Apple Earns Delay on Publishing Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad

Last week, a UK judge ruled that Apple must post public notices in newspapers and on its website acknowledging that Samsung did not copy the design of the iPad with its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet. That announcement came a little over a week after the same judge had ruled against Apple in its infringement claim against Samsung, opining that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is simply "not as cool" as the iPad.


Apple of course appealed the ruling that it must publish those notices, which were to remain on its UK website for six months, and Bloomberg now briefly reports that Apple has been granted a stay on that requirement until an appeal is heard in October.
Apple was ordered earlier this month to put a note on its U.K. site and buy advertisements in British newspapers to alert customers to a court ruling that Samsung hadn’t copied the iPad’s design. Cupertino, California-based Apple appealed saying it didn’t want to advertise for its rival. The order is stayed until its appeal against the ruling is heard in October.
More information on the stay may yet be forthcoming, but it appears that Apple will have significant time to put forward its arguments attempting to convince a separate court that the notice requirement was an improper part of the verdict.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

Posted: 29 months ago
Requiring them to make this announcement post could severely damage their legal efforts in other parts of the world. Losing their case is bad enough....this juvenile add on from the judge is silly and damaging. It's also forcing Apple to make an admission they don't agree with or believe in. Just because they lost and the judge ruled against them, does not mean they must now accept and agree with it. They have to comply with the ruling. That is all. Forcing an admission that is a statement of position is wrong.
Rating: 11 Votes
Posted: 29 months ago
I wonder what the Samesung tablet would look like if Apple didn't make an iPad? Oh wait there wouldn't be any tablets because apparently they were an oversized toy on ipad1 release that wouldn't sell at all right? :P
Rating: 7 Votes
Posted: 29 months ago
I still can't believe that something so stupid was even decided in court.
Rating: 6 Votes
Posted: 29 months ago
"We as Apple Inc. are forced by a ruling we appeal to state that Samsung did not copy the iPad with their Galaxy Tab 10.1. However, Samsung is barred from selling the smaller Galaxy Tab and one of their phones from selling in the European Union for copying the iPad. We do not understand why the closest resembling product, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 does not resemble the iPad, but the judge found, this particular product did not copy the iPad. Our sensere appologies to Samsung who only copied us to produce smaller devices." :D
Rating: 5 Votes
Posted: 29 months ago
First, here's what Apple was ordered to do for the period of one year or until the judge decided otherwise:

Post in a size no smaller than Arial 14pt, the following notice on all the Apple EU homepages, and also do the same in the following on a page before page 6: The Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine:

"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple 's registered design 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink]."


Here are the legal reasons quoted for it:

The starting point for the analysis of this request is Article 15 of the Enforcement Directive. It is as follows:

Publication of Judicial Decisions

Member States shall ensure that, in legal proceedings instituted for infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may order, at the request of the applicant and at the expense of the infringer, appropriate measures for the dissemination of the information concerning the decision, including displaying the decision and publishing it in full or in part. Member States may provide for other additional publicity measures which are appropriate to the particular circumstances, including prominent advertising.

The relevant recital is recital 27 which provides:

To act as a supplementary deterrent to future infringers and to contribute to the awareness of the public at large, it is useful to publicise decisions in intellectual property infringement cases.

The relevant practice direction relating to Art 15 is Practice Direction 26.2 to Part 63 of the CPR, as follows:

Where the court finds that an intellectual property right has been infringed, the court may, at the request of the applicant, order appropriate measures for the dissemination and publication of the judgment to be taken at the expense of the infringer.

In the decision of Henderson J...

That emphasizes that there is a strong deterrent element to this power, as well as a wish to make sure that the relevant public is aware of relevant decisions which have been reached.

... also..

In summary, the policy comes down to two points: to deter future infringers and to publicise and disseminate the outcomes of these sorts of proceedings.


He debated about whether Samsung could run the ads themselves, but then noted out that Apple had continued to talk about copying even after his decision that Samsung had not copied:

"It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad. This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual property." - Apple


As anyone anywhere on the planet can tell you, dissing a judge's decision is not smart. It doesn't matter if you're a teen punk or a major corporation. The judge said this about what Apple was doing:

In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, but to many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing.


I think that helped decide it for him. Apple just wouldn't stop even after they lost. Note, however, that he refused to gag Apple, on the grounds of free speech.

Full order here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/2049.html
Rating: 4 Votes
Posted: 29 months ago
IMO, the only way this would be a reasonable punishment is if Apple had previously posted on their website that Samsung is copying Apple.
As far as I know, Samsung has never been mentioned on their website.
Rating: 3 Votes
Posted: 29 months ago
To people like KnightWRX claiming that Apple has had a serious impact on the media by calling Samsung copy cats and having lost the case deserve to post this.

Why is no one asking Samsung to post a similar apology having called apple infringers in all news headlines and losing almos every other case?
Rating: 3 Votes
Posted: 29 months ago
LOL, poor apple... why are people so hung up on defending apple though? Do they have some sort of deep connection to the company? Are they shareholders (I doubt there are that many)?

What do apple fans really want? Complete monopoly and zero competition? We all know thats what Apple itself wants, but what is there to gain from regular joe schmoe off the street working a 9-5 job in a cubicle that must have the next apple product?

Regardless, I love this. Apple's being put in its place and basically being told to shut the hell up as all their ridiculous legal efforts have gone *way* too far. All Apple has done is delay the release of other products and hurt the consumer; congratulations to anyone supporting todays new Microsoft.
Rating: 3 Votes
Posted: 29 months ago


Apple of course appealed the ruling that it must publish those notices
[...]
Apple has been granted a stay on that requirement until an appeal is heard in October.


I'm personally not surprised. This was about 100% sure to happen.
Rating: 3 Votes
Posted: 28 months ago

Ok, so if the 4.13" device isn't a tablet now, but was then, what changed?


Consumer expectations. Argue semantics all you want, the 770 was marketed and brought to market as a tablet.
Rating: 2 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]