

Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K. - lightspot
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/apple-must-publish-notice-samsung-didn-t-copy-ipad-judge-says.html

======
Terretta
This is not a disjunctive syllogism.

If Apple could not prove that Samsung copied them, it does not follow that
Samsung didn't copy them, just as if California couldn't prove that OJ did it,
it doesn't follow that he didn't do it.

This ruling, that Apple has to affirm something equally unproven, is bizarre.

~~~
ajross
You have your requirements analysis all mixed up here.

Legal logic isn't the same as mathematical logic. The goal isn't to "prove" a
fact here, it's to "settle" the fact so that people can go on with their
lives. The courts pick boolean logic as their basis. So yes, legally, it _is_
proven that Samsung did not copy Apple, no matter how many fancy-pants math
terms you throw at them.

~~~
jmduke
I think you're both right?

Legally, 'not guilty' is not equivalent to 'innocent'.

That being said, the sales injunctions that Samsung occured were a clear case
of damages as result of a case for which Samsung was not found guilty; thus,
its fair for Samsung to receive compensation.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
> _Legally, 'not guilty' is not equivalent to 'innocent'._

hmmm... if "innocent until proven guilty" holds true, then you remain innocent
until you have been found guilty. If at the end of trial you have been found
"not guilty" then you have not been found guilty, therefore are innocent.

~~~
FuzzyDunlop
That may be a valid assumption, but it's also a dangerous one. A court cannot
make the same one (and pronounce people innocent) as it would, I would expect,
make it extremely hard to get the same person back in court given new evidence
(they're innocent, the court said it).

So it's a bit like hypothesis testing, where you don't expect your hypothesis
to be proven correct, you just expect it _not to be disproved_. Thus, further
testing can continue.

In summary, someone who isn't found guilty isn't always innocent.

~~~
neya
>In summary, someone who isn't found guilty isn't always innocent.

Right now, you aren't guilty...so that means...ummm...

~~~
Bro_Merch
It's not 'not guilty' it's 'not /found/ guilty'. Maybe I /am/ guilty.

(Just making a point. I am getting a kick out of reading this thread. I own
>15 apple devices and every one of them has duct tape over the apple logo
because I think their legal b.s. is just that. B.S. In 2000 I was cool for
being the Apple guy. Now I'm ashamed of it. I just honestly still believe they
make superior products. Show me a non Apple laptop that I can pick up and will
feel as solid and sleek as my 2011 MacBook Pro all the way down to the even
weight distribution, that I can install Linux Mint on and have it Just Work an
ill buy it tonight.)

~~~
neya
>Show me a non Apple laptop...blah blah blah

I have a Sony Vaio VGN FZ-21S. Its almost three and a half years old. When I
bought it, it was the price of a Mac book pro. It had more performance, speed,
features than a Mac book pro back then, including a Blu-Ray drive. It has
survived huge amounts of mis-handling. I've dropped it into places where no
one would even imagine - Sea (saline water), Rain water puddles, etc. and it
still works fine.

I'm a film maker. I use it for heavy rendering, sometimes it is turned on
without even a restart for several weeks or even months. It came with a
defective GPU chipset and the entire motherboard was replaced free of cost
even after its warranty period.

My friend has an Apple Mac book pro. I borrowed it once to do some
comparisons. I will put up a blog post on this soon, but here's what you need
to know:

1) ALL 2011 Apple Mac's have a shitty display contrast, compared to what this
particular Sony Vaio gives you. The color and the contrast is beautiful on a
Sony. Period. FYI - I'm a graphic/Web designer too, and this is really
important for my work.

2) Apple charges you for anything that is not under warranty. But in my case
(and millions of other Sony owners') Sony didn't charge us a single penny.

3) I compose music too. My Sony has an inbuilt ASIO chipset. The sound quality
from this chipset is nothing like what you've heard before (assuming you've
owned only Apple products). Its amazing. I compared it with the MB pro. Shit
it was. Just like their iPods (If you argue the iPod has a better sound
quality, then please stop reading right here. I don't want to argue with you
anymore)

4) The MB pro heats like hell. I can't render something for more than 6-7
hours. BS. I might as well use it to fry an omlet.

Its ok to like Apple and its not my problem if you like Apple or not. But
don't manipulate facts to suit your argument.

Because, this statement:

>Show me a non Apple laptop that I can pick up and will feel as solid and
sleek as my 2011 MacBook Pro

is not accurate, heavily manipulated and is utter bullshit. It clearly
indicates how biased you are and how ignorant you are about the pace at which
the rest of the non-apple gadgets improve, day-by-day, which is atleast thrice
as fast as how Apple's gadgets improve.

