Apple loses U.K. Samsung appeal; must run 'apology' ads

Apple loses U.K. Samsung appeal; must run 'apology' ads

Summary: Apple has lost an appeal against Samsung in the U.K. after the first judge claimed the Galaxy Tab 10.1 could not have infringed the iPad because it wasn't "cool" enough.

SHARE:

Apple has lost an appeal against Samsung in an ongoing U.K. case over design patents relating to the iPad.

A U.K. High Court appeals judge ruled in favor of Samsung at a hearing this morning, finding that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 had not infringed Apple's design patents.

The original case in July heard Judge Colin Birss overseeing the case saying the Samsung tablets were not as "cool" as the iPads, because the software did not feature the "extreme simplicity" that the rival Apple product has. 

Birss also ruled in the original case that Apple must run "advertisements" in British newspapers and on its website stating that Samsung did not infringe Apple's design patents and therefore did not break U.K. law. 

The notice on Apple's U.K. website must display the banner for six months in order to "correct the damaging impression" left by Apple following the legal wrangling.

Samsung welcomed the appeal, a spokesperson told the BBC News: "Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims in other countries based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited."

But a lawyer representing Apple said at the time it would be "prejudicial" to Apple to issue such a statement without an appeal. (Even for quirky British law, it's a strange punishment to dish out.)

However, soon after the decision was made, Apple applied for a stay on the running of the so-called 'advertisements,' allowing the Cupertino, CA.-based technology giant to appeal the verdict. 

Now Apple has lost its appeal, it's understood that the advertisements will now go ahead. There isn't a specific timeframe for when they will be served out to the British media, but we have reached out to Apple for comment and will update if we hear back.

Topics: Apple, iPad, Legal, Patents, Samsung, Tablets, United Kingdom

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

88 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Embarrassing

    Is that really a punishment? I'd think Samsung would be embarrassed by ads saying that they didn't infringe but also because a judge said the iPad was cooler than the Samsung Tab. Ouch
    donnalb
  • Advertisements galore - "Official! Not Cool Enough to be an Ipad!"

    Would have thought there was a great marketing opportunity on this one. Images of a Judge comparing the 2 side by side, then throwing the Samsung to the dustbin proclaim "Just not cool enough!" before excitedly playing with the Ipad.
    justanumber
    • Lemonade

      Lemonade from lemons. Yeah, my guess is that if Apple is forced to do this they'll come up with a clever way of slamming Samsung in the process.
      dsf3g
      • Perhaps...

        I'd need to check out the ruling again, but as far as I'm aware there is no specification on font color. It could be that Apple circumvents the ruling by using white text. The actual judgment says (obviously the stay/appeal put the original judgment in stasis, but is seven days from today -- October 18):

        "Within seven days of the date of this Order [18th July 2012] [Apple] shall at its own expense (a) post in a font size no smaller than Arial 11pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this order on the homepage of its UK website ... as specified in Schedule 1 to this Order, together with a hyperlink to the Judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 9th July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on [Apple's] websites for a period of six months from the date of this order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no smaller than Arial 14pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine."

        Also, good comment.
        zwhittaker
        • yea。。

          it should read 。。apologize for corporate bullying。。trying to eliminate competition。。will Samsung one billion a month for six months。。
          patrick lion
        • Wait...

          ARIAL? Isn't that the unwanted child of Helvetica and Microsoft and one of the 10 worst fonts ever?

          Thanks, your honor, for putting money into Microsoft's pocket (for font licensing fees).
          Champ_Kind
        • font colour

          You will find that if Apple choose to use white they would be in trouble with the court as they( the court) would deem it as not being their, the apology has to be seen. Now a light Gray, well that's a different matter.
          Taysider
      • Typical corporate chicanery, if that's what Apple does

        And we think human toddlers are annoying little prats...

        Still, if only Xerox patented what it made... then Apple would never have been in the position to do unto others what others did unto them...
        HypnoToad72
        • RE: Still, if only Xerox patented what it made

          And if only Digital Equipment Corporation had patented what they made ...
          Rabid Howler Monkey
        • Read The Whole Paragraph Next Time

          Apple made a deal with Xerox in exchange for options. PARC was just that, research -- Xerox had no plans to flesh it into a product and happily relinquished specs to Apple. Before you call me a fanboy, at least Google it and spend 30 seconds reading, not skimming.
          usingpond
          • You should take your own advice

            "Before you call me a fanboy, at least Google it and spend 30 seconds reading, not skimming"

            Yes, you should do that. If you did, you would find out that this is false:
            "(Xerox) happily relinquished specs to Apple"

            Xerox went on to sue Apple, the exact opposite of what one would do if they were "happily" relinquishing specs.

            Note that Xerox did lose, that isn't the point. The point is that Xerox was FURIOUS about what Apple did. They were not happy at all.
            toddbottom3
          • Once Again...

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Parc#Adoption_by_Apple

            You left out the last sentence where the Judge threw it out. Just because someone on a legal team gets mad 10 years after the fact does not mean that the original deal wasn't 100% amicable.
            usingpond
          • lol

            Dude, quoting wiki?? If you are going to take the time to look up a reference to back up what you are saying for god sakes don't quote wiki man, use a credible source. Quoting wiki is like saying "I know you are but what am I" after somebody rips on you lol.
            ffoldar
          • Is there a problem with the quote, then?

            You can challenge it if there is, precisely because it *is* Wiki. But something tells me that you aren't going to...
            Zogg
        • Clue: Apple PAID XEROX 150M and hired key engineers

          Did MS? No.
          Also, and perhaps more importantly, Jobs did NOT see the Alto UI, he merely saw the SmallTalk programming environment. The rest wasw done in house at Apple.
          Question for you: how were commands entered into the UI of the XEROX Alto? Moving icons on a screen? Drop down menus, perhaps? Maybe if you knew the answer to this you'd be a bit hesitant to keep dropping the "Apple stole MacOS from XEROX PARC" nonsense.

          (And FYI, I was an early Alto user.)
          .DeusExMachina.
          • APPLE IS A STOLEN PRODUCT

            Apple stole ALL of their code from BSD. That is a wellknown fact. Not even Apple can deny that. LOL You idiots are at the mercy of a monopoly which makes you slaves of a crappy company.
            Alexander Xavi
          • Well-known fact?!? Try knowing what you are talking about

            First, Apple is the SINGLE LARGEST contributor to the freeBSD code base. Second the code they use is available under the BSD license, which Apple has adhered to. No on stole ANYTHING, and Apple has now written MOST of the freeBSD code.
            You have no idea what you are talking about.

            BTW, the OSX kernel is NOT BSD, it is XNU/Mach. XNU/Mach is NOT BSD.
            Please know what you're talking about before you post. It is getting tedious.
            .DeusExMachina.
          • No

            Bits of OSX's kernel contain highly modified FreeBSD


            squirrels
            Ecaps Gnik
    • I really hope Apple does this

      I also hope they publish this ad in white font on a white background.

      Please Apple, do everything you can to piss off the legal system in the UK. I'm sure none of the other legal systems in other countries will notice how much contempt you show for the rulings of the courts. This will work out really well for you.

      So yes Apple, please, please, please, do this.
      toddbottom3
      • Amusing

        Like people care either way... not you, I mean what these companies do.
        HypnoToad72