UK Court Orders Apple to Change Samsung Galaxy Tab Statement

| News

Apple has been ordered by the U.K. Court of Appeal to reword its court ordered statement saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad design. The iPad and iPhone maker had been ordered to post a statement on its U.K. website telling visitors claims that the Galaxy Tab copied the iPad design were false, but Apple went beyond the scope of that statement to point out other courts have ruled that Samsung's products do, in fact, copy its designs.

UK Court on Apple's Samsung copycat statement: We are not amusedUK Court on Apple's Samsung copycat statement: We are not amused

The court gave Apple 24 hours to change the wording on its website, and a request from Apple's legal team for 14 days was rejected, according to Bloomberg.

Apple accused Samsung of copying the iPad design for the Galaxy tablet product line, but Judge Colin Birss rejected the company's argument and ruled that Samsung's designs aren't copies. As part of his ruling, he said Samsung's designs "do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."

He also ordered Apple to post a statement on its website as well as in several print publications saying Samsung isn't copying its designs. Apple lost its appeal, so the notice went live on Apple's website late last week.

Apple's statement acknowledged the Judge's ruling and pointed out his "not as cool" comment, and then went on to point out that other courts have ruled that Samsung has stepped on Apple design patents with its products.

The U.K. Court of Appeal wasn't impressed with Apple's statement, prompting the order to change it quickly. Apple lawyer Michael Beloff said the posted statement met the requirements of the court's order.

"[The court ordered statement] is not designed to punish, it is not designed to makes us grovel," he said. "The only purpose is to dispel commercial uncertainty."

Judge Robin Jacob disagreed and ordered the company to reword the statement.

"I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," the Judge said. "That is a plain breach of the order."

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

Comments

SP

I can answer why they would do this- they are complete assholes. The whole lot of them. Apple is only popular because the public is f***ing stupid, and they measure “quality” by being told what they can and can’t do with their devices.

PS

@SP, as you are an informed member of that public to which you refer I trust you recognize your post as a revealing self analysis.

daemon

Really, who didn’t see this order coming after what Apple pulled?

mhikl

PS you are a welcome guest as you know the protocols of a “guest”.

SP appears to come from a family lacking in manners and decorum and unless these humanising skills are learned early enough in childhood, many complete their lives as unhappy and challenged social beings; for which they deserve our pity and understanding. Anger management and practice in role playing can in a some instances help temper their deficiencies in many social settings.

daemon

“SP appears to come from a family lacking in manners and decorum and unless these humanising skills are learned early enough in childhood, many complete their lives as unhappy and challenged social beings;”

Something mhikl has suffered greatly from himself.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Judges are tired of this crap. Apple needs to compete on its merits. It has some. Using the state to lock out competition isn’t competing, and most certainly isn’t serving the best interests of the public. These patents, and especially the design patents, are the most loathsome forms of corporate welfare imaginable.

[@daemon: I can just imagine the role playing that goes on in that household. And yes, I needed brain bleach to clear that image away.]

BurmaYank

The dilemma Apple faces, either to make a false & deeply globally self-injurious declaration (i.e. that “Samsung did NOT copy Apple’s designs”) in order to comply with the UK courts’ rulings, or to insist on its inherent right to not have to harm itself by making court—ordered false declarations about itself and so perhaps thereby lose its right to do any more business in the UK, is a bitter one.

Could/should Apple just close up its UK shop and sell no more Apple products in the UK, if this ruling stands and Apple faces unrelenting UK fines & sanctions for steadfastly not surrendering to wrongful court orders?  Perhaps Apple would be better off in the long run doing so.

Let us now all support these Cupertino Tea Party latter-day Sons of Liberty.

jfbiii

Actually, Apple has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to pursue every single potential infringement to its legal conclusion. Imagine the uproar if they didn’t. The broken IP system isn’t the fault of any of these companies. And “the best interests of the public” are not the companies responsibility. That responsibility falls to governments.

