×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In UK, Apple Must Run Ad Apologizing to Samsung

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the grovel-different dept.

Advertising 190

sfcrazy writes "Apple has lost is appeal in a UK court against Samsung's Galaxy Tab. The court of appeals has upheld its previous judgment that Samsung did not infringe on any Apple design. According to the order Apple will have to run an ads in leading UK newspapers as well its own website stating that Samsung did not infringes its products. To ensure that the ad is visible the court also ordered that the text of the ad must not be in a font size smaller than Ariel 14. Apple will have to run the ad on its site for a period of one month."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

190 comments

This is why (5, Insightful)

aglider (2435074) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691509)

Britannia rules!

Re:This is why (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691659)

Apple brought it on themselves. They went around making these untrue claims and now the court is telling them to undo that damage. Restorative justice.

Re:This is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41691923)

Untrue is not accurate, which is why it went to court in the first place.

Re:This is why (0)

somersault (912633) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692039)

Uh yeah, because having a trial means you're always guilty, right?

Re:This is why (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692089)

Having a trial doesn't mean that at all, losing it, on the other hand, does*.

* - Unless you win your appeal. Which Apple didn't.

Re:This is why (4, Insightful)

cygnwolf (601176) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692895)

Noo, In this case the court is saying that Apples claims WERE untrue, when Apple not only filed, but went to press detailing it's claims of copyright infringement. This was originally a finding against the plaintiff. But yes, the judge says their claims were untrue, and now apple had to apologize.

Re:This is why (3, Informative)

jkrise (535370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691681)

Yes. Not only the customers, even the judges (I'm thinking about you, Lucy Koh) are not complete idiots in the UK.

The ruling itself (5, Interesting)

ais523 (1172701) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691531)

I just came here after finishing reading the ruling itself, [2012] EWCA Civ 1339 [bailii.org]. I find UK legalese rather easier to read than US legalese (not being a lawyer), and it's interestingly informal in some parts. It's also quite informative (the judges pointed out specifically which differences they found to be relevant, such as the iPad's registered design being intentionally symmetrical, and the Galaxy Tab having an obvious intended orientation due to the addition of the word "SAMSUNG").

Re:The ruling itself (5, Funny)

symes (835608) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691803)

I kind of read some sub-text there - that the two tablets are not similar because one is obviously from Samsung.

Re:The ruling itself (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692463)

Actually it's worth bearing in mind that the Apple product is also substantially from Samsung. Many of the components come from Samsung and Apple could never have achieved their form factor if not for Samsung's technology. However, there is nothing made by Apple in any Samsung product. Now... who's the innovator ?

Re:The ruling itself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692679)

I would say Samsung is very good at optimizing things, for example making them smaller or lighter. But they are not good at creating something new, at designing, at having phantasy.

Spelling and shapes are different in the UK (0, Troll)

jkrise (535370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691533)

Apple cannot generalise shapes, or strategise around trade dress based on bastardised shapes that are characterised by rounded rectangles.

Spelling and shapes vary based on geography. Not everybody is stupid like in the US, where people buy electronic goods based on the shape of the screen and the icons.

Re:Spelling and shapes are different in the UK (1)

jitterman (987991) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692145)

Apple cannot generalise shapes...

Just as YOU should not generalize populations.

Not everybody is stupid like in the US...

Ariel? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41691535)

Never heard of that font...

Re:Ariel? (4, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691843)

The court should have specified the size in relation to other important elements on the web page.

It must be the larger of:
1. at least half the size of the largest headlines, Apple branding, or product names
2. twice the size of the smallest headlines, Apple branding, or product names

That sort of specification helps eliminate creative interpretations of the court's order.

Of course if the court considers its order to have been violated, there can always be sanctions. A just sanction would be to re-impose the requirement of running the ad, all over again from the start, with new conditions attached. Oh, and pay the court a fine that doubles each day until the new ad meets the court's orders. Now how long do you want to play creative interpretation with the court's orders?

