Apple ordered to put up ads to let people know samsung didn't copy them (UK)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The order means Apple will have to publish “an advertisement” for Samsung, Richard Hacon, a lawyer for Cupertino, California-based Apple, told the court. “No company likes to refer to a rival on its website.”
Click to expand...
That's impressive.
 
Apple's Likely Response: Yeah, no thanks...and nothing will come of it.
 
Apple Inc. (AAPL) was ordered by a judge to publish a notice on its U.K. website and in British newspapers alerting people to a ruling that Samsung Electronics Co. didn’t copy designs for the iPad.

The notice should outline the July 9 London court decision that Samsung’s Galaxy tablets don’t infringe Apple’s registered designs, Judge Colin Birss said today. It should be posted on Apple’s U.K. home page for six months and published in several newspapers and magazines to correct any impression the South Korea-based company was copying Apple’s product, Birss said.

The order means Apple will have to publish “an advertisement” for Samsung, Richard Hacon, a lawyer for Cupertino, California-based Apple, told the court.
Click to expand...

As well as Apple’s website, the company must pay for notices in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, Guardian Mobile magazine, and T3, according to a draft copy of the order provided by Samsung’s lawyers.
Click to expand...

Judges are trolling now. I don't see how this is reasonable at all. They got the ruling, let that shit go. Making them damn near advertise for a competitor is just stupid. Besides, noone heading to the Apple website is there to see shit about some other companies devices. It seems like a waste of time.

Only positive to come from this is that hopefully all these harsh ass rulings tones down the bullshit suits.

RubxQub said:
Apple's Likely Response: Yeah, no thanks...and nothing will come of it.
Click to expand...

Yeahhhhhh...... Im gonna go out on a limb and say that if they lose the appeal and the court sustains that order, that they will do what they are told. Probably not the best of ideas to tell a court/judge to stuff it, and expect to walk away unscathed. This isn't some game of truth or dare or something.
 
Bloomberg said:
(...)the company must pay for notices in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, Guardian Mobile magazine
Click to expand...

I'm not sure your average Daily Mail reader is going to give a toss, really.
 
Cipherr said:
Judges are trolling now. I don't see how this is reasonable at all. They got the ruling, let that shit go. Making them damn near advertise for a competitor is just stupid. Besides, noone heading to the Apple website is there to see shit about some other companies devices. It seems like a waste of time.

Only positive to come from this is that hopefully all these harsh ass rulings tones down the bullshit suits.



Yeahhhhhh...... Im gonna go out on a limb and say that if they lose the appeal and the court sustains that order, that they will do what they are told. Probably not the best of ideas to tell a court/judge to stuff it, and expect to walk away unscathed.
Click to expand...

Well, they gave Samsung bad press by 'wrongly' accusing them.
 
RubxQub said:
Apple's Likely Response: Yeah, no thanks...and nothing will come of it.
Click to expand...

If they don't abide by the ruling they will be found in contempt of the court and their operation will be shut down in the UK until they comply. This isn't one of those, "do it if you want to" countries, if you don't do what the court says, you better be prepared for the consequences.
 
Has a company ever been ordered to do this before? What is the purpose of it? To try and stop Apple from suing competitors? To publicly apologise to Samsung for any damage done to their brand?

It would be interesting to see the rationale.
 
EndcatOmega said:
I'm not sure your average Daily Mail reader is going to give a toss, really.
Click to expand...

Exactly, noone but tech heads probably even knows that this stuff is going on. Noone will care.

harSon said:
Well, they gave Samsung bad press by 'wrongly' accusing them.
Click to expand...

Sure, but (correct me if I am wrong) if someone is sued for libel or something, are they often times ordered to print retractions in public papers etc? I personally have never seen anything like that. This demand comes off as rather petty, like the judge was intentionally trying to fuck with them.
 
Cipherr said:
Judges are trolling now. I don't see how this is reasonable at all.
Click to expand...
Immediately after the judge ruled Samsung had not infringed Apple's copyright, Apple then made public statements that Samsung had copied them that were echoed world-wide. It was a middle-finger to both Samsung and the UK Court ruling.

This is a rap on the knuckles of the hand that held the middle finger up. I don't really expect it to be upheld, but it's certainly deserved.
 
