Judge: Apple must publicly state Samsung didn't copy iPad

Judge: Apple must publicly state Samsung didn't copy iPad

Summary: Apple has been told by a U.K. judge that it must publicly admit -- online and in newspapers -- that Samsung's tablets did not infringe the iPad's design following an earlier ruling.

SHARE:

The Apple vs. Samsung patent war just scooped in a whole boatload of crazy. 

A U.K. judge has told Apple it must publicize a notice on both its U.K. website and in British newspapers stating that it had lost a case against Samsung in which the rival tablet maker did not infringe the iPad's design in its range of Galaxy products. 

The notice, which should explain the outcome of a U.K. court hearing on July 9, should be published to make it clear that Samsung did not break U.K. law, despite varied results in more than a dozen separate patent cases that stretch across four different continents.

To add insult to injury, Apple must leave the notice on its website for up to six months from its first publication date, Judge Colin Birss said today, following on from his final judgment nearly two weeks ago.

While the order was not mentioned in Birss' judgment, the matter was discussed in court afterwards. 

But Birss denied Samsung's attempt to force Apple to stop saying that the Galaxy tablet had infringed its design rights, reports Bloomberg, claiming Apple was "entitled to their opinion" that the judgment handed down was not correct. 

One of the key elements to the ongoing patent cases is that Samsung "slavishly" copied the design of the iPad following its release. Samsung has always maintained that it had not, despite suffering temporary sales injunctions elsewhere in the world.

The U.K. High Court in London previously ruled that Samsung tablets were not as "cool" as Apple's iPad and therefore did not infringe Apple's iPad patents. Samsung walked away able to sell its Galaxy tablets in British stores -- despite an embarrassing blow to the reputation of its products, and Apple came out with a bloodied nose and no sales injunction in hand, something it had sought in court.

The "advertisement" for Samsung is an attempt by the court to help the Korea-based technology giant to recoup much of its bad publicity brought by Apple in Britain. But a lawyer representing Cupertino said it would be "prejudicial" to Apple to issue such a statement, which even under quirky British law is a somewhat unusual punishment to dish out.

Apple may appeal, but the company did not respond to questions at the time of writing. Samsung also wasn't available for comment.

Image credit: Apple.

Topics: Apple, Government UK, Legal, Patents, Samsung

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

Talkback

90 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Judge: Apple must publicly state Samsung didn't infringe patents

    To quote the Immortal words of the Nelson Muntz, Bully from the Simpsons,

    "HA-Haw!".
    JoseTorr
    • Until appeal will pass, no "Ha-haw!" yet

      Apple does not have to publicly state anything yet.
      DDERSSS
      • Umm

        Yes, they do... Unless they get an injunction which I doubt they will get.
        slickjim
        • There is 10 days for Apple to appeal the ruling

          Until those 10 days pass, the ruling will not be mandatory yet.
          DDERSSS
      • They don't...

        But it's kind of too late. Let's face it, the only thing people will talk about more than Apple winning a lawsuit is them *losing* one.. and this time they lost big time.
        TheWerewolf
    • Well, whatever.

      It was a silly lawsuit but most of these IT related lawsuits are these days. And they have all done stupid things like this, not just Apple. Microsoft has been involved in such court battles themselves, on both sides and its impossible to say with a straight face that any of these big IT companies have been prepared to "play fair" for a long time now.
      Cayble
  • I don't feel sorry for Apple at all

    [i]a lawyer representing Cupertino said it would be "prejudicial" to Apple to issue such a statement[/i]

    It is prejudicial to force MS to include a browser ballot screen in Windows. I don't feel at all sorry for Apple. If a court hands down a sentence, then the company that has been found guilty MUST comply, right? Or is Apple exempt from that?

    Now, when is ZDNet going to report on the other news story that "bloodied" Apple's nose?
    http://www.nasdaq.com/article/motorola-xoom-tablet-doesnt-infringe-ipad-says-german-court-20120717-00791
    This story is important for 2 reasons:
    1. Some people have been going around ZDNet claiming that Apple is only suing Samsung for "slavishly" copying the iPad design. Smarter people know this to be untrue. Apple has gone after more than one company because Apple feels that any rectangular tablet infringes on the iPad.
    2. Apple is losing these cases everywhere. They are having some success with preliminary injunctions while courts decide whether or not infringement has occurred but Apple is losing these final rulings.
    toddbottom3
    • Really? Where'd you get your J.D.?