In short, courts don't generally take kindly to creative interpretation of their orders. We'll see how creative Apple wants to be with the "Aerial 14 point font". Just run the ad and get it over with.

Yes, your honor, but that DIV element had a zoom CSS rule applied. I hope that would go about as well as: Your honor! I wasn't texting while driving, I was updating my facebook status about these new shoes I just bought!

Re:Ariel? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41691901)

Ariel [wikipedia.org] is a character from a Shakespeare play so I can understand why the Brits like it. The alternative was maybe the Prospero [fonts101.com] font.

Actually Ariel is also (almost) a font [rofls.com], pun of a Disney character [wikipedia.org].

grammar error in link (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41691543)

"stating that Samsung did not infringes its products"

infringes

Re:grammar error in link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41691701)

That's one of a few errors in this post. Someone forgot to proofread.

Re:grammar error in link (0)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691799)

Forgot? That implies the editors actually have the necessary skills TO proofread the submissions. That has yet to be proven.

Re:grammar error in link (3, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691959)

Hey now, I have it on good authority that over half of the /. editorial staff can now say their ABC's without even humming the song.

Re:grammar error in link (3, Informative)

cygnwolf (601176) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692967)

Actually, that typo is copied directly from TFA... So Mucktware doesn't proofread.....

14... (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691565)

But what UNIT of 14, hmm? Atoms might be a tempting choice, if I was in their shoes...

Re:14... (2)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691895)

I would love to see Apple try that as it would be a clear contempt of court. Any attempt to defend it would be likely to insult the judge even more and get more damages against them. Lets see some heads roll :-D

BRILLIANT (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41691597)

People give the UK a lot of shit sometimes but I think this is the other side of the coin. Nice to see it on slashdot for once.

Unfortunately, Ariel has an install base of .001% (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41691601)

The apology message will render like wingding symbols for most...

Re:Unfortunately, Ariel has an install base of .00 (4, Funny)

Revotron (1115029) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691639)

So, it would look like the Slashdot logo?

Re:Unfortunately, Ariel has an install base of .00 (1)

hAckz0r (989977) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692445)

Well, you could always substitute with that image and see who notices.

After all, I'm sure Apple Legal will find a real prominent place for it on their site. Like perhaps two levels down in the legal section of their store's website where of course everybody goes daily for the latest boring Apple legal news, such as any recent boring changes to your EULA , right? Thus putting it on slashdot, for say 10 minutes, will likely get 10,000% more web hits.

Font size yes, but ... (5, Informative)

Alain Williams (2972) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691617)

To ensure that the ad is visible the court also ordered that the text of the ad must not be in a font size smaller than Ariel 14. Apple will have to run the ad on its site for a period of one month.

the court forgot to specify that Apple could not use the same text & background colours!

Apple did win a concession: they were originally ordered to have it on the web site for 6 months, this was reduced to 1 month.

Re:Font size yes, but ... (1)

na1led (1030470) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691763)

The AD must be visible, I'm sure that includes a distinct Text Color against the background. Even though it's reduced to 1 month, the news will spread all over which will have a much bigger impact.

Re:Font size yes, but ... (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691875)

They also forgot to mention what language to write it in.
I would suggest using Whitespace encoding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace_(programming_language)).

Re:Font size yes, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692137)

If you get fancy like that the court will reject it as not being in a human-friendly language.

So, Sanscrit!

Re:Font size yes, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692305)

The court also failed to say that all of the other fonts could not be made larger. Just bump everything else to 60pt, and the 14pt stuff will get lost.

Re:Font size yes, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41693039)

They could try that.. but the court would probably beat them harder...

If the verdict was the opposite... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41691627)

...and Samsung had to publicly apologize to Apple for something, would you still feel the same way you do now?

Just saying. Consider your own bias when responding to this.

Re:If the verdict was the opposite... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41691699)

Obviously if Samsung has to apologize it's because of jury malfeasance and the broken system. Duh. This is totally different.