Lastly, Apple is competing on its merits. It objects that other companies find it easier to simply duplicate Apple designs than compete on their own merits. Pretending that’s not what is at the core of these lawsuits isn’t changing what’s at the core of these lawsuits. The products targeted are the very worst offenders and those products are deliberately manufactured and marketed and displayed so as to be confused with Apple’s products.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@jfbiii: Nice story, bro. But that only works as a justification if there are no costs in such a course, such as the potential of Apple self-inflicting a wound on its reputation. Judges are tired of dealing with this crap repeatedly. They look at the big picture and don’t see the most valuable company in the world terribly harmed by competition.

daemon

“That responsibility falls to governments. “

Too true, I suppose the UK has no choice but to enforce their orders, as it’s their duty to safe guard the interests of the public.

jfbiii

The costs vs. reward are not determinate without going through the process, therefore it’s necessary to do so. I think shareholder lawsuits alleging a breach of fiduciary duty are easier to foresee if they are claiming that Apple did nothing to stop knockoffs rather than if Apple does too much to thwart them.

It is true that is a certain consumer segment who is very annoyed at Apple over these actions but it very probable that not taking these actions would not win those consumers as customers, since their discontent is largely based on a dislike of other portions of Apple’s business model or, in some cases, simple irrational animosity. But I think it’s very clear that consumers in general have little to no concern about Apple’s actions in regards to IP.

ctopher

As someone who answers to investors, I understand Apple’s need to enforce its IP. Capitalism demands that IP ownership either be vigorously defended or it is lost.

As a shareholder I endorse Apple’s use of the courts and the State. Why pass laws on IP rights if you’re not going to let the owners defend them?

I do not believe Apple’s business has been harmed by Apple’s legal actions. I do believe that the Market rewards companies that obtain patents and defend IP rights.

ctopher

Does anyone know what the penalty is if Apple does NOT comply with the Judges orders?

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@ctopher: I think you have “capitalism” confused with “crony capitalism”. The first is a system of free exhange among willing buyers and sellers. The second is where some of the pigs are more equal than others. The favored pigs get help from the government, often in direct payments or bulk purchases, but also with protectionist schemes and burdens imposed on competitors.

Speaking of pigs… Confusing capitalism with crony capitalism is similar to someone who likes buggering pigs claiming to be Catholic. Real Catholics know that buggering pigs is way out of bounds, despite the pig buggerer’s claim to be one of them.

Lancashire-Witch

@ctopher.
I guess non-compliance would be regarded as Contempt of Court; which as far as I remember can result in jail and an unlimited fine.  So it’s a serious matter.

RonMacGuy

Wow, I guess keeping one’s word to a long-time friend to be polite to others on TMO just isn’t what it used to be.  And all this talk about buggering pigs makes me REALLY feel sorry for the dogs…

:-(

Hi daemon.  Or should I say, Bosco’s boy wonder (or is it Bosco alternate user name so he can gang up on us))?  How are you today?  Those chill pills working out for you yet?

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@RonMacGuy: I know when you sound out the words, it sounds like it, but a discussion of “fiduciary duty” is not a slap at you or your little buddy.

RonMacGuy

Adorable Bosco.  Your fine line between playing ignorant and being ignorant is truly a sight to behold!!

There is nothing wrong with Apple’s approach.  By weakening their competition with lawsuits, they grow stronger in comparison.  It’s a beautiful strategy, and as a shareholder I approve this message!!

If Samsung can’t take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen!!

daemon

“If Samsung can’t take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen!!”

It seems to be Apple incapable of handling the heat.

Lancashire-Witch

Perhaps, it would be better if comments didn’t contain references to religion or bestiality.

There’s lots of other sites and blogs in CyberSpace for that sort of thing.

 

iJack

@L-W Really?  Well, I think it would be better if you minded your own business, and left it to TMO to bitch-slap those who earn it.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Calm down man. It was just an Animal House reference.

Log-in to comment