To answer your original question - >Show me a non Apple laptop that I can pick
up and will feel as solid and sleek as my 2011 MacBook Pro

Please check out the Laptop sections of Sony, Toshiba, Dell, Asus, Fujitsu,
Lenovo and HP from their corresponding websites.

Have a nice day.

------
bratsche
Wasn't the original ruling basically saying, "It's not a copy of the iPad
because it's not as cool"? You know if Apple really does have to put this
notice on their website, they'll probably find a way to work that into the
announcement.

~~~
lumisota
"Samsung wasn't cool enough to copy us." - sounds good to me.

------
mark_l_watson
Sounds fair, considering.

Apple's suit damaged Samsung, so this seems to me like fair payback.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Actually it sounds silly to me. Kind of like forcing a bully to stand up in
class and say "Billy is not a poopy-face."

The only good thing coming out of this whole patent-a-geddon period is real
attention to how broken the system is.

~~~
Steko
"Kind of like forcing a bully to stand up in class and say "Billy is not a
poopy-face.""

The problem with this analogy is that no one serious for a second has ever
doubted that Samsung copied the ipad, the court has simply ruled the iPad
design is too generic to make it a protected design. That tablets are like
refrigerators and car and airplane shapes - fair game for copying.

~~~
ChuckMcM
And the problem with your problem to my analogy is that if the court actually
felt that way (that the tablets are fair game for copying because they are so
generic) they would have simply invalidated with prejudice Apple's design
patent(s) in the UK telling Apple to pay Samsung's court costs and legal fees
and writing an opinion to that effect. Samsung could then take that (and the
money they got back) and pursue similar sorts of decisions in other venues.

~~~
Steko
It's not a general patent on tablet shapes it's a registered design which
covers the actual product itself. Which seems like a better system as outright
product pirates will clearly run afoul wheras category copying the general
shape etc. is allowed.

------
Loic
This is very good because it will make companies think twice before going to
court.

------
bdcravens
This reminds of a kid who got totally destroyed in a fight: both eyes are
swollen and black, his nose is broken and bleeding, he can barely talk through
his swollen lip, and he has a chipped tooth. Then the teacher tells the other
guy to apologize and shake your hand. You walk away thinking, "I showed him
..."

------
mitchty
Can someone more versed with the British legal system explain the logic behind
this? Coming from the perspective of an American it is a bit peculiar, but
then again our own legal system isn't always rational. Just curious if this is
common for a defendent to have to publish notices of case outcomes. I know
there are a number of other consumer protection laws in the UK.

That or pointing to something like popehat that has overall analysis would be
nice too. Law stories tend to make me feel like I'm a fish out of water,
especially when they are from other countries. Given that I know a contract
lawyer and have finally gotten to a basic understanding of how some of that
law works I have a bit more understanding of how common perception of the law
differs from actual practice.

~~~
Zenst
Basicly they have to make a public retraction for saying something that has
been proven not to be true. Now Apple could do a public retraction along the
lines of "Were so sorry Samsung for saying you copied the iPad, we know that
is not so as yours is just not as cool as ours" or something like that.
Probably wouldn;t be the best of moves but still viable.

------
peppertree
I love this judge - putting everyone back to their place. Samsung, stop trying
to act cool, and Apple, STFU.

------
kenster07
There is a sense of justice here. They had this coming ever since Apple
blatantly doctored those photos to make it seem the Samsung product look more
like the Apple product than it really was, as if implying that they thought
tech market was so incompetent that such a strategy could work.

------
briandear
I don't understand how anyone can root for Samsung given Korean chaebol's long
history of blatantly ripping off everything. Any research into the history of
Samsung, Daewoo, LG will reveal a long line if copied products. Of course most
if these products were only sold within Korea specifically because they knew
what try we're doing would never pass muster on the international stage.
Samsung is a dirty company. Do a little research before just blindly assuming
Apple did something wrong. Looking at the side-by-side images here:
[http://atomicsupersky.com/post/26275796849/on-the-samsung-
ga...](http://atomicsupersky.com/post/26275796849/on-the-samsung-galaxy-
injunction) should erase any doubt that Samsung blatantly ripped off Apple.

~~~
jkn
I think part of the reason why many people are rooting for Samsung here, is
that in this community, in the field of competitive practices, copying is not
frowned upon as much as litigating. There's no doubt that Samsung copied from
Apple but blocking a whole product due to some parts being copied (like a
green phone icon according to the page you linked) is arguably worse than the
copying itself.

After all, copying (or stealing as Jobs would say) is an inherent part of the
creation process. Sure, Samsung was not very creative in the pieces they took
from Apple, but in the end these elements are a small part of the product.

~~~
sjwright
Jobs would say copying. Stealing is reserved for those who recognise the
artistry behind the idea and integrating it into the very soul of the new
work; copying is the duplication of an idea without more than superficial
regard for its true meaning or purpose.