Re:If the verdict was the opposite... (5, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691805)

Lets not forget which party started the lawsuit here.
You think it'd be fair for Apple to just be able to walk away after falsely (proven in court) accusing Samsung of patent infringement and causing negative publicity for Samsung?
If Apple could walk away freely, what would prevent Apple from filing court cases against every single competing product?

It's an issue of balance:
Scenario 1: "Banned from selling a product" vs. "Nothing changes"
Scenario 2: "Banned from selling a product" vs. "Public apology"

Which do you think is most fair?

Re:If the verdict was the opposite... (2)

emho24 (2531820) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691887)

Scenario 3: "Banned from selling a product" vs. "Restitution for lost sales from product ban"

Re:If the verdict was the opposite... (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692127)

I wasn't aware Samsung had a temporary ban during the trial.

Re:If the verdict was the opposite... (2)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691903)

I try to be fair. One way I do that is to do exactly as you asked. Look at the situation as if the facts were the same and the parties were reversed. Then how do you feel?

If Samsung had gone on a rampage in public stating untrue things about Apple, then Yes, I would feel like the court had come up with a reasonable and unpleasant remedy.

Just earlier, in another forum, I pointed something out. Someone talked about Office365 cloud owning your business, etc. I said that as much as I am a Google fan and Microsoft hater, the same could be said for letting Google Apps own your business and rent it back to you. So yes, despite your own biases, always try to see it from the other perspective.

Having done that, I think Apple is the next dangerous monopolist wannabe that absolutely must be stopped at any and all cost. Microsoft's patent aggression against Linux and all things open wants merely money. Apple wants to stop all forms of competition. That is as bad as Microsoft ever was.

Re:If the verdict was the opposite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41691989)

If Samsung brought Apple to court over some bullshit and then subsequently lost, yes.

Re:If the verdict was the opposite... (1)

Eyeball97 (816684) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692159)

If the verdict was 'the opposite', no. But nice try at cleverly wording the question.

Would I still feel the same way I do now if the verdict was against whichever party was guilty, regardless of whether it was Samsung or Apple - absolutely.

Never my wildest dreams! (4, Insightful)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691629)

This is awesome, but I'd never expect this in a million years

this needs to happen in the US as well.

Next Steve Ballmer needs to apologize to Linux Tovalds for calling his works a "virus"

Re:Never my wildest dreams! (2)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691927)

Steve Ballmer needs to apologize to Linux Tovalds for calling his works a "virus"

How about calling Linux a cancer. Something about it spreading to everything it touches and destroying intellectual property. Or Jim Allchin saying that open source is dangerous and that legislators need to be educated about the danger.

Microsoft and now Apple seem to think: It's not merely enough for us to succeed. Everyone else must fail!

Re:Never my wildest dreams! (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692153)

Microsoft and now Apple seem to think: It's not merely enough for us to succeed. Everyone else must fail!

nah, that's just modern western capitalism. all companies strive for that, in fact.

it really is a cold world out there, when its a 'survival of the fittest' in the cruel and amoral business world.

Re:Never my wildest dreams! (2)

hAckz0r (989977) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692677)

Next Steve Ballmer needs to apologize to Linux Tovalds for calling his works a "virus"

Don't hold your breath. And actually, come to think of it, Linux is sort of like a virus. Once it worked its way onto my first Windows machine I just could not seem to get rid of it. At this point its infected almost every machine in my household. Isn't that sort of the definition of a virus?

In fact, there is only one machine in the household that has withstood the onslaught to date, Thats because it apparently has this really great anti-virus (anti-Linux) security product called Office. Apparently, by the above definition, its both a virus in itself and a security product. Because it is the only software that will incorrectly render certain Government documents that need to be misrendered 'exactly so', otherwise the documents are not accepted. It's already spread through the Government, and there is no killing it. So somehow we just can't seem to get rid of it either. We keep it locked away, just in case my wife decides to look for another Government job, but we don't even dare let it out of the closet otherwise.