      I take it that you're a licensed barrister, too? I guess you missed the day they taught the concept of Appeals. This is far from over, and as for "Apple is losing these cases everywhere", they're also winning them everywhere, which really only proves that the worldwide software patent system is completely broken. Well, that and the fact that the only real winners in this litigation-fest are the various lawyers.
      matthew_maurice
      • Cry to the judge

        You know, the one that found Apple guilty and sentenced them to humiliate themselves in the court of human opinion.

        What a glorious day.
        toddbottom3
        • Yeah, His Hon. Judge Briss QC really humiliated Apple.

          You do realize that this is the same guy who said Samsung didn't copy Apple because the Galaxy Tab wasn't "as cool" as the iPad, right? If anything this ruling is his attempt to fix that rather silly gaff. I don't usually clock the Chancery Court, but I'd guess the blokes down at Ladbrokes are making book on an overturn on appeal at no less than 3-1.
          matthew_maurice
        • Seriously Toddy

          If you think Samsung didn't copy the iPad you are nuttier than that judge. Of course they did and you know it. But I don't think Apple should have went after them. They should have let the iPad product speak for it's self. There are a thousand Gibson Les Paul knockoffs but every guitar player knows there is only one genuine article.
          CowLauncher
          • I KNOW for a FACT that Samsung didn't copy the iPad

            It was proven in a court of law.

            What you think is irrelevant. What the judge thinks is all that counts. The judge thinks Apple is guilty. End of story. Case closed.
            toddbottom3
          • Incorrect

            It was not a criminal case, so there was no "guilty" verdict.

            Nor is the case closed until Apple declines to appeal.
            clokverkorange
          • Sidebar

            "I KNOW for a FACT that Samsung didn't copy the iPad...It was proven in a court of law."

            Know what else was 'factually' proven in a court of law? That Microsoft is a "predatory monopoly" that has hurt and stifled competition. Does that mean there's no more defense of this predatory monopoly by Toddbottom (NonZealot) ever again? We know for a fact (finding of facts by the Judge) that they stifled competition and hurt business with their 'mob-like' tactics.
            dave95.
          • More accurately ...

            That Microsoft WAS a "predatory monopoly" that hurt and stifled competition.

            Since then, they have paid their fines and have completely changed their business practices while under DOJ oversight for 9 years.

            But, what has your rant got to do with Apple vs. Samsung?
            bitcrazed
          • Case closed???

            Not by a long shot, or you live in some 3d world country where everything is decided by the Supreme Court (like Pakistan). Appeals can take until the iPad name is no longer relevant or longer.
            nrkmann@...
          • Limited Appeal

            Don't be ridiculous.
            We aren't the US. In a UK court of law the route of appeal is quite restrictive and on a fixed timetable.

            You can only appeal if you have specific grounds and the judge will direct what those rights of appeal would be.

            So this will be done and dusted within a few months.

            Companies like Apple can't appeal things, in effect punting them into the long grass, in a UK court.
            Not good news for Apple. The UK legal process has indicated in its judgements that it is not going to be as compliant and small short sighted, following the money as many of the US legal outcomes seem to have done.
            I suspect it will only takes one bad UK apple to taint the rest of the barrel and shame some national legal systems to finding some moral back bone.... We don't need another company to try and run the world, we already have FIFA, MacDonald's and Coca Cola who do that
            K6H
          • Pakistan Law

            Do you realise that Pakistan's legal system is derived from the UK's system. I guess you have no clue. In fact, most of these "3d world country" are actually former colonies of Britain. :-) Clueless!...
            fifidonkor@...
          • in todays courts........

            Obama's "not a tax" healthcare is allowed to proceed because it is a tax!!! Do you really find comfort in the government or the courts in these pitiful times?
            partman1969@...
          • So in favor of Health Care Reform:)

            Pagan Jim
            James Quinn