Apple Ping!
Discuss technical issues, software, and hardware.
Don't attack people!
Don't respond to the Anti-Apple Thread Trolls!
PLEASE IGNORE THEM!!!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 11/11/2012 3:09:28 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster
UK court orders Apple to pay Samsung's legal fees in full after 'false and misleading' notice
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has ordered Apple to pay the legal fees of competitor Samsung on an 'indemnity basis' after the company published a "false and misleading" notice in the wake of a patent lawsuit over the iPad. The judgement, intended to humiliate Apple, will require the company to pay for all expenses associated with Samsung's legal defense, with any disputes over the exact amount likely to be resolved in the latter firm's favor.
(Excerpt) Read more at theverge.com ...
Since when are Court Orders meant to humiliate ?
Well, in reading the entire article it appears that Apple in the UK was required to post a statement on their loss of the case on their UK website. Apple did so, but also posted what was later determined to be incorrect and misleading information and the UK court decide to add a penalty for their cheekiness.
Ouch, that’s got to hurt and that will be like pouring salt into Swordmaker’s wounds here.
Well - first we’re talking about English courts, so don’t apply our rules, cause they don’t apply. Second, the court found that Apple’s claims of copying weren’t true under English law, and they had substantially harmed Samsung. This was the corrective measure the court cooked up.
Then Apple got snarky!
So the court got equally snarky, and not only forced them to implement the order as it originally was issued, but has fined them through awarding maximum court costs to Samsung, which is all they can do under English law.
Full coverage of the blow-by-blow available on groklaw.net
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Not quite correct. Apple published the apology, but quoted the judge's decision that "Samsung's products couldn't possibly infringe Apple's patents because they aren't as cool" in the apology. The judge felt that was not cricket, and demanded Apple re-apologize without citing the reason for the apology, or the decision. Apple appealed, stating they merely published the truth as stated by the justice. Apparently that is considered "cheeky." The Appeals Court punished them for the audacity of telling the truth. . . and citing the court's decision. The law is now devolved to the rule of men, not law.
Judges, they live in a buyers market, everywhere. If he didn't like the quote, he shouldn't have included it in his ruling.
Hmmm, that information wasn't in the linked article, or at least I didn't find it. Do you have a link for that apology statement. Sounds like Apple pissed the judge personally. Generally not a good idea. Wouldn't be the first time a judge exacted a little retribution, not saying that it's correct, but they are human and human nature being what it is...
Below is the text of Apples published court-ordered “apology”:
(sorry, no link - you’ll just have to take my word for it; copied off the web at the time)
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:
“The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design.”
“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.”
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple’s design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. 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.
Bookmark
Apple was certainly cheeky, but there was nothing false or misleading about what they posted. They posted the required text and additionally pulled quotes from the judge's decision and them along with the text.
The judge took exception to Apple adhering to the letter of his ruling, but being clever about how they did it.
Apple was required to say they had lost their lawsuit in Britain. They did so but added a caveat that they had won (so far) in America. I’d think that’s fair enough when addressing an audience that has international interests, but the Lords begged to differ.
The reference to Germany is the only thing that could be confusing here, as on one hand it is being stated that this ruling has effect throughout the European Union and on the other hand it is being stated that a court in Germany had ruled it an infringement.
America is a whole ‘nother ball of wax.
And there's my problem. Courts aren't supposed to get snarky. Fees should have been awarded according to proper procedure in such cases, not according to whether Apple pissed off the judge by posting more accurate information than the judge ordered. If Apple owes because they sued and lost, then so be it, pay up. Otherwise, Apple shouldn't owe a dime.
In fact, I still haven't seen what of Apple's posting was inaccurate. Everything looks absolutely factual to me. Apple should sue the judge for libel for claiming it was inaccurate. And the UK's libel laws are pretty stacked against the defendant.
The judge took exception to Apple adhering to the letter of his ruling, but being clever about how they did it.
Ok. I only posted what I thought I had read from the linked article from the OP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.