Re:Never my wildest dreams! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692993)

Isn't that sort of the definition of a virus

Self-replicating is part of the definition. I suspect you were a willing accomplish in its spread. :o)

Unique? (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691663)

Crap, it ate my first comment.... ok, trying again.

I am curious, if anyone knows, how common of a stipulation is this in the UK? This is the first I have heard about such a thing. If it is not common (which I suspect) I wonder what made this particular case worthy of it... did the judge hate Apple? Did Samsung have someone with political clout in their pocket?

While it was high profile and fed into the technie anti-Apple attitude, this really was not an outrageous case by a long shot. If nothing else it was a trial between equals, two companies that had the experience and resources to go through with it.. neither is really all that deserving of a special apology or shaming. Where are the court mandated apologies from transnationals that use their armies of lawyers to crush smaller opponents by bankrupting them with legal costs? Where are the court mandated apologies from patent trolls that prey on companies too small to even have a legal team and have to 'settle' to be left alone? Where are the apologies from companies that use local political leverage to twist the laws around their business and make the environment inhospitable to competition? Seems there is a long list of apologies that should happen before this joke.

Re:Unique? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41691757)

Retractions are pretty common tbh, in this case the judge felt the media surrounding the case warranted a retraction being made of the statements Apple made in court.

Re:Unique? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41691821)

not common but more equitable than cash which could not accurately reflect or redress the ongoing brand name damage. Hardly corruption.

Re:Unique? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692005)

Its effectively libel. Samsung's name was traduced by Apple, so in that case it is very common in the UK press to see "retractions" printed.

The print size stipulation is because, given half a chance the person printing the retraction does so in the most out-of-the-way place they can find in their medium....

Re:Unique? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692021)

In the UK this is quite common - but not for a tech company, its normally a penalty applied to newspapers as they often make claims which are not true, and then have to publish a story saying sorry. But this case is pretty much the same, Apple lied about a product, and are being made to say sorry.

Re:Unique? (2)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692103)

I would assume that at some point Samsung counter sued, claiming that the suit was malicious and caused damage (i.e. costs) to Samsung. That is fairly common in the UK. I have done that in a court case but I was awarded money. As the counter suit becomes part of Apple's original suit the cost of a counter suit is negligible and in my case I was really happy when they took me to court as it meant that I could counter sue for free when I would not have been able to afford to sue them if they had not instigated the case. Many American companies suffer in European courts because they fail to really understand the differences. The court has to address the damage that Apple has caused to Samsung and this seems a fair way of doing it. It has been done before (they are saying that the bad press is more damaging than the financial loss) but it is more common to award money.

Re:Unique? (2)

ais523 (1172701) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692559)

This sort of thing happens quite a lot in the UK, it's one of the more common outcomes to civil libel cases in my experience. (I heard of something like this happening to someone locally, who made a statement that was found to be libellous, and was forced to take out advertisements to retract it.) The judge actually discussed "publicity orders" in the ruling, and pointed out that the laws in question expressly suggested them as part of the typical punishment when there had been infringement (although not the opposite situation, for when there hadn't been, and the judge spends quite some time talking about that as a result).

Compulsory advertisements are also quite common more generally in the UK (although more usually they aren't forced by a court order, but rather part of seeking permission to do something; it's quite common for people who want to build a new building to advertise the fact beforehand, for instance, as part of seeking planning permission, so that people have a chance to object). It's even reached the points where many major papers have a dedicated section for legal notices, although the court-ordered version has to be rather more prominent.

Oh, and apparently the judge owns an iPad, although he said that it was irrelevant because he was comparing the Galaxy Tab to Apple's design registrations, rather than to the product Apple actually put on sale. So unless he dislikes the way it works or something, I doubt he has a particular hatred of Apple.

Re:Unique? (3, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692783)

It's normal, it's just rare that you have a company quite as prominent as Apple making such an idiotic claim in the first place.

This sort of thing usually affects smaller fly by night companies that are basically either trying to increase marketshare by lying, or generally just trying to swindle customers, or troll competitors.

