“Apple has lost its appeal against a ruling that cleared rival Samsung of copying its registered designs for tablet computers, in a decision which could end the two firms’ legal dispute on the subject across Europe,” Stephen Eisenhammer reports for Reuters.
“Britain’s Court of Appeal on Thursday upheld the country’s High Court judgment that, despite some similarities, Samsung’s Galaxy tablet did not infringe Apple’s designs, in part because its products were ‘not as cool,'” Eisenhammer reports. “The U.S. company has been instructed to run advertisements saying Samsung did not copy its registered tablet designs, both on its website and in selected newspapers.”
Eisenhammer reports, “Apple can appeal to the Supreme Court.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Samsung didn’t copy iPad – and iPhone before that? Seriously? They knocked it off lock, stock and barrel!
Apple needs to immediately appeal this to the UK Supreme Court, here’s hoping they, at least, have working brains and eyeballs.
Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
By the way, here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
Hey, MDN. Just shut the hell up. Apple lost everywhere excepted American soil. You don’t even realize how apple started just wrong? Now apple will get paid what they did. It was ridiculous. Shouldn’t sue anyone.
“Hey, Edward. Just shut the hell up. Edward lost everywhere including American soil. You don’t even realize how Edward started just wrong? Now Edward will get paid what they did. It was ridiculous. Shouldn’t bitch anyone.”
Edward, I like what you said. Just made some editorial changes to correct the thought. Left the really poor “engrish” as it was.
Now its much better…. really.
I agree with you, if they can abolish the whole patent system. According to you there is no need for patents. Why spend millions for R & D…..Just throw away the money!
You must be the tool heading the iHaters brigade on Yahoo News and CNET-ZDNET.
Not sure if England has a supreme court… But I agree with the past suggestions.. Follow the letter of the advert. Samsung did not “copy” apple cause it is just NOT AS COOL as Apple. Use play on words to show that the court says samsung is not cool and that is the ONLY reason given for samsung not copying Apple.
Just a thought. Play to the English sense of dry humor and make the point.
Apparently there is some basis in English law regarding this intangible cool factor. Very very queer.
Run the ad using the Judges words:
“(Samsung’s tablets) do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design,” the judge said in his July ruling. “They are not as cool.”
Brilliant! I really hope Apple takes your advice. Talk about turning a negative into a positive! Great idea!
They should do that and run the side by side pictures in the advertisement.
For those in the US, the UK does have a Supreme Court but it’s not clear whether Apple can appeal to it. The Supreme Court generally only gets involved where there is a point of law which requires interpretation, which doesn’t seem to be the case here.
“Run the ad using the Judges words:
“(Samsung’s tablets) do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design,” the judge said in his July ruling. “They are not as cool.”
That’s exactly what Apple should do if there ever forced to put anything on their website regarding this.
The ad should read just like this:
Samsung does not make iPads. If you want an iPad, you have to buy one from us.
Sincerely, Apple
where da fuck is judge dredd when you need him!
I guess any company can legally steal all patented money-makers from the UK by just slapping on a little ugly.
Haha! Nice one.
There is massive ignorance being posted on this board. The English law that Apple sued under is different to what people here want it to be. As one of the judges explained:
“It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple’s iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law.”
“So this case is all about, and only about, Apple’s registered design and the Samsung products.”
[The judge] noted that Samsung’s decision to place its logo on the front of its devices distinguished them from Apple’s registered design which said there should be “no ornamentation”.
He also highlighted the fact that the sides of the iPad’s design – which featured a “sharp edge” – were significantly different from those of the Galaxy Tabs.
In addition, he wrote that Samsung’s designs were “altogether busier” with a more varied use of colour on the devices’ rear and their inclusion of a thicker section to house a camera.
Given this explanation of the English law relevant to this case, it’s no surprise that Apple lost. Maybe Apple sued under the wrong law?
I do believe Apple has had some poor legal advice over the last couple of years. JB is quite correct in his understanding of UK law with respect to registered design. It has been commented elsewhere that the UK courts are notorious with respect to IP law, making the UK one of the most difficult places to litigate over IP.
Apple’s lawyers should have know this, they didn’t it seems and Apple has to pay the price.
Moto, on the other hand, have lawyers who know that German courts interpret IP law differently to other countries, hence their aggressive tactics against MS and Apple over there.
Why not making it like I’m a Mac, I’m a PC-campaign.
– I am an iPad.
– I am a Samsung pad.
– Did you copy me, Samsung?
– No, as you can see I am not as cool as you are.
That would be a lot of fun.
Lawyers r almost all liberal! Thank liberals for this ridiculous, anti-capitalistic decision that makes the copycat Samsung the victim! World is coming apart one lawyer at a time! Unbelievable!
Joke time!
Q: What do you call 10 lawyers on a sinking ship?
A: A good start!
Why won’t sharks eat lawyers?
professional courtesy.
“Lawyers r almost all liberal! Thank liberals for this ridiculous, anti-capitalistic decision….”
Wow! Talk about twisting to your prejudices, pea-brain.
