UK court upholds judgement: Samsung tablet does not infringe on Apple’s iPad designs because it’s ‘not as cool’; Apple forced to run ads saying Samsung did not copy iPad

“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:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

By the way, here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

Google Android before and after Apple iPhone


  1. 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.

    1. “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.

    2. 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!

  2. 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.

  3. 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.”

    1. 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.

    2. “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.

    1. 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?

      1. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

  6. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

            1. …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!

          1. 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.

            1. 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.

    1. 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?

  7. “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.”

    1. 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.

  8. 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?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.