IIRC a relatively recent example though that was a bit more prominent was one of the UK's major supermarkets (Tesco I think?) being forced to advertise that their prices weren't whatever percentage cheaper they claimed they were than their competitors.

We do have somewhat of a culture of it generally though, every once in a while before a TV programme starts you will see a statement by the broadcaster apologising for something they broadcast that was unfair or incorrect because they'd been found to be lying/exagerating and creating a false impression about someone or something they were supposedly providing a factual documentary about. When they are forced to make such apologies they're generally forced to make them at the start/end of the same timeslot in which they made the original misrepresentation. So if they defame someone unfairly in prime time for example, then they'll be expected to publicly apologise in the same prime time slot.

Ariel (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691689)

Assuming they meant "Arial", isn't that particular font family Windows-only? Just some additional insult to injury that they didn't specify "Helvetica".

Re:Ariel (2)

durrr (1316311) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691771)

They should've specified comic sans in rainbow colours, font 50, as a splash screen to the apple UK site that appears like a pre-article ad that is unremovable for 15 seconds.
With the sound of sirens accompanying it.

Re:Ariel (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691849)

At least the summary does not state that they have to use Ariel. They are just using it as a basepoint to tell how big the font must be (as font type is a huge factor in actual size)

Re:Ariel (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692173)

Assuming they meant "Arial", isn't that particular font family Windows-only?

and, here I am, thinking it was a reference to a fish with tits.

Re:Ariel (1)

ais523 (1172701) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692617)

Microsoft owns the font, IIRC, but they've distributed Linux and Mac versions of it in the past, under free-as-in-beer licenses, and it's pretty easy to get a copy of it if you want to as a result, because the licenses don't expire. (It's even in the non-free repositories of several Linux distros; Ubuntu calls it ttf-mscorefonts-installer, for instance. As well as Arial, you get Times New Roman, Courier New, Verdana, Georgia, Trebuchet, Andale Mono, and even Webdings and Comic Sans.)

An end to the nonsense (2, Funny)

na1led (1030470) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691727)

Now that Apple has been slapped down for lying, it might put an end to all the BS with these patent infringements.

Re:An end to the nonsense (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41691825)

In countries with a sensible patent system (i.e the UK) yes. In backwards countries like the US, probably not.

Re:An end to the nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41691921)

Now that Apple has been slapped down for lying, it might put an end to all the BS with these patent infringements.

Why wait for apple to be "slapped down"? Wasn't it time "to put an end to all the BS" after all those other companies that lost a patent case had been found to be 'lying' as well. Or do you only like it when apple looses?

Re:An end to the nonsense (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691979)

It's one thing to sue for patent infringement and lose.

It's another thing to sue for patent infringement, go on a public rampage, damage the reputation of a competitor, then lose.

See the difference?

(And back in the 80's and 90's I was a die hard, card carrying Apple fanboy.)

Re:An end to the nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692061)

Indeed there is a difference, I, like you were similar in the 80's and 90's

I'm not sure that a public rampage is what apple did though. Remember that in the part of the world we live in, this thing is news to use and in some way important to whatever degree. The rest of the world - not so much. It only appears public to us because of our exposure to it.

I'm sure parallels exist in other walks of life, but we don't get to here about them. Samsungs sales don't seem to have suffered much if at all. If it's reputation had been damaged wouldn't other OEMs be taking up the slack of lost sales? They're not.

I can understand the reasons why anyone would dislike apple in much the same way can understand the reasons why anyone would dislike MS or Google or anyone else.

I really dislike a lack of parity and objectiveness.

Re:An end to the nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692775)

It's a well documented principle that people start wanting things if they are told they can't have it. It's used in advertising all the time (those crap web ads that tell you "doctors hate her!" or "the method they don't want you to know!" for example)

A widely advertised threat of a ban, without an actual ban happening, is the best possible result for Samsung. It makes it look as though Apple is so scared of their superior product that they have to kill it. It's free advertising!