Cipherr said:
Exactly, noone but tech heads probably even knows that this stuff is going on. Noone will care.



Sure, but (correct me if I am wrong) if someone is sued for libel or something, are they often times ordered to print retractions in public papers etc? I personally have never seen anything like that. This demand comes off as rather petty, like the judge was intentionally trying to fuck with them.
Click to expand...

Yes, it happens quite often here. The loser must take out a full page advert and print a retraction and apology plus damages.
 
godelsmetric said:
Has a company ever been ordered to do this before? What is the purpose of it? To try and stop Apple from suing competitors? To publicly apologise to Samsung for any damage done to their brand?

It would be interesting to see the rationale.
Click to expand...

I guess the rationale is that apple wasted everybody's time and hurt samsung's business. Perhaps an advertisement on Apple's page will even everything out.
 
Apple will ignore the ruling and nothing will come of it. Like always when this sort of ruling is made for other companies. It is neve enforced.
 
Cipherr said:
Judges are trolling now. I don't see how this is reasonable at all. They got the ruling, let that shit go. Making them damn near advertise for a competitor is just stupid. Besides, noone heading to the Apple website is there to see shit about some other companies devices. It seems like a waste of time.

Only positive to come from this is that hopefully all these harsh ass rulings tones down the bullshit suits.



Yeahhhhhh...... Im gonna go out on a limb and say that if they lose the appeal and the court sustains that order, that they will do what they are told. Probably not the best of ideas to tell a court/judge to stuff it, and expect to walk away unscathed. This isn't some game of truth or dare or something.
Click to expand...

The judge is basically ordering them to rescind statements made by Apple published at these sources, by publishing a statement of their own apologising
 
rkn said:
UK court system needs to thrown out and fixed.
Click to expand...

Your tears, they taste so good.

BA9rG.gif
 
Cheebo said:
Apple will ignore the ruling and nothing will come of it. Like always when this sort of ruling is made for other companies. It is neve enforced.
Click to expand...

If they are unsuccessful with their appeal, they have to comply....that is if they want to continue doing business in the uk.
 
I still don't really get it. Shouldn't Samsung have to demonstrate that any of this has actually damaged the sales of the stuff before Apple are forced to apologise?

Although I might be going out on a limb by suggesting that poor sales of the Galaxy Tab are not anything to do with the fact that Apple were suing Samsung.
 
cool! i kinda like that apple has to have consequences for their actions.

it's just such a novel idea over on this side of the pond!
 
godelsmetric said:
I still don't really get it. Shouldn't Samsung have to demonstrate that any of this has actually damaged the sales of the stuff before Apple are forced to apologise?
Click to expand...
This is where I'm uncertain about if it will stay. It wasn't a libel case that was heard, but a patent infringement one.

However, Apple's comments were pretty much running directly counter to the court's decision. Apple pretty much implied the ruling was a pile of shit by making statements as fact that Samsung had actually stolen their IP. This punishment seems appropriate.
 
The best thing about this is that they have to put out a full grovelling apology, if they try and get away with some snarky comment they will have to print a second retraction and apologise for the comment or face being found in contempt of the court.

I love our justice system, with today's immigration ruling and this it has restored a lot of my faith in it!

Suairyu said:
This is where I'm uncertain about if it will stay. It wasn't a libel case that was heard, but a patent infringement one.

However, Apple's comments were pretty much running directly counter to the court's decision. Apple pretty much implied the ruling was a pile of shit by making statements as fact that Samsung had actually stolen their IP. This punishment seems appropriate.
Click to expand...

And this is why the appeal will fail, it is being made on a contempt of court charge rather than a libel one I expect. Apple would do well not to appeal, print a retraction, keep a small notice on their UK store for a few months and then forget about the whole episode.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
How lazy are you? Stream movie with ads or get off the couch to put in DVD?
2
58
791
EverydayBeast replied
[UK] Digital ID to be compulsory for all UK adults under government plans
2 3 4 5
206
464
MayauMiao replied
We didn't know how good we had it Re: X-Men 2000
2
81
997
CGNoire replied
Had to put down my dog today
33
589
Beretta replied
[UK] Apple pulls data protection tool after UK government security row
2
76
5K
Paasei replied
Top Bottom