~~~
Jacqued
I don't think a business leader, no matter how charismatic, is the most well
suited person to talk about copying, since his business probably holds a lot
of patents, which may or may be justified. In this case, the level of
absurdity we reached is quite astonishing - the judge pretty much said : yes,
Apple owns the black rectangle, but Samsung failed to do a proper black
rectangle so they are not infringing.

By any means, this obsessive scorn of copying is something that must be
relativised : it only really exists in the western world after the 18th
century. Most cultures that exist in other times/spaces tend to see no moral
issue in copying, and even dignify it when done properly

------
ars
I can't wait to see just how much legalese and slanty writing they manage to
include in the notice.

Unless the Judge gives them the text, or requires them to negotiate it with
Samsung.

------
siglesias
Actually, nothing stops Apple from being passive aggressive:
<http://cl.ly/image/2C132X1u363x>

~~~
jkn
This just shows that "black rectangle with rounded corners" is literally the
only design aspect the iPad and Galaxy tab have in common.

~~~
Terretta
On the contrary, the entire presentation is virtually indistinguishable.

[http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/10/galax...](http://www.thegalaxytab.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/10/galaxy-tab-unboxing.png)

~~~
slavak
[http://www.singaporeclassifieds.org/wp-
content/uploads/produ...](http://www.singaporeclassifieds.org/wp-
content/uploads/products_img/ipad-box-side.jpeg)

Because they are both white boxes with large pictures of the product on the
front? Well color me outraged!

I think anyone with any eye for design would agree the two boxes are
sufficiently different to rule out the possibility that Samsung was trying to
pass of as an iPad. (Not to mention the two prominent uses of the Samsung
brand on the Tab packaging's front - as opposed to a logo-less shiny black
rectangle on the iPad's.)

I honestly don't understand where all these "Galaxy Tab is an iPad clone!"
accusations are coming from. Is it a physically similar device? Yes, it is.
But there's only so many ways you can design a minimal touch-based tablet. If
you made a car that looked suspiciously like mine from the front I'd have a
good reason to be pissed off. If you made a wood colored dinner table with 4
legs and a flat surface - probably not so much.

~~~
Terretta
The default screen on Nexus 7 is not mistakable. TouchWiz or Sense are not
mistakable. This box shows a tablet configured to look like iOS, which isn't
what I or most Android owners do with our Android tablets.

------
kristopher
Where would one put such a thing on one's website?

The very top page for six months?

As an aside, if Apple were to pronounce such a claim on it's website, what
would that do to ongoing battles in other jurisdictions?

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Presumably, Apple would only need to change the front pages of its UK websites
(apple.co.uk and apple.com/uk).

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Odd coincidence? Apple got its hands on Apple.co.uk just a week a go, after it
had been owned by an illustration agency for years:

[http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/18/apple-takes-control-
of-a...](http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/18/apple-takes-control-of-apple-co-
uk-domain-name/)

------
chucknelson
Does this ruling actually mean anything? Every time I see something like this
I'm just waiting for an appeal to pop up. Or can this judgement not be
appealed?

------
robgough
Off-hand this seems like a rather cruel and unusual punishment. Are there any
previous examples of this sort of order?

~~~
cryptoz
From wikipedia:

> Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing punishment which is
> considered unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it
> inflicts on the condemned person

You don't really think that an HTML page inflicts any kind of suffering or
pain on someone, do you? First, I don't even think this is 'punishment': it
appears to be more focused on clarifying the issue to the public and ensuring
Apple doesn't try to twist the story. Secondly, there's absolutely no way it's
cruel. It may be unusual, though, and I'm curious about that too.

~~~
robgough
I'm sorry you took such offence at me using "cruel and unusual" as a turn of
phrase, rather than to mean it's dictionary definition. I'll admit I'll
happily use it in conversation - but perhaps I should have been more careful
online where things are taken somewhat more literally.

I do feel that forcing Apple to link to a competitor, and advertise for them,
is a form of punishment though.

~~~
286c8cb04bda
_> I'm sorry you took such offence..._

You're sorry he took offence? That's a pretty passive-aggressive apology isn't
it?

You used the phrase wrong. He corrected you. I don't think you're allowed to
claim any high ground here.

 _> I do feel that forcing Apple to link to a competitor, and advertise for
them, is a form of punishment though._

That's supposed to be the whole point, I think.

~~~
capitao
> You used the phrase wrong. He corrected you.

wow, really? that phrase is used all the time in a lax, colloquial manner, he
didn't 'use it wrong' at all.

why is everyone jumping to wikipedia over this? nothing better to do today?