It's not surprising that sales haven't been hit by all this.

Re:An end to the nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692355)

Lol. Okay we'll go with that.

And then when we wake up from our drug crazed, drunken stupor we'll realise how stupid a statement it was. Apple aren't even close to ending anything yet. Only yesterday they were granted yet another highly generic patent for the original iPad, so generic it could easily be used to accuse - basically everybody - of copying.

Imagine, for instance, if Kellogs were granted a patent on the cereal box and started suing everybody with the same shape box. Yes, that big of a clusterfuck.

It shouldn't be hard for Apple (4, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691865)

I am not an Apple fan, but since the judge himsef said at that [bbc.co.uk] Samsung's devices were not as "cool" because they lacked Apple's "extreme simplicity" I think Apple can come up with an apology that will not hurt. I imagine they will apologise for "overestimating the Samsung device but now rightly see that it lacks the superiour design aspects of the iPad".

Re:It shouldn't be hard for Apple (3, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692165)

Apple will definitely go down this road.

The judge gave clear language on how to display the apology, but not on what the apology should entail.

Something like:

"We apologize for implying that any Samsung product was as sleek or as easy to use as the (link to ipad page)Apple iPad.(\link)"

Re:It shouldn't be hard for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692185)

Huh? "extreme simplicity" is "cool" now?
"extreme simplicity" is just an euphemism for "extremely, utterly dumbed down, to the point where a mold, and ONLY a mold can use it". In other words: Utterly useless for any normal human being who wants to actually *do* something with it. Let alone for *work*.

Re:It shouldn't be hard for Apple (2)

jonbryce (703250) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692203)

They specified the wording as follows:

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (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 No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given].

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on .. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link []. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

Yah, that will work (2)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692549)

That will work about as well as Microsoft "get the facts" campaign which just was free advertising for Linux and good advertising, because Linux must be really good to have MS so worried about it.

The top dog NEVER does negative advertising on its smaller competitors, at best you just look pathetic and at worst, everyone will check out your competitor to see what got you running scared.

Simple Design (5, Insightful)

morgauxo (974071) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691945)

"The judge actually criticized Samsung's design by stating that they 'do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design.'"

Ever since the first iPods became popular I haven't understood this obsession with simplicity. I do get it that there are more non-geeks than geeks out there and that the non-geeks don't want to have to work to learn how to use anything. Still.. I want my stuff to actually do something, doesn't everyone? How can it be easier to accomplish a task of a certain complexity with fewer and fewer controls? For example, going back to MP3 players, if I want to pick a playlist from my music collection of just the songs I am in the mood for at this time how do I do this with just one rotating control? I'm guessing what is really happening is that people have a low expectation of what their devices should do but also don't have the imagination to realize that expectation is low

What I really don't get is that the rest of the industry just tries to copy it rather than attack it. Yes, Apple has a huge market of simplicity hungry people with money to spend. Guess what... imitate that simplicity, through copying or through your own desings and you still aren't Apple! Nobody is going to out Apple Apple because even if you do the inertia is all Apple's anyway.

Instead, why hasn't anybody tried building the market for non simlistic devices? I can imagine there being some pretty great marketing campaign opportunities in that. For example.. how about a commercial where a hipster looking guy is showing off his shiny new car with it's sexy extreme simplicity elegance to his friends and the girl he obviously wants to impress. It's so simple, there is just one button. He presses the button and the car promply crashes because there is no wheel to steer it! At the end you hear an announcer say "Android - because it's not TOO simple" or some similar but more polished tag line.

Re:Simple Design (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692183)

How can it be easier to accomplish a task of a certain complexity with fewer and fewer controls?

Seriously, if you can't figure this out, get off the internet.

Re:Simple Design (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692201)

Ever since the first iPods became popular I haven't understood this obsession with simplicity.

That is because you are a geek. The other 99% of society does not wish their devices to be complicated. We're too busy having sex.

Re:Simple Design (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692745)

Ever since the first iPods became popular I haven't understood this obsession with simplicity.