We haven’t heard the last laugh yet
Do people in the otherwise fair islands of Britain drop their babies on their heads when they are born?
Or the Brits have a natural made-in-England predisposition to appoint doddery old judges?
Looking forward to the tv ad! Ha ha!
House of Lords
No surprise as no one copies more than Apple Inc. P.S. Commonwealth Supreme Courts do not hear this type of case. For the record the Samsung products contrary to the propaganda put out by iSheep and MDN DO NOT even come close to comparing to Apple products as the latter are far more superior than anything Samsung has ever put out. Hell the stuff does not even look alike!
Apple Inc. should stay focused on working on the next revolutionary product as the last 5 years have been all about evolution. Oh, one last thing,,, too many evolutionary product launches will kill Apple. Folks will not keep on buying their new stuff is it is simply a minor non relevant change. Apple is now in Sony territory.
Ok asshole, I’ll bite.
Name me one revolutionary product that any one of Apple’s competitors has released in the last 10 years. Yeah, I thought so.
Go eat your own turd dickwad.
None. That is the point. We are living in evolutionary times across the board. The modern is still a TV, the microwave oven on the other was revolutionary, the PC and Mac are evolutions of computing devices that already existed.
No slight on Apple as I do clearly state that iPad, iPhone, etc… are always offered to consumers with a superior build quality as compared to the rest of them but to suggest that the Samsung Galaxy 10.1 plastic 16:9 AR looks anything like iPad is ridiculous. The same applies to iPhones. Hell there are more devices out there that look like BlackBerry’s made the same companies that allegedly copy iPhone. iPhone once again has never been copied proper. Go to any store stand 20 feet away from the TV display wall and by all mean without referring to the brand name on the bottom of most of them name them off. IMPOSSIBLE to do!
Apple uses the word Revolutionary too lightly.
The Mac, at least the concept of a graphical user interface on a Mac, was revolutionary in its day. If you count the Mac as a collection of electronic parts, then naturally there is nothing revolutionary about it. But looked at as a whole, the Mac was revolutionary in that it did not require the user to type in arcane command line code to make the computer work and that you treated the computer as you would a microwave oven, for instance. That was revolutionary in its day. So when Apple says the Mac is revolutionary, it literally means the Mac changed the face of computing forever by introducing the concept of a graphical user interface that brought computing to the masses instead of being restricted to research laboratories and universities.
As for the iPhone, the first iPhone was revolutionary in that it combined a music player, an Internet browser and a phone all in one device where previous attempts to unify them resulted in a clunky difficult to use device. See Palm, Treo, Newton, HP iPAQ, etc. that all came before it.
The iPad was revolutionary because it brought the concept of a touchable tablet device that was accessible to the masses that didn’t require a stylus to operate and again didn’t attempt to mimic a desktop interface but instead removed all unnecessary desktop-like features to bring the best tablet experience to the masses. In that the revolutionary idea was that you could bring the well established principles of operating an iPhone to a tablet-like form but yet optimise the apps to behave in a tablet-like fashion rather than act as a blown up phone. This concept is more difficult to understand that you would think. Android adopted the blown up phone interface for its tablets which resulted in poor uptake by the public – a problem that Google is recently recognising and asking its developers to redesign tablet apps specifically for tablets.
Those are in themselves revolutionary ideas. They’re revolutionary not because they’re alien-like unseen technology. They’re revolutionary simply because they made the difficult simple.
You just know someone is going to say Apple just copied Xerox.
…but Steve Jobs was a Beatles fan and he stole the name “Apple Computer” from the Beatles “Apple Records”. He also copied all of his genes from his parents, and the Samsung lawyers missed that point entirely!
Fair points all around but again…. subjective use of the word revolutionary. Evolutionary is mu no means a slant on Apple or anyone for that matter.
The telephone, the telegraph, the first TV and the engineering behind it along with the radio, the morse code are clear examples of revolutionary devices, communication tools etc..
So, my point is not to challenge the fact that Apple, MSFT, Intel, Sony and several others have all made huge contributions to our evolution by enhancing what was once a revolutionary moment in time.
Yeas all but Microsoft.
They are just derivative not innovative or even evolutionary./
They are truly just a parasite, a very fortunate parasite yes, but a parasite all the same. They have actually retarded the evolution of computing by a significant amount. Who knows where we’d be if MS hadn’t siphoned off a significant amounts of resources while contributing nothing (less than nothing actually) and actively destroying (or buying and knifing) innovation and competition.
I always wonder…. Do all ‘living in their mother’s basement, no life, idiot, dumbass geeks” like you have nothing better to do than to troll in forums that cover things you hate?
“On the left is a genuine Apple iPad. On the right is a Samsung Galaxy Tab. The UK Court would like us to inform you that the Galaxy did not copy us, because, they say, it is ‘Not as cool’. We agree.”
That is the way it should have been since day one! Apple can get HUGE traction by doing exactly what you are suggesting! Move on and fight a good fight and stop dragging people into Court. Stay ahead of them. The car companies get this but Apple seems to think that they will be given a legislative our Court issued right of way. Not happening.
