Apple posts apology online, sort of
Friday, October 26, 2012 at 9:55AM Apple has posted what is supposed to be a court-mandated apology on its website, but the tone doesn't quite fit what is required. Maybe it does legally, but for anyone else, unlikely. And they used Arial for the font...
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.
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.
All News
Reader Comments (14)
To me this is absolutely not an apology. This will probably fit exactly in the Appeal's judgment but it sounds like a whining child.
You're right Carel, and you know what? Samsung did exactly the same when they lost the US suit.
I'm not sure why anyone would expect something different?
The minimum needed to satisfy obligations, spun in a way which minimises harm and yet complies.
That being said, they could have made it *funnier*...
Was Apple supposed to apologize or was it supposed to state the judgement, that Samsung did not infringe. There's a huge difference. This certainly satisfies the latter but not the former.
Now does Samsung complain that Apple didn't apologize enough? Too funny.
I was wondering that as I wrote it. I think they had to take out adverts stating that they did not infringe, not apologise, but it really is near the line even as a statement. As Neil says, all companies would do the same.
So they've posted the judgment but also posted about other opposite judgments in the next breath.
Weren't they supposed to be clearing up that Samsung didn't infringe?
This is surely contempt of court.
Saying that Samsung was found not to have infringed in the UK, but that other countries' courts have taken different approach?
Yep. I'd have to read the wording of the judgment for the details but I understand the spirit of it was to clear up that Samsung didn't infringe. They haven't done that, and they've also been disrespectful to the court by saying what other courts have said.
That's the first line of Apple's statement!
I'd be surprised if a court ruled that way, to be honest — I don't see it as disrespectful. The situation is clearer for the last paragraph — different courts have ruled in different ways on a number of issues here.
Perfectly legal what Apple have done.
If you're unhappy sue them. In other words its a no win situation.
Here's a comment with some Latin from a comment on DailyTech:
"It seems mischievous or even perilous to mock the judges ruling, not any apology at all. 'Not Cool' is an 'Obiter dictum' a statement "said in passing" by the Judge, had it been "Prima facie" i.e. self-evident from the facts then Apple can hold the judges word to account, hence why I think Apple has infringed on the intregrity of the judges ruling and therefore it should be 'Contempt of Court'.
Apple saw this as a market opportunity to promote their wares at the expense of Samsung, which is not in keeping with the spirit, it's contentious and disrespectful of UK judges decision.
UK judicial decision sets precident but it is not binding in the higher courts, nevertheless, what happens in Germany or elsewhere is of no consequence unless it is upheld by EU Law. Apple has clearly in my view overstep the boundaries. The court ought to hold the Apple directors accountable and send the blighters to prison as fines don't matter to Apple. "
It has Latin so it must be right ;o)
If that was written by a lawyer, I fear for the credibility of the legal profession :)
I can't see any relevance in the fact that part of the judgment might be obiter; it's got absolutely nothing to do with the issue here at all.
Of course.
I'll refrain from picking my way through this, but, suffice to say, at best, the quality of something from an A-level law student just starting on constitutional law or legal method :)
From paragraph 87 of the judgment:
It seems that views vary here very much but, in other forums, people have been complaining that Apple did not acknowledge no infringement, but rather acknowledge only that the court found no infringement. What Apple wrote in this regard is exactly what the court ordered.
Apple has put in some extra language, for sure — after a fight about keeping the content short to keep the page clean — but, given what was ordered, it's not obvious to me that Apple has done anything *legally* wrong here.