Crookbond Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 You're a bit late Domi and you missed the fun :phehehe:. Apple tried to be "smart" and did not obey with the court orders. Now, the court has asked them to put the notice up once again. Judge Robin Jacob's comments On Apple's legal notice posted “I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Judge Robin Jacob said today. “That is a plain breach of the order.” On Technical Difficulties to take 14 days to change the notice “I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can’t put this on” their website, Jacob said. “I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given. This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html Apple got a nice kick from behind. :hysterical:
achilles Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 You're a bit late Domi and you missed the fun :phehehe:. Apple tried to be "smart" and did not obey with the court orders. Now, the court has asked them to put the notice up once again. Judge Robin Jacob's comments On Apple's legal notice posted On Technical Difficulties to take 14 days to change the notice http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html Apple got a nice kick from behind. :hysterical: What twits ! Good on the UK courts to take Apple to task.
velu Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic(UK) LimitedÃÔ Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do notinfringe AppleÃÔ registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the Highcourt is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html. In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products: "The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design." "The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool." :hysterical::hysterical:
DomainK Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 Another trademark blow to Apple and it can be a big one this time: Apple sued iFone in Mexico, got counter-sued as a result by ifone, who had not yet messed with Apple inspite of the similar branding and their obvious advantage. Apple lost the lawsuit, which was inevitable and now ifone is demanding 40% of Apple's revenue from iPhone sales, which they are very likely to get. http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-has-lost-their-legal-claim-to-the-iPhone-name-in-Mexico_id36199
Nova Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 Apple lost the lawsuit, which was inevitable and now ifone is demanding 40% of Apple's revenue from iPhone sales, which they are very likely to get. http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-has-lost-their-legal-claim-to-the-iPhone-name-in-Mexico_id36199 :hysterical: Apple has gone nuts.
Yoda-esque Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 Apple should file a law suit against its legal counsel :giggle:
DomainK Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Yet another patent litigation by Apple. Now Apple sues Amazon over the phrase "App Store" only to run into a smart judge this time. Read the story, the dialog between judge and the Apple lawyer is hilarious. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/in-app-store-vs-appstore-court-clash-apple-runs-into-a-skeptical-judge/
Crookbond Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Yet another patent litigation by Apple. Now Apple sues Amazon over the phrase "App Store" only to run into a smart judge this time. Read the story, the dialog between judge and the Apple lawyer is hilarious. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/in-app-store-vs-appstore-court-clash-apple-runs-into-a-skeptical-judge/ Choose your words carefully before going on a tirade. What Is a Trademark or Servicemark? A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms "trademark" and "mark" are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks. Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. Trademarks which are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be registered with the Patent and Trademark Office. The registration procedure for trademarks and general information concerning trademarks is described in a separate pamphlet entitled "Basic Facts about Trademarks". http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htm
DomainK Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 ^ Fine, it's not a patent litigation. That for sure is some great innovation by Apple.
Crookbond Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 ^ Are you sure you meant innovation or was it patent litigation? :giggle:
Crookbond Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 The similarities are endless :phehehe: Yes - they indeed are similar. It seems you are 4 years late to this story. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2200660/Did-Apple-inspiration-iconic-products-simplicity-Braun-designs-50s-60s.html Ive has long acknowledged the influence on his work of Dieter Rams, who was BraunÃÔ head designer for nearly 30 years. In 2011, Ive wrote the forward for Dieter Rams' book 'As Little Design As Possible'. 'What Dieter Rams and his team at Braun did was to produce hundreds of wonderfully conceived and designed objects: products that were beautifully made in high volumes and that were broadly accessible', he wrote. For his part, Rams is understood to regard Apple products - and Ive's kind words - as a compliment. What's your point though?
DomainK Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 Yes - they indeed are similar. It seems you are 4 years late to this story. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2200660/Did-Apple-inspiration-iconic-products-simplicity-Braun-designs-50s-60s.html What's your point though? His point, my point, your point, that's three points, which according to Apple is a slide already. Hence these are not our, but Apple's points. :winky:
akshayxyz Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 His point' date=' my point, your point, that's three points, which according to Apple is a slide already. Hence these are not our, but Apple's points. :winky:[/quote'] :cantstop:
Crookbond Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 His point' date=' my point, your point, that's three points, [b']which according to Apple is a slide already. Hence these are not our, but Apple's points. :winky: I expect you not to understand this still let me give it a try. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/10/if-apple-can-copy-braun-then-why-cant-samsung-copy-apple/ Note that while Apple has obviously been influenced by the earlier designs, has admitted to being so, theyÃÓe not actually making the same thing to the same design. Yes, itÃÔ true that a speaker looks similar to a screen, an infra-red emitter to a camera. Most obviously, the on screen calculator is very similar indeed to the physical calculator. But these are different things. No one is going to look at one and think that they are in fact the other. If you like (and this is not strictly accurate in a legal sense but is good enough) there needs to be a marriage of form and function for there to be passing off. It must at least be possible for people to think they are purchasing one thing when in fact they are being fobbed off with a copy. Someone who buys a computer thinking that itÃÔ actually a radio that looks very similar is just too stupid for the courts to worry about in such a sense. The allegation about Samsung is not that they made a toaster that looked very like an Apple iPhone. ItÃÔ that they made a smartphone that looked very like an Apple smartphone. Which may well have been something that would have been picked up under this older doctrine of passing off rather than the patent law that was actually used. You can now get back to your crusade against Apple. I'm sure Tim Cook and Steve Balmer are regularly keeping a tab on your posts. :two_thumbs_up:
Recommended Posts