If Apple wins the appeal in the Supreme Court, can we have Samsung forced to buy ads apologizing for copying? Or have the lower courts’ apologize for wrong-headed foolishness? Or for boiled whitefish, black pudding and bad teeth?
What a fsucking joke!
“Not as cool”?? That’s how they define things in court nowadays?
Should’ve take a Law degree.
Apple should just exit the UK market instead. I’d love to see those judges go into hiding.
F right off!! Don’t punish the rest of us for a couple of doddery old ***** that were probably bought off by samesung and have zero real world knowledge.
Apple need to either appeal this and / or get better lawyers in the UK & Europe.
I agree, the Brits for the most part hate Apple. The Register are the biggest anti-American, Apple-haters around.
This verdict is England’s idea of a Free Market in action.
1. Dead link!
2. The UK does have a Supreme Court, which no longer sits as part of the House of Lords.
3. The full original judgement gives Apple lots of positive copy to turn the loss into a win: broadly the message is “no-one could mistake this pos for an iPad”! But given that they are in court elsewhere arguing that point, they may well prefer to keep on litigating in the UK, if they manage to get a hearing at the Supreme Court – which, broadly, only considers significant points of law, not adjudications of fact.
4. IANAL
Show a series of iPads and Samsung Galaxy Tabs from the first ones to the latest ones.
Throw in the quote from Samsung’s glorious leader that said to copy Apple.
Then, in a thick Cockney accent, say “Apples and pears says Gawdon Bennet! We did not copy Samsung. OK?”
I believe Apple is having problems with the recent decision reversal in California too. From what I have read in several articles, Apple will probably not appeal in Great Britain. So it’s not going well in court anywhere for Apple. Not doing the stock price any favors either. Apple is also being sued for infringing on patents of other companies too. Let’s hope they don’t lose those cases too. I believe that there will be reforms coming regarding patents and patent protection. I doubt that any company out there is completely innocent of using someone else’s ideas. Including Apple. I would like to see less time and money spent suing and more time and money spent in research and development. It’s getting old. It’s counterproductive. It’s much more damaging to companies like Apple and Samsung who make things as opposed to a company like Google who sells ads. It’s just making lawyers rich. It does not make products better or increase shareholder value. I’m getting tired of it. Enough is enough.
I think you had better do some more reading.
Fifty-years from now, when the rest of the world realizes the US was dead serious about American IP, will begin deferring to the US Patent Office as the supreme authority.
The regs are only going to get tighter, not looser, and Apple will be seen as the model in practice.
It matters not what those countries adjudicate because the Market is where the real power lies.
Death by a thousand cuts is how Samsung will finish the decade. Apple withholding future contracts will ensure a level playing field; meaning Samsung won’t have Apple money to spend and their products will stand or fail, on their own merit.
The only thing getting old is the low character of the Koreans and those who think a design can just be reproduced to within millimeters immediately after release and there should be no action. You don’t give up fighting… Ever. Or you will never succeed in anything. People like the Korean copy slaves would run all over you. Why would anyone come up with a design if everyone else makes the money due to you for your ingenuity and creativeness, something the Asians have never shown!
Thats pretty sad. Slap in the face to Apple for all the hard work they have done. FU UK, you guys really suck!
I don’t care about Samsung products , its does not make me to buy it or take interest in Samsung ,so far i know Apple iPad came out as new born in the 1st Gen then goes on 2nd Gen then Newest ipad 3 then its will bcome ipad mini ,from that so far Apple has been doing it in recent years , Samsung is really Jealous and lots o time dragging Apple to Court. Samsung has long history of Mental Problems of Slavishly Copier , Samsung has picky of new case trying to win , always find another one case and drag apple to courts from all that Samsung problems has come up to my face with Headlines saying about Court things Patent , infringing, etc.. what samsung could name it to drag Apple to court. this making me tired of hearing Samsung Mental Problems. They should fly over over to Cuckoo’s Nest .
Lack of ability to produce a product as COOL shouldn’t alleviate Samsung from it’s legal obligation to not blatantly make a product nearly identical to someone else’s products. Some of the patents in existence today may be ridiculous, but let’s not pretend as though intellectual property protections aren’t necessary.
Many people have missed the point about the case. The court stated as follows:
3. Because this case (and parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about. It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple‟s iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law. Whether or not Apple could have sued in England and Wales for copying is utterly irrelevant to this case. If they could, they did not. Likewise there is no issue about infringement of any patent for an invention.
4. So this case is all about, and only about, Apple‟s registered design and the Samsung products. The registered design is not the same as the design of the iPad. It is quite a lot different. For instance the iPad is a lot thinner, and has noticeably different curves on its sides. There may be other differences – even though I own one, I have not made a detailed comparison. Whether the iPad would fall within the scope of protection of the registered design is completely irrelevant. We are not deciding that one way or the other. This case must be decided as if the iPad never existed.
Reading your post I have to say, Britt’s have an odd perception of right and wrong.
Brings to mind a Kipling verse equating englishmen and mad dogs.