to work… it’s non-inflected?)
Edited 2012-07-21 23:25 UTC
Apple is required to post a blatant lie that the self-professed ‘Fast Follower’ copycats from Samsung didn’t copy the iPad design….sorry, that doesn’t pass the giggle test. All of the Android dweebs here are having wet dreams choking their chicken as they drool over that news page…..what a f*cking joke.
You appear to have a need to let off your own steam.
Apple took the company to court, there^aEURTMs been a lot of public interest about the case and as such Apple has been rather vocal in the media alleging that Samsung copied their work.
The judge disagrees that Samsung did, and Apple have to take back what they said^aEUR| It^aEURTMs pretty straight forward.
UK judge said it doesn’t copied iPad design. A *judge*.
The logical consequence – in UK – is that saying you think Samsung copied the iPad design is still your speech freedom, but *claiming* it publicly by going to court like Apple did is wrong, and come with consequence.
Like publicly say what you previously claimed was false.
Keep calm, your beloved device was also found “coolest” than Samsung one by the same UK judge. Enjoy the coolest-ness of the judgement. After all, being cool matter more than being right these days, hum?
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1717.html
This is not hilarious. It’s just fair.
The cost to stifle competition through the courts is probably less than allowing the competition to compete in a fair marketplace.
When the patent violations are determined to not exist, there should be some consequences for accusing another company. Maybe this will make companies *think* before lobbing accusations over the wall to see what sticks.