That is because you are a geek. The other 99% of society does not wish their devices to be complicated. [b]We're too busy having sex.[/b]

No you're not. You're on /. for christ's sake.
At least try selling better lies.

Re:Simple Design (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692281)

Microsoft is releasing a tablet that is a slightly less simple iPad with expansion slots. I am waiting for the version that can run what I want instead of being limited to "Angry Birds" like petty-applications. And Slashdot shouts it down as a failure in every article for either not being as "straightforward as an iPad" or "not being Linux."

Re:Simple Design (2)

Dr. Evil (3501) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692367)

Apple has a lot of contrived simplicity. Sacrificing functionality for form.

I'd like to see more companies trashing Apple over this. Microsoft seems to be doing some interesting work minimalizing UIs, getting rid of stupid drop-shadows and 3d effects. Stripping out cruft from design is good. Stripping out badly implemented features is good. Polishing UIs is good... but there are limits.

lack of ports, lack of removable batteries, magnetic connectors, highly proprietary ports, these are all bad design, but somehow Apple tries to sell it as "minimalism". The design aestetic translates badly into other areas too... from fixie bicycles to food trucks, minimalism has given way to conspicuous consumerist minimalism, where people pay extra for brands which provide an appearance of the slick and polished root of the object or experience, when in reality, they're products desgined to appeal to the aestetic and are the opposite of minimalism, they're burdened with fashionable design limitations.

Sadly, aside from MacOS, Apple is *still* doing better in usability, despite their design baggage. There's potential here for a competitor to give Apple a run for their money.

Re:Simple Design (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692671)

That quote is not a critique. Looking at how disgustingly dumbed-down Apple shit is, it is a great compliment!

Re:Simple Design (2)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692991)

Well, think of it in terms of code, or proofs. The most elegant designs from any perspective are those that solve the essential problem without extraneous bits.

You could argue that Apple has perhaps gone too far in terms of simplicity or minimalism--that's a pretty subjective choice--but in most cases, it does actually solve the problem of interacting with the device effectively, and does so with the least clutter.

I'd rather see code that solves the problem at hand quickly and efficiently (and maintainably--that's one of my criteria for 'solving the problem' in a production environment) than code that goes all over the place and solves many problems, some of which possibly never needed to be solved.

I recommend the book 'The Design of Everyday Things'. One of the author's assignments to his students is to try and design an alarm clock that's easy to use that is well designed and easy to use. Hint: having a different button for absolutely every function is not the way to get a good mark. :)

Anyone knows a cheap picture framer? (1)

chomsky68 (1719996) | about a year and a half ago | (#41691987)

If anybody knows a cheap picture framer around Shoreditch, please send us a pm! Thanks! :)

I can see it now... (4, Insightful)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692031)

"We're Sorry. We thought that Samsung had copied our patented design, but according to a ruling by a court of law, Samsung's devices have been found to not be cool enough to be considered copies of ours. We sincerely apologize to Samsung and their uncool products." In 32 point font on the front page.

And then get fined 10% of EU revenue (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41693003)

And then get fined 10% of EU revenue for contempt of court and continuing to traduce the good name of Samsung that they were ordered to reverse earlier.

This would not be a good move.

computer shaming (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692121)

This makes me think of those pet-shaming photos that seem to be making their rounds on the internet lately. Is it going to be a picture of an apple with a sign around it saying "I made a mockery of the judicial system."?

Lawsuit (2)

Alioth (221270) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692499)

He who lives by the silly lawsuit, shall die by the silly lawsuit.

It's not just a defeat but a humiliating defeat. Good. (I like and use Apple products but they deserved to lose this one).

If they still believe it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41692505)

I reckon Apple will just write "Sorry for accusing Samsung of copying our product" in big text, then stick a photo of the two tablets below. Let people judge for themselves.

Come on (2)

magpie (3270) | about a year and a half ago | (#41693025)

It would have been so much better if the judge had specified comic sans 24 pt.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...